.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

IVORY-BILLS  LiVE???!  ...

=> THE blog devoted to news and commentary on the most iconic bird in American ornithology, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO)... and... sometimes other schtuff.

Web ivorybills.blogspot.com

"....The truth is out there."

-- Dr. Jerome Jackson, 2002 (... & Agent Fox Mulder)

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

-- Hamlet

"All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Saturday, March 27, 2010


-- "Project Coyote" Update --


First update from the Louisiana "Project Coyote" HERE, focusing on some bark scaling/foraging sign in their area.
When are you going to realize, and admit, that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are EXTINCT, and that every minute your blog is on the web you look like a fool?

You and all the other idiots who keep relying on faked or worthless so-called evidence are no different from the fools who think that crop circles are made by aliens and that Bigfoot is a real creature.

Why don't you do something for animals and/or plants that do exist and do need help and protection?

Falsely promoting the existence of a long extinct bird does nothing for plants or animals that are on the verge of extinction.
one thang fer sure... trolls will never go extinct.
No, they won't sadly. Anonymous cowards like "The whole truth" are everywhere on the web. Please keep it up Cyberthrush, there are too many sightings from excellent people for there to be no substance to the story,and you do a great job covering it.
Guy reminds me of a number of the hillbillies south and northeast of here who were saying the same thing about the black-footed ferret...

I'm old enough to remember that one, and the claims of their extinction existed for a generation or two before Nat Geo broke the story...

Things like that scare certain special interests, like tales--and possible tracks--of wolverines in the mountains I'm looking at as I type this...

Of course weasely creatures would never achieve the iconic status of a big and mysterious and beautiful bird, so they'll holler all the more loudly as a result.

He's kind of week on cause-and-effect, though; I can't for the life of me fathom how trying to determine if the IBWO still abides is going to affect the treatment of species whose precarious existence is still a certainty.

There are already plenty of departed ones to pluck at the strings spun from the moral fibers of our being...
The funds and energy that went into the IBWO "rediscovery" ("the conservation story of the century") clearly did impact conservation efforts in the real world. To think otherwise would require one to think that there is an infinite amount of funding for conservation.
The "conservation groups" like the Cornell Lab and TNC that used the IBWO to dupe an ill-informed public for donations (ably assisted by NPR) should apologize at some point. Even if the original sightings had been confirmed with a photo, documenting a remnant population of IBWO would do nothing to change the way the natural world (with its accompanying 9 billion people) is going to look in 2050.
Oh dear, time to hold my remedial English Class. Grad level psychology--which I'm capable of as well--is clearly beyond the perceptual roadblocks created by your entitlement issues. Too, there's that ego that persists in insisting it always knows the most correct course of action and sits in judgment of other mere mortals; check out where I'm from, and you'll see why that's a bit of a "hot button" for me...

"Dupe" as you're using it, implies there was some malice on the part of people conducting the searches, and nowhere have I seen that to be the case.

Which means there's another word you need to learn, "libel."

That one is subject to civil redress, which may explain your reluctance to sign your name (BTW, Cyberthrush knows mine, and your "entitlement issue" is thinking the rules don't apply in your case).

And sorry, but documenting a "remnant IBWO" population would bring the Endangered Species Act into to play, and wetlands and habitat improvement would be a good thing for the natural world, even if only a small one.

Finally, I've never been paid a dime for my conservation activities (Okay, I did get an Eagle Scout Award years ago, but that's all), and I suggest stories of positive outcomes--right now the IBWO is strictly neutral--are an important factor in motivating people towards those ends... Which was why I posted that "Lords of Nature" link a few weeks ago...

It is within people where the solutions will be found, afterall...

So count my membership in that one even though it's most unlikely I'll make it to 2050...

Defamatory statements that are true do not constitute libel and the IBWO principals did use false advertising to fool the public.

One of the acts that constitutes "false advertising" is flawed and insignificant research:
"Advertisements based on flawed and insignificant research are defined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "representations found to be unsupported by accepted authority or research or which are contradicted by prevailing authority or research." "

The marketing of the IBWO issue by the principals and camp followers was an example of how the same human greed that created our current economic crisis is found in people who pretend (and may even believe) they are pursuing some higher purpose. The selective advantages of greed are clear and it is mainly greed and not "the solutions" you will find within most humans. And the few solutions that might help both the natural world and our species should not have to fight for funds or attention with wishful thinking about extinct species.
32.5 East, your points are well made. concolor1, you've been smoking way too much wacky tobaccy.

Millions of dollars have been DIVERTED from realistic projects intended to help or save actual living organisms to look for or to set aside land for an EXTINCT bird.

When the species that are currently on the verge of extinction ARE extinct, will millions of dollars that are being spent on Ivory Billed Woodpeckers then be diverted to look for those extinct species?

Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to spend that money to SAVE those existing, endangered species NOW??

The "libel" thing is as lame as it can get. Cornell and anyone else who has involved themselves in this massive scam should be prosecuted for stealing taxpayer's dollars and conning people out of their money under false pretenses.

No one, and I do mean no one has any evidence whatsoever that an Ivory Billed Woodpecker still exists. All the ALLEGED sightings are just that; ALLEGED. They are not confirmed or proven in ANY way.

If I said I saw a living Archeopteryx today, would anyone believe me? I have decades of birding experience. That must make my sightings reliable and unquestionable, right?

It astounds me that so many people are so easily duped into believing that someone's word can be trusted when it comes to Ivory Billed Woodpeckers.

Black Footed Ferrets live in burrows and are mostly nocturnal. Woodpeckers are noisy, flying, flamboyant birds that are diurnal, and Ivory Billed Woodpeckers were quite large.

It is inconceivable to any person with a clue that such a bird could still exist but no one can find convincing, verifiable proof that it does and that no one can get a GOOD picture or video of even one bird.

All the "double knock" and "kent call" stuff is a festering pile of garbage. Sound are NOT indicative of anything and are NOT reliable for determining the existence of any Ivory Billed Woodpeckers.

NO ONE wants Ivory Billed Woodpeckers to still exist more than I do but wishful thinking and wasting millions of dollars will not make them rise from extinction.

It was stupidity that made them extinct and it is stupidity to ignore the still living endangered creatures and plants that need our help now to keep them from ending up like the Ivory Billed woodpecker.

If even a portion of the effort that has gone into looking for an extinct bird were to be put into saving REAL living things, those living things would be a lot better off.

None of the effort or money that has gone into looking for Ivory Billed Woodpeckers has done Ivory Billed Woodpeckers any good. It has only served to fill the pockets of some people (and continues to do so) and enabled some people to have their 15 minutes of fame, or maybe the better word would be infamy, and in the end the infamy will last for a lot more than 15 minutes.
A couple things seem lost on troll #1:

- The argument not to spend resources on the Ivory-bill can be made perfectly well even under a presumption of its continued existence. Many people have been certain of the Ivory-bill's demise before, only to be proven wrong multiple times.

- He is assailing greed as a motivation on a thread about volunteer searchers who are dedicating their own time and money because of their personal investment in the Ivory-bill. Their effort could not be translated into support for other endangered species.
Notes to Hole-in-the-Truth and 32.5 (is that your IQ, really?)

Given that I have 30 years continuous abstinence recovery in 12-Step programs (and 20 off the cigarettes), I'd say I've been libeled as well.

And that libel charge of mine isn't lame (although your denial mechanisms certainly are; I warned you I was an expert on those); you're claiming there was malice on the part of the researchers when there was none; they were simply seeking the truth. Criticize their woodsmanship, perhaps, oh armchair/mouse-clicking naturalist, but don't impugn their motives or you're fair game for my prose.

And you ain't much of a birder if you're claiming woodpeckers are noisy, flamboyant birds; at least the flickers around here aren't, probably from dodging the the BB and pellet guns belonging to the juvenile rednecks, one of my state's largest industries.

And this one is a howler . . .

All the "double knock" and "kent call" stuff is a festering pile of garbage. Sound are NOT indicative of anything and are NOT reliable for determining the existence of any Ivory Billed Woodpeckers.

Such sounds merely serve as modest evidence (although the drive black-and-white thinkers like yourself gonzo); they are also useful guides for search areas, that's all. No one has claimed otherwise...

You've one again engaged in an operation I see repeatedly by disciples of junk science: Take an old set of clothes, fill 'em with straw, use a pillowcase for a head and face, and set fire to the whole thing and loudly proclaim victory.

Shoot, one would think you might be jealous that the Universe didn't select you as one permitted to see an IBWO....

Okay, enough. My apologies to readers for participating this cud chewing, camel-spitting unpleasantness. I used to teach junior high, and elementary trollslaying brings me back to those times...

Oh, to have that paddle the principal used to keep in his office...
Well CT will be shutting down this thread soon as people like concolor1 try not only to make their points but also trash (and threaten with corporal punishment) the people who post dissenting opinions.

The question of "malice" vs. "incompetence", and the blame associated with each, would make for an interesting discussion regarding the IBWO "rediscovery" but the tone of this thread indicates it won't happen here.
I would remind readers that the long history of humans causing local extinctions was not the product of "malice" but only the result of individuals wanting to insure their survival and their contribution to the gene pool.
Boy that's rich . . .

Also trash the people who post dissenting opinions . . .

Like asking CT when he's going to "stop beating his wife" questions are okay?

Or implying I'm a drug user . . .

You folks' "cruicfixions" are strictly self-inflicted, and you don't even take a joke well (Probaby because of some sort of paranoia telling you I really was serious about giving you the paddling--you admittedly deserve--when it ain't gonna happen, so I'll settle for giving a verbal skewering).

You're not Sarah Palin, are you?
concolor1, "30 years continuous abstinence recovery in 12-Step programs" says a lot about your way of thinking. How many "programs"?

Yes, your libel claims are lame.

I never said anything about malice. My points are about deliberate greed and seeking fame.

You obviously don't know woodpeckers well if you think they're always quiet and unnoticeable.

Sounds alone are NOT reliable and no one who has allegedly heard or recorded an Ivory Billed Woodpecker can prove that it's an Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

Many people and so-called experts have claimed that sounds, either heard or recorded, prove the existence of Ivory Billed woodpeckers.

It's the *Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist* proponents who have no solid arguments and have no evidence. No evidence at all.

You can prove me wrong real easily. Just produce any verifiable, confirm-able evidence that even one Ivory Billed Woodpecker still lives. Go ahead. Let's see it.

It's people like you who are the armchair/mouse clicking naturalists. You rely on hearsay and faked, alleged, so-called evidence, and make and promote claims that have no support in reality whatsoever.

Neither you nor anyone else can produce any real evidence to prove that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist.

Facts and fantasies are two very different things, and all of the effort and money that has been spent has produced NO facts to support the existence of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers.

There's a lot more to this situation than volunteers. Taxpayer's dollars have been spent, contributions have been solicited and spent by so-called conservation organizations and some people are making money from guest appearances, writing books, contributions to websites, advertising income on websites, writing articles, making movies, etc.

The Ivory billed Woodpecker, although extinct, is being exploited by snake oil salesmen/saleswomen for their own fame and/or fortune.

By the way, I heard a living T-Rex today. It was walking down my street and it ate a couple of pitbulls. The sounds were definitely indicative of a T-Rex walking, and eating pitbulls. Consider this report an official record of the event. I may write a book about it.
I believe you on hearing that living T-Rex . . .

May I provide a referral for some treatment for those florid hallucinations...

There's a lot more to this situation than volunteers. Taxpayer's dollars have been spent, contributions have been solicited and spent by so-called conservation organizations and some people are making money from guest appearances, writing books, contributions to websites, advertising income on websites, writing articles, making movies, etc.

Yep, and you're gonna be the messiah and save them all...

Like I said, a do-it-yourself crucifixion...

And if the IBWO isn't extinct?

Trust me, a closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose . . .
emupilot, You said "Many people have been certain of the Ivory-bill's demise before, only to be proven wrong multiple times."

Show me where anyone has proven wrong multiple times the claims that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers have been extinct since the 1940s.
>>Show me where anyone has proven wrong multiple times the claims that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers have been extinct since the 1940s.<<<

In '67 - '69 the bird (s) was repeatedly seen in FL by at least 9 people (some scientists)with hard evidence confirmed by experts. Pranty, former ABA President, and many ornithologists and others accept this as proof. In addition if you read (you have obviously not) the actual peer reviewed paper of the events and have first hand knowledge of IBWO field sign and ecology (you do not) the paper is powerful in that it details nuances of the modern search.

In '87 to '89 several experts had sightings and field notes that proved IBWOs were in Cuba despite the last photo coming in '48 by Lamb, a 40 year gap with cameras and the bird overlapping in reality. All of this happening in relatively cut over habitat compared tot eh milliuons of acrs in the SE US.

In 2005 the AR BRC accepted as proof the ~ 14 author paper with video of the AR sightings--THIS HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED although they have had the ability to for years. Yours or others opinions are worthless on overthrowing the AR video untill we have video of a PIWO that flaps 7.5 Hz, 4 secs post takeoff with no wing bounding for the 4 secs.

Emu was also including incidences prior to 1940, before you parsed his point. Numerous times the species was called erroneously extinct with hard proof then produced.

The number of people wrong on the actual status of IBWO has always been exceedingly high. There have been few years of the last 90 when the majority have not been wrong. Plurality of opinion is not science.

On a laymans' level, its a careless individual that doesn't respect the contrarian indicator of popular opinion with this species. From a scientists perspective there are too many repeat sightings, kents and DKs along with very suggestive pixs and videos to call the species extinct.

Are you saying we should risk calling the species erroneously extinct because the majority says its gone?

Where is your evidence of extinction?

Where have you searched?

Where is your PIWO videos?

What, unknown to science, animal is DKing and kenting only diurnally and in very limited areas of the SE US that often coincides with IBWO sightings?

Where is your proof that even one species has gone extinct because money spent on IBWOs would have been spent on THAT species?

Until you have any pertinent data yourself have some patience for dynamic field conditions. Biological studies don't always go as planned; especially when a species that was shot on sight for decades is involved.

Many are accustomed to looking at 800 mm shots at feeders that were sorted out from 1,000,000 pixs. The IBWO doesn't visit feeders or campsites and is exceedingly wary and rare.
FAV, absolutely nothing you have stated or presented is fact, or verifiable, confirm-able evidence.

You should pay heed to your own words: "Plurality of opinion is not science."

It's a bird, not a religion, and how could you possibly KNOW that it's "exceedingly wary"?

You've bought into the hype and are promoting it like a religious belief. Get real.

Yes, the truth is out there, and here is a good dose of it:

About Double Knocking

If your dog was barking at the back door and your IBWO skeptic, wife was knocking frantically on the front door who would you let in first?

The dog. At least he would shut up once he is in.

When questions, as in my last post are made....I never expect any actual answers from any wise use propagandist. As we know they have no data, rarely any pertinent field data, no answers and various motives.

As far as big twitchers/listers opinions on rare Campephilius. Almost to a one, all of the now elder pillars of listing society have NEVER seen or heard ANY of the 3 rarest Campephilus taxa although 2 of the taxa were agreed to exist into at least the late '80s or '90s.

If its too hard of a tick, better to call it extinct, then look at the holes in ones world list and plan a trip to the Chatham Islands for a walk up Black Robin....all near a sunny beach...where you swat sunscreen and no skeeters.

Sounds good, some of us dabble in vacation birding. But we are not trading in raw field work for complete surrender to a form of hedonsism to the benefit of lumber yield or tanlines. ;-)
Thanks FAV . . .

These guys are associated with the "Wise Use" crowd? No wonder they see conspiracies . . . They're usually loudmouthed sorts who are fronts for private interests who seek to give the Dick Cheney types a testosterone fix by serving to guide them to places where game populations are kept artificially high... No doubt a finding of an IBWO would make them nervous for their buddies at the duck club.

Ah, I looked at the site, and holy mackeral, they do a variation on that one with their trip offerings, but at least they make them leave their shotguns at home. A consideration to the wives, no doubt . . .

They also remind me of some of the local religion's apologists the way they start with a pre-ordained conclusions then select and cherry pick their "proof" (or what they define their notion of "proof" as, the worst sort of immature narcissistic black-and-white framing of the problem I can think of and pretty diagnostic of their mindset) and insist those criteria haven't been met.

Shoot, I tried to take a picture of a flicker in an exhibit at the local zoo . . . Couldn't pull it off; critter ducked inside a hole in a suguaro and wouldn't budge...

One of you yayhoos want to tell me I didn't see a woodpecker because I couldn't get a picture? Or that said woodpecker didn't exist?

Gave me a lot of respect for those who do get good shots, and I realized being raised on Disney, Mutual of Omaha, and Marty Stouffer--in between real trips to real wildnerness--gave me a slightly distorted view of things.

Big question is why come here where they know they're gonna get hassled? I was joking with that "florid hallucinations" quip, but I'm not regarding their masochistic tendencies.
And In Case There Are Some Newbies Around . . .

Here's a quote from the site Hole-in-the-Truth provided as "proof" the IBWO was extinct . . .

There is no credible evidence that the North American subspecies of Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis survived after the demise of the Singer Tract birds in the 1940s after the last substantial patch of old-growth habitat was destroyed.

Both of the following offer evidence, anectdotal and photographic, of the IBWO's continuing existence after the logging of the Singer tract. Is this absolute proof? Of course not, but I refuse to be bound by the straightjacket mentality of the two individuals above (who forfeited their right to polite and respectful consideration from me the instant their behavior demonstrated a double standard regarding their own actions).

The first includes one of the "Lowery Pictures" and describes the Kullivan sighting as well . . . Despite the claim they don't constitute "credible evidence," the only rebuttals of them have been critics' talking points repeated endlessly and shrilly, ad infinitum and ad nauseum. In the case of the Lowery photos, the insistence is this was a stuffed model, based on the bird holding the same posture for two shots. That might be valid if there were 20 such poses, but is nonsense otherwise. Note also the bark scaling, which is claimed to be irrelevant by those above; if the photograph is authentic, then they are indeed very relevant.


I leave the Kullivan analyses to the readers with minimal editorializing (and I'm sure CT has discussions of it in his archives), giving them the dignity of forming their own judgments.

I'll also leave the second one for readers' consideration as well; both articles have been stored as pdf files on my hard drive for several years now, and in re-reading them, I found some additional interesting and compelling insights. I suggest that is because I've learned more about the subject, which was the reason I visited this site in the first place . . .

Do you guys realize that your arguments can be aimed at YOU? In fact, they would be much better if aimed at YOU.

"As we know they have no data, rarely any pertinent field data, no answers and various motives."

Although the above statement applies to everyone who claims that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist, the wording should be changed to NO pertinent field data.

You guys can keep arguing (and likely will) that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist, but you have no evidence or proof whatsoever. NO ONE has any evidence or proof.
If a bird records committee accepts the written documentation provided for a rare bird sighting is this "proof"? If not, what constitutes accepted evidence or proof now? Dead bird? live bird in cage? If "The Whole Truth" is right then these committees are wasting everyone's time and all these records should be nullified.
In my mind the documentation provided by Gallagher and Harrison was as good as that which is often accepted by bird record committees for other species.
Sorry Folks, I'm a little slow . . .

Dadburned crummy weather here made me forget it's the vernal equinox which means some of the Spring Break crowd has too much time on their hands and wants to show off the alleged education their daddy's money is purchasing (they don't usually give scholarships to those types).

Another site I visit got hit last night by one of the I.D/Creationist crowd sorts . . . You think this guy is bad?

I just wish they'd hightail it to the beach and watch the girls in bikinis the way their regular classmates do.
Dave, "written documentation" is worthless as evidence or proof when it comes to people claiming that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist. Written things are no different than hearsay.

A dead bird, a bird in a cage, or better yet a good, clear, sharp video of a living bird or birds AND subsequently taking several qualified birders to the site to verify its existence and getting even more good video would go a long way toward proving the existence of the birds. Anything less than that is worthless.

The current so-called evidence is crap. Just because some person or persons accept any of it as proof doesn't mean it's proof. Lots of people thoroughly believe there's actual proof of Bigfoot, aliens from outer space, The Loch Ness Monster, various gods, and a lot of other rubbish.

I would be overjoyed if someone could prove that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist, but it would take clear, convincing, and verifiable proof, not hearsay and/or blurry pictures and/or video.
I want to add that "written documentation" isn't necessarily convincing proof of the existence of other living things or of any sort of records.

Some groups accept hearsay for records or sightings and I think that's often a mistake. For some records/sightings it doesn't matter much if someone is wrong or not but for some things the veracity of the record/sighting is extremely important.

Anyone involved in science should know that records/sightings should be verifiable. There should be something, like very good pictures or video, that can be scrutinized by others and those pictures or video should be clearly convincing to anyone.

Too many people are way too impatient to wait for clearly convincing proof and in some cases it's impossible to get clearly convincing proof because there's no proof to get.

Conjuring up half-assed evidence to promote a selfish agenda only serves to create mistrust and disbelief. Science should not work that way. We should all be able to trust science and the people who practice it.

Cornell and others have made fools of themselves with the proclamation that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist.

It should be obvious to anyone that the excitement about Ivory Billed Woodpeckers has died down greatly because most people with common sense have realized that the proclamation was premature and erroneous.

The people who are still touting the proclamation are just trying to cover their asses by doing damage control for their reputations. They figure that if they keep shouting the praises of the so-called proof/evidence that everyone else will fall in line and believe the birds still exist.

It makes me think of a street corner evangelist who shouts praise of his chosen religion in hopes of getting converts. Sure, some sheeple will fall for anything but sensible people will see that the evangelist's fervor is not proof or evidence that his words ring true.

Science is no place for religious-type fervor or proclamations. If scientists, whether professional or amateur, can't produce convincing proof, they should either keep looking for it, if it actually exists, or shut up until and unless proof is acquired.

I WANT the Ivory Billed Woodpecker to exist and thrive, but I'm a realist and I know that wanting doesn't mean squat. Even if I had seen a hundred Ivory Billed Woodpeckers I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me unless I had very convincing proof and could show them at least one real, living bird.

I have photographed some things in nature that would be hard or impossible to believe but the pictures/video provide clear proof. I have seen other amazing or unknown to science things that I wasn't able to get pictures or video of and I would never submit those things for an official record or sighting. It would simply be my word for it and that just isn't good enough.

Extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.
As alluded to, this individual is tainted by top feeder bird shots, pixs of exhausted Connecticut Warblers hopping about and by various flawed work of big birders that never ticked or photoed a rare Campephilus despite decades to do so. There isn't a drop of SE US muddy waters on his purple crocs (can u picture it?).

Many Flickr experts are not going to be convinced by anything other than pixs; they have no direct knowledge or standard other than...where's the pix?

He elevates one data set (videos, photos) above all others......no, all others are "crap"....not even to be looked at. What a wonderful individual....good people out trying to shed some light on unexplained field observations and he sits indoors hugging his tripod and playing with his Manfreddi head.

He then unlaterally tries to redefine scientific methods.
Science is open-minded and able to discuss ALL observations and all data not just address stunning, quality photos, showing feather shafts. It doesn't presuppose species have the same Detection Function. In 1880 eastern populations of IBWO were already showing an increased flush distances of 300+% ( Tanner per Wayne).

The scientific method doesn't totally discard audio of birds double knocking back or kenting to one another when those data sets tempospatially overlap IBWO sighting by dozens of people including BRC members and published ornithologists. That may not rise to proof but any true UNBIASED scientist would be quite interested in examining the situation very carefully. Yours and others casual treatment of extinction is bewildering but telling.

Obviously its irritating that some are not as good as he must be in getting photos of rare birds. We would be interested in seeing your Black Rail and Crimson-bellied Woodpecker photos by the way.

There is nothing wrong with Auburn's or Cornell's main Abstract points in peer reveiwed papers.

Also what allows you to initially blast in saying unequivocally, like a zealot, or if not an extremist, someone with actual data of any kind, that the species is extinct? You then try and morph into someone who cares about the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (sic).

Why have you backed off from your lofty extinction proclamation and are now trying to evolve into someone who might care about the IBWO?

Where is your evidence of extinction?

Where have you searched?

Where is your PIWO videos?

What, unknown to science, animal is DKing and kenting only diurnally and in very limited areas of the SE US that often coincides with IBWO sightings by honest people with actual names ?

Where is your proof that even one species has gone extinct because money spent on IBWOs would have been spent on THAT species?

Until you have any pertinent data yourself have some patience for dynamic field conditions. Biological studies don't always go as planned; especially when a species that was shot on sight for decades is involved.

By the way, I know this troll is here just to disrupt and might be getting paid per response he gets but figure there are some advantages to giving him .50$.

As far as the genesis of individuals like this, I would like to thank those who have created a new fangled way to turn valid evidence into pile of "crap". This was done by hydridizing the scientists' need for lowered grant competition with a systematic non-support of promising field data. This was done by elevating a picture to the one and only type of acceptable evidence, while refusing to ackowledge that other data sets, at a minumum, are very suggestive and in no way support the extinction hypothesis.

Waking up one day with expertise in video-artifact analysis didn't exactly hurt the wise use types either.
Well said, FAV.

Purple Croc Troll, back to your cubicle.
Once again, I'm privileged to walk with giants...

I would like to thank our hassler for providing scientific evidence of the truth that we villify in others that which we most wish to conceal in ourselves...

It makes me think of a street corner evangelist who shouts praise of his chosen religion in hopes of getting converts.

Guy who sounds most like a street preacher here is Hole-in-the-Truth, and he seems to have perceptual blindspots regarding those purposeful heretic comments I tossed in... Call me a wise-cracking jerk anytime, just don't suggest I'm giving a sermon...

And he's hiding behind Sagan, no less... It is extraordinary to claim an unknown hominid-like creature inhabits the NW forests (actually, I've reached the point I'm pretty certain it's cuckoo), but hardly so to suggest an animal still persists in areas that were part of its known historic range.

The written report I linked provided information from John V. Dennis, who must be regarded as a thoroughly credible witness on the matter; well, except that he's passed on, most unfortunately...

And when Lowery provided a photograph, he was villified because his source may have legitimately felt the bird deserved the protection of anonymous isolation... Rightly or wrongly...

'Nuff... Go look at the girls there Spring Breaker... Take some photographs even; there's more money in that than bird shots, and nobody will submit them to intensive scrutiny if you Photoshop them at little...
You guys are a complete joke. All you have is your worthless talk. You, and anyone else, have no proof that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers still exist. You fall for hype, hearsay, and fakery, and you proselytize like religious zealots. An enormous search and millions of dollars haven't produced proof of even a single bird.

The evidence for Bigfoot is every bit as good as the evidence for an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and that evidence is garbage.

Your arrogance won't produce an Ivory Billed Woodpecker and in the end you'll all look even more foolish than you do now. It's people like you who ruin scientific integrity. Fairy tales are not science.

The best scientists are skeptics, who expect proof of extraordinary claims, not wishful thinkers or con artists who have a selfish agenda to promote.

You guys should take your own advice and get out of your armchairs and go find an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and get indisputable proof that it exists. Go ahead. Prove me wrong, if you can. Hey, you've got all that "evidence" to narrow down where they are, so it should be easy. Time's a wastin'.
Dear "The Whole Truth",
Big words but not so big when written anonymously. I've been on at least 8 trips looking for the ibwo at my own expense. Each time I find very large swamps, poor access, and no other searchers. I often don't see many of the creatures or birds that are known to inhabit the swamp including common ones even though I think I have a sharp eye. It seems obvious to me that a small population of the ibwo could go undetected for a long time in many of these big river swamps. Very seldom do I have the chance to take a killer picture or video of wildlife, encounters are too quick. I suppose if I ever did see an ibwo you and those like you would belittle the report as unscientific. Still, I enjoy doing it and if there is any chance my wasting my time will contribute to conservation I'm happy to do it.

I think you will find that you will be more successful in life if you are more respectful to people including those with different views.

Dave Nolin
As a member of a records committee, I can assure readers of is this blog that the standard of documentation of the IBWO so far has been nothing short of laughable. The people who have reported the bird have submitted descriptions that call into question their competence to even own binoculars.
My anonymity is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who I am. What matters is that so-called experts, and other people, have gone off the deep end proclaiming that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker still exists, based on hype, fakery, and worthless alleged "evidence".

If I were to report a sighting of something that has been believed to be extinct for 60+ years, and I had no proof, and I couldn't (or wouldn't) take people there to show it to them, I would deserve to be belittled if I actually expected anyone to simply take my word for it.

It's the people who say the birds still exist that have climbed out on a limb, and that limb just won't support them and their claims. Indisputable proof, if it's even possible, should have been acquired before any proclamations were made.

As it is, the people claiming the IBW still exists have nothing reliable or verifiable to base their claims on, and that is inexcusable considering the lofty positions of many of those people.

Bernie Madoff got 150 years for scamming people. What would be a fitting punishment for the people who have scammed others out of millions in the IBW hoax?
spatuletail, your comments don't surprise me a bit. I have found that very few people know what they're looking at in nature, and that many people are just way too anxious to see something unusual or rare, even if it's not really there.

The fact that Pileated Woodpeckers look a lot like Ivory Billed Woodpeckers brings into question any sightings, even from experienced birders. That's why good, clear, sharp pictures/video are so important.

The existence of the IBW isn't some casual, unimportant claim that only a few people would find interesting. Finding it alive would be a major discovery, and that makes it absolutely critical that any claims of its discovery MUST be verifiable and indisputable. Reports without clear proof are worthless.
Field work; the scientific process is dynamic. The evidence is building on one side. The eventual outcome will be its unequivocally extinct or unequivocally extant.

Hypothetically, lets say the proof is not yet in that the IBWO is extant. This does not alleviate us, including the extinct camp from a conservation centric responsibility to seriously discuss field work on all the confusing species.

People involved have clearly and repeatedly witnessed how many in the extinct camp have been anxious for the search to stop. The refusal to engage in reasoned discourse, offered upthread and again here is conspicuous.

We have skeptics repeatedly refusing to discuss the diurnal DKs and kents, with no wind, that are spatially correlated with IBWO sightings. If hypothetically its not strong evidence.......can you help us understand what is going on and why the heterogeneous patterns?

...skeptics have failed to produce a PIWO video of, or explain how a very large white-winged woodpecker in AR with a 7.8 Hz wing beat, 4 secs post take off, is not an IBWO......can you help us understand whats is going on and why is there no matching video example of the common species? It's your "leaders" that claim its a PIWO. Are you able to answer questions on PIWOs?

..failed to produce even one series of DKs or kent sequences from N of the Mason Dixon Line that resembles the scores of sequences that seem to only occur in prime IBWO habitats.....can you help us understand whats is going on?
(I wonder where this tremendous scientific acumen and conservation ethic that some skeptics infer they have, really is. They refuse to study or encourage the funding to study the unknown to science calls, amphibian or avian or even a new species that DKs and kents only in swamp forests of the SE).

Can you explain the logical disparity in your opposing positions: that the IBWO should be filmed by now, yet a PIWO, that is infintismally more common, doing what a PIWO did/portrayed in the AR or LA tapes, can not be re-filmed?

What large ventrally, white-winged bird is on the Choctaw tape, that was field IDed as an IBWO in an area saturated with other IBWO sightings, kents and DKs? If a PIWO why was it never found again ?

What large black bird, with trailing half, whitewings, is on the 2008 Pearl tape that LA FWS is presently checking on supporting wing-span measurements for?

Why has that bird been IDed by an established top expert in avian morphology and Picidae wing beat Hz, as a large woodpecker, with a Hz and bounding unknown for a PIWO? Why does the analysis of that bird by multiple experts squarely indicate IBWO and not PIWO?

Why did your "leaders" and key authors make rudimentary and mis-leading errors on the heuristic wing beat frequency of an IBWO? What should the range of IBWO wing beat frequency and/or PIWO in level, unhurried flight be?

Why did your "leaders", the four authors of the rebuttal Science Note, not carefully listen to Barksdale? Did any of these 4 authors have any prior work on video artifact analysis and its relationship to source plumage?

Why can this strange PIWO filmed in 2008 in the Pearl only be found proximal to where Kulivan and several others have had ROBUST IBWO sightings of both sexes for as long as 5 minutes?

Silence or avoidance is also a type of answer.

Separately, why are all the relevant bird magazines, the puff filled Bird Chat, societies, Audubon, bloggers, writers, field-guide purchasers etc., not pressing the conservation side of this issue? Calling a species prematurely extinct is a grave, conservation mistake.

A growing number of people know this bird is not extinct.

An experienced, outdoorsman, videographer is needed for a hotzone, contact me off list.

tks F. Virrazzi
I wouldn't trust you in the field for a second FAV.

You don't seem to have the first idea about documenting an occurance of a rare bird and hide behind excessive over-complication and are using a pseudo-scientific approach to try and convey experience and ability. It doesn't wash with a seasoned field birder. It really isn't about wing beat Hz and all that jazz. Every rare bird I've found has been fully documented without recourse to that kind of peripheral 'evidence'. If the bird is there, it will be documented by competent birders and it will be seen again, and again.
I agree with spatuletail. There's no reason to over complicate things. I couldn't care less about all that mumbo jumbo Fav brought up. This isn't about analyzing microbes or trying to figure out what goes on in a Black Hole.

This is about a large bird that should be easy to find IF it exists, and IF any of the so-called evidence already acquired has any credibility.

The so-called evidence that is allegedly so credible is exactly like the so-called evidence of Bigfoot, aliens from outer space, The Loch Ness Monster, crop circles, and any other far fetched claim. It's always just enough to sound tempting and somewhat credible and it serves to draw gullible people into the *It must be true* club.

Fav, what you apparently don't realize is that most or all of what you say is based on assumptions. You assume that people are telling the truth and that they're correct in their identifications. Robust sightings?? What robust sightings? What makes them robust? Who says they're robust? Robust as compared to what? You're assuming the alleged kent calls and double knocks are actually made by Ivory Billed Woodpeckers. You're assuming a lot of things. Where's the proof?

I don't have any problem with a continuing search for Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, as long as it doesn't cost taxpayers any money, doesn't take money or other resources away from other conservation projects, doesn't cause any stress or disturbance to other organisms, and isn't used for selfish purposes.

I do have a problem with anyone claiming the IBW still exists, based on garbage evidence.

And before anyone says I'm assuming the IBW is extinct, I'll say this: For over 60 years no one has been able to prove the existence of even a single bird. No one has gotten even one good photo or video. No one has found a single dead bird, or part of a bird, or a nest, or any other indisputable proof that even one IBW still lives.

The burden of proof is on the people who claim the bird still exists, and that burden has not been met, by a long shot.
I want to add that I have no "leaders". While I may agree with others from time to time, I think for myself and am not influenced by groupthink.
Actually, while this was interesting for a while, I really don't care what you think, who you agree with, or what you have a problem with. Outahere.
I'm wondering if these two have any connections with the so-called institute of higher learning south of here, aka "Brigham Young University."

There's a definite resemblance in the pseudo-acadmeic ad-hominem attacks, but actually I'd give the edge to the Zoobies . . . Sparring with those yayhoos is where I got my trollslaying wings, BTW . . .

I would like to thank them for serving as poster children for "narcissistic personality types." There's the absolute egocentricity, the manipulative patronizing, the absolute certainty, the underlying rudeness, and the "wormy" chameleon-like posturing when pinned down... I do wonder what their motives were in coming here...

Lots of assertions and denigrating the finds of others, but . . .

In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You are entitlted to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts."

And the facts are that a number of reasonably sane and sober individuals are making some claims... And when those claims are by two or more people together, well, that is hard to discount.

Some are even appearing in my inbox with compliments about my standing up to this muckthrowing...

Seriously, I live in a whole valley full of UFO and Bigfoot believers (other weird stuff, too), and there's no resemblance...
"And the facts are that a number of reasonably sane and sober individuals are making some claims... And when those claims are by two or more people together, well, that is hard to discount.

Some are even appearing in my inbox with compliments about my standing up to this muckthrowing..."

The above is proof of your groupthink mentality. You cannot prove the existence of the IBW with groupthink and faith-based opinions. You need real proof, and that is something you don't have. No one does.

Oh, by the way, a number of sane and sober individuals, including some very reputable birders/scientists have not fallen for the IBW hoax. Should they be discounted simply because they don't agree with you and your fellow *It must be true because more than one person says it is* club members?

70% of the people in the USA believe that Satan is real. I guess it must be true. 70% couldn't be wrong, could they? After all, more than one opinion is all that's necessary to prove something, right? Facts be damned, all that matters is popularity.

"Lots of assertions and denigrating the finds of others...". Yep, that pretty much describes the behavior of the people who claim the IBW still exists.

Assertions aren't proof. Faith isn't proof. Groupthink isn't proof. Hearsay isn't proof. Blurry videos and/or pictures aren't proof. Written documentation isn't proof. Alleged kent calls and double knocks aren't proof.

And speaking of redirected money:

"And the facts are that a number of reasonably sane and sober individuals are making some claims... And when those claims are by two or more people together, well, that is hard to discount."

Well, that's your case in a nutshell. Any birder worth their salt is splitting their sides reading it.

I bet you're the type who don't submit records because you know better than the rarities committees. The sightings I've read accounts of including the Choc, Gallagher and Mike Collins are so poorly described and documented that it calls into question other records of those observers. They would be rejected for so many reasons.
Boy, I could start a whole army with the strawmen you guys keep putting out... You really should've attended the logic classes the week they gave those lessons; what, we're you hanging around the pool room or was it the coed dorms that had you distracted?

I'll settle for suggesting "paddled-tail" is in need of some remedial reading lessons with that "I'll bet you're the type who don't [sic] submit records because you know better than the rarities committees" shot.

If he'd read anything I wrote, he'd know I'm not a researcher, strictly an interested observer who bends over backwards to remain unbiased. I do blog elsewhere occasionally on a very presitigious history site, and since I live in Utah, I'm not likey to claim an IBWO sighting or encounter (although I think I did see a wolverine in the mountains east of here a few years back).

So if his practices regarding reviewing what I read are indicative of what he concludes about Collins and Gallagher, well, I suggest his methodology is a little shoddy.

And seriously, I'm absolutely 100% dead certain convinced the Ivory-billed Woodpecker will never be found in Utah.
I'm unsure as to why you don't address the very thin substance of the reports I discussed. I merely commented as a member of a committee that assesses bird records, I found the 'descriptions' given by Hill's team, Gallagher and Collins to be way below the standard for acceptance, and to be poor indeed. Similar to those of novice birders in fact.

If you remember, Mike Collins recently submitted a video of a Red-headed Woodpecker as an IBWO. Makes you wonder about the rest of his sightings and his unfailing confidence and arrogance.

I question your claim to be unbiased from the ridiculous confidence you have in people like Collins.

I don't wish to upset you further and can see I am talking to people who are essentially non-birders, so we'll not see eye-to-eye on recording birds - I'll bow out now.

Good luck in your ongoing searches anyway.
Actually, it's people like you who have strawmen arguments.

And speaking of "remedial reading lessons", you might want to take a closer look at how you read things. The way spatuletail wrote that sentence isn't really wrong. "don't" stands for do not. Read it again.

On the other hand, your use of "he'd" (twice) is definitely wrong.

Here's something I would like you and others to think about: If you were on trial in a court of law, and the evidence against you were about as good (or bad) as the evidence in favor of the IBWs existence, and you were convicted, would you think you got a fair trial and that the evidence was convincing?

Do you think that hearsay, opinions, blurry videos and/or pictures, so-called expert testimony without actual proof, and alleged eye witness claims should be accepted as proof of your guilt?

What if it were the other way around and your hope was that the evidence would exonerate you? Would you then see the evidence and the admission of the evidence in a different light and also hope that the judge and jury would too?

In other words, would you see, and also hope others would see, that the outcome you hope for would determine how you (and they) would perceive the credibility of the evidence?

The words for the day: bias/faith/hope.
The word "type" is singular there in this instance, "Hole-in-the-Truth." So there needs to be agreement between the noun and the verb.

He is the type of person who doesn't believe in God.

Those are the type[s] of people who don't believe in evolution.

The reference was to moi, singular...

Now where do I e-mail your dunce cap?

BTW, there was an unintentional word error in what I wrote: "So if his practices regarding reviewing what I read" should've read "So if his practices regarding reviewing what I write. . ."

But I got the verb agreement right. Or at least I would have if English still made those distinctions the way other languages do.
Its valuable to look at these 2 posters no matter how painful. Its a sagittal cut of the imitation-skeptical mind. True skeptics would also doubt the hypothesis of extinction which is tenuous, even if, hypothetically proof of existence has not arrived.

They busted in with forceful opinions of extinction but when challenged, they can't defend their assertion; they change the subject, but awkwardly slip in phrases that infer the bird might be extant. There are serious flaws in the exti. hypothesis and most informed people know it...but troll populists take advantages.

Little hummer's statements, that measuring physical characteristics of birds in video tapes, such as wing spans, giss characteristics, flight style and wing beat are meant to dumb down the evidence and jaw bone valid data sets into the waste can. Right hummer, we are too stupid, skeptics and believers, to document rare birds with standard reporting criteria. Evidently It thinks it's PHd level work to present tapes of bird calls, count wing beats or to measure wing spans of birds. Its a purposefully misleading attempt to keep the ignorant in that state. Thats a reason It uses a false name.

BRC sighting forms often have specific questions that touch on all of these things: calls, size, giss, behavior, flight style, other observations, misc.

If actually on a BRC it would know this and that BRCs formally encourage the entire body of data sketches, videos, analysis, etc. to be submitted.

RT Peterson and others have had silhouettes on the inside cover of their field guides WITH IDs to species. You can ID birds with colorless, scaless, dimensionless planes of black ink, according to RTP and the prestigous contributors to his work.

Other field guide authors have used the flight path lines of courting hummers, depicted with dashes and dots, to ID them.

Spattail courtship flight path spells out " i am a seasoned birder and the geatest brc member on earth".............. but sadly only Hole in the truth shows up. :-(

At a mile we have often used wing beat HZ to correctly predict whether an incoming, migrating egret was Snowy or Great. Wing beat Hz is also not bad at determining whether you have a possible Fish Crow or Am. And who hasn't used just the neck bend and wing beat Hz to say you have a distant grebe versus merg. The length of flying sparrows tail in fligth is often enough to clinch an ID.

A single recorded call (Scolaps or Charads come to mind) of a one day mega-rarity is often enough to make BRC members crap thier pants with happiness, especially if they were the lofty sighter/recordist. The modern IBWO has seemingly been recorded hundreds of times with no plausible explanation others than IB.

One thing stated for years, before It showed up, is the value of contemperaneous field notes and sketches. Field notes give a lot of information, good or bad, that are an irreversible check against loss or addition of field marks/behaviors actually seen or not.

There have been dozens of modern sightings that have been completley lost. Sightings should be written up in the field and soon sent to the BRC.

Spat and Hole, can't have it both ways. Can't scream that the field documentation notes are so bad or absent then in the next sentence say the only thing that matters are Nat Geo level pixs/video. Inconsistancies abound within their gaggle.

Sadly many field searchers have been fooled into believing field notes are meaningless even though they are a powerful component of a submittal.

Several search reports, including the latest failed to present a single field note or sketch of putative sightings.

Searchers are fooled or influenced by entrenched BRCs and trolls.
Fav, you and concolor1 write in such a similar manner that I can't help but wonder if you are the same person. What you write is mostly unintelligible.

I don't know about spatuletail but I haven't responded to all the things you guys have brought up because it's either a mass of chaotic blather or it's just not worth responding to.

Wingbeat Hz?? Get real. I don't give a rusty blank about wingbeat Hz. Produce an IBW or shut up.

And what the Hell is "giss"?
Well lessee, where to begin... Let's work from end to begining on this one but I'll let FAV explain "giss" since he's the expert, and I'm essentially just the science reporter.

Produce an IBW or shut up.

Ain't gonna happen (my shutting up that is), but hang onto those misguided adolescent expectations; I'll be able to mine them for years to come...

Anyway, somebody did produce an IBWO... Well, a feather, identified as 95% likely (I wish I knew where that feather is now, because I do know some DNA experts), and wha'happened?

Same kind of attempted shouting down we're seeing here...

Over on the IBWO Forum, in 2006 fangsheath posted a link to an author's update to Fred Collins' paper I linked above (Fang had also linked another source for the original pdf file of the same paper I mentioned and linked).

Here it is . . .


Somebody needs to teach me to copy-and-paste from a pdf (on a Mac, BTW), but I'll type the following and hope I don't wind up cussing the lack of an "edit" feature with blogspot comments.

Perhaps the most intensive researcher of our current generation is Jerome A. Jackson. He was contracted by USFWS and reported to them in July 1989 and revised that report in October 1989. His conclusion was that the bird should not be declared extinct in 1992 as "planned" by USFWS to comply with some regulations related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Reading between the lines suggest that due to the many and continuing environmental assessments required by the ESA getting the bird declared extinct saved the department many man-hours and saved developers and others needing a federal permit for a give project man millions of dollars by not having to address this super rare species of unknown status. It became politically expedient to have this species extinct and to discredit anyone who said otherwise.

John Dennis, who spent a great part of his ornithological career researching and searching for and observing Ivory-billed Woodpeckers had written a report stating he thought 6-12 pairs were in Texas in the late 1960s. His credibility was attacked, and he was all but drummed out of ornithological circles. HIs motives were questioned since his sightings coincided with efforts to create the Big Thicket National Park. His sound recordings were said to be Blue Jay imitations. And a feather Dennis recovered from a fallen nest hole although identified with 95% assurance by the Smithsonian as an Ivory-bill, was not the 100% he needed. Then too, how old was the nest hole and feather?

© 2005-2006 Fred Collins (minor punctuation corrections provided by concolor1)

Moving on, regarding that charge that "FAV" and I might be the same individual, I can't help but wonder if hole-in-the-truth is now attempting to emulate me and resort to comedy...

Don't quit your day job there, kiddo, and if you want to place, say $5000 in cash or certified check in Cyberthrush's hand, I promise to provide you with irrefutable scientific evidence that FAV and I are different specimens of homo sapiens. I'm sure FAV will agree as well, and after providing photographs and provenanced DNA swabs, we'll deduct expenses, divide the money, and give Cyberthrush his commission.

Finally, as far as that comment that what we both write is "unintellegible," I'll suggest there's nothing wrong with our transmitters, but that receiver of yours needs a serious overhaul or replacement.

I already offered a referral on that one...
Maybe that alleged feather is at Area 51, right alongside the Roswell flying saucer.

Even though this was written over six years ago, it still pretty much says it all:

A little more of that imprecision-in-scholarship again, there, hole-in-the-truth?

I read that the author passed away in December, 2002 . . . Well, I suppose over seven years ago is more than six years ago . . . Here's a bit of advice: Always triple check your sources. I learned that sparring with the Zoobies...

And there's that strawman operation again . . .

Remember, we have more reports of Bigfoot over the past 50 years than we have of ivory-billed woodpeckers, and few people have trouble dismissing those. And in both cases we have exactly the same amount of useful, believable physical evidence, which is none.

I suggest there's an order of magnitude of difference in the believability of Bigfoot and the IBWO to the degee that it's insulting to thinking inviduals everywhere to include them in the same discussion and attempt to draw any useful parallels. Yet Blom does so repeatedly.

Too, and I hate to dis' the dead, but there's this bit of dishonesty (perhaps inadvertent although Collins' work was available to him).

Not a photograph, a videotape, a feather, an egg, or anything else.

Well, I've already watched you revert to suggestions the space aliens abducted the feather (Occam's Razor suggests government conspirators are more likely culprits in that one as well as the operations at Area 51). But we had a feather and a few photographs, and dat same ol' rivuh Denial I've been singing about for some time now. It runs deep...

And seriously, this whole article started out with strawman reasoning when the word "miracle" was used. It does not require anything supernatural to be operative for small pockets of IBWO's to have persisted in the Southern United states. The inclusion of the supernatural is, by definition, required for what constitutes a miracle... My namesake, the Florida Panther, persists in the Everglades, and that isn't miraculous by any means.

But I see Cyberthrush has already given you a vocabularly lesson on the acronym "giss" already...

The miracle will occur if any of this sinks in...
Where are these pockets of birds?

Mike Collins and Virazzi produced a paper full of complex equations, called everyone else useless idiots, and then the fool Collins produced a video of a Red-headed as his best effort and proof that he "got that sucker"

there's a lesson in here somewhere, not sure what it is.
concolor1, your powers of deduction are amazing. You actually figured out that seven is greater than six. Give yourself a cookie.

However, that doesn't change anything about the accuracy of what I said. Apparently you missed the part on that page where it says: "This piece written by Eirik A.T. Blom was featured in the September/October 2003 edition of Bird Watcher's Digest". The article WAS WRITTEN over six years ago. Since neither you nor I were there when Blom actually wrote the article, neither you nor I can say exactly when it was written. Since it was published over six years ago it must have been written over six years ago. Get it?

Produce that feather. Include the results from tests by least two independent, reputable, qualified labs that attest to the authenticity of it coming from an IBW, and only from an IBW, and to the age of the feather.

Produce a good, clear, sharp photo of an IBW that was taken within the last 60 years. Include the results from tests by at least two independent, reputable, qualified labs/experts that attest to the authenticity and provenance of the photo, and to the fact that it's an IBW and only an IBW. Notice the word "independent".

Then produce the bird that was photographed.

Actually, a comparison to Bigfoot or any other far fetched claim is perfectly reasonable. Read my earlier posts for more clarification.

Florida Panthers have been well photographed, captured, and even hit by cars. All that, even though they are RARE (as long as one recognizes it as a unique subspecies), secretive, and very wary of people. Sound familiar?

Denial is what IBW believers are living in.
thehoatzin, to the believers there will always be a pocket that hasn't been adequately searched yet and must be home to IBWs. Even if the Earth were swallowed by the Sun there would still be a pocket somewhere in space with flocks of IBWs lounging by the pool and sipping Mint Juleps. :)
I've been a birder, naturalist, and nature photographer for a very long time and I've never seen or heard the term "giss" until I saw it in this thread. "jizz", on the other hand, I have heard but it didn't apply to birds.
You sure have trouble with spelling there, hole-in-the-truth . . .

The word you're thinking of is spelled gee-eye-ess-em (or alternately spelled with a "jay"). And now to avoid deteriorating further, back to those Zoobies I've been describing: your last amounts to a variation on the same sort of "testimony bearing" they resort to when their supply of factual support is exhausted. You've been running on fumes and hot air for a long time now...

'Nuff . . . You're the one who insisted the bird is extinct, and thus the burden of proof remains on you, your scarecrows not withstanding.

Here's the talking point you need to internalize:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I'm merely a reporter on this one, and what I've reported is there isn't evidence to write off the IBWO at this point . . . There's been no denial on my part that irrefutable proof of its survival hasn't been forthcoming; what is clear is that you repeatedly confuse the words "evidence" and "proof" in obviously pathological and dichotomous fashion, and then you get hostile when I suggest some remedial English lessons are in order.

Worse, your baldfaced immaturity and narcissism is attempting--in evangelical fashion--to impose that reality on others. I, on the other hand, recognize that there are those who "choose to believe," and while I'm not one of them, I am slightly optimistic. And I also acknowledge someone's right to choose "not to believe," so long as they mind their manners and aren't too dogmatic. You strayed across the line from the get-go on that one...

Now keep parroting those talking points you learned from the special interests; it'll serve as a handy excuse not to think for yourself and "think the unthinkable."

It'll also help you to sleep at night and not consider the horrific alternative that you might be wrong.

Nightie, night . . .
My spelling is fine. Do a Google search for the word jizz. You'll find that the vast majority of the results will not be about birds.

The rest of your post is just more blah blah blah.
Don't miss out on the chance to help find and protect a rare creature:


Hmm, isn't Texas where some IBWs are allegedly located? Maybe a Bigfoot is keeping them as pets in a cage. That would explain why they're so hard to find. LOL
>>.Where are these pockets of birds?<<<<

Unpublished research on a fraction of the available habitat indicates there are very few areas that routinely produce putative IBWOs per 10 square miles acoustically surveyed. But there are some.

Interestingly the detection rate of birds in superior habitat infers a density of 1 to 2 birds/8 sq miles; consistant with historic reports.

On other surveys we have detected 0 to 1 bird in 20 to 100 sq miles of less than optimal habitat, with these areas not surveyed thouroughly but rather heterogeneously via acoustical signals, with a bias towards late seral patches, modern reports and/or contiguous areas.

The two largest habitats (Ap and Af)have not been visited and its exceedingly likely that there are birds in there.

>>>M Collins and Virazzi produced a paper full of complex equations, called everyone else useless idiots, and then the fool Collins<<<

The subject paper has been presented at some prestiguous Univ.; no plausible and supportable formal or informal rebuttals to the abstract's conclusion (video consistant with IBWO) have been brought up.

Refusing to look at video from a very unique and advantageous angle(overhead)becuase one doesn't like, the suffer no fools attitude of the researcher, is a typical immitation-skeptic tactic. Its anti-science.

Wing beat Hz is an important ID tool and within hours of seeing the video archived articles were sent to MC. Tobalske was introduced to MC. Integrating the plethora of historical reports of a fast wing beat, data from the'35 tape, AR vid and the 2006/2008 Pearl vids with proven and peer reviewed calculations lays the groundwork for evidence of some arguable strength. Ignoring the evidence or attacking MC and others will not factually change the vid from being consistant with IBWO. Indendant measurements might be coming in; don't expect any changes since very capable engineer types did the initial field measuremnts.

A true skeptic would be down there....maybe you should claw your way, tree by tree.

The 11/5/09 RHWO had many fooled inclusive of doubters. Many of us knew (even little hummer) quickly that it was a RHWO but unfortunately some that had MC's ear thought it an IBWO. He was busy several consecutive days in a tree and had no downtime to seriously analyse the vid.

Quick vid analysis by those not trained in it, is prone to problems, just look at the 4 authors' poor work in the 2005 Science note rebuttal.

Regardless the fact remains that the 2008 tape exists and IS CERTAINLY NOT PROOF OF EXTINCTION but rather proof that at least one sp has giss, flight characteristics, Hz, trailing white wings and habitat preferances consistant with an IBWO.

Any true, skeptical rebuttal scientist should be quite interested in discovering the look alike sp; it could explain a lot of the sightings they alledge to be mistakes. Guess they haven't come up with anthing in two years. The bird must hang with that PIWO that flaps 7.8 4 secs post take-off.

Makes some suspect IBWO even more.

"Unpublished research"? That's a good one. LOL

"the detection rate"? Don't you mean ALLEGED detection rate?

"...we have detected 0 to 1 bird in 20 to 100 sq miles.."? Who's "we"? And don't you mean ALLEGEDLY detected?

"The two largest habitats (Ap and Af)have not been visited and its exceedingly likely that there are birds in there." Yep, it's "exceedingly likely" that some birds are in there but they're not an IBW. And I'm pretty damned sure there have been visitors there. Just because you haven't been there doesn't mean no one has.

"The subject paper has been presented at some prestiguous Univ.; no plausible and supportable formal or informal rebuttals to the abstract's conclusion (video consistant with IBWO) have been brought up." Wow, a "paper" was presented at "some prestiguous Univ.". I'm impressed. Not.

"A true skeptic would be down there....maybe you should claw your way, tree by tree." Maybe you or someone else should come up with some actual proof instead of hogwash. Why should anyone go there to try to prove the IBW is extinct?

"Quick vid analysis by those not trained in it, is prone to problems, just look at the 4 authors' poor work in the 2005 Science note rebuttal." You're joking, right?

"Regardless the fact remains that the 2008 tape exists and IS CERTAINLY NOT PROOF OF EXTINCTION but rather proof that at least one sp has giss, flight characteristics, Hz, trailing white wings and habitat preferances consistant with an IBWO." It proves nothing, well, except that some people can be easily fooled.

"Any true, skeptical rebuttal scientist should be quite interested in discovering the look alike sp; it could explain a lot of the sightings they alledge to be mistakes. Guess they haven't come up with anthing in two years." There's nothing to come up with, for a "rebuttal scientist". It's you and people like you who haven't come up with any proof, and you've had a lot more than two years.

"Makes some suspect IBWO even more." Makes some suspect that some people are nuts.

You should be more careful with using words or phrases like "proven", "routinely", "putative", "plausible", "supportable", "consistant", "bias", "Ignoring the evidence", "prone to problems, "proof", "anti-science", etc.
Right, hole-in-the-truth's spelling is every bit as good as that grammar claim that he ignored...

Do you always frame your footnotes with "Because I said so" references? That could cause you some problems with committees...

Anyway, try that word with the "em" I suggested; it'll lead you to a few sites and give you something to do besides bother us with your scarecrows (yeah, I have an allergy to straw).

I must be really old to know they used to spell it with a "gee" as well... (Source: an old "Playboy" my uncle left lying around)

Interesting that our lecturer here didn't know what "jizz" was a few days ago, but now he's an authority on it . . .


Anyway, it looks like our "giss" of this particular troll was spot on...

And now what are we going to do? Eat him or vote him off the island?
As I said, a poster child for narcissistic types . . .

Dissing "Unpublished research," as probably being in its same category as the IBWO; "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist."

And bringing a cap pistol intellect to a real OK corral gunfight . . .

Shoot, I'm starting to re-cycle material from old shoot-outs . . .

Howcum it fits so well, though?

I guess I did get the giss right...
Yep, as my ol' mentor noted, narcissists feign boredom as one of their primary defenses...

Note that "nightie, night" comment of I made about . . .

re your hero Mike "suffers no fools" Collins:

Can I refer you to that Red-headed Woodpecker video? Why not put it through your formulae? I remember your first comments on the video. They're online for posterity, of course.

Regardless of IBWOs, you guys shouldn't be let near binoculars. Are your observations still considered credible FAV? I know Mike Collins has had 'other issues' with his records.
CT, others you will like this, hole in the wall gang, maybe not.

Another new species right under some "experts" noses!---- not far from the range of the Hoatzin and Spatuletail.

Dozens of birds of a potentially new species (Fuengian Storm Petrel, proposed?) that are strikingly patterned with characterisitcs intermediate between Wilson's and
Elliot's Storm-petrel were finally photograpphed well enough to realize it may be a new taxon.



Approx. 250 individuals were seen on Feb 8. Open habitat, pelagic, hundreds of birds....in the past some have landed on boats.

Yet no good pixs until 2010. Can't be....or can it? Hozie, Spat, and hole get on it, good luck, help each other with copious, giss work.

Since the concept of organic birding had never been obvious to them on land, the leaders will have their hands full with these three. They will be a big hit on a pelagic!!

Warning--- do not come from closing time at the pub right to the vessel at 4 AM. If you must--- grab those free crackers.

Good luck.

Where in that article does it say that no "good pix" have ever been taken of those birds until now?

What I see in that article is that there's the usual disagreement as to which species the birds are. In other words, which name should be applied to them. According to the article, the birds have been known of (by *science*) for a long time.

you just don't have a clue
Why paddled-tail, I thought you were bowing out?
He didn't say he was bowing out forever. I'm sure you would love it if everyone who disagrees with you would bow out of the entire IBW fiasco. That way you and your fellow IBW hoaxers could have the stage all to yourselves and wouldn't have to worry about any challenges to your religious-like faith and zealotry.

By the way, I thought you and some others have said that the IBW is extant. Let's see it.

And what does SNTJ mean?
As if the petrels weren't enough, another amazing, jaw-dropping, vertebrate discovery this week. It's so good you will think Cornell made it up!

Coincidentaly its huge, colorful, hunted, wary, arboreal and in a secluded spot. And only recently described with pix.

>>Scientists said in Wednesday, April 7, 2010's Royal Society journal Biology Letters that they have discovered a 6.5-foot (2-meter) long golden-spotted monitor lizard, named Varanus bitatawa, in the forested mountains of the Philippines.

Astonished researchers found the secretive but brightly-coloured beast, a close cousin of the fearsome Komodo Dragons of Indonesia, in a hard-to-reach river valley of northern Luzon Island in the Philippines.

New Giant Lizard Discovery "an Unprecedented Surprise"
Human-size lizard hid from science high in the trees.

Exceptional field conditions (record temp for early April) this week in NJ for hearing multiple Palm Warlers, with the two syllable trill, together with similar juncos, Swampers, similar rumps, Pines and Am. Goldfinches. Good sorting work...more of a challenge if Chippers were in force but then you would lose some of the Juncos. Palms often pass through here quitely.

Best prolonged listening of one, since years ago, on a safe date, a suspected breeding bird in upsate NY was unwittingly heard. Others with me, didn't know the call, had to see it and finally found it. I had wandred off by then for Spruce Grouse but dipped there; found one later......but no pix as it exploded up from twenty feet away and was gone.

This predated Dunn and Garret '97(Warblers of NA), which now has a disjunct dot on the Palm location, the only NY spot on the range map I think. Did we "discover" that location? Probably not and not that important anyway, since its protected.
>>>Let's see it (IBW (sic)).<<<

There is an us in there (let us see it).

What will you be contributing as far as field capabilities? We do need a photographer (a videograpoher has contacted me) and a camp cook.

We are not into field trip-like associations, where we have to explain to you what every fly over, song, call and numerous drumming actually is.

Get a permission slip from your mum....advise her you might not survive the week.........and no forging her name. No matter how amusing and news worthy your demise might be, we don't want that! But with your mums X, we can tolerate your earthly departure, since in a way it signifies even she wants you gone like Concolor.

That would be ironic, the IBWO surviving longer than the wholy one.

Only kidding by the way. Have a good weekend!

I'm glad you brought up that lizard Fred. Notice the words "Human-size lizard hid from science high in the trees." Yeah, from "science". The locals have been eating them for centuries.

If the IBW were extant the locals would know how and where to find them. Things that are "new to science" aren't necessarily unknown to the locals. Anything harmful or edible or bigger than an ant is virtually always well known to the locals.

The often used term "new species" always cracks me up. The species is not new, it's just new to "science".

Another thing that I find interesting (in a laughable way) is that researchers or curators often find new to science animals or plants in collections that have been in the possession of museums for decades to over a hundred years. This happens with fossils on a regular basis. It says a lot about the lack of thoroughness by researchers and curators (scientists). They haven't even figured out what they already have.

Smart scientists, who actually want to figure out what exists in any particular area, will always talk with the locals, and especially the outdoorsy-type locals who hunt them, fish for them, trap them, eat them, collect them, or just see them.

Want to find an IBW? Place an ad in the newspapers and on the internet in the putative areas where an IBW could allegedly be found and offer a million dollar reward for information that leads to a living, verifiable bird. If you don't turn up an IBW that way within a week or so there aren't any left.

A million bucks would be cheap compared to what's already been wasted on no results whatsoever.
Even though you're joking, it's interesting that you would suggest that I apply to your offer for a photographer. I'm actually a very good nature photographer and observer. When the initial announcement was made that the IBW had been rediscovered a naturalist/author friend of mine and I listened to the report and how the alleged sighting needed confirmation. We talked and joked a little about how we should go to the south and see if we could find an IBW and that if anyone could find one we could. The only two people on Earth who are as good at finding things (if they exist) as I am are my daughter and that friend. Call it bragging if you like, but it's true.

That friend is the best naturalist I've ever met and she said the same about me. She now lives in Indiana and I live in Washington. For enough money we might be available for some field work but we wouldn't come cheap. I'm sure we would turn up a lot of stuff but I wouldn't guarantee an IBW.

I'm pretty sure my mom would let me go, especially if I tell her I would buy her a hot fudge sundae at McDonald's every week for the next year or two with part of my proceeds. :)
>>>If the IBW were extant the locals would know how and where to find them.<<<

How do you think most of the private researchers find leads and then birds?

Hill heard about the birds accidentally in the Choctaw/Pea complex from a local many years before the AR bird was proven.......that FL area is known to locals as having two huge Picidae. In LA you had Kulivan and a local biologist before Collins, etc,etc.

Other modern encounters have been triggered by locals' input....in a few cases the input is in two different languages (LA).

A recent two person sighting, one a skeptic, led me to excellent results.

Whenever you get a skeptic or imitation skeptic's sighting in play you got something...its rare to get them off the byte boob tube, or the drawing table and into the field for more than 4 hours. Also with skepies you eliminate the obeserver bias that the amateur psychologists rant about. Skeppies expect to only see Pileateds (ha) but saw an IB.

Regardless with locals (or wildlife smugglers) you have to have solid interview techniques. Some searchers are professionally trained via your tax dollars ( I hear the complaining already) in information gathering....in order to assure quality leads and eliminate copious amounts of BS.

Ichabod you really got to catch up on what is well known as basic field methods including gen gathering.

Your behind most naturalists. Tanner goes into what you believe you have brilliantly stumbled upon here in your running thesis, but he said it 70 years ago. We are here to help you though.

Would like to see your pix portfolio...can you send me a link private or public?

Whats your gear?
FAV don't hold your breathe waiting for the portfolio; he's just as likely a 16-year old troll (hopefully with no daughter) as any sort of nature photographer. On the 'Net you get to claim you're whatever you wanna be.
Sure FAV

same ol'
same ol'
Does anyone take FAV's claim about private searchers actually finding birds from local contacts seriously?
Forgive Your Enemies

The preacher, spoke on Forgive Your Foolish Enemies.

He asked how many were willing to forgive their enemies. Half held up their hands.

Not satisfied he harangued for another twenty minutes; this time he received a response of about 80 percent.

Still unsatisfied, he lectured more and repeated his question. With all thoughts now on Sunday dinner, all agreed except one elderly lady in the rear.

Mrs. Ivorybill, are you not willing to forgive your foolish enemies?

"I don't have any."

"Mrs. Ivorybill, that is very unusual. How old are you?"

"Ninety three."

Please tell the congregation how a person can live to be 93, and not have an enemy in the world.

The little sweetheart of a lady tottered down the aisle, very slowly turned around and said:

"It's easy, I just outlived all the f'ing, stupid nadsuckers".
cyberthrush said; "On the 'Net you get to claim you're whatever you wanna be."

Yep, that's true, and it's also true on TV or in magazines, newspapers, and scientific "papers", and it not only pertains to who you are but also to what you claim.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

I actually wasted some time today reading Bill Pulliams blog and the responses to his posts. Wow, are he and other people delusional, or what?

Hey Bill, mathematical gobbledegook isn't going to find an IBW, and neither is hearsay or any of the other useless so-called evidence.

The excuses people make for not being able to produce an IBW are truly amazing. They are as elaborate and far fetched as the excuses people make for not being able to prove the existence of whatever imaginary god they believe in.

Reason and sanity are brushed aside by the "believers" and no amount of common sense has any effect on them and their crusade.

"Lord God bird", religious zealots.

Food for thought.
I'll take that lack of support for FAV as a NO then

FAV, are you similar to Mike Collins in that having been thoroughly rumbled and discredited by the birding community, you are styling yourself as a maverick who knows the truth while all birders that disagree with you are just incompetents who don't "get it"?
Don't neccesarily want certain individuals getting it. The bird is extant in very low numbers. You can't gain distribution knowledge on the computer...but its best that some stay there.

Personal opinions of me or imitation skeptics are irrelevant to IBWO conservation.

During studies several of us have been fortunate enough to encounter a few birds recently; it's an intriguing field problem that has solutions. The bird is on the EXTANT list officially in the US and even a Giza-sized pyramid of skeptical, tightly wrapped mummies will not change that.

Learning certain habitat preferances, seeing a few fresh Campephilus roosts in the SE US, studying behavioral clues, seeing IB flight characteristics in the field, gathering info on the circannualar frequency of DKs to kents, hearing/seeing IBs responding during permitted studies....its been a constructive time.

As a demonstration of animal observation methods and how they are converted to conclusions lets use Hummer as a subject:

Covering any wager involving a sizable donation on the following conclusions being right:

Its a male...

28 to 38 years old

lister, probably foreign, sleeps with a bird checklist of some type close to his pillow and blow up

superiority complex with no real basis for it, manifested to hide inadequacies and keep fragile ego intact

Complex is enforced by a close and significant association with children where his ego is stroked....is either a teacher (can you imagine, the next generation?) and/or has multiple kids.

Lives and dies by his world list number yet has an inferior number of birds to some, right here.

Has no identifiable picture of a Swainson's Warbler....in fact has never seen one and can't produce a non-fraudulent day/trip list with the word....please no white out of Thrush.

May have never even seen a Pileated........or IB.

never gotten any SE US mud on his purple crocs!

A blind-folded birder from our survey team wouild have a higher and completely accurate species list compared to him after 5 minutes in any US forest in May.

Considers it advanced field work when he reads a "Where to find birds in Corkscrew" and goes, as directed to the intersection of the Carolina Chickadee and Timouse Trails where he ticks off the Barred Owl that has been in the same tree for 7 years.

High fives his bud on an exotic lifer, when a skulker with a territory of one acre finally hops out on the marked trail after they played a tape for 30 minutes during the breeding season.

Is not on any US BRC.

trip reports dominated by cheap places to flop or drink (budget birder, kinda like a certain mobile team he loves) .

Drinks warm beer.

Significant other is jealous of those that have seen a large pecker and wants fulfillment badly.
Good stuff, FAV . . .

A minor quibble from a few posts back. I don't necessarily want him gone. I'll settle for seeing him grovel.

Does remind me of the starlings I now see as I look out my window. A moment ago there was a magpie and a scrub jay was making a lot of noise while the finches checked out the big blue spruce in the neighbor's yard.

Generalized bullies I tell you...
Right on every count FAV, cept the warm beer.

Face it, you haven't encountered any IBWOs lately. I find the fact that you are saying publicly that you have is quite shameful. I also doubt that anyone is fooled. Even here.
FAV, who exactly are you referring to as "Hummer"?
Our findings are given to entities on a need to know basis, by prior agreement.....people with names and solid reputations. In general we are not picture chasers.

Not one of the last several people I have studied with are able to explain field notes, data and events without evoking a range of opinions involving IBWOs being present......or an undescribed species.
blah blah blah

look at me

yawn, yawn, yawn
So now an undescribed species that hasn't been seen is involved?

Is that an unknown unknown Fred?

Or is it something that we mere mortals don't need to know?
Concolor, I met one of FL Panther field researchers; quite interesting about the LA super male that invigorated the subspecies. Discussed the IBWO with him. Will say more with time.

Lil' hummer, he is really green at this. Addressing the obtuse... the new species is a quip on the ridiculous inference by imitation-skeptics that some unknown herp was kenting and DKing in a heterogeneous pattern in the Choctaw...imagine a new diurnally, calling frog, never photoed, according to the fickle, skeptical mind!!! and....of course there was those wing banging, Anatidae in the dry forest, Anus nelsonii and of course ........

The birds in the 2006 and 2008 LA videos that look like IBWOs but can't be according to skeptics must also be an undescribed species because those aren't Pileateds or even more laughable, a Belted Kingfisher. Perhaps to be named Ceryle bevier

there is this unknown to science, Pileated-like woodpecker species that lived only a year in AR, flaps faster than any known PIWO and twists its wing in some odd fashion never depicted in any video....that off course is....... Dryocopus sibley spatulefail .

Too much...... we are being lectured by someone who's never even seen or heard a Pileated or ticked a Swainson's Warbler.

How can an alleged birder whose ear drum has never been introduced to a Piliated drum, or a single or working double knock, even fathom the fact that an IBWO SKing, DKing or kenting near an experienced field birder is often, very compelling.

It's nothing like a spring PIWO territorial knock, an interrupted PIWO drum or two quick PW working knocks. IBWO DKs or SKs are usually powerful, Reggie Jackson bat-like and dwarf a PIWO knock(s)if they are ambient. Ambient IBWO DKs are often strong because there is a higher probability they are on a favored signaling tree.

(We are finding that induced IBWO DKs can be muted in volume since hypothetically they are not always on the preferred substrate or optimal signaling tree, when reacting to permitted, anthropomorphic DKs, during normal, daily movements).

Also our control data in NJ and poorer quality habitats in the SE has never had a PIWO DK or SK back to our signals.

A good place for Sapt to learn about rare bird vocalizations is to start with feeder birds....and then get back to us so we can discuss kents.

Although some single nuthatch or Bluejay notes/calls may sound or specto out like an IB....there is no mistaking an IBWO kent when from an agitated or alerted individual. They will be Singer-like. If you hear that type, the bird likely detects a predator, knows you are there, may be signaling its mate and you are not going to get a pix or a good look.

Ambient IBWO kents, like many recorded in the Choctaw, are sometimes muted compared to Singer kents. This is expected considering the differing biological contexts. I was fortunate to hear kents and an impressive, ambient DK in the Choctaw in 2006.

One weakness of those that do not get into the SE US field is that they do not even know the common, confusement species AT ALL. For many skeptics these species and all, or parts of their acoustical repertoire would be life birds or life sounds.

A BRCs basic prerequisite for nomination, let alone member acceptance, is extensive knowledge of common species. Imagined or presumptive field experience of nuthatches, Jays and Pileateds by Spat or any imitation skeptic forlorns them to failure when judging others field data. Van Remsen and Hill are BRC members.

I have met Hill.......... and Spat you are no Hill.
Thanks FAV

but I knew that already

and it's no surprise you're friends with old Geoff HIll!

Now, about those woodpeckers you keep seeing...?
Bill P. left this comment on a another post, but I s'pose it may bear repeating here:

"Those interested in reading more of Whole truth's stellar prose may find it at his own blog:


Yes, it's the same profile number, not just a coincidentally similar screen name.
Those who seem overly fixated on badgering me for my own opinions may find them in great detail and excessive length at:

Thanks CT. But do I really want to read more of the Wholes ranting?

"Now, about those woodpeckers you keep seeing...?"

You'll humor me if I need time to warm up to discussing those things on a blog with a fantasy poster.

The real question is what about all those woodpeckers you fellas are seeing....well not you.... you have no experience with the potential confusement species of any taxon.

I mean those skeptics who rarely get in the field and who have made extraordinary claims such as

strange PIWOs with symetric patterns of aberrant white in the wings(never found, not a one)

where are those PIWOs with the outlying flap rate of 7.8/s, 4 secs post takeoff

where are these strange DKing and kenting nuthatches, crows and deer

yes, that was a funny one, fawns bleeping...are responsible for the kents.

where is the Belted Kingfisher with a 30 inch wing span

where is the large woodpecker that doesn't bound in level, unhurried flight and has white in the wing like an IB

an on an on.

The IBWO is listed as an official endangered species.....Its Extant until very suggestive, field notes, videos, recordings and evidence STOPS coming in from field observers. CT and all of us have stated that reasonable standard over and over.

Extinction evidence must be presented not imagined to be presented from the collective arm chairs of the verdant minds of the imitation skeptic. Opinions are not evidence. We need video of kenting deer or frogs and DKing PIWOs, they are common species. Well not that hard to find frog evidently.

Many suspect, and a few hundred know, the extinction hypothesis is wrong. Many reasonable people are very dissappointed in the strength and quality of the extinction evidence.

Multiple and independent data sets of many field efforts squarely support the extant hypothesis.

We are extinction skeptics. We will call for all the evidence to be looked at in a fair, truthful, and calm manner. There will be no acquiescence to propaganda, rhetoric or evidence embargo attempts by any individual or special interest group.

"Ich bin ein Berliner" ;-)
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Older Posts ...Home