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:
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
________________________________
From: Nikolas Haass <>
To: David Stowe <>; robert morris <
>; David Clark <>; Peter Shute <
>
Cc: birding aus <>
Sent: Friday, 11 October 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Discussions on the Night
Parrot.....Birdforum
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
Brisbane, QLD
On Friday, October 11, 2013 8:33 PM, David Stowe <
> 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
<> wrote:
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:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
