• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises (1 Viewer)

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Mike,

Yet another sophomoric comment from someone who is incapable of actually addressing the evidence.

If you're into addressing all of an sudden, you might want to address this issue which you've been evading for a couple of years right now:


Unless your inner scientist suddenly remembers he's left the faucet running, of course! :-D

Regards,

Henning
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
Hi Mike,



If you're into addressing all of an sudden, you might want to address this issue which you've been evading for a couple of years right now:


Unless your inner scientist suddenly remembers he's left the faucet running, of course! :-D

Regards,

Henning
I have never evaded any issue. All three of the videos and their analysis have been laid out in a series of papers. Everything used in those arguments (wing motion, flight path, flap rate, flight speed, field marks, body proportions, behaviors, etc) is well resolved in the videos. Each of the events involves a bird that shows multiple characteristics and behaviors that are consistent with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Nobody has proposed a plausible alternative explanation for the birds that appear in any of those events. I have provided links to anyone who wants to see and hear the deep and rapid wingbeats of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers taking off. I'm not going to reply to any further silly comments.
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
Oh I see - they didn’t quite look the same to me (e.g. the cut side-branch top right looking more upright), but I guess it's easy for such features to be misrepresented in a photo due to subtle differences in angle and lighting...or the tree changing with age (presumably it blew down soon after the video).
A comparison of the tree specimen with one of the photos from 2006 is attached. Everything lines up, and there are a few patches of lichen just above and below the right end of the meter stick that were still recognizable in 2008. There is no question that the large woodpecker in that video is larger than a Pileated Woodpecker. That alone is conclusive, but there is more -- several characteristics and behaviors are consistent with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker but not the Pileated Woodpecker. It is amazing -- and sad, really -- to see some comments that have made about this evidence and the other videos.
 

Attachments

  • tree_specimen.jpg
    tree_specimen.jpg
    428.8 KB · Views: 28

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Mike,

I have never evaded any issue.

Since you've not answered it, you are still evading the issue.

Let me be very clear: All of your claims regarding the flap rate are based on a complete failure to understand how statistics work, on a very elementary level.

I don't really need to know your scientific credentials - reliance on fake math and a failure to respond to specific criticism paint a clear picture.

Regards,

Henning
 

Jacana

Will Jones
Hungary
What do you know about my credentials as a scientist?
I'll bite.

From what I've seen, all but one of your papers on IBWO have been published in predatory journals which publish any sort of tat with, at best, minimal peer review if you pay them enough money.

The only journal with a modicum of respectability is Scientific Reports, which likes to publish controversial stuff. It is also hard to get rejected from there as they also take a hefty fee to publish.

How would you sum up you credentials?
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
Hi Mike,



Since you've not answered it, you are still evading the issue.

Let me be very clear: All of your claims regarding the flap rate are based on a complete failure to understand how statistics work, on a very elementary level.

I don't really need to know your scientific credentials - reliance on fake math and a failure to respond to specific criticism paint a clear picture.

Regards,

Henning
It is amazing what kinds of nonsense people will make up. Here is what a leading ornithologist, Bret Tobalske, said about the flap rate after analyzing that video: "Wingbeat frequency of 10-12 Hz is approximately double that of the PIWO (5.2 +/- 0.4 Hz). So, if my identification of fields is correct, the wingbeat frequency would seem much too high (well outside three standard deviations) to be from a PIWO." It is a trivial matter to estimate the flap rate of a bird in a video. The 2008 video has been published for years. So it would be easy enough for anyone who wishes to check the flap rate for themselves. The flap rate analysis has also been checked by David Banks, a prominent expert in statistics, whose assessment is that "it is a statistical slam-dunk that the bird in the video is not a Pileated Woodpecker." As an MIT trained mathematician, I do indeed know how statistics work. In this case, the statistics (mean and standard deviation) of the flap rate of the Pileated Woodpecker are well known. Those numbers are quoted by Tobalske above. It would be easy for anyone to go out and obtain video footage of Pileated Woodpeckers and obtained their own estimates of the statistics for that species. I did so and obtained similar numbers. In this case, we aren't talking about just a few standard deviations. It's about ten.
 
Last edited:

fishcrow

Well-known member
I'll bite.

From what I've seen, all but one of your papers on IBWO have been published in predatory journals which publish any sort of tat with, at best, minimal peer review if you pay them enough money.

The only journal with a modicum of respectability is Scientific Reports, which likes to publish controversial stuff. It is also hard to get rejected from there as they also take a hefty fee to publish.

How would you sum up you credentials?
After being peer reviewed by ornithologists, my work was published in journals that are run by publishers such as Nature, Taylor & Francis, the American Institute of Physics, and Elsevier. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that those publishers are predatory. This is the kind of nonsense that some people come up with when they can't come up with a fact-based argument.
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Mike,

Here is what a leading ornithologist, Bret Tobalske, said about the flap rate after analyzing that video: "Wingbeat frequency of 10-12 Hz is approximately double that of the PIWO (5.2 +/- 0.4 Hz). So, if my identification of fields is correct, the wingbeat frequency would seem much too high (well outside three standard deviations) to be from a PIWO."

From your article https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1637802

"Tobalske obtained the flap rate statistics of the Pileated Woodpecker (5.2 Hz mean and 0.4 Hz standard deviation) from well-sampled data that were obtained in Montana (Tobalske 1996);"

Tobalske's 1996 data set on the Pileated Woodpecker consisted of merely 11 observed flights on a single location, and as far as I can tell, he makes no claims to having covered the full range of the Pileated Woodpecker's flight capabilities with this set.

So all you can really conclude from that is that the bird in the video under discussion did not behave like the Pileated Woodpecker(s) observed by Tobalske (https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v113n01/p0151-p0177.pdf ) - who only covered 1 location, 11 flights, in table 7, which deals with flight speed.

Tobalske's data does not show the variation of flap rate over flight speed, and you're using it as reference to an observation of a bird flying at a very different flight speed (that isn't even constant) than those observed by Tobalske.

As you can only draw probabilistic conclusions from the standard deviations, even in the best of cases, you could not rule out the Pileated Woodpecker with certainty.

However, to draw a numeric conclusion from the size of the standard deviation, you must know, or be able to assume with a high degree of confidence, that the observed values follow the normal (Gaussian) distribution ... which can usually be safely assumed if the results vary stochastically due to the influence of a sufficiently high number of small random influences.

But that assumption goes out of the window the moment a systematic influence, such as the bird reacting to the power requirement for high-speed flight, enters the picture.

You're using the concept of standard deviation outside the context where it's applicable, and that's an elementary fallacy.

Being outside 10 sigma would be an impressive probability in the proper context (no certainty, even there), but in the case of the flap rate comparison, it doesn't mean anything because a bird's flap rate is, in approximation, arbitrarily variable depending on the requirements, and thus not a random influence.

I'm a bit surprised I have to point this out to you as it's really a statistics 101 issue.

You might want to check Tobalske's article here:


Any individual flying at a higher speed than its Vmp, the characteristic speed for minimum power required (which is species dependend, and amenable to statistical analysis), will have to generate more propulsive power.

Tobalske's earlier measurements of woodpecker flap rates most likely captured them at speeds in the region of Vmp, as is evident from his descriptions of the capturing process.

Quite obviously, these flap rates don't apply to situations with a much higher power requirement, for example the top speed indicated at the right-hand side of Tobalske's U-shaped power graph in the linked article, or a flushed bird accelerating away from an approaching observer.

So, the statement you ascribe to Tobalske isn't even coherent with Tobalske's own publication.

Did Tobalske ever publish the statement you ascribe to him, or is it purely anecdotal? Not that it makes any difference for its invalidity ... the same obviously also applies to the "slam dunk" comment.

As an MIT trained mathematician

... you will certainly understand the issue and provide a concise and coherent explanation of the basis of your conclusion, instead of the arm-waving and anecdote-telling that hasn't us taken anywhere in the years that have gone by after I first pointed it out as fallacious.

Regards,

Henning
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
Credible people also don't make multiple sock puppet accounts to spam the forum...
Just to set the record straight, I am using the account that I set up on Sept. 17, 2005 (as you or anyone else could easily check). Where did you come up with the nonsense that I was using multiple accounts? It's a shame that you are apparently incapable of making a rational contribution to the discussion.
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
Hi Mike,



From your article https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1637802

"Tobalske obtained the flap rate statistics of the Pileated Woodpecker (5.2 Hz mean and 0.4 Hz standard deviation) from well-sampled data that were obtained in Montana (Tobalske 1996);"

Tobalske's 1996 data set on the Pileated Woodpecker consisted of merely 11 observed flights on a single location, and as far as I can tell, he makes no claims to having covered the full range of the Pileated Woodpecker's flight capabilities with this set.

So all you can really conclude from that is that the bird in the video under discussion did not behave like the Pileated Woodpecker(s) observed by Tobalske (https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v113n01/p0151-p0177.pdf ) - who only covered 1 location, 11 flights, in table 7, which deals with flight speed.

Tobalske's data does not show the variation of flap rate over flight speed, and you're using it as reference to an observation of a bird flying at a very different flight speed (that isn't even constant) than those observed by Tobalske.

As you can only draw probabilistic conclusions from the standard deviations, even in the best of cases, you could not rule out the Pileated Woodpecker with certainty.

However, to draw a numeric conclusion from the size of the standard deviation, you must know, or be able to assume with a high degree of confidence, that the observed values follow the normal (Gaussian) distribution ... which can usually be safely assumed if the results vary stochastically due to the influence of a sufficiently high number of small random influences.

But that assumption goes out of the window the moment a systematic influence, such as the bird reacting to the power requirement for high-speed flight, enters the picture.

You're using the concept of standard deviation outside the context where it's applicable, and that's an elementary fallacy.

Being outside 10 sigma would be an impressive probability in the proper context (no certainty, even there), but in the case of the flap rate comparison, it doesn't mean anything because a bird's flap rate is, in approximation, arbitrarily variable depending on the requirements, and thus not a random influence.

I'm a bit surprised I have to point this out to you as it's really a statistics 101 issue.

You might want to check Tobalske's article here:


Any individual flying at a higher speed than its Vmp, the characteristic speed for minimum power required (which is species dependend, and amenable to statistical analysis), will have to generate more propulsive power.

Tobalske's earlier measurements of woodpecker flap rates most likely captured them at speeds in the region of Vmp, as is evident from his descriptions of the capturing process.

Quite obviously, these flap rates don't apply to situations with a much higher power requirement, for example the top speed indicated at the right-hand side of Tobalske's U-shaped power graph in the linked article, or a flushed bird accelerating away from an approaching observer.

So, the statement you ascribe to Tobalske isn't even coherent with Tobalske's own publication.

Did Tobalske ever publish the statement you ascribe to him, or is it purely anecdotal? Not that it makes any difference for its invalidity ... the same obviously also applies to the "slam dunk" comment.



... you will certainly understand the issue and provide a concise and coherent explanation of the basis of your conclusion, instead of the arm-waving and anecdote-telling that hasn't us taken anywhere in the years that have gone by after I first pointed it out as fallacious.

Regards,

Henning
The bird in the 2008 video was in a particular type of flight, cruising flight, not "the full range of flight." There is a substantial literature on avian flap rate for this type of flight (e.g., papers by Tobalske, Pennycuick, and a group at Oxford that are cited in my papers). Pennycuick obtained a large body of data for a large number of species. He found that flap rate distributions are rather narrow -- the standard deviation is less than about ten percent of the mean for most species. Tobalske obtained flap rate statistics for various woodpeckers, including the Pileated Woodpecker. I obtained similar results for that species in Louisiana. It would be easy enough for anyone with a video camera to obtain their own data for that fairly common species. The flap rate of the bird in the 2008 video is about ten standard deviations greater than the mean flap rate of the Pileated Woodpecker. The statements by Tobalske and Banks are correct.
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
How would you sum up you credentials?

I will mention something about my credentials that is relevant to this topic. The rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker opened up an opportunity for anyone fortunate enough to obtain video footage of these fascinating birds to make new discoveries about them. Most ornithologists failed to recognize this opportunity. I am very appreciative that they sat on the sidelines and left the playing field wide open for me to make the discoveries that are discussed here. If I had the mindset of a typical ornithologist, I would have missed out.
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Mike,

I've deleted my earlier comment on Post #16 based on your YouTube video at the end of Post #31.
Nice work! (y)

Ed
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Mike,

There is a substantial literature on avian flap rate for this type of flight (e.g., papers by Tobalske, Pennycuick, and a group at Oxford that are cited in my papers).

For a "trained mathematician", you're curiously vague. Where exactly is the quote that supports your assumption that flap rate is independent of basically all possible systematic parameters other than species?

If you can't prove that, your claim is dead, so take your time and prepare a scientist-grade response this time.

It would be easy enough for anyone with a video camera to obtain their own data for that fairly common species.

I'm not impressed much by unpublished assertions. If you consider yourself a scientist, why don't rise to the opportunity to easily obtain video footage of these fascinating birds to make (minor) new discoveries about them? :-D

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

fishcrow

Well-known member
I want to thank Jeff Woad for raising a good point. Attempts by others to distract with irrelevant and nonsensical comments didn't work -- there were lots of downloads of the newly discovered event in one of the videos. It is good to know that some bird watchers care about conservation. The recent announcement by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service of the decision to declare the Ivory-billed Woodpecker extinct could have an adverse impact not only on the conservation of this species but also on its habitats, such as the Mobile-Tensaw swamp in Alabama, which appears in the attached image. If you look closely, that river basin has been heavily logged.

mobile-tensaw.jpg
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
Cyprus
I want to thank Jeff Woad for raising a good point. Attempts by others to distract with irrelevant and nonsensical comments didn't work -- there were lots of downloads of the newly discovered event in one of the videos. It is good to know that some bird watchers care about conservation. The recent announcement by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service of the decision to declare the Ivory-billed Woodpecker extinct could have an adverse impact not only on the conservation of this species but also on its habitats, such as the Mobile-Tensaw swamp in Alabama, which appears in the attached image. If you look closely, that river basin has been heavily logged.
Most of us care about conservation, we just don't have the 'James Webb telescope' eyesight that you seem to have!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top