|
CBRC ~ Discussion 7 ~ CBRC annual reports is the link for the Western Birds index at SORA where the CBRC annual reports are, so you can read 'em and weep. :) Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel ~ CBRC # 1997-139 Western Birds 33:22-24, 2002 (Vol. 33, pgs. 22-24, No.1) Best if you read the CBRC report first to understand this. Despite dozens of great seabirders in California, there, desert rats, saltwater scaredy cats, decide storm-petrel records, at times voting against all expert opinions(!). This, the best scientific method all the bird-braniacs for 40 years at the CBRC could reason. Sometimes, guys flippin' through books looking at birds they've never seen, judge seabird records of seabirders that have thousands of hours at sea studying them. The CBRC calls this peer review. No one there can conceive of something that might achieve are HIGHER level of review, like using seabirders for seabirds? Desert rats are not seabirder's storm-petrel peers. The CBRC prefers those without experience judging your reports. As one seabird expert and former CBRC member said later, "the CBRC published ID'able photos of a bird rejected for reasons of ID not established!" (at link above) You'll be surpised most NO voters were the same proven witch-hunting CBRC record wreckers that cheated on #1991-035. Now get this, the best part, **whom were outed for cheating on that record (same victim/observer), while they were reviewing this one**. Why did they get to keep voting on their prior victim's reports? Is that how science works? It is at the CBRC. Some were so mad they saw yellow, where there was none, in a failed attempt to fashion and pound a rounded Wilson's Storm-Petrel peg into the pointed angular Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel hole. Only one that has no business reviewing seabirds would try, since the well-notched tail and pointed wings eliminated Wilson's. This is what you get when saltwater scaredy cats pretend to practice science. The CBRC calls this assuring the accuracy of the record. The CBRC has birders making up ID's, just like the newbies they look down their noses at, seeing what they want to see. But at a very different level in that it is not pure of intent. It is so they can just say no, so they see yellow near the tail on a bird with pointed wings and notched tail. Rejection unicorns (things that don't exist) are malicious lying. They are cheating on the record that the CBRC says they are assuring the accuracy of. Every person that said they saw yellow should be disbarred for life. It wasn't there, nor was there a yellow apparition or artifact. It was just another made up lie by the socal record wreckers. They hallucinate yellow they want to say no so badly. This is not the mind-set that should be reviewing bird records. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Another example of another type of CBRC rejection unicorn was also used, as the proven bird-record hoaxers and cheaters ran out of ammo trying to ensure this record’s rejection for the sake of the accuracy of the scientific record. Here’s another unicorn they used, which is a common one, and it goes something like: ‘the description didn’t match the photos creating problems’. The hackles on my neck go up every time I read that. In this case the exact words were "the written descriptions read very well for WRSP but PROBLEMS AROSE FROM APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THEM AND AN EXTENSIVE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS. If we put the 500 most regular CBRC annual report readers in the electric chair lie detector so if they lied they died, and asked what that means you would find it means there were books used for the description. Which therefore constitutes an accusation, without evidence, again, just as in 1991-035, Scissor-tailgate. Brought to you by the same voting footprint, socal record wreckers. I see a pattern. I have photo'd, drawn, and written a description of the same bird. They do not all exactly match. Each tells part of the story. The 2000/th of a second freeze-frame does not match my impressions of flight pattern I describe. Each creates a unique record. To expect them to match in all aspects is ignorant. The CBRC might as well say one piece of paper they got had a photographic image and the other had letters and words, so we reject. I challenge the CBRC to explain the alleged inconsistencies. The real problem is that they could not have matched but the CBRC's best science, using non-seabirders to review seabirds can't begin to comprehend why. The CBRC using layfolk to practice something pretended to be scientific is the real problem. Would you use non-birders to review bird records? Why would you use non-seabirders to review seabird reports? Is that the scientific way to do it? At the CBRC it is. They don’t mention that one good description was from 8’ ASL (above sea level) at the bow, and the photos were from 18’-20’ ASL on the bridge. On a 6” bird <20 to 30-50’ away that is 8’ ASL, the bow description was of a bird at eye-level, and the 20'ASL photos were looking down on top of the bird by comparison. This can happen on a boat. Seabirders know that. How could the eye-level description match a photo looking down on the bird? Of course they don’t match! They should not. Looking down on versus across the plane of the tail at eye-level, creates a completely different impression. People that need this explained are in over their heads. People that don't ask why when they see differences should not be reviewing bird records. Why is it a reason to disparage? Why is it a problem? Because of the Jon Dunn school of record rejection wherein it is preached that you find any differences and disparage them. He doesn't teach to research them and find out why, as he, and they did on Scissor-tailgate 1991-035, but just to spot differences, and hang your NO vote hat on them. Their own negative perceptions are bigger and more important to review outcome, than their scientific parts. They use such a unicorn to cast a negative derogatory light on the description, inferring a fault as if it were falsified in some way, to justify and sell no votes. The CBRC again intentionally led the regular reader that knows their key words and phrases away from the truth. If they didn’t read it and don't understand it well enough to get the completely different positions of the description writer vs. photographer, and don’t have the seabird review savvy to note that obvious fact they were from different decks they have no business reviewing bird reports. The Jon Dunn philosophy of the socal record wreckers is “find any reason to say no”, and this is what that eventually becomes, making up faults where there are none. Looking to create a fault where it does not exist. Good job Jon. The differences were consistent with the observer writing the description and the photographer being on different decks, one 10' above the other on a bird right next to the boat at eye-level to the lower observer. The CBRC's desert rats are simply too stupid to figure that out. They did not ask this writer why the description sounded different than the pictures look because they know it all, don't do real science, and don't really care. They are not looking for why, only that there is a difference, which equals a discrepency, which equals a problem, which equals a no vote. Note the complete and total lack of search for truth, facts, and information. The process (science) stops at the first perceived inconsistency, real or not. A U-2 does not look the same from near eye-level as from above it. Neither does the pattern of white and black on a storm-petrel’s aft section in flight. Despite knowing this, that is ignored for the chance and point of misleading the reader with a made-up phony interpetation of the report, again, for the umpteenth time, for the sole purpose of justifying some no votes. They’ve used this unicorn many times, and it was rarely if ever the whole truth, just like this example. Why didn't they ask the observer and photog where they were on the boat? Because that is how science would have worked. Instead, they made a false accusation against a description. Again, they are not looking for the facts or the truth. They are looking for reasons to just say no, and so this is what you get. My description said at times the bird was nearly eye-level, while some photos are looking down on top of the bird, very obviously different, with a damned good reason. But to the CBRC that has no interest in scientific reasons like that, it is used as a reason to find what they are really looking for, a reason to just say no. This is how warped the values of the socal record wreckers have become.  This thumbnail (with apologies) shows the relative positions of description writer at bow low to the water and nearly eye level with the bird, versus the photog who was standing on the bridge. The colored lines show angle of observation differences. One, nearly horizontal, the other nearly vertical. How could the description match the photos? The CBRC has oft lamented receiving photos only without much written to go with the photo. Perhaps this is why? The CBRC is unable and unwilling to make any attempt whatsoever to reconcile truthfully and honestly any differences between the two. Any perceived difference, real and legitimate or not, is an inconsistency and problem according to them, that will not be researched because they know it all. If they did not make up false reasons for the differences, sometimes accusatory ones, I'm sure they'd get more text. I have little doubt this is why people stop sending words. The CBRC reads things into them that do not exist. You will never get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a CBRC rejection, as 1991-035, 1994-169 and 1997-139 show. Each one has lies on them. I checked 3 records, all had falsehoods leading the reader away from the truth and facts, because it is more sales than science. You will get BS fanciful interpetations that disparage locations, descriptions, etc., to sell and justify their no votes, and nothing about e.g., the photog and the writer being on different decks. Is it scientific to perceive and label the differences between photo and description as inconsistencies and problems without so much as looking to see how or why there may have been a difference? This is the hard-wired socal record wreckers program. There is no search for truth, only inconsistencies, which are automatic grounds for no votes by some. This has caused countless erroneous rejections over the years. DESERT RATS DECIDE SEABIRDS Now let's consider another ridiculous part of this rejection. All the experts and those with "most experience" agreed with the ID. That was to say that the NO voters were those with LESS **and in some cases NO** experience, though apparently for some reason they did not want to tell the whole truth about what "LESS" means at the CBRC. That some of their "science" is based on and determined by those with a complete and total lack of knowledge or experience. The photos were not good enough for whom to ID, desert rats? Ten seabirders have ID’d it from them. Two outside expert opinions on the ID confirmed it. Two expert seabirders called the bird on sight exactly, precisely simultaneously from two different decks essentially immediately. The 5 CBRC members with the most experience with the species agreed with the ID. Those outside experts and original identifier's 4 votes do not count, but the desert rats (and proven record cheaters) votes did count. The saltwater scaredy cats voted against all expert opinion. Is that how science should be determined? Would they do that if their bank account or life depended on the result being correct? What ramifications are there for making up BS, ignoring all expert opinion? None, and that is why it goes on and on. That is how acceptance is determined and science is practiced at the CBRC, by those with less (and NO) experience. How very scientific. You might as well ask them if those bubbles in the beaker are cold fusion too. When you have a bunch of good seabirders around, to use desert rats to review seabirds well shows the bird record judgement of the CBRC. It is ignorant, and as far from science or scientific method as I can imagine. It well shows how the CBRC doesn't let scientific method get in the way, and that it is a boys club. Hey kid, yeah you in the desert, ya wanna vote on some seabirds? If the photos obtained weren’t good enough for the less experienced to ID, when those in the know had no problem, does that not indicate some are in way over their heads? Why should it matter if people with no experience can't tell what something is? How is that science? Why is it allowed? Why do the ignorami determine acceptance or rejection? If the CBRC member's lives depended on results being right, would there be this type of folly? How could they use photos as an argument against the description? They didn't know what they were looking at. The photo was not good enough for newbies to ID but good enough to disparage the written description without asking any questions about the differences? Then, it is not a real objection, but instead merely another CBRC rejection unicorn. That is CBRC science in a nutshell. It is not really science. Just little boys pretending to play science like real grown-ups. Just a guess, but I bet most no voters were the same proven bird record cheaters that lied against the same observer to reject 1991-035. The Scissor-tailgate hoaxers. Those previously proven to be too predjudiced to objectively review an individual's reports are allowed to continue voting on that observer's reports. Only at the CBRC is that result science. We had them seeing yellow feet where there were none, just to make up a bad ID (!) so they could just say no. Then when a Wilson's expert wrote them and said this is not a Wilson's they had to find something else, so they find a way to disparage a good description. Then we have desert rat saltwater scaredy cats deciding a very rare seabird ID. We also have proven record cheaters voting on their prior victim's report. There are good reasons to reject this rejection. The CBRC calls this assuring scientific accuracy of the historical avian record. Which is therefore another lie. Mitch Heindel Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, nowhere more than in a bird record committee. Boycott the CBRC McKay's Unicorn McKay's Unicorn Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel 1997 Desert rats decide seabirds Zone-tailed Hawk 1994 the CBRC tongue-twist Scissor-tailgate review discussion 1991-035 Review Discussion 1991-035 review overview CBRC Review Comments on the 6/7/89 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. Scissor-tailgate Timeline My Story The CBRC & Me The CBRC has standards? CBRC standards an oxymoron Why is my brother my keeper? CBRC scientific method CBRC scientific method is an oxymoron too HOME |
