Discussions on the Night Parrot…..Birdforum
By Birding-Aus, on October 11th, 2013
All I attended John Young’s presentation on Night Parrots in Brisbane which was amazing to see. It seemed indisputable and I walked away having witnessed a part of birding history. However, I have just been alerted by UK birding friends to discussions taking place on Birdforum in the UK where there are claiming parts of the photos are cloned and they are casting huge doubts over the record. Some of it can be found here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=268579 but you have to join bird forum to see the the entire thread with all the photo analysis. Does anyone know anything about this? Is anyone following the thread and has anyone else looked at this or commented on it? I’m not trying to caste aversions or dispute John’s record but people should be aware that the record is being questioned by other birding communities. It would be great if someone could set them straight…… Rob Morris Brisbane, Australia =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Given the history of the fig parrot images, it is strange that the images of the Night Parrots may not be squeaky clean. Regards, Laurie. On 12/10/2013, at 3:27 AM, KEN TUCKER wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I agree with you, Nikolas. As a scientific record, this just doesn’t cut the mustard. I really want to believe it’s true and this doesn’t disprove John’s claims… but why manipulate the image? And DNA evidence just proves that Night Parrot feathers were obtained… but from where? (Obviously from a Night Parrot… but how obtained?) I hope better evidence is soon forthcoming… but I shan’t hold my breath. Happy birding Ken =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi David, David & Peter, As a scientist I strongly disagree. Sadly, there is absolutely no doubt that major image manipulation has taken place in this case. This is not acceptable for publication in any medium as it has a serious impact on the validity of the presented data. First of all, these pictures (and hopefully at some point the videos) should support the evidence of the Night Parrot still being around. Second, since they are the only existing photographs, they might be used for future reference and may end up as templates for field guides. In this case the manipulations will be amplified. A way to fix this very serious issue would be the publication of the original raw files and a thorough explanation why the pictures had been manipulated prior to release. To your question, David, ‘What do people really want?’ We want unequivocal data supporting evidence of the Night Parrot still being around. So far we don’t have any acceptable data. To my knowledge neither the pictures (original raw files), nor the video (again original raw files), nor the call (for reasons discussed in the past) nor the DNA data have been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Here are the guidelines for image manipulation that we use in our field of research: ‘Digital figures adjusted with computer software are acceptable. However, the final image must remain representative of the original data and cannot be enhanced, obscured or rearranged. Unacceptable modifications include the addition, alteration or removal of a particular feature of an image. All digital images in manuscripts accepted for publication will be examined for any improper modification and if evidence of such inappropriate modification is detected, the Editor of the journal will request the original data to be supplied for comparison to the prepared figures and if necessary revoke acceptance of the article. Cases of deliberate misrepresentation of data will result in revocation of acceptance, and will be reported to the corresponding author’s home institution or funding agency.’ Best wishes, Nikolas —————- Nikolas Haass nhaass@yahoo.com Brisbane, QLD On Friday, October 11, 2013 8:33 PM, David Stowe < davidstowe@optusnet.com.au> wrote: Hi Rob, I heard about it some time ago but deliberately didn’t rejoin as I knew i would just get myself into an argument
Having been at the presentation in Brisbane and seen the video and photos I had no doubts at all. Seeing the high res printed cover of Birdlife magazine doesn’t change anything for me. The DNA analysis was also positive. What more do people really want? So what if a few feathers have been cloned? So what if the image has been flipped between publications? Some people really do need to get a life. I have no doubt that John Young doesn’t care what they are saying – nor those close to him who have seen more. Cheers Dave On 11/10/2013, at 5:52 PM, robert morris < robert_p_morris@hotmail.com> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org =============================== =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Rob, I heard about it some time ago but deliberately didn’t rejoin as I knew i would just get myself into an argument
Having been at the presentation in Brisbane and seen the video and photos I had no doubts at all. Seeing the high res printed cover of Birdlife magazine doesn’t change anything for me. The DNA analysis was also positive. What more do people really want? So what if a few feathers have been cloned? So what if the image has been flipped between publications? Some people really do need to get a life. I have no doubt that John Young doesn’t care what they are saying – nor those close to him who have seen more. Cheers Dave On 11/10/2013, at 5:52 PM, robert morris < robert_p_morris@hotmail.com> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Some people need to get a life – the DNA analysis of the feathers surely dispelled any doubts, not to mention the scrutiny of the photographic record . . . Cheers David On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Peter Shute < pshute@nuw.org.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I meant to add that the areas concerned seem so small that I imagine that if there is some cloning then it would mostly likely have been done for cosmetic reasons, possibly in the production of the magazine. Peter Shute Sent from my iPad =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I’ve been reading the thread. They’re discussing the cover photo of September’s Australian Birdlife. Looking at the cover, I can see what they’re talking about – a set of three adjacent feathers repeated three times on its back, another similar pair of feathers on its “shoulder”. They do look very similar, but I’d like to see them overlaid on each other before I believe they really are the same. Sent from my iPad =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================