John Wall of WorldTwitch pulls no punches in a one-paragraph "Ivory-billed Woodpecker update" currently posted here. More of his current thoughts on the subject are here.
Please note once again that those are his words, not mine.
“Gender-responsive climate action”
25 minutes ago
Posts
19 comments:
I understand groupthink, and I do believe that the white fieldmarks
can make the mind go blotto and
lose a certain amount of discernment.
We are however getting a fair number of sightings from Cornell. My skepticism works both ways. It's hard to believe really expert birders can be so consistently, continuously fooled by aberrant Pileateds. Unless of course it's the same 1-3 aberrant
birds that are close relatives
just making everyone stark-ravin'
bonkers...
And they must be dead-ringers from the back view. I have no evidence for that save for one report from
Florida.
I live in a part of the country
that doesn't get many Connecticut
Warblers except occasionally in the fall along rivers and such.
Pretty darn rare would characterize fall sightings in the East.
My first was really less than 10 seconds. I'm looking at yellowish-green large warbler
on the ground ...is it a Mourning Warbler? Suddenly it turns and gives me that look over the shoulder and the wild eye with the perfect eyering around it. Did I see an aberrant Mourning? A giant Common Yellowthroat? It behaved and looked like a thrush and then it flew off into the brush.
Of course I wasn't out *looking* for my first Connecticut Warbler. But I never had any doubts when I pulled out my Peterson's a few minutes later. That was 9 years ago.
Groupthink I'll buy, but we're verging on mass delusion here.
Of course history is rife with
such examples. We have the most ingenious pieces of imperfection
mounted on our shoulders!
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
We don't know who has seen the recent possible IBs, and what features they noted. The chances are they were fleeting glimpses of normal Pileateds.
I think the "true believers" are HERE not in Ithaca
I don't think it's mass delusion, just simple misinterpretation of glimpses. Mass delusion would be dozens of searchers watching through binoculars as Ivory-Bills feed at close range.
"We are however getting a fair number of sightings from Cornell."
With all those thousands of hours of observation and all those remote cameras, every single "sighting," every one, is a fleeting glimpse. If IBWOs exist in that area, and according to believers they've been seen there for at least three years now, why can't people ever get a good look? Has there ever, in history, been such a massive focused search for a bird "known to exist" with less results??
With that amount of effort, "false positives" are a virtual certainty. False positives aren't mass delusion, they're human nature. And these "sightings" are plucked out of countless glimpses of Pileated woodpeckers. Even Cornell gave an example of a "sighting" where glare made the secondaries of a Pileated appear white. I think this sighting would have been filed in the "probable" category had it not lasted long enough for the error to be noticed.
There are countless "false positives" with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and the like. The difference between reality and these legends is that reality doesn't disappear when you get a good look at it, and legends roll along for as long as people believe based on glimpses and fuzzy photos.
I guess it's just hard to believe people can say.. yeah I am 99 percent sure of what I saw...and
base that on a fleeting glimpse.
It *would* be historic for that
many erroneous glimpses by that many
experienced birders. I don't think
an IBW is any more like a PW than
my Connecticut Warbler is like a
Mourning or a Common Yellowthroat.
The difference is discernable
- to me - in a few seconds of viewing the CW, which I've had
3 times now. Perhaps the Elvis bird
wanders rarely into areas they are searching. Even a pileated with white feathers should be repeatedly photographable. Unless we also believe these are all being suppressed by a well-meaning group. (not out of the question)
Are aberrant PW's wil-of-the-wisps too? I don't see a lot of false
whites in the TVs, Crows and BVs
around my house (BV's are coming north), but now I'm willing to take
some longer looks and indulge that
hypothesis. I can't wait for the
exciting conclusion... or will
there be one in my lifetime?
Paul Sutera, New Paltz, NY
Well we don't know that they are 99% sure - Cornell are referring to the recent sightings as possible.
Of the earlier sightings people were 100% sure, but only noted one feature (white trailing edge). By Cornell's own recent defintion, these sightings should be downgraded to possible as only one feature was noted.
Do you know how experienced/good birders, people behind these sightings are?
"Even a pileated with white feathers should be repeatedly photographable."
Cornell has said there are photos of Pileateds with extra white on the wings. I don't think we've heard the whole story on these birds, and I know we haven't see the photos. Also, in the case of glare creating a "white secondaries" effect, you wouldn't be able to photograph that pileated later to show the error.
And even in the earlier sightings in the original report some of the people were't 100% sure.
To quote this blog:
It's important to remember that many of the birders behind Cornell's "convincing sightings" were not 100% sure themselves that they had seen an Ivory-bill. In the "Grail Bird", Tim Gallagher wrote: "I was annoyed that so many people were throwing out percentages about how sure they were that they had seen an ivory-bill. Ron and David were maybe 85 percent sure; Jim Fitzpatrick was 98.5 percent sure; now here was Mindy saying she was 99 percent sure of her sighting."
But I think it's true, ALL the original sightings should be downgraded to "possible."
Good point, thanks for correcting me on the 100% thing.
Nothing is 100% sure, lads. And "Mindy's" 1% doubt was, by her own statement, because the species was "freaking extinct," not because of anything she saw.
Two points made in Cornell's recently posted video analysis. They say the "abnormal pileateds" they have seen were moulting birds with excess white visible on the upperwing. This would not be white secondaries, however, and would not account for the descriptions of extensively white secondaries on birds in flight. They also mention that given the home range size of local Pileateds, any abberant individual in Bayou de View would have been encountered many times and been well-studied. They flatly state that they have not found any such bird. You will say, of course, that indeed they did and this bird is responsible for some of the Ivorybill sightings. However, there are very long gaps between Ivorybill sightings in spite of steady field work in Bayou de View. This is not consistent with an abnormal individual of a non-migratory species with a small home range. It should also be a relatively simple matter for anyone to spend a few days in the Bayou de View and get a photograph of this pileated, given their small home range. No such photo has been produced. The abnormal pileated hypothesis remains conjecture, unsupported by any evidence that has been presented to the public.
I suppose you could also day that long gaps between sightings is not consistent with another non-migratory species, albeit one that had a larger range size.
The problem with brief flight sightings is not knowing exactly what was seen. We are relying on these brief sightings, that there is a bird here with white secondaries (personally I don't think the video proves that the bird in it has them).
1. For the record, here is exactly what Cornell says in the "Conclusions" section of their online Luneau video analysis. I think the wording is very carefully chosen (the bold font is mine):
"Moreover, several traits of the bird in the Luneau video--size, wing shape, flight pattern, wingbeat frequency, absence of observations--also allow us to eliminate the hypothesis of a leucistic (“piebald”) Pileated Woodpecker having mostly white wings and a white back. Indeed, if it were a piebald Pileated Woodpecker, we would have gotten to know it quite well over the past two years considering the small home ranges of southern Pileated Woodpeckers and because of all the time spent in the region where this video was shot. Although a few molting pileateds showing some extra white on the wing have been spotted in the Big Woods region of Arkansas, we know of no photographs or specimens of Pileated Woodpeckers from anywhere in their range that exhibit extensive, symmetrical white plumage patterns approaching the bird in the Luneau video."
2. Here is some relevant abnormal Pileated information .
3. I doubt that anyone has spent a few days in Bayou De View, seriously trying to photograph abnormal Pileateds with the intent of sharing the photos with the public.
I doubt that anyone has spent a few days in Bayou De View, seriously trying to photograph abnormal Pileateds with the intent of sharing the photos with the public
Why not? Apparently at least some of the members of the first search team began quite skeptically, considering their reticence to accept even their own sightings ("because it's freaking extinct!"). Why would there not be camera-equiped birders in there looking for whatever they found? Indeed, what is preventing you from taking on the task yourself? It would do a great deal to clarify the "abnormal pileated" situation. If you found a pileated with symmetrical white secondaries, it would strengthen the skeptical position infinitely more than any continued verbal debate ever will. Whether intended or not, statements like this smack of "conspiracy theories."
And "Mindy's" 1% doubt was, by her own statement, because the species was "freaking extinct," not because of anything she saw.
Do you think there would be ANY doubt in their minds, had each of them gotten a really good look at close range, with time to tick off all the field marks?
The reason there was doubt, was the EXTRAORDINARY nature of their sighting coupled with the brief, incomplete looks they were getting.
I'd like to remind everyone again, that NONE of these looks were good enough to rule out all the possible, real world, proven alternate explanations, including glare, excitement, birds such as Noel Snyder's, http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2005/09/noel-snyder-on-potential-ivory-bill.html, aberrant birds, molting birds, etc.
It is quite likely that the sightings are explained by not just one, but several of these factors.
And it's not mean spirited to suggest that the sightings should meet Sibley's standard of "redundancy. Repeated sightings by independent observers of birds really well seen."
Only with repeated sightings of birds REALLY WELL SEEN can we be reasonably assured that there really are living Ivory-bills out there.
It's has never been this difficult to get good looks at Ivory-bills when a remnant population was known to survive, but no one will get a really good look if the bird doesn't exist.
"Why would there not be camera-equiped birders in there looking for whatever they found?"
Again, Cornell already admits that abnormal Pileateds have been seen well and photographed in the search area. They have chosen not to share those photos with the public.
Again, Cornell already admits that abnormal Pileateds have been seen well and photographed in the search area. They have chosen not to share those photos with the public.
I was talking about non-Cornell birders. Rumors to the contrary, Bayou de View is open to anyone who gets a permit from the Cache NWR headquarters (Cotton Plant AR). Permits are free, issued daily, first-come, first-served. Nothing stopping anyone, skeptic or otherwise, from going in there and seeing for themselves what the pileateds looks like, and take all the pictures they want. If the truth is out there, just go get it.
Why do you assume Cornell has those photographs anyway? Just like Jackson, they claim to have "seen" them, not to be in posession of them. Jackson did not release them either. Maybe they were taken by refuge personnel, and they are the ones who have the choice to release or retain them. No one has actually said who took them or who has them. Jim Bednarz was only said to have seen the birds, not photographed them.
It has also become apparent that it is difficult to attribute too much to second-hand reports of what Cornell (or any other) people have been reported to have said, but have not themselves published. There is an awful lot of heresay in this abberant pileated talk. Remember that Fitzpatrick was reported second hand to have recanted on the "six pixel bird," but in direct presentations both before and after that report he has clearly not recanted.
The abberant pileated hypothesis is a reasonable suggestion a priori, but it remains just a hypothesis with nothing supporting it but heresay. If this were a criminal court, the judge might be inclined to disallow the abberant pileated testimony and instruct the jury to disregard it.
If this were a criminal court, the judge might be inclined to disallow the abberant pileated testimony and instruct the jury to disregard it.
If I were in a court of law, why would I accept Cornell's word that their glimpses were Ivory-Bills and not accept their word that they've seen photos of aberrant Pileateds?
It would be easy to be mistaken on the former, and not very likely on the latter, don't you think?
It's not "hearsay" if it comes directly from Cornell.
Is there anyone here actually suggesting that Cornell is mistaken about seeing photos of those unusual Pileateds???
Remember that Fitzpatrick was reported second hand to have recanted on the "six pixel bird," but in direct presentations both before and after that report he has clearly not recanted.
And he also doesn't deny he said it. Notice that no one has publicly put that question to him. Cornell admitted nothing about the aberrant Pileateds until pressed, in public.
Is there anyone here actually suggesting that Cornell is mistaken about seeing photos of those unusual Pileateds???
Missing the point... the point being the sinister overtones with which it is repeatedly said "Cornell has refused to release the photos," implying a coverup. Well, maybe they don't even HAVE the photos to release! Maybe the owner of the photos, like so many people in this bizarrely overwraught situation, doesn't want to get caught up in the public battles.
Cornell has been quite thorough in showing us all the evidence that supports their Ivory-bill claims.
It is incumbent upon them to also produce any contrary evidence. Certainly, that would include any information on aberrant, leucistic or molting Pileateds in the area, for obvious reasons.
Despite this being a central issue in the debate, I don't think ANYONE, except for Cornell, knows exactly what sightings they had of those Pileateds, what kind of unusual plumage they had, how many photos there are, what those photos show, OR who owns them, for that matter. Regardless of what those facts are, or how damaging they may or may not be, Cornell needs to tell us the whole story.
Many of us want to know those answers, and I think we have a right to know these facts.
It's going to be a mighty hard sell if you're saying Cornell has been forthcoming on this issue.
Some of the postings above seem to fall into the trap of suggesting that the Cornell team should be providing supporting evidence, while skeptics should go out and get contrary evidence of their own. This is obviously folly, anyone with relevant evidence should share what evidence they have whether it supports their currently held view or not.
I know elsewhere there has been comment, and some disagreement, about Cornell's reputation and the role that reputation has played in promoting this story. Suffice it to say that Cornell's excellent reputation is a factor here, and there are two ways to uphold that reputation, one that Cornell can control and one that it cannot.
The thing that Cornell cannot control is the presence of additional evidence. Better evidence may come, or it may not. A crystal clear photo would be a great triumph for the team, but it may or may not be forthcoming.
The thing that Cornell can do to uphold it's reputation is provide all relevant evidence for peer review. When Cornell allows itself to be cast as a believer - working feverishly and in secret against wily skeptics - it has a problem. Cornell needs to present itself in every way as disintereted experts. "Here are the facts, all of the facts. And, as our peers will also tell you, here are the consensus conclusions that disinterested experts can reasonably make..."
Post a Comment