I think frame 33.3 (that Fitz et al interpret with a sketch of the upright woodpecker behind the tree) is particularly key in the discussion of the Luneau video evidence. You do a really good job of going through the video on this page, but your interpretation really jumps out when you look at a blown up and slowed down section of the video.Please take a look at this video clip from the Luneau video, blown up and slowed down:
With the framecaptures, all you get is blobs, but when you look at the blob move you get the gestalt (the sequence in motion is greater than the sum of its parts). It really becomes evident that this is an underwing (complete with black trailing edge and no
black median stripe) on a down stroke and not a bird sitting up with a folded wing. There is no way that his sketch of the bird half hidden behind the tree is accurate.
The wings are also "bending" because this bird is flapping hard to gain altitude, it isn't gliding down - it has to leap up and beat its wings for all it is worth to get lift and steering etc ...
So, what is needed is a clip like the one below - in slo mo -AND a sketch (also below) - that shows the way the bird is positioned. Your case shows best when it is in motion ... the freakin taxidermy wing isn't moving and the feathers aren't being forced to bend the way that a bird's wing does ...
Luneau video clip, MPG2 format
Same Luneau video clip, MOV format
In the picture below (left side), the emailer provided a very crude sketch to show the bird's general position.
(The sketch at left was overlayed onto Figure S1 from Cornell's Science paper. Please note that you can purchase a copy of the complete Luneau DVD here.)
Please note that I've written more about the interpretation of frame 33.3 under item 7 here.