Bert,
If you go to Google Images and enter the string "Night Parrot" or "Night Parrot
John Young", you will find quite a few.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
On 13/10/2013, at 1:04, Bert Harris <> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't have access to the Australian Birdlife magazine and I was wondering
> if any of the images in question are available on the internet. I found one
> at http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/australian-birdlife. Is this the
> Triodia photo to which everyone is referring? It would be fantastic if
> someone could post an image pointing to which feathers have been copied but
> that may be wishful thinking on my part.
>
> Thanks very much!
> Bert Harris, New Jersey, USA
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jeff Davies <> wrote:
>
>> G'day Steve,
>>
>> Yes, I agree that to my eye there has definitely been some clone stamping
>> at
>> two locations in the photos, but the bird otherwise still appears to be a
>> genuine Night Parrot, so none of this puts the identification at risk.
>> It's important to realize that both images show the same side of the bird,
>> with one image being reversed for reasons unknown. The image against
>> Triodia
>> shows a small area of outer scapulars stamped out with a sample taken from
>> the front of the scapulars. The second image against gravel also shows the
>> same area stamped out but with a sample from the mid section of the
>> scapulars. There must have been a bunch of feathers sticking up out of
>> alignment or something to that effect. This second image also has a sample
>> of the background used to stamp out a feather sticking up above the dorsal
>> profile, this feather is still visible in the first image against the
>> Triodia where it is not so eye catching and was therefor left in.
>> I agree John or whoever should not have done this on such historic images,
>> but it doesn't challenge the identification of the bird. I would expect
>> that
>> in due course John would eventually present the same images plus others
>> showing the opposite side of the bird for us all to see without the
>> cosmetic
>> adjustments. John has said he watched the bird for 35 minutes, that's a
>> long
>> time and he has 600 images of it so it would be fair to assume there isn't
>> 600 images of one side of the bird.
>>
>> Cheers Jeff.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> On Behalf Of Stephen
>> Murray
>> Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2013 6:44 PM
>> To: 'Philip Veerman'; 'birding-aus'
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Discussions on the Night Parrot.....Birdforum
>>
>> Phil. I would humbly suggest you go and have another look at the
>> photograph.
>> There is a substantial section of feathering on the back area that appears
>> to have been duplicated twice...possibly with a clone stamp (but there are
>> numerous methods). Feathers are like snowflakes, they are never exactly
>> identical. So what? You ask. Well, normally it would be no big deal. I am
>> assuming an offending twig or something was removed to make the photo
>> nicer.
>> I do that myself sometimes with my own shots. Maybe that's why it stands
>> out
>> to me. I have to say though, that it beggars belief that an image of this
>> importance could be adjusted like this without anything being said.
>> Especially in a case where the photographer has been accused of excessive
>> manipulation in the past. If I were John Young I wouldn't allow anyone to
>> digitally manipulate the image in any way. I think the magazine should make
>> a statement about the post-processing of this image, given its
>> significance.
>>
>> Steve Murray
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> On Behalf Of Philip
>> Veerman
>> Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2013 2:51 PM
>> To: 'birding-aus'
>> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Discussions on the Night Parrot.....Birdforum
>>
>> Sorry but these comments seem really bizarre to me. I don't see any sign of
>> manipulation of the photo. A bird running through the grass at night time
>> is
>> going to get some feathers ruffled. If this has been tidied up, well it
>> seems an odd thing to do, but so what? Certainly I can't agree "there is
>> absolutely no doubt that major image manipulation has taken place in this
>> case." I don't see any sign of it, let alone major. Why not first ask
>> whether that was done. Even if there is, it doesn't make a pigeon into a
>> Night Parrot. Why would anyone bother to do that? If someone was going to
>> defraud us with fake photos, why bother travelling out into the bush for
>> years to try to find the bird? Just get a museum specimen and set up a
>> scene
>> and photograph it in your back yard or do computer generated images.
>> Jurassic Park has done it with dinosaurs, much easier. The suggestion seems
>> ridiculous. Surely the existence of video film makes the suggestion just a
>> bit silly. And no I was not there to see the video. The likelihood that a
>> rare, secretive, nocturnal, terrestrial, small bird has existed and escaped
>> close scrutiny for years is huge. Do you really think all the magazines in
>> the shops do not rely of cosmetics and then manipulate front cover images
>> to
>> remove blemishes, make the girls look thinner, make their eyes bigger, not
>> to mention all the glamour magazines. Or flip images from left to right to
>> fit the layout better. So what. Guess what birds are bilaterally
>> symmetrical. There are several books that include photos of manipulated
>> images of birds. Most books would edit to chose the best photos to show
>> certain points or to show how hard some bird ids van be. That too is
>> manipulation to give an impression.
>>
>> As for "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." On what basis will they be amplified?
>> And what do you think the illustrators of field guides have been using in
>> the past. And don't they make some mistakes by overemphasising certain
>> features to make a bird image look good, even if it is a fraction of the
>> size of the bird. No doubt illustrators of field guides have the only raw
>> material to work from as museum specimens to use as references that
>> includes
>> birds in moult or in bad condition. They have surely always chosen to show
>> the birds in unblemished and complete plumage. So that aspect of
>> manipulation and guesswork is standard. Do you really think a bit of
>> manipulation on a photo (if it happened) is going to make a painting with
>> all its interpretation by the artist and production processes for a field
>> guide so inaccurate that it is going to lead to someone unable to
>> distinguish the Night Parrot from something else? It is not as if there is
>> anything remotely similar that lives in the same range.
>>
>> By the way I am just reacting to these messages. I don't know if the photos
>> are real but don't see anything to demonstrate they aren't. I don’t know or
>> care either way about John Young and whether he found this bird and I have
>> not seen the video or the bird.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> On Behalf Of KEN TUCKER
>> Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2013 4:28 AM To: Nikolas Haass Cc: birding
>> aus Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Discussions on the Night
>> Parrot.....Birdforum
>>
>> 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
===============================
|
