————————————————————
I won’t go into loads of detail nor get into back-and-forth arguments (which I consider a time-waste) about this, but last night’s presentation of newly-hyped possible IBWO video was wholly unconvincing… and worse.
To my shock, it came from South Carolina (Feb. of this year), the Southeastern state I would have least expected an IBWO video to come from right now (even though there is some good habitat there), but I won’t get into that discussion either.
Last December I predicted here on the blog that there might likely be an IBWO hoax this year, and… folks don’t want to hear this… but I won’t mince words in saying that my default position until I know more about the videographers and other context and specifics here, is that this could well be a hoax or prank; it has several earmarks, and so many aspects that make no sense.
The video and resolution is poor with 2 birds in the background that I don’t believe are large woodpeckers, but smaller birds. The primary focus of interest is a moving object in a tree cavity, which is being passed off as a bird bill, but could be another creature or object. And IF a beak I presume a pileated (which can even be heard to call at one point on the tape). The resolution throughout is too weak to draw firm conclusions, and there is a suspicious lack of transparency with the individuals submitting the video, who seem only willing to answer certain questions put to them or take limited actions that might be suggested (they were not part of the presentation, and I believe the person presenting has never met the South Carolinians but solely interacted with them through email/phone -- no idea if he's done any sort of basic background check on them that might raise red flags; not that hard to do).
The cavity, tree, habitat, don’t look right for an Ivory-bill claim, coming from a "rural" but not deep woods locale (though by itself that does not rule out any possibility) and the videographers sound incredibly amateurish on tape (and not knowledgeable of birds or IBWOs), even claiming that the bird has returned to this location for 3 years in a row… and yet this is the best video (and under 2 mins.) they have attained in all that time, with the birds using a nest or roosthole mind you. They seem to have zero comprehension of the significance surrounding this bird. We are told there is an “interesting backstory” (which I would love to hear) to their highly secretive claim… but, that too could easily be totally concocted. There’s nothing here that gives me any confidence, but plenty of further disconcerting tidbits I won't even mention. IBWO believers always resent the analogies to Bigfoot claims, but this video is very much on a par with poor Bigfoot videos. In short, whether a prank or honest mistake, I give no credence to the claim, unless further analysis and context causes me to change my view, and I don’t expect to discuss it further; discussion will just lend more red meat to skeptics (and, sad to say, given its origins, this could even be a skeptic-produced video and backstory solely intended to embarrass 'believers').
Lastly, it was disappointing to see John Fitzpatrick (retired from Cornell) who was present, almost bend himself into a pretzel trying not to speak too harshly of the video. I don’t think he helped his credibility here, but he will have to speak for himself. Had this video been sent directly to Cornell with so little backstory or context, I doubt they would have taken it seriously for more than 15 minutes. Others present, who likewise have some needed critical thinking skills and scientific rigor, also refrained from much serious comment.
I want to be clear, by the way, that Matt Courtman’s group (who presented the video) are not in any way participants of such a hoax, if such it be, only victims of it. With EVERY IBWO claim the first thing that must be ruled out (if the subject is not immediately identifiable as a pileated or other bird) is hoax, and I don't see it having been ruled out here. Of course, after the excitement of the Project Principalis release this is discouraging. I would be happy to learn that the South Carolinians involved are at least sincere even if mistaken in their claims, if that is the case, rather than being deceitful. After all these years though I can't just ignore my radar, nor the smell test, unless forthcoming better analysis and answers point another way.
I was actually hoping to say slightly more (in a positive vein) about the Project Principalis evidence today, but will leave that for another time.
————————————————————
11 comments:
Sorry you feel that way. We should always be aware that, when we make presumptions, we reveal our own mind's thinking. The backstory is very different than you are guessing (and writing in public), and involves conservation. Luckily, there are numbers of professionals, including those in official status, who understand the video and what it shows. No hoax here at all. You should write a further article about this.
Just so there’s no confusion, “John” above is NOT John Fitzpatrick (who I briefly reference above), but John W. who gave the presentation last night and who is communicating the claims of the S.C. individuals (he is not a claimant himself, nor onsite with them, but simply acting as a sort of go-between).
The video was disappointing, almost funny, just some moving gray blobs that could be many things. If not a hoax someone with a good camera needs to stake out that hole. If it is a hoax someone had a good laugh.
Hi Dave, there are tons of excellent birders in SC who could likely stake out the cavity (perhaps even retrieve DNA material from the inside).
These videos remind me vaguely of photos (maybe even video) submitted to a forum many years ago that someone thought were multiple IBWOs flying at a distance… with their crests, long tails, silhouettes, even some white showing, one could almost turn them into IBWO… but after a few days of analysis it was apparent they were blue jays who’s size was simply hard to determine at that distance.
Anyway, more than the video itself, what I have trouble with here is even establishing the basic credibility of these unknown, non-transparent claimants.
By the way, did I miss that you requested a copy of the original video for, as I stated, scientific study only? This offer was taken up by numbers of interested parties. You might get more than you think.
Hi John, no I didn’t request a copy…. you’re welcome to send one along (cyberthrush@gmail.com), but I can’t promise how soon I would get to it, or how much I’d have to say, without having a better sense of the credibility and experience of the individual who shot it (and you seemed reluctant or unable to say much about them?). Even with a crystal clear video of an IBWO the videographer will need be vetted before reaching conclusions.
It's a video. What does it matter if a PhD or a five year old took it?
Again, it’s important (and BASIC) to have a sense of the credibility, credentials, sincerity, experience, knowledge, motivations, reliability, background, etc. of anyone producing such a video (videos are easy-peasy to make these days).
Sent you the email. Did you mean videos are "easy-peasy" to FAKE? Looking forward to your opinion on this one.
I meant videos are easy to BOTH make and fake... there are plenty of videos of "Ivory-billed Woodpeckers" on YouTube each year which are clearly Pileateds -- sincere people making a common mistake, and yes it's also easy enough for insincere folks to make a photo or video of an IBWO.
I assume you DO understand why the background and credibility of the claimant of such a video is important, but you feel comfortable with their credence and therefore think everyone else should. If you can't divulge anything about them or their storyline, I can respect that, but it also means I'm very cautious about reaching any conclusions about the video.
[I'll respond to your email separately later tonight or tomorrow.]
Please provide a link to an IBWO video that was faked.
Post a Comment