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

[Jane Turner]

http://www.virtualbirder.com/fishcrow/bird_forum.jpg

Anyone care to comment on the shape of this bird's head or tail? Low-res interlaced images can transform shapes, there's just not enough detail to accurately reproduce the original shape below a certain resolution.
don c.

My Word Don - It looks like you just found a Pallas's Gull.

 

[Snowy1]

Snowy, I am afraid you are showing your bias - why are unchallenged reports insightful until they are challenged?

I did not ask for cinclodes 'descriptions' to be posted on this forum, but they were. So am I supposed to ignore them? We were discussing the value of field notes and sketches. It has been stated by cinclodes that taking field notes has no place in (his) IBWO searches. He does not think field notes are necessary - which is plainly ridiculous. Other IBWO searches might follow this example.

If you actually read my post it highlights a number of occasions where field notes would have been advantageous.

This fits the remit of this thread because I hope that other IBWO searchers will gain insight from my post by seeing how detailed notes would have helped to document these sightings properly.

Just a reminder - this is what Fang said in his opener:

"This thread has been initiated for those who wish to share new information about the ivory-billed woodpecker as well as insights into both historical and newfound evidence, for the purpose of moving forward on finding, documenting, and protecting ivory-billed woodpeckers. Its purpose is not to debate the validity of information, either historical or new."

The following is debate that should be reserved for the other thread, in my opinion:

"So, a bird in escape flight, flapping quickly, flying directly away - sounds very like the Luneau video. So are you sure you saw the upperwings or the underwings (which we know can look as if they are upperwings due to the twisting of wings in flight from the Luneau and Nolin videos)?

This is a pointless description. All sightings are different. Comparing one to another without any details of what was actually seen is worthless. The lack of details serves to emphasis the quality of the views.

no details = poor views"

This is debate that was not intended for this thread, although don't get me wrong, it is still important to debate. Just not here. I have received 2 private messages today affirming that this material shouldn't be here.

 

[KC Foggin]

To reiterate the initial post here, this thread was not set up for debate as to whether the IBWO exists or does not exist.

The initial thread on this subject which wound up turning into a debate thread is where the debating should be taking place.

http://www.bills-earth.com/ark_trip/searchoverview.html

 

[Bonsaibirder]

This thread constantly veers from its original aims. It seems illogical to reply to a post on one forum on another forum. Cinclodes posted descriptions of all his IBWO sightings on here, so I replied to them here.

I shall move that reply to the other thread if that's what you want.

Just to clarify, is it on-topic to discuss the gleaning of information from poor-quality video data on this forum?

Cheers,

To reiterate the initial post here, this thread was not set up for debate as to whether the IBWO exists or does not exist.

The initial thread on this subject which wound up turning into a debate thread is where the debating should be taking place.

http://www.bills-earth.com/ark_trip/searchoverview.html

 

[gws]

In fact, I just noticed one of them through your reply. I listen to those who have something worthwhile to say. That's why I was able to find ivorybills. But I don't waste my time reading or replying to rubbish. What's this about field experience? There are very few (if any) who have more field experience than I have with this species. Not that I consider that such a big deal. I knew the birds were there, and I went and found them. I was so confident of success that I publicly guaranteed it before starting my search. It was very exciting to find them, but it really wasn't a big deal. I will find them again this year.

I believed Kulivan and I have believed you all along.

But trust me, it is a very big deal.

 

[fishcrow]

I believed Kulivan and I have believed you all along.

But trust me, it is a very big deal.

Nah. In a few years, people will look back at this time and wonder what the controversy was all about. They will also realize that ivorybills were just waiting to be discovered in several locations.

 

[fangsheath]

This thread constantly veers from its original aims. It seems illogical to reply to a post on one forum on another forum. Cinclodes posted descriptions of all his IBWO sightings on here, so I replied to them here.

I shall move that reply to the other thread if that's what you want.

Just to clarify, is it on-topic to discuss the gleaning of information from poor-quality video data on this forum?

Cheers,

Not to speak out of turn, but since it seems to be a slippery slope, I propose that for now, presenting new evidence is on-topic, discussing its merits goes in the other thread. And that is not meant to assign blame to anyone.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Although I generally support the division of threads, it does seem to me that there's a lot of gray (i.e. "grey") area. Say, person A posts a photo, saying it shows an IBWO. Person B questions the identification as IBWO, based upon whatever he/she sees or doesn't see in the photo. If Person B is a declared skeptic, then his comments will likely be interpreted as "debating existence." If Person B is a "believer," then his comments will probably be considered to be some of the "insights" described in the thread's header. It seems to me to be a bit peculiar that a photo (or description, notes, observations of habits, habitat, etc.) can be posted here, but any comment about it must take place in the other thread. Or do the moderators intend to decide which comments are on-topic or off-topic, based upon their personal opinion of the poster's motives? How do they intend to distinguish between "discussion" and "debate?"

 

[Edward woodwood]

To reiterate the initial post here, this thread was not set up for debate as to whether the IBWO exists or does not exist.

The initial thread on this subject which wound up turning into a debate thread is where the debating should be taking place.

http://www.bills-earth.com/ark_trip/searchoverview.html

sort it out

this is farcical

stringclodes started posting evidence here...

one thread please

Tim

 

[theveeb]

There's no difference whatsoever. Everything in an image can be represented in terms of sinusoids.

As requested I have reposted my previous post from this discussion to the discussion/debate thread.

Mike, maybe you can comment there on the main point of that post which was the image processing steps that I took to simulate low-res video and the shape distortion that added to a known image, and the implications that that might have for your animated heads.

don c.

 

[fishcrow]

Mike, maybe you can comment there on the main point of that post which was the image processing steps that I took to simulate low-res video and the shape distortion that added to a known image, and the implications that that might have for your animated heads

That kind of simulation is useful. Essentially all of my data is now posted and has been discussed ad nauseum. The time has come to try to get more data. I will soon return to the Pearl.

 

[theveeb]

The time has come to try to get more data. I will soon return to the Pearl.

Good luck! Safe travels.

don c.

 

[Snowy1]

sort it out

this is farcical

stringclodes started posting evidence here...

one thread please

Tim

Not possible. New evidence and current reports here; rehash and debate of existing evidence in the other. The reason: the debate (which I like) just takes too long and too much time to sort through - the volume is enormous and complex at best. 2 threads is ideal for those who really need to be updated quickly with the latest info.

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Although I generally support the division of threads, it does seem to me that there's a lot of gray (i.e. "grey") area. Say, person A posts a photo, saying it shows an IBWO. Person B questions the identification as IBWO, based upon whatever he/she sees or doesn't see in the photo. If Person B is a declared skeptic, then his comments will likely be interpreted as "debating existence." If Person B is a "believer," then his comments will probably be considered to be some of the "insights" described in the thread's header. It seems to me to be a bit peculiar that a photo (or description, notes, observations of habits, habitat, etc.) can be posted here, but any comment about it must take place in the other thread. Or do the moderators intend to decide which comments are on-topic or off-topic, based upon their personal opinion of the poster's motives? How do they intend to distinguish between "discussion" and "debate?"

Well said - I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Snowy1]

Although I generally support the division of threads, it does seem to me that there's a lot of gray (i.e. "grey") area. Say, person A posts a photo, saying it shows an IBWO. Person B questions the identification as IBWO, based upon whatever he/she sees or doesn't see in the photo. If Person B is a declared skeptic, then his comments will likely be interpreted as "debating existence." If Person B is a "believer," then his comments will probably be considered to be some of the "insights" described in the thread's header. It seems to me to be a bit peculiar that a photo (or description, notes, observations of habits, habitat, etc.) can be posted here, but any comment about it must take place in the other thread. Or do the moderators intend to decide which comments are on-topic or off-topic, based upon their personal opinion of the poster's motives? How do they intend to distinguish between "discussion" and "debate?"

Not necessarily well said. I think the clarification should be as follows:

If person A posts a photo of an Ivorybill, then it should be here, correct. Person B forms an opinion. Regardless of whether person B is a skeptic or not, they should share their thoughts on the photo. What cannot be done, as said by the moderator yesterday, is to continuously debate the same subject matter - that is not for this thread. IE, cinclodes' material - whether it be new or old, the debate over it's clarity/validity/meaning etc etc is long and arduous at this point. That kind of discussion should be in the other thread.

 

[Snowy1]

Now for this thread's main purpose, for those who haven't seen it yet:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=66319

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Not necessarily well said. I think the clarification should be as follows:

If person A posts a photo of an Ivorybill, then it should be here, correct. Person B forms an opinion. Regardless of whether person B is a skeptic or not, they should share their thoughts on the photo. What cannot be done, as said by the moderator yesterday, is to continuously debate the same subject matter - that is not for this thread. IE, cinclodes' material - whether it be new or old, the debate over it's clarity/validity/meaning etc etc is long and arduous at this point. That kind of discussion should be in the other thread.

Thank you for your reply. You have, in fact, brought up something that my post (the one you quoted) didn't address. IMHO, it should be valid to post in this thread comments relevant to this hypothetical photo taken by Person A, and comments disputing Person A's interpretation are on-topic. But there is a tendency, which we've seen many times, for such discussions to dissolve into arguments about old, thoroughly hashed-out matters such as the Luneau video, etc., or into general flame-throwing contests. At that point it belongs in the other thread. IMHO, anyway.

 

[Snowy1]

As the Ivorybill threads keep growing, there is another one which posts this link, if you're interested in doing a survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=211781934539

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Given the reports of birds being in their holes for long periods during day, kent calls a half hour after sunset, and other similar information I am wondering if these birds really are more of a nocturnal nature or whatever the opposite of a heliotrope is. They like gloomy swamps and dark places.

Maybe that is a clue to explain behavior?

Jesse

 

[olivacea]

Given the reports of birds being in their holes for long periods during day, kent calls a half hour after sunset, and other similar information I am wondering if these birds really are more of a nocturnal nature or whatever the opposite of a heliotrope is. They like gloomy swamps and dark places.

Maybe that is a clue to explain behavior?

This post has really left me baffled. We are now looking for the world's only nocturnal woodpecker? What's the next hypothesis? That they are fossorial?

Later...
olivacea