Night Parrot debate

To: Matthew Rodgers <>
Subject: Night Parrot debate
From: Peter Shute <>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 10:25:29 +1100
Is anyone in that forum still considering that the entire photo might be 
"contrived"? I thought most people still believed the photo was of a living 
Night Parrot, but that it had been altered for some reason. I'd say portions 
have been "touched up", rather than "faked".

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone can show more altered areas, I still 
accept the photo as proof the bird was seen, but I'm uncomfortable with an 
altered image. I'd like to see the original, and I'd like to know how an 
altered image made its way onto a magazine cover without the changes being 

Does anyone who attended the presentation in Brisbane recall seeing anything in 
the photos that were shown that might have warranted touching up? If those were 
all altered too then surely the video showed something?

Peter Shute

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Oct 2013, at 10:10 am, "Matthew Rodgers" <> 
> wrote:
> For those unfamiliar with Birdforum - Rare bird information sub forum, you 
> need to register with your e mail and little else.   It's relatively easy so 
> you can be on in 15 minutes, make sure you create a username that is unique 
> ie not just your name as it may reject your application. 
> There are some very detailed analyses of the two web photos of the claimed 
> night parrot by some folk who are serious about photographic evidence of rare 
> bird records.  In the UK we have suffered from a number of fakes in recent 
> years, mostly brought out into the open by Birdforum members.  Some of these 
> were high profile rarities where people travelled miles to look for them so 
> it is clear that any sort of tampering of such globally significant bird 
> photos are of serious concern.   I recommend anyone to look at these postings 
> so they  can make up their minds what to believe, quite frankly it does not 
> look good when large portions of the photo are clearly faked, indeed the 
> whole picture could indeed be contrived.  Shoot me down if you like but 
> please look at the details first.   
> I'm sorry that this has possibly all come about after I initially posted a 
> message on Birdforum of the discover , taken from the posting on Birding Aus 
> back a few months , of course then it was posted in good faith that the 
> records (ie photos) were genuine.   Many people In the UK take a real 
> interest in Australian birds so we are all now very disappointed in the 
> current position.  If there is someone who could get the truth out in the 
> open I'm sure we could all clear this up.  
> Matthew Rodgers
> UK and frequent birder in Australia
> ===============================
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: 
> ===============================

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU