Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (11 Viewers)

[Jane Turner]

Interesting that these shots show a typical woodpecker profile ie. pulled in wings.

 

[Louis Bevier]

Interesting that these shots show a typical woodpecker profile ie. pulled in wings.

I suspect Ivory-bills engaged in flap-bound flight just like most woodpeckers. Even the as yet unpublished film of a female Imperial Woodpecker shows this. The flight and wing patterns are utterly unlike the bird in the Luneau video.

MMinNY: nothing is beneath my reputation; you mischaracterize me yet again! You are also still blustering. Just let it go.

 

[MMinNY]

Sorry you have such low self-esteem.

I'm not blustering at all. I'm correcting the record.

I suspect Ivory-bills engaged in flap-bound flight just like most woodpeckers. Even the as yet unpublished film of a female Imperial Woodpecker shows this. The flight and wing patterns are utterly unlike the bird in the Luneau video.

MMinNY: nothing is beneath my reputation; you mischaracterize me yet again! You are also still blustering. Just let it go.

 

[KC Foggin]

Okay, chill out guys

 

[Jane Turner]

I suspect Ivory-bills engaged in flap-bound flight just like most woodpeckers. Even the as yet unpublished film of a female Imperial Woodpecker shows this. The flight and wing patterns are utterly unlike the bird in the Luneau video.

The Luneau bird could be perhaps be forgiven for not flying like a woodpecker, since it was escaping as fast as it could from an approaching canoe. The latest fishcrow bird doesn't fold its wings and do the "ski jump" thing at all.

 

[Louis Bevier]

Yep, that Pileated in the Luneau video was frightened and flushed from low over water. It's rapid wing beat and direct flight is not unexpected. It looked basically like other Pileateds that I have spooked. Ken Rosenberg first identified the bird in the Luneau video as a Wood Duck, and I wouldn't be surprised if some who know that are thinking a bird first thought to be a Wood Duck supports the identification as an Ivory-bill (however far-fetched that sounds). What it really tells us is that the bird wasn't seen well enough to identify, and other factors like expectation bias are at play.

 

[Jane Turner]

Wood Duck might be a good candidate for the latest Fishcrow video... does that mean that it must be an Ivory-bill too. I jest. I'd still love to see a known bird fly through the same path, I can't even rule out Belted Kingfisher!

 

[Sidewinder]

Because the image is ambiguous, one can make of it what they want.

...this important aspect of identification--we see things the way we want to see them...

We applaud your open-mindedness in this discussion, Louis.

 

[Louis Bevier]

We applaud your open-mindedness in this discussion, Louis.

"We?" Is there a multiple personality involved? I'm sure this is not meant at face value and has the implicit meaning that I'm seeing the image as not an Ivory-billed because I want that outcome. Like other comments on reputations, ignorance, shout-outs from soggy bottoms, and the like, your statement, interpreted either way, provides no useful insight for identification and has little value here, except entertainment--and I'm okay with that, really! These sorts of statments are diversions meant to undermine the credibility of anyone concluding the evidence for Ivory-bills is lacking. Comments like yours, whether meant sincerely or not, do not further the discussion with new information or analysis.

There is another bias by those keen to support any vague suggestion an ivory-bill has been seen. That is that anyone who questions the claim is biased against it. This is false, but it helps them feel that their belief is justified.

If there is something that supports the notion that flight speed absolutely eliminates Pileated, for example, let's hear it. Otherwise, go get the data needed. I went and filmed Pileateds in a way that attempted to replicate the Luneau video. I found that images processed in the same way showed the same features. Others independently confirmed that. If they had not, I would be responding differently. Simple as that. Likewise, Jane Turner attempted to see whether birds filmed at similar distances to that claimed in the Collins video could be identified. That's useful to know (and with a cell phone camera no less!), i.e. how could his video really be that bad.

 

[Docmartin]

Wood Duck might be a good candidate for the latest Fishcrow video... does that mean that it must be an Ivory-bill too. I jest. I'd still love to see a known bird fly through the same path, I can't even rule out Belted Kingfisher!

Just catching up on this thread, and was glad you said that, cos when I first saw the videos (especially the approach shot) they screamed kingfisher to me rather than woodpecker. So I had a look on You Tube for some crappy videos of Belted Kingfishers. There's a composite from one of them in my Secret Freezer, and I have a few other captures that might make it online later. I can't convince myself that the new Fishcrow video is definitely a Belted Kingfisher - too much up in the air - but I can convince myself that a poorly resolved Belted Kingfisher could be mistaken for a big black and white woodpecker. among others. See what you think.

http://proregulus.blogspot.com/2008/05/crappy-video-killed-radio-star.html

 

[Jane Turner]

Well isn't that interesting - as luck would have it my only view of a Belted Kingfisher came 25+ years ago, belting towards me across a Cornish river and sounding like a Mistle Thrush.

That apparent long head/neck in the other video would fit too. Also helps with reflective bits on the wings. The Kingfishery thing about it as the way it flexes the hand!

 

[PandionMlt]

Since when has flap rate become diagnostic of anything? Funny you should ask that. Perhaps you should take it up with Robert L. Nudds, Graham K. Taylor and Adrian L.R. Thomas in a learned article here:

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/thr5xu6m7v8150qc/fulltext.pdf

Fred Virazzi passed this article to Dr Michael Collins and they also think that flap rate can be diagnostic.
Not to mention woodpecker expert Bret Tobalske.

You were initially shaken when you saw the white trailing edge? What has relaxed you into the calm of scepticism again?

my point is that i wouldnt resurrect a species bk from the dead based on wingbeats, whatever you or any other learned professor says.

my scepticism? not a single shard of SOLID proof, for 60 years, thats my scepticism

And IF conclusive proof is found, i will be the first to come here and publicly eat my words.

and oh, i am no expert of American species, so dnt know wheter there is anything it can be confused with apart from Pileated

 

[humminbird]

Just catching up on this thread, and was glad you said that, cos when I first saw the videos (especially the approach shot) they screamed kingfisher to me rather than woodpecker. So I had a look on You Tube for some crappy videos of Belted Kingfishers. There's a composite from one of them in my Secret Freezer, and I have a few other captures that might make it online later. I can't convince myself that the new Fishcrow video is definitely a Belted Kingfisher - too much up in the air - but I can convince myself that a poorly resolved Belted Kingfisher could be mistaken for a big black and white woodpecker. among others. See what you think.

http://proregulus.blogspot.com/2008/05/crappy-video-killed-radio-star.html

All I can say here is "well said Doc".

 

[dave_in_michigan]

... how could his video really be that bad.

From the still shot it at the top of his page, it appears that Mike shot the video at wide angle. The still is 640x480, consistent with non-HD video. By comparison, the video clips look as if they've been double-sized as well as cropped and (as reported by him) slowed to half speed. The clarity of the video looks noticable worse than the still, IMO, which is consistent with the kind of degradation that comes with all that manipulation.

It would certainly be helpful if he made the unedited video available...

[And FYI, the link on Martin's page to the youtube kingfisher has a double http: on the front, so it needs a little edit to access that clip...]

- Dave

 

[bitterntwisted]

And FYI, the link on Martin's page to the youtube kingfisher has a double http: on the front, so it needs a little edit to access that clip...

Direct link to the Belted KF film Martin linked to... http://youtube.com/watch?v=aZH5b9mx-6U&feature=related

This chap's going to wonder how his video got so popular.

Graham

 

[dave_in_michigan]

"approach" flight speed

Well, just for kicks, I tried to estimate bird speed in Mike Collin's "flyunder_approach.avi" clip.

I made a few assumptions, including:
- camera: 75' high
- trees in reflection on far side of water: 75' tall

Estimating convergence of reflection points to find "zero point" directly under camera, and horizon at top of the out-of-view trees across the water, I approximated angles to various points and calculated:

- Black spot in water (stump?) approx 180 feet from tree
- outcropping on right side of water approx 133 feet from tree

Blah, blah, blah and some handy calculation help from this page... here's what I got:

When the bird's shadow crosses the stump (frame 3), I calculate the bird is:
- 190 ft from tree
- 202 ft from camera
- 4 ft off the water

When the bird passes in front of the outcropping (frame 99), I calculate the bird is:
- 116 ft from tree
- 133 ft from camera
- 10 ft off the water

Further calculations... bird traveled 75.4 feet in 3.3 seconds (22.8 ft/sec), but Mike states the video is half speed, so 46 ft/sec, 13.9 m/s, or 31.2 mph. (Compared to Mike's estimate of 33 mph.)

I could be way off, and I haven't done any detailed error analysis, but my gut feel is that should be within +/- 10% of the mark. Actual measurements of camera height and points on the ground would help... But anyway, my estimate based on the assumptions stated is:

=> 28-34 mph, bird is on a slight climb.

FWIW.

- Dave

 

[Jane Turner]

Well I am impressed!.

Not entirely inconsistent with Kingfisher behaviour - I thought it was low to the water.

What if the camera is at 60', just in case Mr Collins was exaggerating his tree climbing prowess?

Doesn't 28mph put us back into PIWO territory too....? I would have thought that chances of being out by 10% on the height of the camera and the height of the tree are pretty high.... and to be fair my gut feel on the accuracy of the original estimation was +/-20%

 

[Jane Turner]

You know someone (who didn't wish to be laughed at) PM's me and said that they thought the UFO might just be a large bat.

You know, looking again, I can see that might be possible. What time of day was the video taken? Once again, you'd be hard pushed to rule the possibility out.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

What if the camera is at 60', just in case Mr Collins was exaggerating his tree climbing prowess?

Then all the numbers would change. It's quite a bit of number crunching, and I don't have the time just now... In general, everything would be scaled down, so the distance the bird traveled would be less, and the speed would be less.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

You know someone (who didn't wish to be laughed at) PM's me and said that they thought the UFO might just be a large bat.

You know, looking again, I can see that might be possible. What time of day was the video taken? Once again, you'd be hard pushed to rule the possibility out.

Yes, the Long-Necked Swamp Bat has rather shiny white skin along the trailing wing edge, doesn't it? (Sorry, I'm prone to a bit of teasing too... all in good fun. )

Video was taken 8:51 a.m. on March 29, 2008.