I respectfully disagree with just about everything in the 23-minute lies.com podcast available here.
1. The podcaster (John Callender) seems to think that (according to sound spectrum analysis) some recorded Arkansas kent-like calls are a good match for real (recorded 1935) Ivory-bill calls.
That's just not true. Check out the two spectogram pictures available here. Do those two spectograms look like a good match to you?
Since this mismatch was a big problem, Cornell "degraded" the original calls by broadcasting them through foliage at 145 meters, then re-recording them. Of course, if you degrade the "target" evidence sufficiently, you can always find field evidence that appears to match. It's not unlike claiming that your video (of a Pileated and branch stub) match highly-degraded video of Ivory-bill models.
2. Callender seems to agree that Cornell's stiff-winged models are seriously flawed, but then suggests that Sibley should create models with wings that do move in a lifelike manner!
3. Callender still seems impressed by Cornell's "wingbeat frequency" argument (if you're a Cornell grad, this argument in particular should make you cringe).
For one thing, Cornell's claim about the Luneau bird's wingbeat frequency is clearly bogus.
For another thing, Cornell has a single data point for the wingbeat frequency of a fleeing Ivory-bill, and that claim may also be bogus.
The 1935 wingbeats (analyzed by Cornell here) may not be the wingbeats of a fleeing Ivory-bill. The recorded sounds may have been made by an agitated Ivory-bill fluttering near the nest hole.
Listen to the wingbeats here (WAV format). Why do the wingbeats stop abruptly? Note that the eighth wingbeat is still fairly loud, and although the recording continues, no further wingbeats are heard. If the bird was really fleeing, why don't we hear (and why doesn't the spectrogram show) wingbeats 9, 10, etc?
Antarctic Sea Ice AREA – Day 272
12 minutes ago