Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (2 Viewers)

[Jane Turner]

so the picture of the model wasn't yours then?

I must have been away when all this strangeness was going on, anyone know the post numbers covering it?

Rob

Here it is


http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=660173&highlight=orange#post660173

No sign of the promised additional photos as far as I am aware

 

[timeshadowed]

What do you think? Have managed to produce evidence that Santa doesn't exist yet?

Did I read that TMGuy was banned from the IBWO site? If not I apologise for casting nasturtiums or even aspersions.... if he was, then why?

Its very common for someone who feels backed into a corner to change the subject, which is what you just did Jane.

And the answer to your question was posted on this board up-thread.

 

[rob stoff]

Blatantly a model? How do you know for certain? Is it made of wood? If so, what kind? Or is it made of metal? Again, what kind? Again, how do you know?

One poster here kept saying it was made out of balsa wood, before finally admitting he was "stringing".
When the photo first appeared, people scoffed and said the bird was on an orange tree! I believe the tree was then identified as an oak.

And TMGuy on his site states, "There are access roads throughout parts, and a large portion is inaccessible by motor vehicle".

don't give two kents what its made of or what its sitting on but know for sure that live flesh and feathers are not involved. Everyone can see that can't they? just look at the posture for a start. Please tell me nobody has actually been taken in by this obviously inanimate monstrosity. Professor Yaffle was more lifelike....

Rob

 

[Edward woodwood]

Not yet, but I can go see the birds any time I wish... Bill

remember this?

Next time you wish to see them, why not take a camera? Or someone else. Or a video camera. Or an expert birder. Or a few expert birders. Or a biologist from the FFFRSRSFR or whatever they call themselves...

I wonder what the reason that they can't be seen will be...

Tim

 

[salar53]

Everyone

don't give two kents what its made of or what its sitting on but know for sure that live flesh and feathers are not involved. Everyone can see that can't they? just look at the posture for a start. Please tell me nobody has actually been taken in by this obviously inanimate monstrosity. Professor Yaffle was more lifelike....

Rob

"Everyone can see".
Is that your evidence for fakery?
Is that your scientific proof?

 

[rob stoff]

"Everyone can see".
Is that your evidence for fakery?
Is that your scientific proof?

sorry, should have said 'everyone who has a rudimentary understanding of birds can see...'

in answer to your other questions, yes and yes, show me a picture of a large woodpecker, any species, in a similar pose in a small tree.

I don't suppose I need to ask if any more pictures were taken of this 'bird'....

Rob

 

[tmguy]

What do you think? Have managed to produce evidence that Santa doesn't exist yet?

Did I read that TMGuy was banned from the IBWO site? If not I apologise for casting nasturtiums or even aspersions.... if he was, then why?

I was banned from that site for not agreeing with their free speech imposition, which I have been told only applies to the 50 states and since it is a world wide site then I must accept third world standards of suppressed speech. In other words sweety pie they take the posts and edit them to comply with the public image they try to project.

I have stated openly that I would prefer the juvenile bashing I endure here to being edited. But I have been edited here as well but I can respect the owners here a bit more, they don't try and be something they are not.

I have never stated Santa doesn't exist. He has to, my daughter is still a believer and therefore so am I, , have a field day with that one not a crime boy.

Bill.

 

[Russ Jones]

TMguy,

I think I recall a sillouhette shot you had posted before. Can you share this photo with us? Maybe a higher res. version?

Cheers,

Russ

 

[Edward woodwood]

remember this?

Next time you wish to see them, why not take a camera? Or someone else. Or a video camera. Or an expert birder. Or a few expert birders. Or a biologist from the FFFRSRSFR or whatever they call themselves...

I wonder what the reason that they can't be seen will be...

Tim

any chance of letting me know?

 

[Jane Turner]

Its very common for someone who feels backed into a corner to change the subject, which is what you just did Jane.

And the answer to your question was posted on this board up-thread.

I'm sorry. Since I have absolutely no idea what argument I am in the midst of losing with you, you are going to have to spell it out for me.

From memory - your answer was because your parents told you he didn't exist. I suspect everyone else already gets the point.

 

[Jane Turner]

By "home territory" do you mean nest area or the entire terrritory? The repeat accounts I'm familiar with are all at the nest. Any reason to think they might not be flighty away from the nest?

I found this.....

The birds were surprisingly easy to stalk, even after being hunted and shot at for several days, but the were difficult to secure because they are powerful, hard muscled creatures possessed of remarkable vitality..........

One of the striking characteristics of these birds is their custom of remaining in family parties during the fall and winter. They have strong local attachments as shown by the persistence with which the party near our camp remained in its accustomed haunts, although hunted for several days in succession......................

 

[tmguy]

TMguy,

I think I recall a sillouhette shot you had posted before. Can you share this photo with us? Maybe a higher res. version?

Cheers,

Russ

My site has that pic. I would recommend right clicking on it and set it as your background on your screen, it is the best you're gonna get from that one. Bill

 

[bitterntwisted]

"Everyone can see".
Is that your evidence for fakery?
Is that your scientific proof?

I've tried to resist ridiculing, but this demands nothing else. Are you seriously arguing that TMGuy's picture is not a model? I suspect you may be the only person on earth saying it's a real bird. I'm not sure even TMGuy is trying to defend it any more. It doesn't need scientific proof when it's so completely, utterly, blindingly, staringly obvious to anyone who has ever spent any time whatsoever watching birds. Here's an ID thread you might like to cast your expert eye over... www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=81587

Look at some pictures of models. Then look at some pictures of real birds. Then look at the photo. Beyond that, we really can't help.

 

[salar53]

Jumping

I've tried to resist ridiculing, but this demands nothing else. Are you seriously arguing that TMGuy's picture is not a model? I suspect you may be the only person on earth saying it's a real bird. I'm not sure even TMGuy is trying to defend it any more. It doesn't need scientific proof when it's so completely, utterly, blindingly, staringly obvious to anyone who has ever spent any time whatsoever watching birds. Here's an ID thread you might like to cast your expert eye over... www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=81587

Look at some pictures of models. Then look at some pictures of real birds. Then look at the photo. Beyond that, we really can't help.

You are jumping to conclusions - and wrong ones, I might add.
Where, pray, did I say that it was, for definite, a real bird?
Where did I state that it was definitely not a model?

I am simply saying that mere assertions, no matter how strongly worded, do not constitute scientific proof.

 

[timeshadowed]

I'm sorry. Since I have absolutely no idea what argument I am in the midst of losing with you, you are going to have to spell it out for me.

From memory - your answer was because your parents told you he didn't exist. I suspect everyone else already gets the point.

The topic of the thread is the IBWO not Santa, Bigfoot or Nessy. You changed the subject, it is that simple.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

yes, lots. Remember Dave there's a world of difference between 'flighty' and 'undetectable to your decent birder'

a better question might be: can you give me an explanation of how a noisy conspicuous woodpecker that held territories has become an ethereal mystical being that can't be seen, calls but only when you can't see it and then it won't show, doesn't appear to remote cameras despite its calls being detected, is 'wary' yet stays in the same area (calls detected again!) appears only to people intent on seeing it, is a member of an easily detected genus and to top it all off, it was once pretty good at stopping bullets?

Hi Tim. Unfortunately it's pretty clear you still have no idea why I'm asking.

Maybe this will help put your mind at ease...

I think you (and others of similar opinion) are perfectly justified in believing the bird is extinct, since extensive searches have not resulted in conclusive proof. I don't expect you to believe (nor do I think you *should* believe) anything else until a live bird is produced. I don't expect that you or anyone else to be persuaded to believe the bird is extant just by discussion of how it could be possible.

By the way, I appreciate the comments from you, Jane and others regarding wariness. From the descriptions, and what I've read so far, I currently don't see a way that IBWO could have escaped detection due to wariness.

Not that you have to, but you haven't provided a thing to peruade me on flightiness though.

 

[dave_in_michigan]

I mean their entire territory. Resident birds follow predicable feeding circuits within their territory.

Hi Jane. I understood this generalization from Graham's earlier post. My question is about whether IBWO might easily disturbed into changing their circuits, particularly away from thier nest sites. (See Graham's very next post). Do you know of any evidence about this for IBWO?

By "home territory" do you mean nest area or the entire terrritory? The repeat accounts I'm familiar with are all at the nest. Any reason to think they might not be flighty away from the nest?

I found this.....

The birds were surprisingly easy to stalk, even after being hunted and shot at for several days, but the were difficult to secure because they are powerful, hard muscled creatures possessed of remarkable vitality..........

One of the striking characteristics of these birds is their custom of remaining in family parties during the fall and winter. They have strong local attachments as shown by the persistence with which the party near our camp remained in its accustomed haunts, although hunted for several days in succession......................

It would have been helpful if you had mentioned that the E.W.Wilson article is about Imperial Woodpeckers (Campephilus imperialis), not IBWO.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v015n03/p0217-p0223.pdf

Have you seen anything similar about IBWO?

Or does anyone have info regarding how easily (or not) IBWO might be pushed off their circuits?

 

[dave_in_michigan]

show me a picture of a large woodpecker, any species, in a similar pose in a small tree.

These are the closest I found:

Here are a couple PIWOs at a similar angle:
http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/Piliated-Woodpecker.jpg
http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/slideshow/gallery.php?Show_ID=3&Slide_ID=129

Allen & Kellog article "Recent Observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker", the shows a female IBWO in similar posture, but vertical (bottom picture of Plate 15, between pages 180 and 181)
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v054n02/p0164-p0184.pdf

Also, here's a PIWO on a small branch:
http://www.birdsamore.com/byb/woodpecker-pileated.htm

 

[salar53]

Witty

Nothing exact of course. These are the closest I found:

Here are a couple PIWOs at a similar angle:
http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/images/Piliated-Woodpecker.jpg
http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/slideshow/gallery.php?Show_ID=3&Slide_ID=129

Allen & Kellog article "Recent Observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker", the shows a female IBWO in similar posture, but vertical (bottom picture of Plate 15, between pages 180 and 181)
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v054n02/p0164-p0184.pdf

Also, here's a PIWO on a small branch:
http://www.birdsamore.com/byb/woodpecker-pileated.htm

I appreciated those pictures. Thanks.
And I liked your witty little comment about the Imperial Woodpecker.

 

[Jane Turner]

Hi Jane. I understood this generalization from Graham's earlier post. My question is about whether IBWO might easily disturbed into changing their circuits, particularly away from thier nest sites. (See Graham's very next post). Do you know of any evidence about this for IBWO?



It would have been helpful if you had mentioned that the E.W.Wilson article is about Imperial Woodpeckers (Campephilus imperialis), not IBWO.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v015n03/p0217-p0223.pdf

Have you seen anything similar about IBWO?

Or does anyone have info regarding how easily (or not) IBWO might be pushed off their circuits?

Imperial Woodpecker, as determined by DNA analysis, is as close as Cuban Ivory Bill to IBWO. It didn't change its habits in reaction to being hunted to (probable) extinction.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/...n/0607stories/BiologyLetters_Ivory-billed.pdf