Site hosted by Build your free website today!

CBRC ~ 1991-035 Review Discussion

Presuming you've read the CBRC comments on record
1991-035, I imagine you are a bit confused.

If not you should probably read them first.
CBRC Review Comments

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What we have here is an example of how
the socal CBRC record wreckers gang works.

I suggest this record be known as Scissor-tailgate.

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher CBRC #1991-035 (Torrance, LA Co., 6/7/89)
Western Birds 25:26 1994  (Vol 25, page 26, No.1)

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.  :)

Who checks the CBRC's work to see if it is honest?
I did and what I found was fraud.  I'd be interested
to hear what others think of how the CBRC handled this.
I'd also be curious to hear what anybody thinks if they
read all the bird reports here, especially if any find that
a pattern seems evident.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Per the reviewer's comments the record was rejected due to
questions of origin of the photos.  This based on
Brian Daniels' initial lies, and the socal record wreckers
gang that embellished on them with their own.

But the CBRC never asked one single question of me. 
They only rhetorically shared them with each other despite
seeing me in the field, corresponding with me, and receiving
regular reports from me for the next 8 years, when I discovered it.

The question that I am not too chicken sh!t to ask is:

In socal, a few make up a story for every bird
reported.  Usually within days if not hours.
This 6-7-89 Scissor-tail was photographed and called
in as such to one-time CBRC member Brian Daniels June 7,
within 5 minutes of the sighting.  The photos were
shown to and discussed with Brian Daniels June 11 and
so on that day at the latest, Scissor-tailgate began.

I was never contacted, contrary to Michael Patten's lie
"I was pressured and then produced pictures."
That would have been the scientific thing to do, but
the CBRC did not do that.  I think Mikey just wanted
it to appear that way in case anyone looked it up.

The people that say they are assuring the scientific accuracy
of the record, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, falsely
accused someone of scientific fraud. 

Did you see how many "I heards" there were in the
rejection comments, with NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE as to
where all this came from.  Gossip and hearsay is science
at the CBRC, and they protect their sources.  Wouldn't we
be better off knowing who those responsible for this were?
The CBRC thinks otherwise.

Note there is not a single referenced source cited for
something as serious as an accusation of scientific fraud.
That is the accepted level of science taking place at the CBRC.

The CBRC is the bird record law, but doesn't practice it.
When one considers the preponderance of evidence required
for a record to be accepted, this is hypocritical at best.

If the CBRC weren't good enough men or scientists to ask me
about the record, or detect an ornithological hoax from the
liars amongst themselves, how am I to trust their bird record
review judgement?

One of Brian Daniels' (the hoax originator) lies from June 11,'89
was that the bird was flying in two different directions in the
photos.  CBRC members may be interested to know he said that
to me within two seconds of seeing the photos on June 11, he was
so hell-bent on finding something wrong he couldn't see straight,
just like his bird record review mentor taught him.

One of the reasons this hoax worked is becasue fibs from inside
the boys club are more important that facts from outside it.
Perhaps the CBRC now knows Brian Daniels' stories about me
are not honest, and not to be trusted.  And so should everyone.

You may not know it, but in the CBRC world, there is
no habeus corpus, so the CBRC held trial, and hung the
observer, without offering him a chance to hear the charges
of scientific fraud brought against him, much less an opportunity
to defend himself.  This is CBRC fairness and justice,
not to mention scientific objectivity.  This is the
CBRC's best bird record judgement.

They did prove being a good birder has nothing to do
with being a good bird record judge.  They proved
beyond any doubt the highest level of bird ID skills
are meaningless when it comes to being an objective judge
of bird records, or even of their own lying club members.


They didn't REALLY have one single question they could or
would ask me.  They only pretended they had some to ask
(and only to each other) long enough so they could just say no.
That is the CBRC record review process.

They were neither men or scientific enough to actually
ask the questions, only to hypothesize them to each other.
What a sad day for science, brought to you by the CBRC.

So apparently in the CBRC when looking for an excuse to
reject instead of the truth, it doesn't matter if you
don't really have questions, except in theory.  Brought
to you by the the socal record wreckers, graduates of the
Jon Dunn school of ridiculous record rejection.

I think when you reject a record for "questions" you actually
are afraid to, will not, refuse to, and won't ask, you are liars.
You are bird record cheaters.

The half-dozen at the heart of this have no business reviewing
bird records.  Any rejection they touched should not be
trusted as legitimate, as this rejection was not.

could, would, or did ask of me, for 8 years, despite seeing me!
So them saying they had them, is lying!

How can you have questions of origin of photos enough to reject,
BUT NOT enough to ask!?!?.  This the socal record wreckers
gang's version of science in a nutshell.  Most of them
had many chances for years when they were showing up chasing
my rarity finds, and receiving my reports.  They did spread
their false hoax far and wide repeating it to others, that repeated
it to others, ad. infinitum.

Michael Patten, Jon Dunn, Matt Heindel, Dick Erickson,
all saw me in the field.  The CBRC was getting regular
reports, since I didn't know what they did. 

It should be noted this record was in Los Angeles County.
The L.A. Co. bird record Czar and oftime CBRC member
in charge there, Kimball Garrett, was receiving regular
seasonal reports from me, seeing me in the field usually
multiple times annualy, and he never said a word about it.
In most counties the hoax would not have worked, as the
county compiler would have investigated, instead of just
commencing predjudice.

Maybe they figured if they'd asked their questions, they
wouldn't have received anymore reports to reject?
That is the judgement deciding your bird records folks.

About the CBRC official published record

So it gets really twisted, because oh what a web we weave.
Proving collusion and conspiracy, there was a cover-up.
To cover-up the CBRC published a false reason of rejection
in the annual report.  The CBRC stated it was rejected
for reasons of "ID not established", wedged in between two other
rejected for ID not established Scissor-tails (which frankly
is getting close to rejecting a zebra or giraffe).

And they left out the part about it being photographed.
These two lies together prove intent to deceive the reader.
They thought I lied because their judgement is so poor they
believed the liars amongst themselves, and that made it OK
for them to lie to everyone about the record's rejection.

So who lied here, me or the CBRC that accused me of it?
Has anyone else noticed you can usually spot liars as those
that say they don't while falsely accusing others of doing so?

Why are known proven bird record cheaters judging bird records?
Because the CBRC answers to no one but themselves, and it is OK.
If they answered to the National Academy of Sciences, what
would real scientists do with bird record review cheaters?

We've established lying in the annual report is OK at the CBRC.

Dick Erickson and Michael Patten were the authors of that
falsehood in the annual report covering this record.
Geez what a surprise, two of the socal gang's record wreckers.
Why didn't they tell the truth for the sake of the almighty
holy accuracy of the record?  Because that is sales
pitch, not reality.  Or they wouldn't have felt it was OK
to lie to the readers and subscribers in a CBRC annual report.

You can't always trust the reason of rejection!

So for those keeping score at home the CBRC made up
a false BS reason to reject, then made up another
false reason of rejection for publishing purposes,
proving again you can't lie just once.  They also lied
a third time in that for the only time ever in their
history I know of they did not notate that the report was a
photographic one with the typical doc's received notation
(ph.) of some sort behind it.

The CBRC is guilty of fraud, publishing a false report,
and of making false accusations, on just one record.

They didn't mention the photographs they received with the
report so they weren't asked "how many CBRC members
does it take to ID a flying male Scissor-tailed Flycatcher?"
The (ph.) notation would have attracted unwanted
attention to it.  That's 3 lies on one record, so far.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The fact of a falsified CBRC rejection was made public
via some rants by the observer (thank you), having blown
several fuses, circuit breakers, neurons and synapses,
upon finding out his photo records were being fraudulently
rejected by the CBRC.

Record 1997-139 was being reviewed by some of these same socal
record wreckers when the Scissor-tailgate hoax was made public.
Check out how well it did (link below).  We'll discuss it later.
It has socal unicorn prints all over it too, the same gang
making up more BS to just say no against this observer, again.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


When it was proven the CBRC lied and cheated on the
record, that it was just another walk down the road
of bird-record perdition for them, they were forced
to accept the record.

I must say they seemed to do so reluctantly, begrudgingly,
and much to their chagrin.  Making sure the record
is right, did not seem to excite them at all, while
all this time I thought it was what they were in to,
based on their sales pitch.

Unlike all prior overturned records, the CBRC accepted
this one in a deafening roar of silence, and there
was not the typical standard explanation of what happened;
why it was originally rejected and how it came
to be that the original decision was in error,
what happened requiring acceptance now, the new
evidence, etc..  All missing for the only time ever
I can find, on a years-old over-turned rejection.

The CBRC did not want anyone to know why it was really
rejected, or why it was really accepted.  Some of that
accuracy of the record stuff no doubt.

The CBRC knew I would have a hard time explaining it without
looking bad, because of the family element involved.
So they lied again by not coming clean and telling the truth.

This is what kind of "men" you really have there.
Protecting their charade was more important than doing
the right thing; being transparent, forthright, and honest.
It was all about PR and damage control.  As one
friend said, they handled it slimily.

In the published acceptance they only said they regretted
not asking questions about the record sooner.  I guess
that was those questions they theorized but weren't man or
science enough to ask.  They did not apologize, because
they were not sorry, except it seems, that they were caught.

Now if one wonders what those questions were that the
CBRC mentioned in the published acceptance, that they regretted
not asking sooner were, what would you do?  You would
look up the original rejection to find: the CBRC regrets
not asking some questions about the identification sooner.
You STILL would not know it was a photographed record.

This is their accurate record of what happened.  That's
as honest as they could be about it.  Another lie, #4.
By not explaining what happened, the questions they
regret not asking sooner, becomes a lie when the dot
is researched and connected to the original false reason
of rejection, questions of identification.

Thus their official accurate record they creatively wrote
remains a big fat lie to this day, because they refuse to,
and won't publish why 1991-035 was really rejected.
Leaving me no choice but to disect the bloody details.
As you see the truth about who did what is so exceedingly
gory that I have blood on my hands to tell it, so they simply
keep their mouths shut, and are safe.  This was part
of the hoaxers, and the CBRC's plan.

The CBRC can't, won't, and hasn't told the truth, because
since it looks bad if I do, they don't have to.
They played that advantage of the situation, being the type
of "men" that they really are, and that is why they let
their lies stand.  That is their best bird record judgement.
The accurate record the CBRC ensured is false, again, and still.

Here's what I'd have written in the acceptance:
This record was first rejected because the part of the CBRC
that is bias is tremendously larger and more important
to review outcome than the part that is science and
practices any scientific method whatsoever.  Sometimes
the only science taking place is science-fiction.
Brian Daniels and Matt Heindel were the key perpetrators of this
false story and ornithological hoax, and sold it to the CBRC.
We were fools to believe them.  They won't be reviewing
any more bird records.  Many CBRC members told others this
false story, which was surely repeated many times, and the CBRC
wants anyone that might have heard something about Mitch Heindel
falsifying a bird report to know that wasn't true.  The CBRC
members were the one's spreading a false report.  The bird was
not flying in two different directions, the photos were absolutely
taken in Los Angeles, not in Texas as some of the stories went.
The CBRC apologizes to the observer for this egregrious act.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are some of my thoughts on the CBRC record review.

First, all the people that have felt the CBRC has
made stuff up to reject records capriciously and
arbitrarily, have the proof.  They do that.  Who
knows how many?  Probably countless.  I checked
three records and found blatant falsehoods on each one.

They can deny it all they want, all you have to
do is say 6-7-89, or Scissor-tailgate.  They have
witch hunts on reports of birders they don't like.
They'll make a whole false story up from scratch, for
the sole purpose of arriving at a rejection.

Guy McCaskie and Joe Morlan should be singled out as
being real gentlemen, as they both apologized to me
personally the next time they saw me, after they found
out the little boys in the sand box had lied to them.
A few of the NO voters were as much victims, but they too
should have asked questions of the liars amongst them.

In socal there is a subculture of CBRC birders, a clique
for whom finding a reason, any reason, to reject a bird
is believed to prove one's superior intelligence,
instead of one's ignorance.  These people become
hooked on finding fault for the thrill of a superior
feeling it gives them.  It is a variation on the
putting down others to lift oneself up.

Of course eventually you run out of real reasons
to reject records, and so have to make them up,
because result is more important than process,
and ends justify any means requried to achieve them.
What the CBRC did here was create an ornithological hoax.

Many of them repeated it for years to countless people.
I have not seen a publicity campaign by the CBRC to
correct the false story they started that has been
widely repeated and spread.

Find any discrepency is the prime directive of this
gang of bird-record thugs, so you can just vote
no on the report.  Any discrepency, real or
perceived, is grounds for a no vote.  So they
make them up and see them where there are none, as here
on 1991-035, and on #1997-139, which we will discuss later.

The CBRC calls this assurring scientific accuracy
of the official historical avian record.  It is
the Jon Dunn school of record rejection.  Jon is
the father of modern ridiculous record rejection, and
the 2 creators of this ornithological hoax, he personally
selected, trained and mentored into the CBRC and his
"find any reason to just say no" philosophy.
The hoax creators were Jon's hand-picked and trained
CBRC protoges.

1991-035 is what that philosophy becomes, when grown men aren't involved.

Why are proven record review liars and cheaters against an
individual allowed to continue voting on that observer's reports?
Because that is OK at the CBRC.  That is science at the CBRC.

1991-035, Scissor-tailgate, was an act of character assasination
committed by buddies Brian Daniels and Matt Heindel.  It was
created for the purpose of defamation, to ruin the observer's
credibility, and rejections forever.

That is why Brian Daniels and Matt Heindel were willing
to lie about the record to their best friends.  Brilliant,
the CBRC socal record wreckers would NEVER investigate, because
this is exactly what they do all the time.  And it keeps
working on the observer.

In Italy where the system of justice is a couple millenia
more evolved than ours, crimes are broken into families in a
taxonomic manner.  There is a family that has two crimes in it,
assasination and character assasination, because the latter
is as effective as the former, and both equally hideous.
This is what Brian and Matt did, and the CBRC went along
for the ride on the crazy train.  In Italy what they
did was commit the highest level felony.  At the CBRC it
was business as usual, it didnt' raise an eyebrow.

The reason the CBRC did not come clean when they had a second
chance in publishing the acceptance is because that would
have opened up the bigger 500 lb. can of worms the CBRC pretends
doesn't exist: what other records were witch hunts?

What other false things were made up to reject good records?
It only takes three morons to reject, and clearly they have
many more than they need.  Every, every, EVERY
rejected record needs to be re-reviewed by none of those
involved in this.

They didn't re-check one, because they knew what they
would find.  More of the same, and they saw nothing wrong
with this one.  This fraudulent rejection would stand
today if left to the CBRC, as many others surely do.

The CBRC would deny this ever occurred, and feel proud of
themselves for what they did to this day, were it not for
someone outside the CBRC checking their "work."

What this did in real terms to this observer,
starting the day the Brian told his lies, was destroy
chances of the observer's future records being fairly
reviewed, for many years to come.  That was the
motivation for Brian and Matt, whom was the CBRC's
volunteer VP of sales for the rejection.  They had
axes to grind and this was how they chose to do it.
To lie to the CBRC, and their friends.

Some 8 years of report abuse by this socal gang
later, the observer discovered and proved what happened
to his photographed submission.  How did he know
he had dammned well better go find out what the heck
was going on?  Why did the observer smell scat?
And how did he know where to look, like a veritible
Colombo or Perry Mason?

The CBRC has long been believed by many to concoct
mind-boggling ridiculous reasons to reject birds.
The handling of this record seems to indicate they
are in fact not assurring the the accuracy of the record,
but instead writing avian history to their whim.
We know history books are often predjudiced based on the
writer's preferences and political views, and now we see
California avian history is no different.

Here the CBRC made up a story to reject the record, instead of
investigate it because gossip is more important to outcome
than science.  They walked the report down the road to
bird record perdition.

More people do not submit records than ever because
so many have fallen victim to these rejection unicorns
(things that aren't real and don't exist) of the CBRC,
and so many have lost faith in the CBRC's purity of intent.

Purity of intent is the one key quality required for the
concept of a committee reviewing bird reports to function
in any manner remotely resembling objective science.

It is quite interesting two northern California members
did not buy the socal hoax.  Peter Pyle and
Don Roberson did not fall into the trap and fraud.
Kudos to them.  Why did they not believe or trust the
story the socal record wreckers were shopping?

How can the CBRC's work be taken seriously?

Here's ID tips on how to spot these folks: they are
the ones that most vehemently say "It's not like this."
They are often given to fitful bouts of incessant
chachalaca-like cackling that sounds like "waresdapattern?

Next we will discuss some of the specific comments some
of the bird record accuracy experts made that bear addressing.
How we are limited to bird reports Jon Dunn can imagine,
a very low glass cieling, and Michael Cleuseau Patten's
idiocy, what he considers review technique, we will have
fun with too.  And you will be interested to know what
Matt's last words to me before he volunteered himself in charge
of this record were, that he hid from the CBRC, in order to
be able to vote on my records.

We will also cover what Brian Daniels knew that he kept
from the CBRC socal gang of record wreckers, his own buddies,
lying to his friends was the best he could do.  Because
like Matt, what was more important than the truth, honesty
or the accuracy of the record, was showing me.

What they showed me, I already knew.

Finally, consider how false accusations have been viewed through time.

There were some good old laws of the land, one of my favorites
was from the 12th or 13th century that went something like:
If you accuse someone of a crime (say, for example, bird record
fraud) and you cannot immediately produce evidence, then both
YOU AND THE ACCUSED are locked up, until such time as your evidence
is produced. If it turns out that you CANNOT produce such evidence,
then YOU get the punishment that the accused would have endured,
had he been found guilty.

And let's not forget the Code of Hammurabi, ca. 1790 BC.
"If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused
goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river
his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves
that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had
brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into
the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his

4000 years ago there was better morality and more concience
about false accusations than the CBRC has today.

Those are both very similar to modern Italian law wherein character
assasination is essentially equal to assasination, which is what
Brian, Matt, and the CBRC did on 1991-035.  These morons
judged my subsequent reports believing these false accusations
because real science and ethics are not part of their game.

Obviously the CBRC doesn't know much about ethics and morality.
What was the fate of the proven bird record liars and cheaters?

Do these types of things such as Scissor-tailgate happen where they
are not whatsoever tolerated, or where they are the culture?

Mitch Heindel

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,
nowhere more than in a bird record committee.

Boycott the CBRC.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Scissor-tailgate Discussion
4)Review Overview (this page)

CBRC Reviewer Comments
on the 6/7/89 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher.

Scissor-tailgate Timeline
2) My Story - timeline

1) The CBRC & Me Introduction

Zone-tailed Hawk 1994-169
The CBRC Tongue-twist

Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel 1997-139
Desert Rats decide seabird records

McKay's Unicorn
The CBRC's Unicorns

CBRC Standards of Acceptance
CBRC standards are an oxymoron

The wounded Least Unicorn
CBRC can't ID a Least Sandpiper

Why is my brother my keeper?
CBRC scientific method is an oxymoron too