Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (1 Viewer)

[jbissell]

And 12 + 14 = 26. 26 bogus sight records of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. You don't need a PhD to do the math on that.

Cinclodes sounds like a math professor I had in college. The professor thought he could prove with statistics that universe was no older than 6,000 years (to coincide with his religious beliefs). Two crackpots with PhD's in math. I'm sure they're not the only ones out there.

Well it took 8481 posts to do it in, but I think this thread is dead. None of the folks who actively search for the bird post here anymore, and probably never will. It seems to me all thats now going on is a whole lot of harping. The other Ivory-billed Woodpecker thread is probably the place to be for meaningful information, although its really slowed down too.

 

[timeshadowed]

None of the folks who actively search for the bird post here anymore, and probably never will.

They have all been chased away by the 'flamebaiters'.

 

[dacol]

Cinclodes sounds like a math professor I had in college. ... Two crackpots with PhD's in math. I'm sure they're not the only ones out there.

Let us see, Cinclodes has an undergraduate degree in mathematics from MIT and a PhD from Northwestern University.

Received the R. Bruce Lindsay Award from the Acoustical Society of America and the A. B. Wood Medal from the Institute of Acoustics (UK), both in recognition of the creative and practical aspects of his scientific work.


It certainly beats trolling Birdforum hurling insults at people he doesn't know as Mr. Malatesta seems to enjoy doing.

Dalcio

 

[tizziec]

Well i am hoping to add a few days next fall when we take our disney trip, to head west and join in the where's waldo exptraveganza. Hey just to say I was part ofthe hunt is enough for me. And who know, maybe I will get lucky, and take heart.. I don't take two steps outside my house witout a camera of some sort in my hand

 

[olivacea]

Conditions in Florida

Don't give up now folks. We are just entering the prime IBWO searching season. Those insidious leaves are quickly dropping off the trees (I'm going to have to locate my leaf blower soon). The low temp in Marianna last night (closest NWS recording site to the Choctawhatchee) was a pleasant 35F. The dangerous cottonmouths and alligators are becoming sluggish. If we could just get some rain, water levels in the rivers and swamps will rise. Ditch the camo, plan on blaze orange. Don't forget the video cameras.

Good luck to all. Caution: Do not grab any vines growing on tree trunks. These are likely to be poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The stems and aerial roots contain active chemicals even in the colder months although the plants may not have leaves.

Later...
olivacea

 

[John Mariani]

Let us see, Cinclodes has an undergraduate degree in mathematics from MIT and a PhD from Northwestern University.

Received the R. Bruce Lindsay Award from the Acoustical Society of America and the A. B. Wood Medal from the Institute of Acoustics (UK), both in recognition of the creative and practical aspects of his scientific work.


It certainly beats trolling Birdforum hurling insults at people he doesn't know as Mr. Malatesta seems to enjoy doing.

Dalcio

The stuff about Cinclodes the mathematician reminds me of an example from...Creation Science of all things. From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/whoare.htm

"One of the ICR's favorite pamphlets is entitled "Twenty-One Scientists Who Believe in Creation", which lists a number of holders of doctorates and masters degrees in various scientific disciplines who assert the literal correctness of Genesis. Of the 21 listed by ICR, though, only a tiny number hold a degree in any of the life sciences. Three of the 21 hold doctorates in education, two are theologians, five are engineers. The remainder include a physicist, a chemist, a psycho-linguist, and a "food scientist"."

Or as Mr Science used to say - “I Have a Master’s Degree… In Science!”

All the irrelevant degrees in the world won't tell you a thing about how skilled someone is at identifying birds in the field. The birding world is full of highly educated doctors and lawyers, many of them very capable, some not so much. Even an Ornithology degree doesn't automatically confer good field skills. I recall a graduate student in Ornithology who came across as the second coming of Roger Tory Peterson when the subject was raptors. Then an easy warbler landed in front of him and it was clear he missed class that day.

My bird sightings are 100% accurate - you'll understand how I can make such a claim when I tell you that I also hold a degree in a non-life sciences field. Silly huh? Uncertainty and mistakes are things all birders experience - even if there are some who never admit to either.

 

[Jane Turner]

Actually Mike, being on the front line of some of the BF, chupacabra nonsense, it is more likely a situation of "I have never seen anything like this in my sixty plus years therefore it must be something that is unknown to science." I have seen photos that are clearly a canine species with severe mange reported as chupacabras. When you explain what it is, the response you get is "I've seen dogs with mange. This is no dog with ...." Sound familiar?

It does rather....

I have never seen anything like this in my sixty plus years therefore it must be something that is was thought to be extinct. I have seen photos that are clearly Pileated Woodpecker reported as Ivory-billed. When you explain what it is, the response you get is "I've seen Pileated Woodpecker. This is no Pileated...."

 

[Jane Turner]

You don't need data to know that protecting habitat will help recover a species. I would imagine protecting habitat is the single most effective approach on most recovery projects. I say protect all the land you can, if the IBWO is present that is fantastic...if not its still fantastic that land is being protected for all of the other species that need it. win win

Russ

I couldn't agree more. Though when I suggested this ealier in the year loads got loads of stick! Take a good botanist, a herpetologist etc and find another species that needs protecting.

 

[Mike Johnston]

...Collins, who has recorded 12 sightings in the past year, intends to return in the winter, after hunting season, when the forest is still.

The point is, if I was claiming 12 definite sightings of even a relatively rare bird in my area I would be expected to have strong evidence to back that claim up, especially if I declare it to the press. But different rules seem to apply here.

And if cinclodes seems to be able to find these birds in this area with such ease, why does no-one else appear to be able to do so, or why has he not made sure he has an idependent witness for at least some of them?

As for people leaving the thread - that all seems a little too convenient, especially since the search season is just getting into full swing.

As for the Searchers thread being quiet - you can't blame sceptics for that. Maybe its a reflection on the search itself.

 

[timeshadowed]

. . . why has he not made sure he has an idependent witness for at least some of them?

From your post up-thread quoting the article:

"Epps, a resident of Diamondhead, Miss., and fellow birder Michael Collins, of Washington, D.C., contend they saw one flit across their path just days ago, as they combed the forest in the Pearl River Wildlife Management Area."

At least one of his sightings this fall have been witnessed by Susan Epps. She even drew a field sketch of the bird.

Edited to change the number from two to one after I re-read Mike's diary of the trip. I was relying on memory when I first posted.

 

[Mike Johnston]

At least two of his sightings this fall have been witnessed by Susan Epps. She even drew a field sketch of the bird.

You mean this one?

Also, I think the article means 12 sightings last season. This season Mike Collins has so far only reported two - 30th Sept. and 21st Oct - with Epps witnessing one:

Late in the afternoon, we saw an ivorybill fly across an open area. The sun was behind us, and the bird was about a hundred feet in front of us. It banked on fixed wings and appeared to be coming in for a landing. We had an excellent dorsal view, but neither of us resolved dorsal stripes.

Incidently, his diary includes the following:
There is news that others have seen the Pearl ivorybills but are being secretive about it. They must think the species will be renamed in their honor if they get a photo. Why does this species bring out such strange behavior in people? I already have conclusive proof that there are ivorybills in the Pearl, but it's really not a big deal. They exist at several locations.

Conclusive proof to whom? If it was conclusive there would be no debate.

 

[Jane Turner]

Conclusive proof to whom? If it was conclusive there would be no debate.

There is a guy in Oklahoma that has conclusive proof that there are Velociraptors on the loose too. Still trying to work out what that could have been - making the assumption that he wasn't just making it up!

 

[timeshadowed]

You mean this one?

Also, I think the article means 12 sightings last season. This season Mike Collins has so far only reported two - 30th Sept. and 21st Oct - with Epps witnessing one:

Yes, that is the one and I stand corrected, He does only report ONE sighting when he was with Susan. I have edited my post up-thread after I checked Mike's diary, but you posted an answer before I could change it.

I believe this is the question you asked first:
"why has he not made sure he has an idependent witness for at least some of them?"

If you agree that at least one of his sightings was witnessed by Susan Epps, then what was your reason for asking the above question in the first place? Or was that question posted just for 'flamebait'?

I fail to see the point in arguing over a newspaper article. What does it matter if the number 12 includes or excludes the sighting witnessed by both he and Susan?

I am also not going to argue with you about Mike's choice of wording in his reports because I do not wish to start another flame-war. This has all been discussed here before and there is no reason to re-hash it again.

 

[Bushop]

crappy

I for one hope the folks posting their experiences out in the field continue to do so. I thought that was what this board was for.....not so much for a pissing match, but for diaries about what folks are doing and seeing.

After a crappy day it's was nice to sit down and have a read about cryptozoology. I printed the Washington Eagle stuff last night and read it while watching an Office DVD. Is it out there, flying around? Who knows, but none of my neighbors care to discuss it so this is a place to find out about it, new stuff every day.

Can't someone keep this board going in the direction it was intended?

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

You don't need data to know that protecting habitat will help recover a species. I would imagine protecting habitat is the single most effective approach on most recovery projects. I say protect all the land you can, if the IBWO is present that is fantastic...if not its still fantastic that land is being protected for all of the other species that need it. win win

Russ

And what is their habitat?

 

[MacGillivray's Trout]

Yes, that is the one and I stand corrected, He does only report ONE sighting when he was with Susan. I have edited my post up-thread after I checked Mike's diary, but you posted an answer before I could change it.

I believe this is the question you asked first:
"why has he not made sure he has an idependent witness for at least some of them?"

If you agree that at least one of his sightings was witnessed by Susan Epps, then what was you reason for asking the above question in the first place? Or was that question posted just for 'flamebait'?

I fail to see the point in arguing over a newspaper article. What does it matter if the number 12 includes or excludes the sighting witnessed by both he and Susan?

I am also not going to argue with you about Mike's choice of wording in his reports because I do not wish to start another flame-war. This has all been discussed here before and there is no reason to re-hash it again.

Is your favorite word flame now? Or just a convenient way to avoid discussing the truth, which is only certain people can see IBWO, and there is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo of bigfoot either, so I don't believe it exists either.

 

[timeshadowed]

And what is their habitat?

Any undeveloped land in it's natural state should be preserved because it is fast disappearing to the bull-dozers.

Wildlife in general is losing major habitat everyday to the 'dozers, and this practise needs to end. It is not uncommon to find deer, bears, and coons dwelling in city backyards because there is no other place for them to live.

 

[timeshadowed]

Is your favorite word flame now?

There are 'flamebaiters' and there are skeptics both posting in this thread. Which class are you in, Mr. Trout?

I am not against heathly debate, but continued flamebaiting is pointless.

 

[MMinNY]

There are photos, including Mike's. The worst that can be said about Mike's photo is that it's an inconclusive image of a crested woodpecker. There's the Luneau footage, which is highly contested. There are the Fielding Lewis photos, also highly contested. As far as I know, the only Bigfoot footage is an admitted hoax. I can accept that the photos are contested; how can you be so sure you're right?

You may not be satisfied with the photos that exist, but again REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY (and do) DIFFER. You may think the peer-reviewed papers are garbage, but REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY (and do) DIFFER (including Jerome Jackson with regard to the Auburn paper).

That's why all this Bigfoot stuff is just trash talk that is better suited to political talk radio. Until you can acknowledge the reasonableness of people with whom you disagree, you're not engaging in debate. You're just pontificating.

Is your favorite word flame now? Or just a convenient way to avoid discussing the truth, which is only certain people can see IBWO, and there is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo. There is no photo of bigfoot either, so I don't believe it exists either.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

I for one hope the folks posting their experiences out in the field continue to do so. I thought that was what this board was for.....not so much for a pissing match, but for diaries about what folks are doing and seeing.

After a crappy day it's was nice to sit down and have a read about cryptozoology. I printed the Washington Eagle stuff last night and read it while watching an Office DVD. Is it out there, flying around? Who knows, but none of my neighbors care to discuss it so this is a place to find out about it, new stuff every day.

Can't someone keep this board going in the direction it was intended?

This board used to be an exchange point for ideas and thoughts. People would throw stuff out, and if it fell apart that was fine.

As for now I am posting nothing new on this thread because I have nothing new. Many of us cannot afford to go out weekly even if we want to, and that is the point to which this has come. Research is what is, and always has been, needed. Even those, that in all fairness are skeptical, that want a photo but are not just here to cause trouble know that this is the case. When there is something worth posting it will hit the searchers forum in all liklihood.

Goatnose is still plugging away, Cinclodes is still working, as is Fang and Chou. Most have gone silent because there is nothing to be gained by saying much right now, and they need results in hand. There are probably dozens of others that are working but that simply are living their own lives and don't know this board exists.

We all know that a dead bird or a photo is what is required. I want a photo. Even feathers would immediately be subject to the claim that they were pulled from a specimen.

I am not going to post conversations or email exchanges I routinely have with folks around the country who are actively searching because I don't have their permission.

But I can tell you that next weekend is another chance to be out looking. We've identified a place that holds much promise in my mind, and with luck I will have a photo. Without luck, I will have another beautiful fall day in the woods. That still constitutes a great life to me! If the bird is found it'll be brought up. I just wish I had a fraction of Cornell's or Auburn's budget.

So while there is much trash here, please remember that there are people that will continue to note what is found, when it is found. And that, for you skepctics, includes even adverse information.

Jesse