BOP seen this morning NE.London....? (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

I think it's probably time to move on, if Ken wants to tick it as a HB then that's up to him.


A

 

[Mike Earp]

... half a dozen shots, then a short film clip (when it was at it's furthest) and these last awful grabs were the net result.Cheers

Ken

Are the shots you have posted stills or grabs from the short film clip? If the latter, can you post the video so we can all appreciate the bird's flight style? I'm intrigued that you placed no emphasis on the distinctive nature of its flight till that was highlighted by others.

Mike

 

[skbirder]

I think it's probably time to move on, if Ken wants to tick it as a HB then that's up to him.


A

Indeed.

 

[rosbifs]

I think it's probably time to move on, if Ken wants to tick it as a HB then that's up to him.


A

I agree but at the same time it wouldn't be consistent to agree with you without reserve:-O:-O:-O

The reserve being why ask for comments and then disregard all those with more experience of this particular species? Ken can do what he likes, as we all can, but he clearly wanted the blessing from birdforum - which he hasn't got. He was certainly given clear reasons as to why its not a Honey Buzzard.

Those of us that have used birdforum for a number of years know that when certain posters have given their opinion they are very rarely incorrect. Those of us that have used bf also know who I am eluding to. I thought I was pretty good at this game but I have been corrected and made mistakes from 'photos' and live birds. Some of the members knowledge and attention to detail on here is second to none and to not use that knowledge, advice, expertise is negligent and for the want of a better term crazy.

Ken - go ahead tick your bird and hell submit the record but I hope at the same time you print and include this thread with your submission.

 

[Rotherbirder]

At day end, it might just show the limitations of showing less than perfect images, albeit crudely proportionate to what was seen with the naked eye. So far it's been somewhat entertaining as to how these have been perceived by certain parties whose contribution to the forum table, is at best minimal, to non-existent. But then that's par for the course on this particular forum. It's a bit like forwarding a submission to ten men that "weren't there", in order to get a "rubber stamp of approval" whose value is questionable. However it's "meat on the table" at day end, something that you as an individual might be stretched to provide? As for crying wolf....do you want to compare in public your finds as compared to mine....I dare you...show me your gonads...assuming of course you have them?

Cheers

I have neither the need nor the desire to compare my finds in public. Unless I am 100% certain of what I'm looking at in my own mind, the record never sees the light of day - I just move on and forget it. I don't have the time to waste in trying to convince myself - and others - through the online airing of dodgy digital images that very rarely add anything useful to the pot, that I have seen something that I haven't. When I am 100% certain in my own mind, then the evidence that I have to support it goes to the local/county/national rarities committee, as appropriate. The simple fact is that rare birds are just that Ken - rare! You seem unwilling to accept this and persist in trying to get the blessing and support of others for your tenuous claims. As has already been suggested - if you are so certain in your own mind, submit your putative HB to the appropriate authority and then report back to this forum with the result; now that would be an interesting thread to follow!

 

[Andy Adcock]

I have neither the need nor the desire to compare my finds in public. Unless I am 100% certain of what I'm looking at in my own mind, the record never sees the light of day - I just move on and forget it. I don't have the time to waste in trying to convince myself - and others - through the online airing of dodgy digital images that very rarely add anything useful to the pot, that I have seen something that I haven't. When I am 100% certain in my own mind, then the evidence that I have to support it goes to the local/county/national rarities committee, as appropriate. The simple fact is that rare birds are just that Ken - rare! You seem unwilling to accept this and persist in trying to get the blessing and support of others for your tenuous claims. As has already been suggested - if you are so certain in your own mind, submit your putative HB to the appropriate authority and then report back to this forum with the result; now that would be an interesting thread to follow!

All this philosphy is just prolonging the thread

 

[dantheman]

All this philosphy is just prolonging the thread

But it's only 87 posts long! surely we can take it to 100?


On a serious note, and probably not the place to ask, but just wondering about the relative proportions of 1st cy and 2nd cy (or equivalents) of Common Buzzard out there ... given most mortality occurs in 1st year birds, and whether birds move around more ...

 

[MTem]

Those of us that have used birdforum for a number of years know that when certain posters have given their opinion they are very rarely incorrect. Those of us that have used bf also know who I am eluding to. I thought I was pretty good at this game but I have been corrected and made mistakes from 'photos' and live birds. Some of the members knowledge and attention to detail on here is second to none

Agree with this, although I would add on the (very few) occasions these posters have been incorrect, they have conceded the fact and acknowledged their error.

We are all still learning, although some much less so than others.

Mick

 

[KenM]

Yes...Images at c350-400m were not up to the standard of conveying what had been seen through the bins at half the distance, when expecting CB...I was met by a quite different profile and movement, than I would have expected from the former. To say that I was elated upon realisation....would have been an understatement! It's fair to say that my initial reaction was on a par with any other ''rare'' that I've previously found in the past.

I have absolutely no doubts about what I saw on the initial sighting, (and I'll spare everybody (including myself) the semantics of the event. In response to those that suggest, that a certain individual (no names mentioned...might be libellous :eek! has a tendency (just like most critics on this forum) to not admit when they're wrong...I would like to exclude myself from that accusation, as only this very week, I shot from the hip on this very forum....and missed. :eek!: However I acknowledged the mistake, reversing backwards, touching forelock and bending knee on the way out. (not many on here would do that). I think we should have a ''worst stringing thread'' I don't mind starting it....but I don't think there would be many takers?

Regarding submissions...I have lost all faith in the systems, be it at national or local level, the only time that I would submit anything of note, would be if I had a good image showing the relevant features as deemed necessary for a given Taxa. However even this is not guaranteed, as in the corridors of power their lurk Machiavellian minds, that would seek to subvert ''an Honest birder'' from his just rewards, anyway enough of this tosh as I need to lie in a dark place...these Gongs are weighing me down (euphemism for BBRC credits).

 

[Simon Wates]

I think you are reading to much into everything and thinking too much. Keep it simple, the folk here have no agenda other than to genuinely have well-intentioned fun, education etc discussing birdlife - there is no market here for dodgy deals, well maybe 0.01% of users would enjoy that but they can easily be ignored - none on this thread I believe :t:

 

[nobbyball]

Yes...Images at c350-400m were not up to the standard of conveying what had been seen through the bins at half the distance, when expecting CB...I was met by a quite different profile and movement, than I would have expected from the former. To say that I was elated upon realisation....would have been an understatement! It's fair to say that my initial reaction was on a par with any other ''rare'' that I've previously found in the past.

I have absolutely no doubts about what I saw on the initial sighting, (and I'll spare everybody (including myself) the semantics of the event. In response to those that suggest, that a certain individual (no names mentioned...might be libellous :eek! has a tendency (just like most critics on this forum) to not admit when they're wrong...I would like to exclude myself from that accusation, as only this very week, I shot from the hip on this very forum....and missed. :eek!: However I acknowledged the mistake, reversing backwards, touching forelock and bending knee on the way out. (not many on here would do that). I think we should have a ''worst stringing thread'' I don't mind starting it....but I don't think there would be many takers?

Regarding submissions...I have lost all faith in the systems, be it at national or local level, the only time that I would submit anything of note, would be if I had a good image showing the relevant features as deemed necessary for a given Taxa. However even this is not guaranteed, as in the corridors of power their lurk Machiavellian minds, that would seek to subvert ''an Honest birder'' from his just rewards, anyway enough of this tosh as I need to lie in a dark place...these Gongs are weighing me down (euphemism for BBRC credits).

Yes, that feeling when you find the 'rare'. But it also the same feeling when you see something that you initially think is rare but then eventually turns out not. You have to calm yourself down and get back to basics and eliminate the common, most likely bird. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Please look at the plumage... Think about the situation that the bird is flying - chased by a crow... I spent years living near the HBs at Swanton Novers and spent hours, days, weeks watching them each year. They were still tricky buggers with so many Common Buzzard present there as well and so often the CBs didn't behave like they should have done and did damn good impressions of the HBs. Each year it took a few visits to really get the eye in...

We'll get to that 100 ;-)

 

[skbirder]

My experience of rarities committees' work is admittedly outside the UK, but I don't recognise the Machiavellian tag. My impression is that they do a pretty even-handed and conscientious job as guardians of official rare bird data and in ensuring the exclusion of incorrect records (which this would be were it to be submitted).

 

[Barred Wobbler]

A few from 6th May. Take your pick.

For what it's worth my first thought when I saw the original post wasn't 'honey buzzard' either.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I am not sure if this point is made upthread or not but in case, it is not.

IMHO it looks to me as if the images have either been lightened or alternatively are overexposed.

The effect of that is to erode the outline which is why the corvid's primaries look so fingered. It also has the effect of making the neck thinner, the head smaller, the base of the tail thinner and the tail look proportionately longer. One of those classic ones when you try and sort out a photo to draw out detail but trying to draw out details distorts the image.

All the best

 

[P.Sunesen]

IMHO I am not sure if this point is made upthread or not but in case, it is not.

It looks to me as if the images have either been lightened or alternatively are overexposed.

The effect of that is to erode the outline which is why the corvid's primaries look so fingered. It also has the effect of making the neck thinner, the head smaller, the base of the tail thinner and the tail look proportionately longer. One of those classic ones when you try and sort out a photo to draw out detail but trying to draw out details distorts the image.

All the best

So very true.

And that's why the general feel of the species (not least based on plumage patterns) is so very important here.

In sum, never, ever, a Honey Buzzard.

Peter

 

[AlinoVegano]

My experience of rarities committees' work is admittedly outside the UK, but I don't recognise the Machiavellian tag. My impression is that they do a pretty even-handed and conscientious job as guardians of official rare bird data and in ensuring the exclusion of incorrect records (which this would be were it to be submitted).

Read other posts from Ken, and you will understand rare birds committees are not at all the problems

 

[Andy Adcock]

Read other posts from Ken, and you will understand rare birds committees are not at all the problems

I don't think there's any need to make personal observations, it's a Common Buzzard, let's move on.

If you want to start a thread about rarities commitees, do it outside the ID thread.


A

 

[KenM]

I am not sure if this point is made upthread or not but in case, it is not.

IMHO it looks to me as if the images have either been lightened or alternatively are overexposed.

The effect of that is to erode the outline which is why the corvid's primaries look so fingered. It also has the effect of making the neck thinner, the head smaller, the base of the tail thinner and the tail look proportionately longer. One of those classic ones when you try and sort out a photo to draw out detail but trying to draw out details distorts the image.

All the best

Virtually all the shots supplied were straight from the camera without any post editing from me...I may have lightened one or two of the images, but as for the shape of the bird I have no control over that as anybody else would, who uses a camera.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I may have lightened one or two of the images, but as for the shape of the bird I have no control over that as anybody else would, who uses a camera.

Ken

Lightening the shots does change the shape of the image because it erodes the outline.

All the best

 

[AlinoVegano]

I don't think there's any need to make personal observations, it's a Common Buzzard, let's move on.

If you want to start a thread about rarities commitees, do it outside the ID thread.


A

My message is provocative, not to talk about rare birds committees, but to underline that Ken is used of provocative messages too, making simple subject becoming never ending threads... we can simply ignore or play the game, but hopefully with fun then :t: