Ivorybill Searcher's Forum: Insights and current reports (1 Viewer)

[Snowy1]

At 7:45 this morning I heard large woodpecker foraging so I setup the camera and waited from about 40 yards out. When the foraging continued, with sounds of bark falling, I slowly moved in to perhaps get a picture. The sun was in my face, thus color was plain. After observing for a few minutes I noticed a large woodpecker in the top of a tree and kind of down in a bowl, hollow at the top of the tree. His head would come into view occasionally and then back down again out of view. The head and bill appeared long of bone and the bill was a bright color. Moving around with video running I spooked him and gone. This bird was, as I said long of bone, of length. The video, posted on my website is all there is, just a quick 1 second of flight.
You probably, if interested, need to play it twice, once to buffer and next to see the flight.
Tough day searching today in the heat. Muscle cramps were a facture today.

Well Goat, the one thing I take away in my first look is that it has a long tail. I've only studied it for 5 minutes though. I know there are several parts to the video that could be important because I can make out at least 3 instances where the bird comes into view. But the tail being so long took me by surprise. It almost looked like a cormorant bursting out of the tree. Too bad about the sun. With a detailed analysis I wouldn't be surprised if someone finally identifies it. I'm calling it a night

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Careful in the heat. It will kill you, you know. Good job though. What would you call it from what you saw in the field and with the tape?

Jesse

 

[Neil Grubb]

No, as I said earlier, I suspect that the black blob is an artifact of the video capture process/back lighting and once the lighting or branch alignment changes as the blob moves in front of the tree it appears to disappear. It's elements are branches so it blends in with the trunk. I don't know what is happening to it, things are so out of focus and low res. All I know is that it is in the foreground because of the way it "moves". Can you tell me what the upper blob is, it looks so similar in its darkness to the lower blob?

don c.

Hi Don,

I think Cinclodes is correct that the lower black blob does appear to cut out at the end of the clip, at the level of the trunk, and may not be in the forground. But I agree it is most likely some kind of composite shadow (in medicine such artefacts can be confused with lesions on chest x-rays - e.g. where two rib shadows, from front and back of chest, intersect). However, it is just a blob a few pixels wide and doesn't look like a bird.

Neil

 

[MMinNY]

Your footage is very interesting, even exciting. I don't want wishful thinking to get in the way; I can't tell much from what's there beyond what Snowy has already observed, especially in such a tiny frame, but it certainly merits thorough examination. Perhaps further analysis that will reveal some field fieldmarks.

I think your observation about the bill is significant; I have one comment and some questions. I don't think anyone could say a pileated's bill is "bright". I'm a little confused by what you wrote about color otherwise. The sun was in your eyes, and the color was "plain", does this mean uniform and therefore hard to distinguish, or does it mean clearly discernible? If you could see colors clearly, did you notice anything else about the head? You say "his"; does this mean you saw a red crest, or are you using the pronoun generically?

At 7:45 this morning I heard large woodpecker foraging so I setup the camera and waited from about 40 yards out. When the foraging continued, with sounds of bark falling, I slowly moved in to perhaps get a picture. The sun was in my face, thus color was plain. After observing for a few minutes I noticed a large woodpecker in the top of a tree and kind of down in a bowl, hollow at the top of the tree. His head would come into view occasionally and then back down again out of view. The head and bill appeared long of bone and the bill was a bright color. Moving around with video running I spooked him and gone. This bird was, as I said long of bone, of length. The video, posted on my website is all there is, just a quick 1 second of flight.
You probably, if interested, need to play it twice, once to buffer and next to see the flight.
Tough day searching today in the heat. Muscle cramps were a facture today.

 

[Edward woodwood]

not more 'interesting' footage of an unidentified bird

I can hardly wait

but birding calls

later

Tim

 

[theveeb]

Here's a thought based on some of these ongoing debates that may never be fully resolved.

I think you can generally rate the quality of an IBWO photo or video based on the types of questions that are debated on an ongoing basis.

In decreasing order of quality:

5. Is it an elaborate hoax?
4. Is it a simple hoax?
3. Is it an aberrant PIWO?
2. Is it a PIWO?
1. Is it a bird?

Examples of 1 in my opinion include Mike Collin's recent left and right birds and the few pixel black & white object from Luneau.

Examples of 2 include Mike Collin's earlier footage and the main Luneau escape segment.

For 4 we have Bill Smith's photo and the Lowery snapshots.

Personally I think making definitive claims about evidence of quality 1-3 is questionable, more questionble for lower quality numbers. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Cornell has set a precedent by doing this. I have no real problem calling 2-3 evidence intriguing.

Sometimes the provided evidence is just not sufficient to make definitive claims. This happens with birds of much less significance than IBWOs so people shouldn't take this as an attack. It's just what is reasonably expected of documentation. The mind fills in visual gaps, people make mistakes, people pull hoaxes.

don c.

 

[fishcrow]

I think Cinclodes is correct that the lower black blob does appear to cut out at the end of the clip, at the level of the trunk, and may not be in the forground. But I agree it is most likely some kind of composite shadow (in medicine such artefacts can be confused with lesions on chest x-rays - e.g. where two rib shadows, from front and back of chest, intersect). However, it is just a blob a few pixels wide and doesn't look like a bird.

You seem to be making contradictory claims. On the one hand, you agree that the large black object passes behind the tree. On the other hand, you seem to be claiming that it's an inanimate object. Both of these can't be true. If it passes behind the tree, it must be real movement.

As far as appearance goes, it has a tail like an ivorybill, and it tracks across the picture in several frames. There is also the bold white feature that appears to be the top of the wing where it attaches to the body. If you claim that that feature doesn't look like part of a bird, you have no knowledge of the field marks of this species.

 

[MMinNY]

I'm not sure about your ranking system, since it's often, if not usually, possible to accuse someone of hoaxing (Agee and Heinzmann (feather not photo, but nevertheless. . .and Fielding Lewis come readily to mind; I haven't seen a really compelling argument as to why that one is a hoax; I've heard an interesting one privately, but that's all).

The question "is it a bird" should rank below the questions about PIWOs. I would add. "Is it a woodpecker?" and "is it a crested woodpecker?" before "is it an abberant PIWO?"

There are nuances and gray areas that make every situation slightly different.

That said, I do think there's some value at trying to establish a systematic approach to evaluating the evidence

Here's a thought based on some of these ongoing debates that may never be fully resolved.

I think you can generally rate the quality of an IBWO photo or video based on the types of questions that are debated on an ongoing basis.

In decreasing order of quality:

5. Is it an elaborate hoax?
4. Is it a simple hoax?
3. Is it an aberrant PIWO?
2. Is it a PIWO?
1. Is it a bird?

Examples of 1 in my opinion include Mike Collin's recent left and right birds and the few pixel black & white object from Luneau.

Examples of 2 include Mike Collin's earlier footage and the main Luneau escape segment.

For 4 we have Bill Smith's photo and the Lowery snapshots.

Personally I think making definitive claims about evidence of quality 1-3 is questionable, more questionble for lower quality numbers. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Cornell has set a precedent by doing this. I have no real problem calling 2-3 evidence intriguing.

Sometimes the provided evidence is just not sufficient to make definitive claims. This happens with birds of much less significance than IBWOs so people shouldn't take this as an attack. It's just what is reasonably expected of documentation. The mind fills in visual gaps, people make mistakes, people pull hoaxes.

don c.

 

[naples]

At 7:45 this morning I heard large woodpecker foraging so I setup the camera and waited from about 40 yards out. When the foraging continued, with sounds of bark falling, I slowly moved in to perhaps get a picture. The sun was in my face, thus color was plain. After observing for a few minutes I noticed a large woodpecker in the top of a tree and kind of down in a bowl, hollow at the top of the tree. His head would come into view occasionally and then back down again out of view. The head and bill appeared long of bone and the bill was a bright color. Moving around with video running I spooked him and gone. This bird was, as I said long of bone, of length. The video, posted on my website is all there is, just a quick 1 second of flight.
You probably, if interested, need to play it twice, once to buffer and next to see the flight.
Tough day searching today in the heat. Muscle cramps were a facture today.

The white and black on the underwing look more like an IBWO than PIWO and the tail looks very long.

Now go get your 10k...

 

[Snowy1]

Here's a thought based on some of these ongoing debates that may never be fully resolved.

I think you can generally rate the quality of an IBWO photo or video based on the types of questions that are debated on an ongoing basis.

In decreasing order of quality:

5. Is it an elaborate hoax?
4. Is it a simple hoax?
3. Is it an aberrant PIWO?
2. Is it a PIWO?
1. Is it a bird?

Examples of 1 in my opinion include Mike Collin's recent left and right birds and the few pixel black & white object from Luneau.

Examples of 2 include Mike Collin's earlier footage and the main Luneau escape segment.

For 4 we have Bill Smith's photo and the Lowery snapshots.

Personally I think making definitive claims about evidence of quality 1-3 is questionable, more questionble for lower quality numbers. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Cornell has set a precedent by doing this. I have no real problem calling 2-3 evidence intriguing.

Sometimes the provided evidence is just not sufficient to make definitive claims. This happens with birds of much less significance than IBWOs so people shouldn't take this as an attack. It's just what is reasonably expected of documentation. The mind fills in visual gaps, people make mistakes, people pull hoaxes.

don c.

In your rating scale, you don't have the question "could it be an Ivorybill?" but rather "is it a hoax?" Therefore the scale is swayed toward the pessimistic side and takes on a skeptic's point of view. This cannot happen in objective scientific analysis. You need to have an equally balanced scale, one end to the other.

Part of the reason I'm answering in this thread as opposed to the other is because of the recent footage from Goat. I think we would all agree that points 5 and 4 can be written off immediately. Therefore if it's not a hoax then the bird in his video (it is a bird, ruling out point 1) is likely either a Pileated or Ivorybill considering his description of knocking and of the bill, etc. As Mike said, it might be useful to include characteristics such as "crested". Beyond that, more analysis is required.

In the end however, Goat provided the best he could. In that environment, 90% of the time it's all you can get. He's not attempting to pull off a hoax; on the contrary he is trying to move forward. When comments fly is his face (such as earlier with Tim - "oh not another blurry video") it not only serves to frustrate readers on this forum, it essentially puts down all the hard work Goat went through in obtaining the video. I have a strong hunch that most don't know how hard it is to search for the Ivorybill. At least that is the impression I'm getting. While some people went birding this afternoon (not to mention names) they were more likely on a stroll in the park looking for sparrows than trudging through the heat, snakes and tangles of the Arkansas swamp.

The same can be applied, incidentally, to Mike Collins.

 

[MMinNY]

That's my impression about the underwing too...but it's just an impression.

The white and black on the underwing look more like an IBWO than PIWO and the tail looks very long.

Now go get your 10k...

 

[Goatnose]

Careful in the heat. It will kill you, you know. Good job though. What would you call it from what you saw in the field and with the tape?

Jesse

This time yesterday I was thinking that the observation was a good possible. After going through referrences those many drawings and photos that we all have studied, I am leaning back to Pileated. Remembering the white cheek patch and comparing that to yesterday's observation points more to Pileated.
I know the area well were this bird was seen. There is a tree near with several woodpecker cavities all lined up in a row ascending up the trunk with the newest looking cavity above the other about 2 foot apart , one of which was in use this past spring and may still be in use. That immediate area is where I wanted to be at daybreak this morning but leg cramps remain from yesterday. I plan to return to this area as soon as possible.

 

[fishcrow]

The white and black on the underwing look more like an IBWO than PIWO and the tail looks very long.

The flap rate also appears high, but I'm not sure how many frames per second are in the video.

 

[Jane Turner]

The flap rate also appears high, but I'm not sure how many frames per second are in the video.

The underwing looks right....the tail length looks right.....the flap rate is promising.....Yet the original observer now feels that it is a Pileated.

At least there is indisputably a bird present in this video!

 

[Snowy1]

The underwing looks right....the tail length looks right.....the flap rate is promising.....Yet the original observer now feels that it is a Pileated.

At least there is indisputably a bird present in this video!

This event represents very well how difficult it is to document the IBWO. Notice how quickly that bird took off - even with dense foliage. This is not an easy task. What people aren't understanding is this situation is occuring all the time - luckily Goat was able to get a short video - one of the skilled, lucky ones - even if it is a Pileated.

 

[chris murphy]

Goat

Can you give the web address of where this footage is?

Sorry if you've posted it already and I've missed it.

Regards

Chris

This time yesterday I was thinking that the observation was a good possible. After going through referrences those many drawings and photos that we all have studied, I am leaning back to Pileated. Remembering the white cheek patch and comparing that to yesterday's observation points more to Pileated.
I know the area well were this bird was seen. There is a tree near with several woodpecker cavities all lined up in a row ascending up the trunk with the newest looking cavity above the other about 2 foot apart , one of which was in use this past spring and may still be in use. That immediate area is where I wanted to be at daybreak this morning but leg cramps remain from yesterday. I plan to return to this area as soon as possible.

 

[Snowy1]

Goat

Can you give the web address of where this footage is?

Sorry if you've posted it already and I've missed it.

Regards

Chris

In case he ventured out...

http://www.tyler.rrtstudios.com/Ivory.htm

 

[Neil Grubb]

You seem to be making contradictory claims. On the one hand, you agree that the large black object passes behind the tree. On the other hand, you seem to be claiming that it's an inanimate object. Both of these can't be true. If it passes behind the tree, it must be real movement.

As far as appearance goes, it has a tail like an ivorybill, and it tracks across the picture in several frames. There is also the bold white feature that appears to be the top of the wing where it attaches to the body. If you claim that that feature doesn't look like part of a bird, you have no knowledge of the field marks of this species.

(i) I did not say that the black blob is an object, animate or inanimate. I said that it could be a composite shadow. That is an imaging artefact, which could be caused by overlapping lines in the foreground or background, more likely the latter. It is more likely to occur with a low res camera like yours or mine, and occurs when two overlapping objects are backlit. The direction of travel of a composite shadow depends on which of the overlapping lines is in front of which.

(ii) I am worried that this argument about interpretation of the clip detail is getting circular. If you want to make a personal remark about my birding knowledge, PM me. I made it abundantly clear in previous postings that, in my opinion, it is not possible to say with certainty that your video clip shows a bird. I am not alone in that view. I think it is overinterpretation to say that field marks are visible, and that has nothing to do with my field knowledge or lack thereof. I suspect that, from the tone of your response, we should agree to disagree on this point and leave it at that.

As a parting word, I would say I think your website is thought provoking and has generated a lot of good discussion; thank you for that and I will follow it with interest.

Neil

 

[chris murphy]

Thanks for that, it's an interesting site. Can't make much out on the video clip though, it is brief, but I wish you luck with future searching Goat.

Chris

In case he ventured out...

http://www.tyler.rrtstudios.com/Ivory.htm

 

[fishcrow]

(i) I did not say that the black blob is an object, animate or inanimate. I said that it could be a composite shadow.

A shadow on what? There's nothing but sky around that object.