Ivory-billed Woodpecker: takeoffs with deep and rapid flaps + wing noises (3 Viewers)

[400+birder]

That object flying up the river could even be a Kingfisher for me?

No, field marks and size are wrong.

 

[400+birder]

Hi Mike,



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.



I'm not impressed much by unpublished assertions.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)

Do you understand you are being insulting here? Can you not write at a higher level? And you made a basic mistake, in front of everyone on the forum, by quoting Mike saying it would be easy to get a Pileated video to verify flap rate, then asking him why doesn't he get an IB video easily (read your post)? If you make such basic mistakes in reading and logic, how is anyone supposed to believe you interpreting nuances of statistics?

 

[400+birder]

You need to see the linked presentation, from about 38m, desperate stuff, don't know what his eyes are like.

Does it matter to you that you are insulting? No, for the kingfisher, he would need to see this video at the 30:00 mark--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpewgvEnphI

 

[PYRTLE]

Do you understand you are being insulting here? Can you not write at a higher level? And you made a basic mistake, in front of everyone on the forum, by quoting Mike saying it would be easy to get a Pileated video to verify flap rate, then asking him why doesn't he get an IB video easily (read your post)? If you make such basic mistakes in reading and logic, how is anyone supposed to believe you interpreting nuances of statistics?

Here we go again. The only thing confirmed regarding patterns is that all the IB disciples suddenly come on in a flurry of multi postings, talk to Mike via this public forum, rather than a personal conversation, and then feel insulted by some of the replies by members, seeking confirmation. Then fade away, much like their quarry, after links to inconclusive claims. Again, nothing new; just regurgitation of the same ageing stills and theories.
Anyhow, stay safe.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi "John",

Name another possible species.

That's a trolling technique called "baiting". I don't bite. If Mike claims it's an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, it's up to Mike to prove it's an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.

Mike offers flap rate as supporting other evidence, and supporting accepted knowledge for IB.

I have pointed out the fallacy in Mike's argumentation in mathematical terms. I suspect he's at home right now, doing his homework.

His assignment is:

"Where exactly is the quote that supports your assumption that flap rate is independent of basically all possible systematic parameters other than species?"

If he ever comes back with an sensible answer - and remember it took him 3 years just to acknowledge the question -, he will have laid the first brick of the "scientist" facade he's presenting. Rome wasn't build in a day either, and unlike Mike, the Romans were skilled architects who knew what they were doing.

Regards,

Henning

 

[Hauksen]

Hi "John"

If you make such basic mistakes in reading and logic, how is anyone supposed to believe you interpreting nuances of statistics?

If you think this is about "nuances", I take that as a sign you're not overly familiar with math!

Mike has firmly planted his feet into thin air over a deep, deep chasm. Everyone can verify that, no trust in my own fallible person is required.

This is college level math ...

Central limit theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first sentence really tells you most of the story, if you understand the terminology. To sum up the relevant bits from the Wikipedia entry, "Sigma", the standard deviation, is quantifying a normal distribution, which is approximated by a sufficiently high number of independend random variables. The inevitable conclusion is that you can't calculate anything with sigma if you have non-random influences violating the prerequisites of a normal distribution, and if Mike can't demonstrate that there are no systematic influences on flap rate in bird flight, his claim stands entirely, completely and utterly unsupported.

The "assignment" I gave Mike shows him the way to recovery from having his "evidence" build on thin air. So, I'm really being constructive, regardless of what I think of Mike's and his friends' behaviour in this forum. I'm not entirely certain that this gets properly appreciated by everyone here, or his alter egos, at all times.

Regards,

Henning

 

[400+birder]

These types of threads repeatedly get resurrected for their own reasons, and that seems to be because the bird's traits are apparent, but the only actual evidence was of the video shot back in the 30's

. People say they have heard, seen and identified the bird but where the is the solid evidence? Unless someone gets a photo of this bird, it is possible that it is extinct. These threads seem similar to the "yellow-billed crow" of the Americas as well. To anyone out there looking for this bird good luck.

You are misusing "actual evidence" and "solid evidence," whatever the latter means, when you probably mean "clear image." For example--http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/biology/dmennill/IBWO/IBWOsounds.php

 

[400+birder]

Hi "John",



That's a trolling technique called "baiting". I don't bite. If Mike claims it's an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, it's up to Mike to prove it's an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.



I have pointed out the fallacy in Mike's argumentation in mathematical terms. I suspect he's at home right now, doing his homework.

His assignment is:

"Where exactly is the quote that supports your assumption that flap rate is independent of basically all possible systematic parameters other than species?"

If he ever comes back with an sensible answer - and remember it took him 3 years just to acknowledge the question -, he will have laid the first brick of the "scientist" facade he's presenting. Rome wasn't build in a day either, and unlike Mike, the Romans were skilled architects who knew what they were doing.

Regards,

Henning

No answer there, as expected. In public.

 

[400+birder]

Here we go again. The only thing confirmed regarding patterns is that all the IB disciples suddenly come on in a flurry of multi postings, talk to Mike via this public forum, rather than a personal conversation, and then feel insulted by some of the replies by members, seeking confirmation. Then fade away, much like their quarry, after links to inconclusive claims. Again, nothing new; just regurgitation of the same ageing stills and theories.
Anyhow, stay safe.

Fade away means to go do real work on the species. It's worth being on Birdforum, and tolerating the uninformed, unprofessional, and non-logical, because the other people who understand reason are here too.

 

[Jacana]

Mike, I completely believe this is an IB, and much of what you've done has shaped my recent profession career. And I understand that you have been through a lot, to put it briefly. But in your initial post, "it doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks," I hope you recognize overstatement. We're human, we have feelings. Yes, I've had some modifying questions here and there, with my background in natural sciences, but not to negate your work. John

Mike John, if you really dont care what others think, why do you insist on returning to this forum with thread after thread and a legion of sock puppet accounts to try an convince us and then get defensive when perfectly legitimate questions are asked?

And maybe spend more time in the field looking for the birds and less time rehashing old arguments with dubious footage. While you're at it, why don't you devote more of your resources into field work than publishing in predatory/semi-predatory journals (the $4000ish dollars you've paid just to publish two articles in Scientific Reports would surely have been better spent on buying a proper camera...)

 

[Hauksen]

Hi "John"

No answer there, as expected. In public.

It's Mike's turn to answer. I'll patiently wait until our "MIT-trained mathematician" has read up on the basics of normal distributions.

Regards,

Henning

 

[400+birder]

After the bird watching community failed for decades to document a magnificent bird that resides in an easily accessible region, many bird watchers reacted with hostility toward those who spent long periods of time in the field and managed to find them. Other than how it could impact conservation, it doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks. My data have been published, and the truth will eventually prevail, as it always does in science.

In case anyone here is interested in the truth, I recently discovered something that had been overlooked in a video that was obtained during an encounter with two Ivory-billed Woodpeckers at a site where an ornithologist had recently had a sighting. During one of the events in that video (which runs for more than 20 minutes), both birds are visible at the same time. Within a few seconds of each other, they take off with deep and rapid flaps and wing noises that are audible from a distance. Those flights are consistent with the following account by Tanner:

"The wing-feathers of Ivory-bills are stiff and hard, thus making their flight noisy. In the initial flight, when the wings are beaten particularly hard, they make quite a loud, wooden, fluttering sound, so much so that I often nicknamed the birds 'wooden-wings'; it is the loudest wing-sound I have ever heard from any bird of that size excepting the grouse."

These flights, which can only be attributed to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, may be viewed in a movie (187 MB) that may be downloaded here. The wingbeats during one of the flights are compared with the wingbeats of an Imperial Woodpecker and Pileated Woodpeckers here. Prior to those flights, the other bird came in for a landing that is consistent with an account by Eckleberry of a landing with "one magnificent upward swoop." The footage of this landing may be downloaded here. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is the only plausible explanation for this landing and the field marks, which are discussed here.

Two other conclusive videos were obtained in Louisiana. For one of them, the attached size comparison is an improvement over a comparison that has already been published. The large woodpecker in the video is clearly larger than a Pileated Woodpecker. There is no way to explain this away. It was perched on a tree with two forks that facilitated the scaling of the reference photo relative to images from the video. The size alone is conclusive, but the woodpecker in that video has several characteristics and behaviors that are consistent with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker but not the Pileated Woodpecker.

When will people wake up and recognize the truth? Hopefully, this will happen before it is too late to save the Ivory-billed Woodpecker from extinction.

Mike Collins
Alexandria, Virginia
fishcrow.com

I am not seeing a bird before about the five second mark; is it from the same tree?

 

[400+birder]

Mike John, if you really dont care what others think, why do you insist on returning to this forum with thread after thread and a legion of sock puppet accounts to try an convince us and then get defensive when perfectly legitimate questions are asked?

And maybe spend more time in the field looking for the birds and less time rehashing old arguments with dubious footage. While you're at it, why don't you devote more of your resources into field work than publishing in predatory/semi-predatory journals (the $4000ish dollars you've paid just to publish two articles in Scientific Reports would surely have been better spent on buying a proper camera...)

1. I am not Mike 2. Did you miss that Mike began this thread with new evidence? I counter your use of the word "us," as if many agree with you, with the idea that many readers see that you don't make sense, especially your statement regarding 2.

 

[400+birder]

Hi "John"



It's Mike's turn to answer. I'll patiently wait until our "MIT-trained mathematician" has read up on the basics of normal distributions.

Regards,

Henning

You're going to need lots of patience, because I don't believe he will, or needs to, answer you. He began the thread with a completely different topic. You do not seem to be able to rise above sarcasm (quotes e.g.). I go with MIT.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi "John",

You do not seem to be able to rise above sarcasm (quotes e.g.). I go with MIT.

"MIT-trained mathematician" is in quotes because it's a quote from Mike's self-description. "John" is in quotes because I'm quoting the name you gave me without much trust that it's your real name. That's not sarcasm, that's just signalling "I'll play along even if I'm 99 % sure it's just Mike again".

(Not that I think there's anything wrong with using sarcasm on math-dodgers.)

Of course, if you don't have the background to understand the math, by all means rely on your instinct, and if you trust Mike, fine with me. I'll just point out that in that case, you're out of your depth in telling me I'm "interpreting nuances of statistics" when in fact I've just pulled out the entire rug under Mike's finest illusion.

He began the thread with a completely different topic.

It says "rapid flaps" right in the subject line, so it's perfectly normal to be discussing flap rates here I don't think "he" had a problem with that either, as he was actually less nasty (on a per-word basis) in his replies to me than he was to the rest of the posters here. Still not quite exemplary "sine ira et studio" level, but I was pleasantly suprised nevertheless.

Regards,

Henning

 

[dantheman]

Don't know if it's been suggested before, but reckon one way to sort this once and for all would be to go to that wooded river valley in Louisiana and build a series of regularly spaced and accessible Ivory Towers throughout the habitat ...


That way anyone could visit and enjoy a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world whilst enjoying the scenery. The ideal vacation?!?!

 

[400+birder]

Exactly Andy. The IBW has had quite an intensive campaign ( volunteer hours, funding ) to find conclusive evidence about it's existence for quite a few years exploring old sites, perfect habitat equipped with suitable optics, cameras and audio recording gear, yet still nothing but hypothesis. Even some IBW Pro campaigners here on Birdforum who came in like a lion but left as a lamb......pileated canada bull, 1 TruthSeeker, Motihal, Dianne D.

I was reading about the Black - Browed Babbler being re discovered after an absence of c.180 years with acompanying images. Fascinating news.

I do not expect to change your mind, but your statement "nothing but hypothesis" is probably unaware of this (presented to USFW today)--

Since the year 2000, all expeditions that have searched for the Ivory-Bill have reported encounters. These were by professionals with advanced degrees, and professional organizations. They have obtained documentation. Critics of the documentation and evidence have taken the stance of being cautionary (as they should be) but NOT dismissive. Close study of the evidence shows that the criticisms have been addressed.

Cornell Ornithological Lab—sightings and audio evidence with sonogram matching to known Ivory-Bill kents

David Luneau—encounter with video that shows Ivory-Billed field marks

Auburn University—sightings and video with analysis that shows Ivory-Bill field marks. Extensive audio of double-knocks and kent sonograms that match Ivory-Bill

Mike Collins—sightings and three separate videos with morphometric analysis that show Ivory-Bill field marks. Audio analysis of kent sonograms and double knocks that match Ivory-Bill. Math-based evidence published in peer-reviewed journals

Bobby Harrison—video of bird with field marks matching Ivory-Bill

National Biodiversity Parks—multiple encounters with extensive datasets

Project Coyote—sightings and multiple still images of birds that match Ivory-Bill. Guy Luneau math analysis of image. Kent sonograms that match Ivory-Bill.

Mission Ivorybill—most recent sightings of bird.

These are EIGHT separate efforts, and in EIGHT different locations, that have found evidence for the bird since 2000. The most recent was a visual sighting this year.

 

[Hauksen]

Hi John,

Mike Collins—sightings and three separate videos with morphometric analysis that show Ivory-Bill field marks. Audio analysis of kent sonograms and double knocks that match Ivory-Bill. Math-based evidence published in peer-reviewed journals

Well, the "peer-review" argument again. Mike's math, as shown above, is built on a gaping hole, and as that didn't lead to a rejection of his article, the peer review process was obviously flawed from a scientific point of view.

That might be not entirely accidental ...

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.

I don't think Mike ever responded to that

Regards,

Henning

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Jacana,

Mike John, if you really dont care what others think, why do you insist on returning to this forum with thread after thread and a legion of sock puppet accounts to try an convince us and then get defensive when perfectly legitimate questions are asked?

I believe there's a historical precedent: The discovery of the Okapi was only possible through long and arduous internet discussion in which brave discoverers never shied back from aiming scorn at their antagonists while skillfully dodging criticism as if it consisted of mere words on a screen.

While you're at it, why don't you devote more of your resources into field work than publishing in predatory/semi-predatory journals (the $4000ish dollars you've paid just to publish two articles in Scientific Reports would surely have been better spent on buying a proper camera...)

Thanks for providing a ballpark number for this kind of activity. That's an expensive hobby to have!

Regards,

Henning

 

[chris murphy]

I do not expect to change your mind, but your statement "nothing but hypothesis" is probably unaware of this (presented to USFW today)--

Since the year 2000, all expeditions that have searched for the Ivory-Bill have reported encounters. These were by professionals with advanced degrees, and professional organizations. They have obtained documentation. Critics of the documentation and evidence have taken the stance of being cautionary (as they should be) but NOT dismissive. Close study of the evidence shows that the criticisms have been addressed.

Cornell Ornithological Lab—sightings and audio evidence with sonogram matching to known Ivory-Bill kents

David Luneau—encounter with video that shows Ivory-Billed field marks

Auburn University—sightings and video with analysis that shows Ivory-Bill field marks. Extensive audio of double-knocks and kent sonograms that match Ivory-Bill

Mike Collins—sightings and three separate videos with morphometric analysis that show Ivory-Bill field marks. Audio analysis of kent sonograms and double knocks that match Ivory-Bill. Math-based evidence published in peer-reviewed journals

Bobby Harrison—video of bird with field marks matching Ivory-Bill

National Biodiversity Parks—multiple encounters with extensive datasets

Project Coyote—sightings and multiple still images of birds that match Ivory-Bill. Guy Luneau math analysis of image. Kent sonograms that match Ivory-Bill.

Mission Ivorybill—most recent sightings of bird.

These are EIGHT separate efforts, and in EIGHT different locations, that have found evidence for the bird since 2000. The most recent was a visual sighting this year.

All of these encounters and not one single clear unambiguous picture. What are the chances?