On Christmas Eve, Tyler Hicks got an outstanding look at a female Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Only three people were in camp that day—Drs. Greg and Diane Lewbart and Tyler. Tyler heard double knocks in early morning, and using his radio he called Greg and Diane toward the location. Diane was first on the scene and she heard three kent calls. Things then quieted down and everyone went back to cavity surveys. An hour or so later, Greg and Diane heard four double knocks southwest of the area birds had been detected, and they called Tyler. Tyler rendezvoused with Greg and Diane and headed off in the direction they heard the double knocks...2. Greg is the author of a 1996 novel called "Ivory Hunters: A Novel of Extinction".
3. Note this sentence from "Greg and Diane" here:
As a quick comparison, our "life list" contains about 125 species (Noah has 1300 and Tyler 2250).4. Greg's biography is available here.
Posts
36 comments:
Eh? 125 species? I was on holiday in the states last year and got 89 species, on a trip that was not specifically for birding. Have they been walking around with their eyes closed? Surely you can accidentally see more than 125 species in North America in a short space of time?
Heck, I'm not a birder, although I love to photograph large birds, such as cranes, raptors, etc., as well as eat them (uh, turkey & pheasant, not eagle & osprey, although I'm always open to good food suggestions!)
But I'm certainly past 125 species (yeah, a lot of my friends can tell all of the way-too-similar sparrow and warbler species apart ... I don't care to!)
Tyler's list should be revised to 2249!
125 species is not even a respectable big DAY list.
This is the problem with you skeptics. You sit around in your comfortable homes tearing apart people you have never met. Meanwhile, they are actually out there getting their feet wet and doing something worthwhile. Who are you to judge the competentcy of those in the swamp or their efforts? You have no idea of the realities of the work going on down there. You are nothing but a snob if you think Greg is inferior to anyone just because his life list is smaller than yours. Your list was "small" at one point too. I think it's great that he and Diane have had their eyes opened to the world of birds and their list will certainly grow. Maybe you are just jealous that someone "inferior" to you might have Ivory-billed Woodpecker on their life list while you don't. Maybe if you got off the computer and went into the swamp yourself you could encounter one too.
It is too bad that everyone in Hill's group can't be an experienced birder, but the truth is, it really doesn't matter. We have already established that a sight record is never going to be good enough, regardless of the qualifications of the observer. Proof = undisputed photo or video. It makes no difference the size of the life list of the person who shoots it. Which raises the question of why, Tom, you felt the need to subject these people to ridicule like this? Seems unnecessary to say the least.
"Maybe if you got off the computer and went into the swamp yourself you could encounter one too."
I've seen plenty of rare birds in swamps, just not extinct ones.
"if you think Greg is inferior to anyone"
I wasn't implying that HE was inferior, just that his knowledge of and zeal for birding are clearly subpar.
"someone "inferior" to you might have Ivory-billed Woodpecker on their life list"
It is abundantly clear that inferior birders are the only ones likely to tick IBWO. Why would any serious birder ever be jealous of the self-delusion of stringers?
Unqualified people have disrespected serious scientists and birders throughout the IBWO "rediscovery", with the blessing of the CLO and other people who should know better. Their peers have largely rejected the "rediscovery", so IBWO TBs have been forced to find support among the inexperienced and uninformed.
"It is abundantly clear that inferior birders are the only ones likely to tick IBWO."
"...so IBWO TBs have been forced to find support among the inexperienced and uninformed."
Being so well informed yourself, where are the data to support your assertions?
This is the problem with you skeptics. You sit around in your comfortable homes tearing apart people you have never met.
This is important, so I want you to read it and let it sink in. Tom didn't "tear apart" somebody. He pointed out their extreme (no even marginal) lack of comparative birding experience.
So why is this so important? Because people (believers) have refered to Hicks' sighting as being independently confirmed. Now if the "confirmation" was in the form of calls and raps being assessed by birders who has very little actual birding experience, then it's not really much of a confirmation, is it?
Now if the "confirmation" was in the form of calls and raps being assessed by birders who has very little actual birding experience, then it's not really much of a confirmation, is it?
So you're saying that Greg and Diane are incapable of identifying unique sounds that they have been trained to listen for over a week and a half's time? They are vets who spend their lives attuned to detail and making critical judgements. What if they trained you on what an irregular heartbeat sounds like? Would you catch on and be able to identify one after 10 days?
And why is it that the armchair researchers are looking for every reason that there is no possible way someone could have heard or seen an IBWO, while those very experienced, above-par birders/ornithologists who ARE in the swamps are not?
"It is abundantly clear that inferior birders are the only ones likely to tick IBWO."
And are you suggesting that Tyler Hicks and Geoff Hill are inferior birders?
"Being so well informed yourself, where are the data to support your assertions?"
As has been well documented by Tom, there are very few public TBs among highly respected birders and field ornithologists. It is also obvious that TBs have repeatedly endorsed absurd statements by their supporters, including those who are very arrogant and have been rude to respected scientists and birders, while disrespecting well-founded criticism by their peers.
In both Arkansas the top birders involved (Rosenberg, Dr. Fitzpatrick himself) did not see IBWO. Only inexperienced volunteers and obviously uncredible observers such as Mary Scott did. Tyler Hicks it the only "expert" birder to report IBWO sightings, and I do not find him credible after seeing his field sketches and notes.
"And are you suggesting that Tyler Hicks and Geoff Hill are inferior birders?"
Yes. They may be knowledgeable and skilled, but these qualities are only useful when combined with good judgement. Good birders make bad calls all the time, but they do not routinely identify extinct birds, nor do they persist in their folly when corrected by more experienced birders. Dr. Hill has been a good ornithologist but this does not mean he has top notch birding credentials. If Dr. Hill were a good birder he would never endorse brief glimpses by his team, without benefit of optics, of Anhingas, Wood Ducks, Pileateds, and who knows what else as IBWO sightings. If Tyler is such as great birder why did he submit an implausible field sketches depicting an angle -- a full top view -- he clearly couldn't have seen based on his sketch of his position beneath the bird?
"So you're saying that Greg and Diane are incapable of identifying unique sounds that they have been trained to listen for over a week and a half's time?"
Expert sound analysts from the CLO and the Auburn lab have misidentified calls and knocks from a wide variety of animate and inanimate sources as IBWO after scrutinizing them for countless hours, and these same people misidentified the PIWO in the Luneau video. If top birders and ornithologists like WSB hall of famers Rosenberg and Fitzpatrick can make these errors then Greg and Diane certainly could too.
"And why is it that the armchair researchers are looking for every reason that there is no possible way someone could have heard or seen an IBWO, while those very experienced, above-par birders/ornithologists who ARE in the swamps are not?"
There is only one reason that there is no possible way they could have seen an IBWO. The bird is extinct. The above-par birders/ornithologists in the swamps are simply deluded. If they want to actually find highly endangered birds in a swamps in the USA they should go to Kauai!
"They are vets"
In my experience highly intelligent professional biologists, including MDs in addition to vets, are perfectly capable of making appalling bird identification errors and may be more likely than less educated people to jump to conclusions and then resist correction.
And why is it that the armchair researchers are looking for every reason that there is no possible way someone could have heard or seen an IBWO, while those very experienced, above-par birders/ornithologists who ARE in the swamps are not?
Here's where you came-along-lately types miss out on the history lesson. Some of us armchair types ARE the ones who have done IBWO searches. Some of us ARE the folks who spent time in the swamps in previous decades. We camped, trudged, paddled, listened and looked for IBWOs for years. NOBODY ever found any. Not one. We chased credibile-sounding reports from folks who appeared honest and sane. We never found anything. We looked at photos that nice honest folks sent us of IBWOs. All were Pileateds.
And are you suggesting that Tyler Hicks and Geoff Hill are inferior birders?
Yes. Inferior birders is correct. Inexperienced, inferior birders. The type who make extraordinary claims with no documentation.
Many of us have heard squeaks, kent-like noises, and double-rap sounds for years in former IBWO habitat. And in Northern California and the Canadian woods, as well. Many of us have seen distant large woodpeckers that appeared to have a lot of white in the wing. It is with virtual certainty that these events could be explained by something other than IBWO. Therefore, we did NOT rush out and claim to the high heavens that we have found IBWOs, and we did NOT publish idiotic, undocumented data claiming such.
If Hill and Hicks had more experience, or more ability,
perhaps they wouldn't have made the mistakes they did.
So you're saying that Greg and Diane are incapable of identifying unique sounds that they have been trained to listen for over a week and a half's time?
Yes. And, as has been pointed out on this site and by Cornell, the sounds are NOT unique. There is enormous room for confusion.
By the way, when you say "trained", what do you mean? Did they listen to tapes of other sounds too and correctly identify which belong to IBWO and which did not? That's trained. Listening to a few tapes before going out and searching is not being trained. Please provide details of the "training program".
It is becoming painfully obvious that may of the most ardent supporters of the weak IBWO evidence don't have a clue about assessing evidence of bird sightings. When terms like "unmistakeable" and "unique" get thrown around, it's amateur hour.
You are nothing but a snob if you think Greg is inferior to anyone just because his life list is smaller than yours. Your list was "small" at one point too.
Yes, mine was smaller than his (oo err missus) once, and when it was I listened to, learned from, and respected those who had more field experience, world birding experience, and ability than me. I also made ALOT of mistakes (and admittedly still do make the odd one) so a misidentification by such an inexperienced birder would not be so strange.
remember, it was tyler hicks that saw and identified the bird. greg and diane were following what they heard as double knocks and kent calls, which were also heard by tyler.
i can understand a misidentification of a sound by a single inexperienced birder, but these sounds were heard by three people, one of which cannot be called inexperienced.
how about a little background on the other researchers listed in the anniston star article?
i can understand a misidentification of a sound by a single inexperienced birder, but these sounds were heard by three people, one of which cannot be called inexperienced.
So we have one experienced birder who heard sounds he thought might be consistent with IBWO and two inexperienced people who don't have the background to independently ID the bird sounds at all. And none of the calls recorded in Florida have matched known IBWO. They just sound kind of like known IBWO.
Impressive. How could I have ever doubted?
Some of us armchair types ARE the ones who have done IBWO searches. Some of us ARE the folks who spent time in the swamps in previous decades. We camped, trudged, paddled, listened and looked for IBWOs for years.
How 'bout some photos for proof?
i'm sure you'll also figure out ways to doubt the indisputable photo when it shows up.
Why does any of this matter (and I address this to skeptics and believers)? There have been literally thousands of Ivory reports since Singer Tract.
Lewbart can go out and report 100 Ivories and it won't make a difference if he is a newbie or the second coming of Roger Tory Peterson without that picture or video.
Hill has his funding now, and there is no getting off this ride. Hhas to get the video or picture, it is that simple.
Anonymous said...
"i'm sure you'll also figure out ways to doubt the indisputable photo when it shows up."
Well, maybe we will and maybe we won't, but we can't dispute what you can't provide. And, are you actually admitting that the Luneau video is "disputatble?" Bravo!
"There have been literally thousands of Ivory reports since Singer Tract."
Yes, but only the recent reports have been promoted by formerly respected scientific journals, newspapers, institutions, NGOs, "expert" birders, and government agencies, and used to justify diversion of millions towards bogus rediscovery and recovery efforts
IBWO Atheist wrote: "As has been well documented by Tom, there are very few public TBs among highly respected birders and field ornithologists."
Agreed, but are there ANY public IBWO atheists among "highly respected birders and field ornithologists"? If so, name them?
"I'm sure you'll also figure out ways to doubt the indisputable photo when it shows up."
I guess it wouldn't be indisputable then, would it? That's another bogus tactic used by Believers as an excuse why there is no photo. How about you folks actually cough up a photo that clearly LOOKS like an IBWO without imaginative interpretation, and we'll go from there?
"I heard Dr. Grover Krantz once say that even if he had a bigfoot carcass that he dragged along behind him to all the lectures he gave, there would still be people who wouldn’t believe it exists."
Right. That's why there's no proof. Because it wouldn't do any good anyway.
How about Cyberthrush trying to argue that the extraordinary claim of IBWOs somehow surviving 60 years in the U.S without one nest being found (STILL with no proof of any kind and knowing that EVERY SINGLE TIME it could be proven one way or another what the claimed sighting was it turned out to NOT be an IBWO) satisfies Occam's Razor with the simplest explanation being that the bird exists?
Of course it does. And the simplest explanation for the construction of the pyramids is that they were built by aliens.
Nope. The simplest explanation is that they were built by Egyptians.
With the Ivory-bill the simplest explanation is that Fishcrow and Hill and Cornell have simply blown their calls. It has happened to top experts thousands of times.
Anonymous said...
IBWO Atheist wrote: "As has been well documented by Tom, there are very few public TBs among highly respected birders and field ornithologists."
Agreed, but are there ANY public IBWO atheists among "highly respected birders and field ornithologists"? If so, name them?
Dear Anon-
Did you just emerge from a large oval cavity where you've been for the past 2 years? Do the names David Sibley, Mark Robbins, Jerome Jackson, and Louis Bevier ring any bells?
"Agreed, but are there ANY public IBWO atheists among "highly respected birders and field ornithologists"? If so, name them?"
Please refer to John Wall's peckergate site at worldtwitch:
http://www.worldtwitch.com/
ivorybill.htm
Steve N.G. Howell would seem to qualify as an IBWO atheist based on this quote (from Western Birds, 2006, Vol. 37, No.2, p. 118):
"If thousands of people can be shown a few seconds of blurry video of a Pileated Woodpecker and be convinced that it's an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, then the sky's the limit."
Quotes in Crewdson's excellent Chicago Tribune article seem to indicate that Bret Whitney and Jon Dunn certainly could be considered IBWO atheists too.
Few people publicly admit to being athiests of any sort as there is widepread hatred of atheism and atheists, especially now that our country has been run for several years by religious zealots. You can see this in quotes to the effect that someone's religious practice may be strange or even repugnant but "at least they have faith". There is no money to be made from being an atheist, whereas you can make millions by being a TB. Even if you don't believe, it is best to claim to be an agnostic if you want people to like you.
Agreed, but are there ANY public IBWO atheists among "highly respected birders and field ornithologists"?
I doubt there are really that many IBWO atheists at all (though there are certainly a few on this board). Virtually all of the skeptics I've spoken with have the same attitude as me; the evidence thus far sucks, but hopefully somebody will come up with something conclusive. Levels of hope vary widely.
In the meantime, we wish the searchers would shut up, stop trumpeting garbage as compelling evidence, and announce only when they have something worthy of review. It would appear that Cornell has moved strongly towards this position.
I think the bad science surrounding this bird has definitely caused the evidence bar to be raised. Where a blurry but diagnostic photo might have been good enough several years ago, it won't cut it now. There are too many emotions, too many egos, too many careers, and too many oddballs (like fishcrow) involved.
"but hopefully somebody will come up with something conclusive."
It sure would be nice if a live Dodo turned up too, wouldn't it? But I'll settle for a Solitaire. Or a flock of Eskimo Curlews. Or my favorite the Labrador Duck. Take a second look at those Long-tailed Ducks! Or if not the LADU itself at least some interesting mussel shells with tantalizing bill marks.
A sample from Greg's novel:
“…the thick sharp bill of the male ivory-bill penetrated Cutter’s exposed right eye before he even had a chance to blink. The bird’s momentum drove its bill easily through the man’s right gelatinous globe before tunneling past the thick optic nerve on its way to the vulnerable gray matter of Cutter’s brain. With its face neatly buried in Cutter’s eye socket, the powerful bird planted both feet on the man’s face, gripped tightly, and used it legs as leverage in order to extract its blood tinged bill from Cutter’s cranium.”
Clearly a man with a firm grasp of IBWO behaviour!
it's a novel. what do you expect? and i'm starting to get a clearer picture of your bitterness. you are mad that the USA might have a lazarus species on hand. why don't you learn to spell behavior correctly.
be·hav·ior /bɪˈheɪvyər/
[SNIP]
Also, especially British, behaviour.
You might want to check dictionary.com before making those types of remarks.
why don't you learn to spell behavior correctly.
The -our ending was introduced in to the Anglo-French language following the Norman Conquest (1066). Can you remind us when the first European settlers reached North America?
Also, if you're goimg to ask questions, why don't you learn how to correctly use punctuation? Then there is the little matter of the 6 missing capital letters.....
Meanwhile, they are actually out there getting their feet wet and doing something worthwhile
What's that then? Going back home and drying them?
Where a blurry but diagnostic photo might have been good enough several years ago, it won't cut it now.
On whose behalf are you speaking? For many of us there's nothing emotional about the core issue of judging the evidence about whether the bird exists or not. If the photo were "diagonstic" then it would, by definition, be "good enough" to prove the bird's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that no image has yet been captured that passes this simple, straightforward test.
There does seem to be an excess of emotions, egos, and oddballs among those claiming to know of the IbWo's existence, but that doesn't mean that the standards of evidence have changed for the rest of us.
On whose behalf are you speaking?
Every skeptic that I've spoken to. The problem is that blurry pics are easier to fake. Any single image will need to be fully vetted for fraud. A series of photos or some video, on the other hand, would be extremely difficult to fake.
With the money, reputations, piss poor science, and potential impact on people and projects in any surrounding area, the honor system just won't cut it on this one.
See TMGuy's obvious fake if you don't understand why this is so. Or Bigfoot fakes. Or UFO fakes. Or...
wouldn't a RAW image file showing an ivory-bill be indisputable, as far as whether or not it's a fake?
wouldn't a RAW image file showing an ivory-bill be indisputable, as far as whether or not it's a fake?
Not sure. It certainly has to be better than a JPEG posted to the Internet.
Post a Comment