: Night Parrot debate

To: "'birding-aus'" <>
Subject: : Night Parrot debate
From: "Stephen Ambrose" <>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:04:07 +1100
I can see both Nikolas' (Haass) and Graeme's (Chapman) points of view.  If 
photos of the Night Parrot are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, 
then the images should not be manipulated unless there is an explained 
(published) scientific reason for doing so. However, Australian Birdlife is a 
magazine for a general birding audience, rather than a peer-reviewed scientific 
journal.  So, personally, I don't mind that the photo(s) has (have) been 
"tidied up" for aesthetic purposes ("air-brushed"). But it would have been 
preferable for the magazine to have acknowledged that the photos had been 

What is more important is for the details of the Night Parrot discovery to be 
accurately documented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (as stated by 
Nikolas), for all raw data (other photos, all video footage and calls) to be 
accessible to peer reviewers (as stated by Jeff), and for the right 
conservation measures to be implemented to ensure the survival of the species 
(as stated by Graeme).

Stephen Ambrose
Ryde, NSW

-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Nikolas Haass
Sent: Sunday, 13 October 2013 2:41 PM
To: Burt May;  net. au
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] FW: Night Parrots and slander

Dear Burt, Alastair & BirdingAus,
I believe ‘SHUT UP’ is a strong word, Burt, but it doesn’t convince me and it 
doesn’t change the situation. Looks like you haven’t read the most recent 
thread on Birding-Aus. You should do so. There is nothing emotional like your 
statements imply. There is an objective discussion about obvious image 
manipulations of the only two published images that are supposed to prove the 
existence of the Night Parrot! This has nothing to do whatsoever with how many 
hours someone has spent in the field. It is the fact that the images were 
BTW: The same manipulations that you can find in the Australian Birdlife 
magazine are also apparent in the newspaper coverage of the story indicating 
that the manipulations had happened prior to submission to Birdlife Australia.
It is too early to accept or reject the record as a genuine life Night Parrot. 
As I said earlier, at this point we don't have any scientific evidence at all 
that Night Parrots still exist, as none of the original proofs have been 
presented so far.   
However, there is hope that Night Parrots are still around, as Jeff Davies had 
mentioned: There should be 598 further photos (raw files) of the bird 
(hopefully some of which showing the other side of the bird), there should be a 
17-second video (of which only a couple of seconds were revealed so far), there 
should be the so far unpublished DNA analysis (which may stem from a different 
bird, as JY has found the feather(s) during daytime on the
roadside) and finally, there should be sound recordings.
I hope this will all be published in a peer-reviewed journal and undergo proper 
scrutiny, so that the next step can be initiated:
The conservation of this species and its habitat!
So fingers crossed!
Nikolas Haass

Brisbane, QLD


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>
  • : Night Parrot debate, Stephen Ambrose <=

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