[Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot
Russell Woodford
today, but somehow his message got discarded by the list server:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21222765-3102,00.html
THE State Government has halted investigations into claims a north
Queensland man found a new parrot species and its official
ornithologist has stopped work on a scientific paper about the bird.
Ingham-based cinematographer and wildlife consultant John Young said
the huge flap over the so-called blue-fronted fig parrot had turned
his life into a nightmare.
Allegations quickly surfaced that his photographs of the bird,
unveiled to a stunned bird-watching community last November, were faked.
Mr Young vehemently denied the claims. He has since bought a special
$6000 camera which takes pictures which cannot be digitally altered
in the hope of proving that the bird was real. However he said there
was no chance he could take more photographs of the fig birds before
their mating season which starts in August.
State government ornithologist Dr Ian Gynther has put on hold a
scientific report on the bird he was co-authoring with Mr Young.
An Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman denied it had
dissociated itself from Mr Young. But she confirmed it was no longer
working with him and said it had not received any material other than
photographs to back up his claims.
"The EPA remains open to new evidence that can establish or refute
the claim," she said.
John Young Wildlife Enterprises chairman Dr Tom Biggs criticised the
EPA over its "lack of support".
--
This email and any attachments may be confidential and if you are not the intended recipient, you must
not disclose or use the information in this email. If received in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the email and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this email is virus or error free. The
attached files are provided, and may only be used, on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for
any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by
the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this email are not necessarily those of
the College.
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
===============================
Graham Turner
look at the photos for authenticity rather than either accepting them (the
photgraphs) as real or commissioning a survey to find further evidence for
the birds existence.
Cheers
Graham Turner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Woodford" <rw...@shc.melb.catholic.edu.au>
To: "birding aus" <birdi...@vicnet.net.au>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:22 PM
Subject: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot
> Jeff Davies posted the link to this Courier Mail article earlier today,
> but somehow his message got discarded by the list server:
>
> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21222765-3102,00.html
>
> THE State Government has halted investigations into claims a north
> Queensland man found a new parrot species and its official ornithologist
> has stopped work on a scientific paper about the bird.
>
>
L&L Knight
and the location of the sighting was not disclosed. Given that people
had publicly questioned whether the photo was faked, it would be
logical for the EPA to have the photo examined.
Regards, Laurie.
Robert Inglis
"I find it curious that it was deemed necessary to have a photographic expert look at the photos for
authenticity rather than either accepting them (the photgraphs) as real or commissioning a survey to
find further evidence for the birds existence."
Obviously one man's/woman's "curious" is another woman's/man's "logical".
Cheers
Bob Inglis
Sanstone Point
Qld
Jeff Davies
Roberts in today's Australian pg.7, which reports on expert opinion
expressing doubts over the authenticity of John Young's Fig Parrot photo
published in the Courier Mail last year.
Jeff Davies
Charles Hunter
When are the DNA test results coming back on the nest feathers?
BTW, I am still a fan of John Young.
Regards,
Charles Hunter
Paddington, Sydney
Cheers
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Peter Ewin
quote.
>Mr Young vehemently denied the claims. He has since bought a special $6000
>camera which takes pictures which cannot be digitally altered in the hope
>of proving that the bird was real.
Is this true? I would have thought it is the format that a digital photo is
stored rather than the camera that allows alteration. And that any photo can
be scanned and then digitally altered afterwards.
Do any camera people have comments?
Cheers,
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Join the millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=740&referral=million&URL=http://live.com.au
Alistair McKeough
shoot transparency film though probably.
However:
+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..
Peter Ewin
Not certain where this has come from - I sent this months ago during the discussion of the 'new' Fig-parrot - Icertainly haven't sent it again (maybe it has finally just fallen out of the ether).
Sorry about the stray thread.
Cheers,
Peter> From: sitt...@hotmail.com> To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:52:51 +1100> > I am not going to comment on the bird's ID, but I was interested in this > quote.> > >Mr Young vehemently denied the claims. He has since bought a special $6000 > >camera which takes pictures which cannot be digitally altered in the hope > >of proving that the bird was real.> > Is this true? I would have thought it is the format that a digital photo is > stored rather than the camera that allows alteration. And that any photo can > be scanned and then digitally altered afterwards.> > Do any camera people have comments?> > Cheers,> Peter> > _________________________________________________________________> Join the millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au > http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=740&referral=million&URL=http://live.com.au> > ===============================> www.birding-aus.org> birding-aus.blogspot.com> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, > send the message:> unsubscribe > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au> ===============================
_________________________________________________________________
It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641&_t=762955845&_r=tig_OCT07&_m=EXTwww.birding-aus.org
David Stowe
Canon have a "Data Verification Kit" for their pro digital SLRs which
can prove that the image hasn't been altered post capture.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.asp
This kit is only available to be used with the top models which are
of course more expensive. Hence the $6K.
I would have thought that just shooting RAW would be enough, but not
for some it seems.
Cheers
David Stowe
Carl Clifford
Unfortunately, I don't think any models have the "fragile watermark"
technology that would be needed to produce an image that would reveal
any attempts at alteration. As far as I know "fragile watermarking"
still remains a rather elusive "Holy Grail" for Forensic photography.
Even with "fragile watermarking", there is no way to tell if the
image produced is one that has been taken on site or is one that has
been taken of another image,which had been altered, unless there is a
documented "chain of custody" for the image.
The days of "the Camera Never Lies" is long gone - if it ever existed.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
Peter Ewin
Something very strange is happening here - I sent this last year when this thread was happening. I sent a response earlier tonight stating this and this seems to have also disappeared into the ether (where this email appeared from). I am pretty certain is not a virus as we have a totally different computer (the last one died).
Thanks for the comments people have been saying, but the subject is a year too late.
Cheers,
Peter> From: sitt...@hotmail.com> To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:52:51 +1100> > I am not going to comment on the bird's ID, but I was interested in this > quote.> > >Mr Young vehemently denied the claims. He has since bought a special $6000 > >camera which takes pictures which cannot be digitally altered in the hope > >of proving that the bird was real.> > Is this true? I would have thought it is the format that a digital photo is > stored rather than the camera that allows alteration. And that any photo can > be scanned and then digitally altered afterwards.> > Do any camera people have comments?> > Cheers,> Peter> > _________________________________________________________________> Join the millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au > http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=740&referral=million&URL=http://live.com.au> > ===============================> www.birding-aus.org> birding-aus.blogspot.com> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, > send the message:> unsubscribe > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au> ===============================
_________________________________________________________________
Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810&_t=766724125&_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07&_m=EXTwww.birding-aus.org
Andrew Taylor
> Is this true? I would have thought it is the format that a digital
> photo is stored rather than the camera that allows alteration. And
> that any photo can be scanned and then digitally altered afterwards.
A digital camera could include a cryptographic signature with the image.
allowing anyone to verify an image matches the accompanying signature
and hence was taken with the camera. For an explanation look up
"public key cryptography" in wikipedia.
I haven't seen anything from Nikon, Canon, etc.
This German manufacturer makes something for more specialist purposes.
http://www.kappa.de/en/Products/Digital_Camera_Systems/
Might be hard to use for nature photgraphy.
Andrew
Carl Clifford
A similar thing has just happened to me. Two posts I sent yesterday
were delayed some 14 hours. The wonders of modern technology.
Carl Clifford
On 21/02/2008, at 11:18 PM, Peter Ewin wrote:
Something very strange is happening here - I sent this last year when
this thread was happening. I sent a response earlier tonight stating
this and this seems to have also disappeared into the ether (where
this email appeared from). I am pretty certain is not a virus as we
have a totally different computer (the last one died).
Thanks for the comments people have been saying, but the subject is a
year too late.
Cheers,
Peter> From: sitt...@hotmail.com> To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au>
Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007
18:52:51 +1100> > I am not going to comment on the bird's ID, but I
was interested in this > quote.> > >Mr Young vehemently denied the
claims. He has since bought a special $6000 > >camera which takes
pictures which cannot be digitally altered in the hope > >of proving
that the bird was real.> > Is this true? I would have thought it is
the format that a digital photo is > stored rather than the camera
that allows alteration. And that any photo can > be scanned and then
digitally altered afterwards.> > Do any camera people have comments?>
> Cheers,> Peter> >
_________________________________________________________________>
Join the millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au >
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?
mode=click&clientID=740&referral=million&URL=http://live.com.au> >
===============================> www.birding-aus.org> birding-
aus.blogspot.com> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, > send the
message:> unsubscribe > (in the body of the message, with no Subject
line)> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au>
===============================
_________________________________________________________________
Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%
2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%
3D595810&_t=766724125&_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07&_m=EXT====
==========================www.birding-aus.org
Carl Clifford
Lexar have a similar system. Unfortunately both systems do not
prevent a doctored image being loaded onto the camera's on-board
memory from another card and from there onto on of the secure card.
There seems to be a way around everything>
Carl Clifford
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.asp
Cheers
David Stowe
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
unsubscribe(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
Penny Brockman
> Something very strange is happening here - I sent this last year when this thread was happening. I sent a response earlier tonight stating this and this seems to have also disappeared into the ether (where this email appeared from). I am pretty certain is not a virus as we have a totally different computer (the last one died).
> Thanks for the comments people have been saying, but the subject is a year too late.
> Cheers,
> Peter> From: sitt...@hotmail.com> To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:52:51 +1100> > I am not going to comment on the bird's ID, but I was interested in this > quote.> > >Mr Young vehemently denied the claims. He has since bought a special $6000 > >camera which takes pictures which cannot be digitally altered in the hope > >of proving that the bird was real.> > Is this true? I would have thought it is the format that a digital photo is > stored rather than the camera that allows alteration. And that any photo can > be scanned and then digitally altered afterwards.> > Do any camera people have comments?> > Cheers,> Peter> > _________________________________________________________________> Join the millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au > http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=740&referral=million&URL=http://live.com.au> > ===============================> www.birding-aus.org> birding-aus.blogspot.com> > To unsubscribe
Regarding the above, when I was on a tour in November with John Young in
Cape York/Iron Range, he showed us many photographs of this possibly new
fig parrot. I doubt very much that he would have been able to
photo-shop or otherwise alter the quantity of photos he has, regardless
of the possible loss of his reputation, integrity, etc. from posting
fraudulent information. He is a superb naturalist and has spent almost
more time in the field than perhaps anyone else in Australia. I would
like to see less of people rushing to condemn and more to wait for
further information.
Denise Goodfellow
Denise
> ==============================www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
> ==============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
===============================
Graeme Stevens
I'll second (or third) that motion. One of the best field naturalists I have had the pleasure of spending time with.
On that basis my jury is still out.
Not that I mean to dig up the debate, no value at this time.
Like Penny, just waiting patiently with an open mind.
Graeme Stevens> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:57:25 +0930> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot> From: goodf...@bigpond.com.au> To: pen...@gmail.com; sitt...@hotmail.com> CC: birdi...@vicnet.net.au> > My feelings as well> Denise> > > on 22/2/08 11:47 AM, Penny Brockman at pen...@gmail.com wrote:> > > Peter Ewin wrote:> >> Something very strange is happening here - I sent this last year when this> >> thread was happening. I sent a response earlier tonight stating this and this> >> seems to have also disappeared into the ether (where this email appeared> >> from). I am pretty certain is not a virus as we have a totally different> >> computer (the last one died).> >> Thanks for the comments people have been saying, but the subject is a year> >> too late.> >> Cheers,> >> Peter> From: sitt...@hotmail.com> To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au> Subject:> >> RE: [Birding-Aus] Fourth Fig Parrot> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:52:51 +1100> >> >> I am not going to comment on the bird's ID, but I was interested in this >> >> quote.> > >Mr Young vehemently denied the claims. He has since bought a> >> special $6000 > >camera which takes pictures which cannot be digitally> >> altered in the hope > >of proving that the bird was real.> > Is this true? I> >> would have thought it is the format that a digital photo is > stored rather> >> than the camera that allows alteration. And that any photo can > be scanned> >> and then digitally altered afterwards.> > Do any camera people have> >> comments?> > Cheers,> Peter> >> >> _________________________________________________________________> Join the> >> millions of Australians using Live Search. Try live.com.au >> >> http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=740&referra> >> l=million&URL=http://live.com.au> > ===============================>> >> www.birding-aus.org> birding-aus.blogspot.com> > To unsubscribe> > > > Regarding the above, when I was on a tour in November with John Young in> > Cape York/Iron Range, he showed us many photographs of this possibly new> > fig parrot. I doubt very much that he would have been able to> > photo-shop or otherwise alter the quantity of photos he has, regardless> > of the possible loss of his reputation, integrity, etc. from posting> > fraudulent information. He is a superb naturalist and has spent almost> > more time in the field than perhaps anyone else in Australia. I would> > like to see less of people rushing to condemn and more to wait for> > further information.> > > > ==============================www.birding-aus.org> > birding-aus.blogspot.com> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,> > send the message:> > unsubscribe> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)> > to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au> > ==============================> > > ===============================> www.birding-aus.org> birding-aus.blogspot.com> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, > send the message:> unsubscribe > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au> ===============================www.birding-aus.org
Andrew Taylor
> Canon have a "Data Verification Kit" for their pro digital SLRs
Interesting, I took a look at Canon's website they now sell what is
essentially a smart card (OSK-E3). Its about A$750 but it also
works with their new consumer SLR the 450D (about A$1000).
The card does a cryptographic exchange with the SLR and adds signature
to the image file. I don't know if the accompanying image data like
shutter speed is signed. It should you allow you to establish that
your Paradise Parrot picture has not been modfied since it was taken.
This assumes the card and the camera haven't been tampered with. The card
is probably quite tamper resistant as there is big market for this sort
of technology. I'd guess a determined attacker would have much less
trouble tampering with the camera as tamper resistence probably wasn't
an engineering goal for Canon.
You can authenticate time & location - a security company (Qascom) sells
electronics using GPS and SMS to do this. If this was incorporated into a
camera you could verify where & when an image was taken. I'm not sure
how well this works with GPS but Galileo, the European satelite navigation
system schedule to come online in 2013, has features to make it easier.
Incidentally its easy to timestamp digital documents now. For example
suppose you've taken a Night Parrot picture and you don't want to
tell anyone but you want to be able to proof later you were first to
photograph a Night Parrot. You can use a free internet service like
http://www.copyclaim.com/ to get a timestamp for the image without
disclosing the image and this timestamp establishes the image existed
at that point in time.
This underlying methods (asymmetric cryptography) were shiny&new when
I was shown them in the late 70s in an extra-curicular course aimed at
getting year 11&12 students to do tertiary maths. I was interested to
see my nephew was shown the same material and newer stuff like zero
knowledge proofs last year in a similar course
Andrew