Roland

Think, at best, could only be a weekly lot or two. Most likely local radio stations to boot. JMO

Well as I said before the fight, it was a win win fight. a Great money earner and no damage done to his rep. Indeed he will have gained more fans and is now a better crowd puller. Now as for Eubanks Jnr, he was smart in making unacceptable demands to lose the chance he never wanted to fight GGG! hE Certainly isn't ready by a long chalk for that standard by any means as far as I am concerned. But both fighters will go on to earn good money now. And Khan will be a good 'Swan Song' payer too now. Think his last proper fight will be against Brooks. Then will go to Kick box etc.

Well the trainer shouldn't be waving the towel as if waving to a train ... The Ref DIDN'T SEE IT. But should have thrown it in straight off! As soon as the ref saw it he STOPPED it. Corners faults. Reminds me when I was refereeing a football game and the 'Home' lines man was out and out bias if not a cheating. I ignored him. When his side had a goal scored against him he whinged. I said I thought he was waving for a train and took the flag off of him and sent him off. Told him he was a disgrace and cheat. He never took it to the N. F.A lol. True.

Looking good... keep it up Alex and co.

Have known some great British Boxers who were so called 'Under Dogs' pull off great results. Walter McGowan - in my top 3 British boxers, like wise Ken Buchannan... Howard Whinstone etc... Back to Randolph Turpin etc, so it can be achieved. Here's hoping. Though of course the 'Money Boys' money is going on. Like I say, every thing to win and nothing to lose. Kell will still be able - maybe even more - a crowd and further 'Big Pay Days'. Khan will be one of theirs 'Swan Song' of course in the near future.

Well - 0f course - I'd like to see Brooks pull it off. Be the Biggest upset since Honeyghan I'd think... Ben did a couple too. So is the biggest upset since the eighties on the cards? - Fear a good natural 'big un' Takes all the beat so think Brooks is after the money and hope, plus wouldn't do his rep any damage.

My loft is 30 yards away from the back door. When I open the door inside that one, they take note and are alert. Especially at feed times. So they hear the door inside the out buildings - Conservatory / wash room etc.

Thanks Potter29.

http://www.albertaclassic.com/2016/Wim%20Mulder1.pdf In todays world eh!

Gosh... Thanks lol

but thought it was interesting enough to post again. By Josh Fischman - The Chronicle The swallows will still come back to Capistrano, albatrosses will wing their way across vast oceans, and homing pigeons will still arrive at home. But scientists are no longer sure how they do it. If indeed they ever have been. Conjecture at most. Until last week, some thought they had a pretty good idea. Birds had both a magnetic compass and a map that they followed over impossibly long distances. But research published in the latest issue of Nature shows that map-sensing cells that were supposedly built into a bird's beak don't really exist. The cells that researchers thought were there are actually of a completely different kind. "They are immune cells called macrophages, and not neurons that communicate with the brain," says David Keays, a neuroscientist at the Institute of Molecular Pathology, in Vienna, and lead author of the new paper. "They can't detect magnetic fields." "I think this knocks the field back 10 to 15 years," says Henrik Mouritsen, a professor of biology at the University of Oldenburg, in Germany, who studies bird navigation. "That's a good thing. Usually negative results like this don't get published by prominent journals. But the original paper claiming these beak cells existed was cited at least 100 times, so this is a very important correction." Another critic has charged that a separate journal has been sitting on a different debunking paper for four years, neither accepting nor rejecting it, which he says caused many researchers to waste their time. One of the original beak-sensor researchers has launched a spirited attack on the new work-"The great amount of data conceal the bad quality of the contents," says Gerta Fleissner, a neurobiologist at the Goethe University of Frankfurt-but the critics appear to be carrying the day. "Birds have magnetic sensors, but these beak cells aren't part of the picture," says Joseph Kirschvink, a professor of geobiology at the California Institute of Technology. Two types of magnetic senses have been found in many animals, from bacteria to sea turtles. Essentially the creatures use a compass and a map to get around. The compass is formed within cells by tiny grains of a mineral called magnetite that reacts, like compass needles, to the north-south direction of earth's magnetic field. "In bacteria, they really are sensitive, like beautiful little needles," says Mr. Kirschvink, who helped discover them some 30 years ago. Behavioral experiments with turtles show they will turn to follow artificial magnetic fields, and turn again as those fields are reversed. Pigeons have shown similar behaviour. "It's not the compass that I'm calling into question. It's the map," says Mr. Keays. Biologists have assumed some map sense must exist, because a compass isn't good enough for finding your way. An animal travelling long distances also needs to know where it is. Magnetism can help here, too. For example, an iron-filled mountain would register as a landmark if a bird could detect magnetic intensity as well as direction. In two papers, one published in 2003 and another in 2007, Ms. Fleissner and several colleagues suggested they had identified the intensity detector. It was a series of neurons in six locations in a bird's upper beak, they said. The ends of these nerve cells contained particles of magnetite and maghemite, minerals that could react as a magnetic field got stronger or weaker, and transmit that information along nerve fibers to the brain. Mr. Keays says he was interested in these pathways, and wanted to quickly identify the six sensor locations so he and his team could move on to investigate how the information was interpreted by the brain. "I chose to work with pigeons because they have this incredible homing ability, and I honestly thought the work would go very quickly," he says. "But we couldn't find these six cell areas." Instead, in about 190 birds, they found a whole bunch of cells with various iron-related minerals in them. And that didn't make sense, he says, because the abundance would drown out any specific magnetic signal. "Then we got lucky," Mr. Keays says. "One of our pigeons had a beak infection. And looking around it we saw lots of little blue cells." He had used a blue stain, which binds to iron, to identify cells that contain the metal. "That made us wonder if all of these cells were actually immune-system cells." After slicing pigeon beaks into 250,000 very thin sections to examine them under a powerful transmission electron microscope, he decided they were immune cells called macrophages, which engulf invaders like bacteria. "We could actually see their little tentacles as they surrounded foreign bodies," he says. Macrophages often have iron in them because they recycle it from red blood cells. What they don't have, and what the researchers didn't see, was a nucleus. Neurons do. For Mr. Mouritsen, that was the smoking gun. "No nucleus means no neuron," he says. Even one of Ms. Fleissner's co-authors on her original paper is won over. "It is exquisitely and convincingly shown that the cells in question are nothing but macrophages," writes Michael Winklhofer, a biomagnetism expert in the University of Munich's department of earth and environmental sciences, in an e-mail. (He had previously expressed doubts that the minerals originally found were magnetically sensitive.) "Normally the best fanciers come to auctions and the best pigeons are on sale so I enjoy coming to them." Ms. Fleissner is not impressed. She responds that Mr. Keays's methods were poor, and he simply missed the cells that she saw. The sections he sliced were too big, she says, and could have missed the tiny neuron segments. And those areas should contain some neuron terminals, even if they don't contain magnetic sensing grains, but they don't show up in Mr. Keays's slides, leading her to question the quality of his cell preparation. "Not seen does not mean not existing!!" she writes in an e-mail. But Mr. Kirschvink has long had another objection to her work. Iron particles need to be highly ordered crystals to respond to earth's magnetic field, and Ms. Fleissner originally described crystals that were oddly shaped and amorphous. "That renders them useless as magnetic detectors," he says. Mr. Winklhofer agreed with him and in 2008, the two submitted a paper about this problem to the same journal that published Ms. Fleissner's 2007 work, Naturwissenschaften. And then: nothing. "We kept contacting them, asking them to accept it or reject it, but we could never get an answer over four years," Mr. Kirschvink says. "The last time we asked was two weeks ago. For a journal to hold onto a paper that long is really unethical." If the journal had published his paper, or let him submit it elsewhere by rejecting it, he thinks researchers like Mr. Keays could have saved themselves a lot of time. Other researchers have pointed to different cells, in fish, near their noses, that are stronger candidates for magnetic mappers-they have the right crystal structure-and he thinks Mr. Keays could have been hunting for those. The journal editor has a different view. Sven Thatje, a senior lecturer in marine evolutionary ecology at the University of Southampton, in England, wrote in an e-mail that he had not heard from Mr. Kirschvink or Mr. Winklhofer in three years, until they reached out to him a few weeks ago because they knew about Mr. Keays's upcoming Nature paper. "If there had been a matter of personal urgency, who would ever wait this long?" he wrote. "Pressuring an editor 2-3 weeks in advance of a competitive publication is odd and also a little academic." He also said that Mr. Kirschvink's paper fell into a gap as the journal switched editors, and that he had assumed the previous editor had dealt with it. The person whose time was supposedly wasted isn't complaining. "What I like about this paper is that it shows science is self-correcting," Mr. Keays says. "Someone, somewhere, will step up and set you right."

Lol, so are we saying 'Breed 1000's more birds to try and achieve what was common place years ago and state it's an improvement'? Then some have the gall to ask what planet I'm on lol. Sorry can't get my head around that one. Think that notion come from Planet Looney! Indeed it would be nice if some of these whizz kids that try and deride the facts the learned and practice minds just HOW that is so!

Well when one see the improvement in LOSSES from yesteryear. The ailments that they go down with and can't handle I. Loss of good constitutions. Let alone NOT improve on yesteryears velocities it just shows how wonderfully our birds have improved. Improved at great monetary costs true! So glad I'm living in Happyland on the Planet earth lol

Living in the past is not the way forward! Can you imagine how usain bolt messi Lewis Hamilton etc would of done to their competitors 50 60 years ago doos are the same unless your stuck in a time warp who knows you might still be usi a horse and cart 😂 Strange you should say that Moscow. But many now are doing it. Are winning races and GETTING great returns. Plus the fact is that many you say today who aren't doing it are the VERY ones with big losses eh! So the past is but tomorrows future. Now you talk about Hamilton etc. The CAR'S road holding and engine performances are doing it. Not necessarily the drivers. Past drivers from each decade would produce drivers that could compete with Hamilton in HIS car today. Are you saying that Hines and co, treated the same way as Bolt is, WOULDN'T compete? AS for Messi there has been some great footballer's. Charlton and many more played against Pele and Eusabio etc. BUT ALL say that Duncan Edwards was a class above, and superior in all departments. Many great scots in all sports would compete today with fame. Just look at the Rugby stars rated still as world's best. Diets etc. etc. count and tell of course. SO the fact is today that the pigeons AREN'T doing it today! Velocities prove that ... Yes one with pick a good velocity as a example when the paper bags we nigh level. But conveniently forget many others! So the pigeon today can't simply compete with yesteryears. Now when the Chinese runner - for many years

Tyson says 'I only started this post to try to find out why there are so many young birds being lost but you get the people coming on who seem not to care about the losses that's why some are breeding 100s of birds each year to be left with some when I first started in pigeons some 40yrs ago you could bred 20 young birds fly the programme to Stafford and still be left with a dozen birds is this the main problem large teams of inferior pigeons not good enough resulting in high losses honest opinions please'. Good and real post mate.

Besides Buff I often return the bird up to many miles free of charge as many on here can VOUCH for! I've put up to £500 of my own money for fanciers on here, though having never met them or knowing next to nothing about them. But been to auctions as such and bought the bird / birds that they fancied. So the £1 jibe is way below the belt and uncalled for. Behave your self and don't tar any one with the brush you use on your self, there's a good chappie. Now stand in line behind John Hunter and Dall2 to take silly pot shots

So what your saying Roland it's your NORMAL Practice to remove the ets rings and stray that enters your loft as a payment for " Room and board " ?? Now you send Scott your address then this can be addressed by the proper means 🙈🙈 Buff, buff behave! Twisting words and facts only stands to demean yourself! Of course that is not what I am saying, and well you know it ... Of course, as any one with a halfpenth of thought would know. I certainly don't condone stealing in any way or form... and this at best is marginal in theft. The Indeed must are dishonest today in many ways, and not least in the saying 'Weer others do it. But that is still wrong. But AGAIN I will say MOST, EVEN on here are guilty in many forms of stealing, so don't please act the martyr here. What I am saying is simply. SOMEONE has looked after the bird. FED feeding and watering it, and B. you know it has entered - most likely and WATERED it! So that is TWO thank you's. You owe the man. A. for feeding and watering it, and B.the fancier letting you know! So what? So it can cost you a quid. Big deal. Get over it! Because one thing for certain is you, me or Scot won't change a darn thing. It will go on. Like pinching a bag in the supermarket to say 5p! Paper clips from the office. Using the deep litter from clubs meant for the crates etc. etc.

True obviously that the BEST birds are in your' loft. Maybe time some should looked in the mirror. Others in the history books ... In the 50's - 60's there was nearly 150.000 fanciers. Today 30.000 nearly, send far more! Most had teams of 12 pairs tops. They completed the programme. Much of the time the nest circle played a part. Then Raced with certain races in mind. Most flew every race through to the end. If not home on day, would be next day or so and SENT again. Fed on a staple diet of beans and a little treat. The bodies were a robust, and a little heavier than allowed today, that's for sure. Good farm crops, like wheat and barley in the winter months. They had time them to recuperate then and the cold weather killed nasties. By far and away training was none existence for most. Hence entered first and the race programme if possible was used for the distances that the fancier chose. Y.b's too, like some of us still do, straight into the races. All birds earned a perch, then later a nest box etc. Come season's ends the problem was deciding which birds were to go.

P.s. I expect a wrap on wrist via Andy or another M.O.D. for making light hearted of such. Whilst I agree any and every thing can, or should be debated, discussed in a knowledgeable and understanding way ... But to moan about something so trivial that CAN'T, nor will ever be changed, is just futile surely.

Well, to be honest, I marvel at the plight one puts them selves in because they may lose £5 a year or so - IF extremely unlucky, because their birds go into another's loft instead of returning to the own loft. It's pathetic to say the least and nonsense of the highest order. Scot say's ' .... What a load of P*** so your alright with theft then cos what ever way you look at it that what it is. Thanks for looking after my young bird is that what we as true TRUE pigeon fanciers do to lost birds. I am grateful that my bird's back but would be more pleased if he had both boots on...' Get over it and get a life. You get rob every day in supermarkets. Every time you BUY any thing. Pay for anything nigh. BUY a bag of Corn! Yet some are whinging over someone feeding and watering and looking after their' pigeon for a flipping £1!!! Eek! Struth! Of course I can see the likes of John Hunter jumping on board.- Need we say any more! Sad thing is also the reality seems to be, one doesn't see any others nationalities in the UK moaning about the £1 lost (Is it a Scottish thing lol ) Most are thankful. Scot send me your address and I'll send you that £1 30 you are so sad in losing. Indeed I think WE ought to have a fund set up for those that may lose a fiver a year. Being most for the Scots (lol) payment would only be with proof of losses of course! Gosh isn't it time this rubbish was put to bed once and for all!

John, you are a sad case. no scruples, or decency. Yet you TRY to belittle me - yet again - with insolence becoming of the half wit you are. Rather than demeaning my posts with stupidity, why don't you - FOR ONCE- explain how and why... Of course if that's not above you intelligence grade!

Aye, and you KNOW now where it's been in another loft and looked after. Fed and watered at no costs etc. I think the relevant part of your post is '....Thank you for looking after my young bird arrived home safe and sound ....' as it should be. Think we ought to have a whip round to reimburse any disgruntled and peed of skint flint whinging regards the small cost of an E.T. ring! ... Oh of course I forget these costs may take away a little from the £000's pounds spent on new stock (Feather merchants are high on the list) and other fancy gadgets. Good looking assessments needlessly bought eh! Plus the quiddies spent on would be race winning aids, or spent on so called health aids! Fancy feeds etc. NOW these are real 'RIP OFFS'! Gosh I mean just what is the cost of a quid in today's so called sport?!

Well there have been quotes of 'Brush Photo's' etc. But you know,see the shape, body etc. which isn't. Can't see any point, if possible to change that etc. One has to read the 'peds' and decide as to what ones thinks of their worth. One prolific fancier buys every season and sets a trail ablaze.

Can't recall who's it was, but was 28 years Old.

Pouters were used by Bill Butterfield to great success.