Why don't we have better photos?

Here's an excerpt from an Ivory-bill Q and A page on Cornell's site:

Q. Why don’t you have better photos of this bird?

A. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker moves frequently and covers long distances, perhaps up to 10 miles in a single day. Additionally, it is skittish and elusive. Locating centers of activity can be difficult. Thus, most observations are made while the bird is on the wing flying through dense forests, which makes photography a challenge. An objective of this year’s search is to find roost or nest cavities that would facilitate better documentation and study of the bird.

I find this explanation very unsatisfying. For one thing, we have no evidence that Ivory-bills routinely traveled 10 miles per day. Note that on page 32 of "The Ivory-billed Woodpecker", Tanner wrote "...in the Singer Tract a pair of Ivory-bills in the nesting season ranged over from three to four square miles".

The reason that the observations are uniformly lousy looks? I think the observed birds have almost certainly been seen very well on many other occasions, but every single time a bird is seen well (or clearly photographed), it's not an Ivory-bill. Here's a classic real-world example.

(Note to my long-term readers--of course, in current posts you'll often see points that I've made previously. This is mostly a concession to new readers, since it's unreasonable to assume that they've read and understood all of the older posts).