Note that these comments are based ENTIRELY
from sources OTHER THAN the original observer,
except for the original, signed submission letter
stating the sps., dates, and locations
(with the photos).


That is to say, it is nothing more than conjecture,
speculation, and hearsay. No CBRC member EVER
spoke with me about the sighting, prior to making
the following comments.

Actual text from CBRC file of record.

Re:		Record #35-1991
Species:		Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
Date / Location:		6/7/89 - Torrance, CA
Documentation:		Photos
Status:		Rejected (2 for to 8 NO)

CBRC Voting & Comments of Above Record: Committee Member: Michael A. Patten Date of Review: 6/24-29/92 Decision: Rejected Comments: I heard about this bird when it was first reported in June 1989. The observer claimed that he was in his mother-in-law’s backyard in Torrance when a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher came hurtling over the yard. Apparently the observer just happened to have a camera with a telephoto lens hanging over his shoulder at the time. Not only that, but based on the angle from which the bird is approaching, he would have had to identify the bird immediately at a great distance, get the camera over his shoulder, and have enough time to snap two photos as it flew by, making sure the whole time not to get any trees, homes, or other large objects that litter the Torrance skyline in the photos. Remarkable. If this is not incredulous enough, I heard that the observer first reported this bird as only a sight record. After much pressure from some folks, he claimed that he had taken photos of the bird. When asked to produce the photographs, he pulled out two slides that showed a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher flying by, one heading to the left and one heading to the right. Amazingly, the duplicate prints made from the slides show the bird heading in the same direction. Huh. Lastly, this bird, which is said to have been present on 7 June 1989, was not submitted to Guy McCaskie until sometime after 23 December 1990, which seems a long time to sit on a record. The date can be derived from two clues: the observer offers his condolences to McCaskie on the passing of this wife. Hilda passed away in October 1990. Also, he mentions the Little Gull in Santa Cruz. That Little Gull (rec. no. 3-1991) was discovered by Paul E. Lehman on 23 December 1990, while a large group (including the observer) were birding the area after having seen the Brambling (rec. no. 196-1990). In the end, I just have too many concerns and questions about this record to feel anything but uncomfortable with it. Perhaps some of the information I heard in 1989 was in error; if that is the case, then I will re-evaluate the record once someone can ease my concerns. Surely anyone would admit that the whole situation borders on unbelievable. I request a re-circulation, unless the record is rejected. Committee Member: D. Roberson Date of Review: 7/12/92 Decision: Accepted Comments: I know absolutely nothing about this record or this observer. I am not sure if I have met him, although I suppose this is Matt’s brother. I have no idea why this is circulating with the "permanent" suspense file. I suppose this means that there is some question as to where this photo was taken. If so, I have no information to back up such a question. The photo looks correctly identified. I accept. Committee Member: Joseph Morlan Date of Review: 7/17/92 Decision: Rejected Comments: The identification is not really in doubt, but I would prefer to see the original slides before accepting this. My understanding is that one of these photos is printed backwards. Committee Member: Scott Terrill Date of Review: 8/6/92 Decision: Rejected Comments: Discussions with those familiar with this record make me hesitate to accept it. If this record goes another round, I will wait for comments from committee members more familiar with the circumstances. Committee Member: Peter Pyle Date of Review: 8/16/92 Decision: Accepted Comments: Although I take it the validity of this record is questioned, there is no direct evidence of this with the record; thus I will vote on the basis of what I see. My vote could easily change based on the comments of others. If there is suspicions that the photo was taken elsewhere, why don’t we confront the observer? The thought of litigation over the validity of bird records makes me nauseated. What has this country come to? More honest and direct encounters overall is one way to change things. I’ll be happy to talk to the guy if no one else wants to. The photographed bird appears to be an adult male in plumage that would typically be found in early June. Committee Member: Jon L. Dunn Date of Review: 9/11/92 Decision: Rejected Comments: I’m afraid that I lack full confidence that this bird was photographed in Calif. It strains the bounds of credibility to believe that one would go out to have a smoke, see a Scissor-tailed flying over and have the presence of mind to raise his camera and get two shots. Given all of the other credibility problems with this observer, I have more than a few doubts. If the original slides were submitted and the dates stamped by Kodak on the slides were within a month or so of when this bird was claimed, I would reconsider. Committee Member: Paul Lehman Date of Review: 9/20/92 Decision: Rejected Comments: Inconclusive circumstances. And, as my mama used to say ... If you can’t say something nice ... Sightings by this observer in summer 1992 sound a bit damning as well. Committee Member: Matt Heindel Date of Review: 10/6/92 Decision: Rejected Comments: Oh brother! Well, what could be wrong with this ... it looks fine. NOT. There is some concern on a local level that this record is fraudulent and that the photos were not taken at the stated location. There are some odd things involved. How likely is it that someone would go out for a smoke and have their camera? Or, get off two pictures without a motor drive of a fly-by? Or, if it were on a wire sallying, and he returned to get his camera and it made a couple of sallies, why are there no shots on a line? Since when has L.A. had blue sky in June? If I see original photos I will accept it, but this is not a request to obtain them. It seems best to let this die. One more thing, apparently the original prints show two birds going in opposite directions, but the slides have this corrected?!? [End of CBRC comments] Next ... my analysis. Record Discussion An initial analysis of what happened Scissor-tailgate Timeline My Story (a sorta timeline) The CBRC & Me Home