Probably oug

One other thing I'll touch on from the comments (and I thank people for not letting them slip toooooooooooo far into 'snarkland' before making your points):
For obvious reasons many (most?) birders no longer wish to involve themselves in the Ivory-bill debate (no doubt wishing it would just go entirely away!). It was suggested in prior comments that the 'mystery' sounds should've been put on listserv groups (including "Frontiers of Identification") for access to a quick, broad range of opinion. I don't believe the "Frontiers of ID" listserv is an appropriate site for most questions that come up here, nor do I think they would even take it seriously (they may even have an unspoken ban on this sort of IBWO material), and I don't fault them for that.
I myself had mentioned a desire to see the question put on the Louisiana birding listserv, though I'm not sure even they would have seriously reviewed it (and I wouldn't recommend it for any other state birding listserv -- by the way, you can't just willy-nilly post things on these listserv groups, but must be a registered member, and that involves a process as well). I do wish that more individuals from the Louisiana Ornithological Society had heard and responded to the sounds, and would still be interested to hear from certain of them.
But the point is, soliciting a wide selection of experienced birder viewpoints is not all that easy anymore when it comes to potential IBWO "evidence." When I occasionally seek opinions on certain questions through backchannels, the response I often get (if any) is along the lines of, "here's what I think, but please don't put it on the blog" or "here's my opinion, but don't attach my name to it." I always respect people's desire for confidentiality, but it does mean that more people weigh in on certain matters than can always be told (though still not as many as I'd like!); at this point 'Ivory-bills' is simply a 'taboo' subject for many who don't want to dabble with it.
I've said before here, if you can't take the heat stay out of the IBWO kitchen… (as David Kulivan, Mike Collins, Geoff Hill, and a li'l outfit called the Cornell Lab of Ornithology etc. can all attest to!); the Project Coyote group seems capable of defending themselves, as they should expect to have to do; other searchers prefer not to even have an internet presence and thus not deal directly with skeptics and criticisms. Part of me wishes that ALL evidence could be immediately laid out on an open table and summarily dealt with by the 'collaborative' Web. But I also completely agree with a colleague who notes that the more 'suggestive' evidence that comes forth without something conclusive following it, the more the IBWO case gets weaker, not stronger. That is the 'paradox' of the IBWO case… the more "evidence" that is produced the WEAKER the argument becomes to the general birding community, UNLESS clearcut photographic or video evidence follows close behind….
(image of Sora via Wikipedia)
------------------------------------------------------------