Ivorybill Searcher's Forum: Insights and current reports (2 Viewers)

[Edward woodwood]

Cho;

From what I observed they were dealing with the IBWO.

sounds like you didn't actually see the IBWO though...

would that be correct?.

If you did see it, and identify it unquestionaby you should report it to several bird conservation organisations immediately.

but you know that, yet you never report them. Do you not care about them? Do you not want them to be protected?

Would you like me to let them know? I have high level contacts at BirdLife International. I am on the verge of doing it anyway.

Tim

 

[curunir]

Ibwo

Let me pose a question before the fact. If some really good video or photos pop up to the satisfaction of almost all sceptics, will all doubts about Gene and Mike's videos just go away?

 

[Edward woodwood]

Let me pose a question before the fact. If some really good video or photos pop up to the satisfaction of almost all sceptics, will all doubts about Gene and Mike's videos just go away?

if a really good video is there, then THE BIRD IN THE VIDEO will be acknowledged as a gen IBWO

But for goodness sakes, it has no bearing on any other record - is that not obvious?

Did i just mention stupid questions? or was that the other thread?

 

[timeshadowed]

Let me pose a question before the fact. If some really good video or photos pop up to the satisfaction of almost all sceptics, will all doubts about Gene and Mike's videos just go away?

My guess would be:

"NO"

There will always be 'die-hard skeptics' as far as the IBWO is concerned.

Possible comments like 'faked photo' will always remain
[about any new photos even if a clear photo is obtained].

TimeShadowed

edited to add comments in brackets

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Of course the answer is no! The quality of one photo does not affect the quality of another. I thought this was supposed to be the sensible IBWO thread!

By the way - where has anyone suggested that Mike Collins is faking images? Its amazing how often you guys make up the skeptic stance just so you can moan about it !! It is also amazing how you guys attribute one comment from one person to as many others as is convenient.

So here is my insight into IBWO searching. If you can't find any IBWOs

1] create your own flak so that you can respond to it with indignation
2] watch the crows instead - somewhere in amongst them there's sure to be an IBWO hiding
3] listen out for teals - when you hear them be careful - not all teal calls are teals
4] similarly not all Blue Jay calls are Blue Jays - IBWOs might be imitating Blue Jays
5] when all else fails use the phrase "makes a lot of sense" so that you can infer something utterly ridiculous. For example "I saw the leaves rustling significantly more violently in the tree where the large woodpecker landed than I have ever noticed while observing Pileated Woodpeckers. It occurred to me later that this makes a lot of sense. IBWO, its body mass being larger than PIWO, is bound to displace more leaves per second than PIWO, hance the 'over-rustling' feature."

My guess would be:

"NO"

There will always be 'die-hard skeptics' as far as the IBWO is concerned.

Possible comments like 'faked photo' will always remain.

TimeShadowed

 

[fangsheath]

I appreciate the agreement here that conclusions about one piece of evidence should not affect those about independent lines. I wish I could say that I perceive that others agree with us. Just look at Prum et al., who withdrew a paper about a video based on audio evidence. My perception is that when one "killer" video is obtained, suddenly all the other evidence will be given much greater weight in the minds of some. It is silly and unscientific in my view, but I think it is a sad reality that we have to deal with. Each piece of evidence should be taken seriously and each piece of evidence should be critically examined.

As for the "insight," I have let a lot of off-topic material slide here and I will
let this slide too. But let me remind everyone that this thread was created to help serious searchers find the birds. If you are not a searcher, you are still welcome. But don't insult our intelligence here, there is another thread with plenty of that.

 

[timeshadowed]

By the way - where has anyone suggested that Mike Collins is faking images?

Bonsaibirder,

You have misunderstood the remark:
'Possible comments like 'faked photo' will always remain.'

I was not suggesting that anyone here had suggested that Mike had 'faked' his photos.

I was referring to the first part of the original question:
'If some really good video or photos'

It seems that in the past, even a clear photo has been the subject of comments like 'faked photo'. I will not name names so as not to start more contraversy. But rather to just say that comments about earlier clear photos contain the words 'possible faked photo' can be found within the 'updates' thread and elsewhere here on the BirdForum.

TimeShadowed

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

"Not all teal calls are teal". Glad to see that you have reached a point of understanding. Not all IBWO calls are IBWO because they are blue jays mimicing. That is the position of the skeptics not those of us searching. I have never heard anyone state that they have heard a blue jay that sounds like an IBWO. But the skeptics always say that it is a possibility. To my knowledge no one that has heard an IBWO has said that they sound similar. The recordings of the birds are not even close.

Crows mob other birds. That is a fact. You may wish to continue to live in ignorance of it, but it is still a fact. Do they mob IBWO? Why, yes. It has been reported several times over the years in literature. You may not like it, but it is still a fact.

I report what I find. I openly state the conclusions to be drawn therefrom are open to critical thinking. If the conclusions are wrong we move on. But I don't ignore facts just to make people happy or to support a position. I don't ignore Mike Collins reports because they don't or do agree with a position. Frankly it is stupidity at its best to ignore observations from the field. I have said this before about the "experts" that have written this bird off for decades without even bothering to look or listen to what others have been telling them. That position still stands.

It seems that the only thing that is rarer than IBWO in the U.S. is a brit birder in the swamps.

 

[colonelboris]

It seems that the only thing that is rarer than IBWO in the U.S. is a brit birder in the swamps.

Believe me - if I just had the money....

 

[chris murphy]

Crows mob other birds. That is a fact. You may wish to continue to live in ignorance of it, but it is still a fact.

Exactly. Crows mob other birds. So why is it that they are necessarily mobbing an IBWO as opposed to any one of the other larger birds found in North America?????

It seems that the only thing that is rarer than IBWO in the U.S. is a brit birder in the swamps.[/QUOTE]

Maybe that's because, so far, there has been no compelling evidence to tempt us over there.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Let me pose a question before the fact. If some really good video or photos pop up to the satisfaction of almost all sceptics, will all doubts about Gene and Mike's videos just go away?

can i point out the inherent contradiction in this post?

I hope this time, no one is offended and this is not therefore removed.

Tim

 

[KC Foggin]

Tim, as much as you like the controversary, this is not the thread for it. You, along with a couple of others have pretty much made your feelings known about the IBWO. That's fine but not in this thread.

 

[timeshadowed]

It seems that the only thing that is rarer than IBWO in the U.S. is a brit birder in the swamps.

Maybe that's because, so far, there has been no compelling evidence to tempt us over there.

Why is it that most brit birders are unwilling to go out into the swamps to SEARCH for the IBWO themselves?

They seem very content to WAIT until someone else finds this rare bird so that all they need to do is come over here to 'tick' the IBWO for their lifelists.

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

Exactly. Crows mob other birds. So why is it that they are necessarily mobbing an IBWO as opposed to any one of the other larger birds found in North America?????

Well that question is fair enough. To my knowledge and from observation the birds that are being mobbed are making teal like calls. I know of no instance where a teal has been mobbed by crows. Also, the crows are in fact responding to the teal calls I make when the mobbing is going on. I also no of no owl or raptor that makes teal calls - birds that are mobbed by crows. We are also well aware that IBWO are mobbed by crows from reports from Cuba and Arkansas.

Since there are reports of teal like calls being made by IBWO one might put the pieces together to conclude that there is a possibility that A. the bird that is being mobbed MAY be an IBWO, particularly since there are no reports of teal being mobbed by crows or owls or raptors making teal calls. Or B. There is another answer of which we are not aware. This should be simple enough even for you folks to understand.

The next question becomes what to do with the information. An intelligent thought might be to A. consider the possibility that this is an IBWO and B. look to verify or disprove the theory that this may be an IBWO. One might then continue to do research and see if this is indeed a clue that may help someone in the field actually find a bird.

What would be plain stupid would be to ignore the information gathered and simply say, "IBWO are extinct". They may well be, (I know otherwise but this is stated in the abstract) but to merely accept that on faith is not very intelligent in light of the history of this bird. How many times does the bird's existance after being thought extinct need to be proven? Its clearly happened at least twice in the past. If Cornell, Mike, Cho, or I am correct, and I mean any one of us, that would make at least three times.

If you have the capacity to think it through the approach suggested really is no more difficult or different than learning what may be the call of an oriole and listening for it. Once it is heard you move to see the bird. If you find out in the process that it is not an oriole you might find out that it is another bird. In so doing you still learn something. There is nothing difficult, or even original, in the approach. If you still don't understand I am sure that if you look in Britain somewhere you will find a competent birder who will explain this process to you.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Tim, as much as you like the controversary, this is not the thread for it. You, along with a couple of others have pretty much made your feelings known about the IBWO. That's fine but not in this thread.

I don't like controversy - I posted because the question is incorrect

if 'almost all skeptics' are 'satisfied' then logically ALL doubts will not go away - because some skeptics remain unsatisfied.

seems clear to me

Tim

 

[Jesse Gilsdorf]

General query:

Probably a fangsheath question.

What is the current population of cerabamycid beetles vis a vis the 1930's? Any way in the world to find out? I also wonder particularly if the apparent small populations survived due to A. habitat preservation, B. food supply rebound or C. Lack of hunting. From what I can ascertain food supply has not been a problem nearly as much as A. and C. given the variety of food sources this bird appears to have. From the scalings I have seen they do seem to prefer STANDING trees that have not all the way died. I have never seen a downed tree that was then scaled. This was reported to have happened with campephilus imperialis but I have not observed it here.

Further, many of the standing trees are NOT old growth. They appear to be dying snags that have become heavily infested with cerabamycids and then scaled to get to the underlying food source.

Any thoughts.

Jesse

 

[chris murphy]

If you still don't understand I am sure that if you look in Britain somewhere you will find a competent birder who will explain this process to you.[/QUOTE]


Please don't question my competency, I have nothing to prove. The ones with competency issues are you people who are claiming to see these birds and then seem unable to provide a single scrap of evidence worthy of the word.

Are you also suggesting that there are a lack of competent birders in Britain??? Given what I've seen from some of the 'stateside' posts on here, that seems to be a little hypocritical.....

 

[Mike Johnston]

Tim, as much as you like the controversary, this is not the thread for it. You, along with a couple of others have pretty much made your feelings known about the IBWO. That's fine but not in this thread.

I don't think its got anything to do with controversy. Tim, and others like him, are simply asking the hard questions that would otherwise not get asked on this and the other thread. It's a question of keeping people's feet on the ground and of not getting carried away with every supposed revelation of IBWO 'activity'. Of pointing out obvious inconsistencies and sheer speculation when its blatantly apparent. I'm sure Tim would be as happy as anyone if the IBWO proves not to be extinct, but he's only asking what every sceptical member of the scientific community would ask if presented with the same 'evidence'. Unfortunately the stock response to this seems to be 'Well if you think you can do better, why not look yourself. Otherwise, shut up'. Censoring critical voices will do nothing but turn the thread into a free-for-all of unsupported speculation.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

but he's only asking what every sceptical member of the scientific community would ask if presented with the same 'evidence'.

There is another thread for that, in which Tim and other skeptics have participated freely. The skeptics don't want to be censored, but neither do those who are searching on their own time and their own dime want to have to parry aside every skeptical potshot simply to share their ideas. You may think they're crazy. Fine. There's a thread for that.

 

[KC Foggin]

I don't think its got anything to do with controversy. Tim, and others like him, are simply asking the hard questions that would otherwise not get asked on this and the other thread. It's a question of keeping people's feet on the ground and of not getting carried away with every supposed revelation of IBWO 'activity'. Of pointing out obvious inconsistencies and sheer speculation when its blatantly apparent. I'm sure Tim would be as happy as anyone if the IBWO proves not to be extinct, but he's only asking what every sceptical member of the scientific community would ask if presented with the same 'evidence'. Unfortunately the stock response to this seems to be 'Well if you think you can do better, why not look yourself. Otherwise, shut up'. Censoring critical voices will do nothing but turn the thread into a free-for-all of unsupported speculation.

Fine. Do it in the other IBWO thread. Not here.