Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (85 Viewers)

[MMinNY]

An interesting footnote to this story: there's a letter from George Lowery to James Tanner in the Tanner files saying, essentially, that based on his personal knowledge of Fielding Lewis, if Lewis was lying, he'd never be able to trust anyone again. Tanner didn't have much to say in response, although it's pretty clear he was unpersuaded.

No question that both Lowery and Lewis were treated disgracefully, just as Agey and Heinzmann were.

Not my contention at all thank you. What I said was essentially, if I had been treated as disgracefully as this gentleman was, I would have given the same warning he apparently did to this SELF ADMITTED non-birder - essentially shut up and enjoy them. I would not subject anyone else to the persecution this gentleman endured throughout his life because of a couple of photos. Essentially the same garbage some have experienced on this board.

 

[salar53]

I have no problems in recognising names thankyou. Your contention that there's no point in taking a photo if you knew Fielding Lewis makes no sense other than being another excuse as to why (again), no photos have been produced from, alleged, multiple sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Genuine photos are genuine photos, I think modern technology would have no problems in proving that.

Lets face it, sceptics will find it far easier to be sceptical of these alleged sightings in the absence of irrefutably genuine photos (or any other irrefutable evidence for that matter).

Johnny, Fielding Lewis's photographs are in the public domain and they undoubtedly show an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
You mention the phrase, "irrefutably genuine photos". Are you saying they are faked? Can you prove it with all the modern technology at your disposal?

It is interesting that IBWO searcher Bobby Harrison is convinced about the genuineness of the photographs. He says that the bird looks real, as if it had been preening its feathers regularly.

I will leave you with the words of Fielding Lewis's friend, Idlewild (20th February at ibwo.net).

Thanks Jimbones for the kind comments. Jayboe you are right on target.

One of the things that has always bothered me about the critics of the Fielding Lewis photographs is the practical aspect of the event.

If the photographs were faked then what motivated him to fake them? Was it money? No he never made, nor did he ever try to make a penny from them. Was it fame or recognition? No, they were issued anonymously and he never came forward until the criticism was great, odd for someone seeking that type of thing. Did he have a history of being the type of person who would intentionally fake something or create a hoax? No, throughout his long life that was never something he was known to do.

Did he want to prove the existence of the birds because he was blessed with the opportunity to do so? Make your own assessment on that issue. I have made mine.

 

[salar53]

A sceptic might ask that if they had a roost hole which was, on more than one occasion, visited by Ivory-billed Woodpecker, why did they not get photographic or video evidence ?

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

And just to spell it out, Fielding Lewis DID indeed produce photographic evidence in 1971.:t:

 

[cyberthrush]

re: the Lewis photos

If the photographs were faked then what motivated him to fake them?
[/I]

Not to throw too much cold water on this subject, but I've never felt motive is necessarily a major issue here: for anyone who's ever pulled a good prank (and I imagine that's most of us at one time or another) the reward is just in pulling it off successfully, not money or recognition necessarily; indeed sometimes 'country-folk' especially like to pull pranks on city or academic folk... I happen to believe the Lewis pics are most likely genuine, but there are aspects, totally apart from motive, that bother me.
Moreover, EVEN IF Lewis' pics were PROVEN genuine (and I don't doubt at all that IBWOs did survive into the 1970's) it still tells us little about the species possible persistence yet 30+ more yrs. later.

 

[salar53]

Moreover, EVEN IF Lewis' pics were PROVEN genuine (and I don't doubt at all that IBWOs did survive into the 1970's) it still tells us little about the species possible persistence yet 30+ more yrs. later.

Well, I respectfully disagree, Cyberthrush. For example, if the photographs are genuine, then Fielding Lewis was also likely being truthful when he said that he last saw the bird in 1989. Getting recent, aren't we?

And Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, like donkeys, live for a long time. On your own blog you have a link to The Nature Conservancy. Someone there reckons that the IBWO can live for up to thirty years.

Now I'll admit I'm stretching it a little bit here. But let us suppose that Fielding Lewis's bird was only one year old when he saw it in 1989. That means with a little luck (OK, lots) that that bird will be around until 2018.

Oh ye of little faith!

 

[Johnny Allan]

Johnny, Fielding Lewis's photographs are in the public domain and they undoubtedly show an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
You mention the phrase, "irrefutably genuine photos". Are you saying they are faked? Can you prove it with all the modern technology at your disposal?

You clearly haven't read my posts properly. Show me where I have claimed that the Fielding Lewis photos are fake or where I have even claimed that they aren't Ivory-billed Woodpecker. However, I am correct in saying that the Fielding Lewis photos have been (rightly or wrongly), refuted by some so you must agree that they are not irrefutable.

See here about 24 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqZXPUDTmOc

Surely if Fielding Lewis's friend had obtained irrefutable and unequivocal photos of Ivory-billed Woodpecker from multiple sightings, and published them, he would have been doing the memory of Fielding Lewis a great service would he not. Unfortunately, it seems he was unable to obtain irrefutable evidence.

 

[Johnny Allan]

Did you even notice the name in the previous post? Fielding Lewis HAD photos of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and skeptics found every reason they could to disregard them. Under the circumstances, I could not imagine him, or anyone associated with him, being willing to produce anything more for people to poke holes in.

But this chap who knew Fielding Lewis was "willing" to produce something that people could "poke holes in", a claim of multiple Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings without irrefutable evidence.

 

[humminbird]

But this chap who knew Fielding Lewis was "willing" to produce something that people could "poke holes in", a claim of multiple Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings without irrefutable evidence.

He posted that note on a board where others were posting similar notes and challenges etc. are not allowed (I know because I have been informed sternly but politely that comments I made were not appreciated by the board moderators). Someone else chose to post a link to it on an open board where discussion is allowed. While I am not convinced the birds in question are Ivory-billed, I am not convinced it is not possible they could be.

 

[cyberthrush]

...While I am not convinced the birds in question are Ivory-billed, I am not convinced it is not possible they could be.

folks here are probably familiar enough with the Lewis story/pictures to understand what you meant Humminbird, but in case not, and just to be perfectly clear, it may be worth saying that unlike other photos/video, there's never really been any doubt that the Lewis photos show an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, the only question being whether it was a living bird or a stuffed specimen or prop of some sort.

 

[humminbird]

I was referring to the birds in question in Louisiana today. I am not convinced they are Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, but I remain unconvinced that it is not possible that they could be.

 

[j0hnguy]

New photos photos have been published by the "Ivory Bill Photo Project."

There are 3 very interesting "Mystery Birds" but bird #3 is especially so.

http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home

 

[Apodemus]

#1 and #2 are birds?

 

[Johnny Allan]

Have they been able to get better photos since 2007 ?

 

[Binocularface]

Would seem there has been a feature film made of this whole thing:
http://www.kolibriexpeditions.com/b...ecker-in-the-movies-narrative-and-documental/

 

[humminbird]

New photos photos have been published by the "Ivory Bill Photo Project."

There are 3 very interesting "Mystery Birds" but bird #3 is especially so.

http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home

Could not see anything at all on this site.

 

[salar53]

New photos photos have been published by the "Ivory Bill Photo Project."

There are 3 very interesting "Mystery Birds" but bird #3 is especially so.

http://www.ivorybillphotoproject.com/home

Thank you for that link.

I'm sure I can see a white shield on "Blurry Headed Bird #2". The authors say it is too large to be a Red Headed Woodpecker. So, I'll say it: it could possibly be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker!
Likewise, I can see an extensive white trailing edge on the large "Mystery Bird #1".

These images could turn out to be more than "very interesting". And of course, I certainly hope so.

 

[martin kitching]

Like most of what has gone before, the comparison species are always identifiable (at least as birds)...

cheers
martin

 

[Imaginos]

I'm ambivalent about #1 - not 100% sure it is a bird even but if it is it's still too blurry to make any judgement. I really can't see a bird in #2, even the enlargement doesn't convince me that there's really anything there.

#3 is the clearest but I can't be sure whether that is a white 'shield' or either something (e.g a leaf) in front of the bird or sky behind (with the bird sitting at a significantly different angle to that posited). To me it doesn't look that different from the Pileated in the foreground. I know it's a completely different Genus, but I've been watching the GSW that visits our peanut feeder recently and the variety of poses and angles it chooses to land on the feeder and the trees around it are striking - I even saw it briefly land in 'nuthatch' pose upside-down at the weekend!

If these photos are the best so far then I am pessimistic that these cameras will provide anything other than blurry images that are too open to interpretation to be definitive either way. As always, I hope to stand corrected...

 

[dave_in_michigan]

Bill Pulliam provides a comparison of the same view with and without bird #3 present -- he and others apparently got copies over a year ago for review. His comments and analysis are posted at his blog site.

For the other "mystery birds" an additional pic with no bird present might also help to sort out what's what, but all the reconyx black and white stuff is pretty low res.

 

[Imaginos]

Bill Pulliam provides a comparison of the same view with and without bird #3 present -- he and others apparently got copies over a year ago for review. His comments and analysis are posted at his blog site.

For the other "mystery birds" an additional pic with no bird present might also help to sort out what's what, but all the reconyx black and white stuff is pretty low res.

I haven't been able to make the loops posted there work on my computer but my eye is drawn to this comment: "The first loop is a rapid blink of shots 1 and 3, the birdless frames. In between these two shots, the camera position shifted slightly" Is this a common occurence with this style of camera?