Chuck Hunter and I had a recent Facebook exchange on the 2008 IBWO video; I link to the conversation below in a compilation otherwise it will be buried into FB obscurity.
New FB post of 6/7/2026
Posts/comments 1, 2, etc are below for chronological reading.
Chuck's habit of denying that the pivotal part of our knowledge often relies on inferential science always allow him to believe he escapes factual points. He clings to that belief as if a fact but antithetically places most video conclusions into beliefs and not facts.
I said " If its appears as a possible IB you think you think you would download it yourself and spend a few hours toggling the frames back and forth."
I am of course referring to the original video file and have said so and written, formally and informally many times that "a download of the original movie file (very large) from Collins is need and is available on the link provided" .
Chuck said "I have toggled the images more than you could guess, including your edited images, over the years. "
Chuck leaves it ambiguous to what media iteration he has "toggled back and forth". He certainly has not asked for any original video files from me. Many files that are quite intriguing and are a must see in some respects. That despite him and most knowing that FB and Google (where Virrazzi, 2022 article is hosted) compress and degrade original ID data in a video that we collectively say IS or COULD BE one of the rarest birds on Earth.
Chuck is working on things as I am so forgiveness to both of us for not sharing files. But forgiveness doesn't imply that Chuck has done the best job on the 2008 video or that he should be forgiven from coming to his usual hedged conclusions without noting this flaw or gap in his analysis. After all this is said to be by perhaps hundreds of thousands to be the best evidence of the IBWO's 21st century persistence. Let's not forget that engineers, biologists, mathematicians, avian flight specialists, etc. went to the secluded sighting spot and measured and gauged all this very carefully or looked at the video. All conclude there is a Campephilus double knock heard, the bird has a 30 inch wingspan, has a large trailing white edge, is a large woodpecker, has a very high wing Hz, is going at 34 mph (notable) and much more. We will get to molt, a smoking gun.
If this bird was fleeing from a murder scene the BOLO would read "Ivory-billed Woodpecker killed a scientist from Stennis; video evidence overwhelming."
On molt Chuck graciously leaves that to me. Thanks. It's there. A draft paper is posted I believe. The IBWO specimens have been examined by others, and the literature review is advanced. We need (or really do not, see nuanced details) to have the skeptics come to some consensus (after we herd these emotional cats) and tell us what species it is or might be, so every species molt phenology in SE USA need not be compared. Chuck needs to love or hate Redheads and say so. (Hint Redheads molt well N and after their breeding). The ABA tragedy of its human publicly calling for an IBWO to be shot must stop his waffle and take a guess on species.
Regardless as inferred above, the IBWO specimens and Pyles work say IBWO and Picidae molting and breeding phenology are like a temporal fingerprint, pointing squarely to IBWO, not PIWO, not kingfishers, not ducks, and on and on.
Chuck "Tobalske, I did reach out to him to hear more of what he had to say, but he made it clear that he wanted to have nothing more to do with Collins and he told me his interpretations were no longer to be used when it became clear that Collins regularly misidentified the birds he said he was seeing while he was videoing them. Tobalske, like me, had assumed Collins was seeing the birds well enough to correctly identify them before videoing, but after a series of his posted videos demonstrated otherwise, Collins was proven to be an unreliable observer when trying to video these birds."
I find it hard to follow the chronology of Tobalske's change of mind on certain IB things and how to separate out if you biased him against Collins and had impartial conversations with Tob. I had the luxury of asking Collins what happened and he said "people got to him from the skeptical side" and "he became more aware of the controversy". I see and saw nothing contextually wrong with Collins' explanation.
Regardless that was not only what I asked Chuck. I was curious about the specifics on wing-binding. Because Collins allegedly mis-IDed birds (he did once at least briefly) it's being extrapolated into a stretch.
Collins was hanging out of a precarious perch with one hand on a branch and one on the camera; one mis ID is allowed; we likely couldn't do better even if one of us was foolish enough to get up there. The foolish is inserted to connect my long-standing points made to Collins before the 2008 video "that modern landscape ecology makes it less likely a bird flys above the canopy. Mike keep an eye below the tree".
Regardless, and I am repeating, how does Collins' mistakes change the pixels, speed, molt, double knock, etc. in the 2008 video?
It's realized that Chuck is summarizing many verbal records with no video or media so he highly values accuracy of descriptions, skill levels and poor ID conclusions by the reporter. However, in the rare occasion when a video exists Chuck seems unable to break away from his usual integrity checking methods, sometimes with no pragmatic utility, and just look at facts in the video.
If John W and others who actually could not tell a crested, minute Tufted Titmouse from a crested, large Ivory-billed came in with a suggestive flight video, with a double knock, I would say "great job John, lets see what Tobalske says". And I wouldn't need to inform Tobalske about John's prior horrific fumbles if not pertinent to some general or finer point Tobalske is committing to.
From the thread link right above here is the Original First Post followed by comments. The OP has IBWO videos, etc
Original Post
Chuck Hunter Jordan Alan Jeez Chuck if you can see anything suggesting an IBWO on Facebook or in my on-line article 2022 you think you would download it yourself and spend a few hours toggling the frames back and forth. The synchronous molt was found that way; it was not easy. But the molt is there in the download and it's in March!!!
- Reply
- Share
Chuck wrote
Fred Virrazzi always
appreciate a challenge from you here. Again, I see images that are
suggestive of an Ivory-bill and I dare say I have toggled the images
more than you could guess, including your edited images, over the years.
Despite all that, I still see images that at best are suggestive,
nothing more and nothing less. I see no smoking gun. I take your word on
molt, as I am not an expert on that, and frankly with respect to
Ivory-bill no one can really be an expert regarding living Ivory-bills.
That said, you make an interesting case, but I cannot agree that it is
conclusive without some independent review by known experts on molting
patterns. Have you run your assessment by someone, such as at a museum,
who has access to a number of specimens that could examine them for the
type of molt you are claiming is dispositive? If you have and I just
missed the passage where you have relayed that opinion from an unbiased
source, I apologize. As for Tobalske, I did reach out to him to hear
more of what he had to say, but he made it clear that he wanted to have
nothing more to do with Collins and he told me his interpretations were
no longer to be used when it became clear that Collins regularly
misidentified the birds he said he was seeing while he was videoing
them. Tobalske, like me, had assumed Collins was seeing the birds well
enough to correctly identify them before videoing, but after a series of
his posted videos demonstrated otherwise, Collins was proven to be an
unreliable observer when trying to video these birds. All Tobalske had
to say is that his past interpretations all had been based on the
assumption that Collins at least had videoed a big woodpecker and if we
can’t be sure of that, his interpretations are not to be considered in
any way an “endorsement” from him that “these images have to be
Ivory-bills.” He made it clear to me, that even if one or more of
Collins’ videos are actually large woodpeckers (including 2008), in his
opinion we cannot discount that they are all Pileated Woodpeckers.
Tobalske told that to Collins from the first time he provided his
interpretations to him and when Collin’s kept invoking his name as a
sort of endorsement, he made it clear he needed to stop doing that.
Nothing here changes my opinion either for the Collins 2008 video, the
Luneau 2004 video, and collectively all the Latta et al. evidence as
suggestive but not conclusive. They are all potential encounters, that
are not obviously another species, but could be abnormally flying and/or
abnormally plumaged Pileateds in the case of Luneau and Latta
woodpeckers, and again a wide range of species for the 2008 Collins
video. I don’t personally think so, but can’t exclude the possibility
either. I appreciate that you value my opinion enough to keep trying,
but it really isn’t me you have to convince. That I’m not dismissing out
of hand Collin’s 2008 video, like I have all his others, should be
considered progress. Thanks!
Then comes the next new post which is in the first section of this article
- - - -------
#IvoryBilledWoodpecker #woodpeckers #rarebirds #wingbeatfrequency #endangeredspecies #Picidae #PearlRiver #Virrazzi #LuneauVideo
