EYES WHAT U THINK!!!

[Jack Barkel]

Hey Spencer,

 

You are still thrashing about in anger, I suggest you leave this list as quickly as you have arrived, unless you are prepared to curbe your attitude.

 

It does not matter who wrote the book or who said what, its of little consequence to me and it should not be to you, now you are being childish.

 

As far as putting my trumpet in the box, I have played it in the Royal Albert Hall to 6000 people, you can check that one out also. Forgive the pun but you are not even in the band.

 

Either call a truce, or I will request your removal pretty quickly. With your attitude you will soon be removed in any case, I can assure you.

 

 

Jack Barkel

[Roland]

The reality is 'Tipplers' have the best racing eyes for racers. Feral often carry a great eye.... but then they can and 'Home at speed ... a young Feral allowed in the loft and treated for he usual... - if so wished, will if tossed beat your young birds home every time. How far and what their capabilities are when older raises an interesting augment, but that is diverging.

Personally I don't think Spencer, or Jack are out of order... if Jack feels the heat is rising in the 'Kitchen' and wishes to refrain so be it, But I personally think it is an affront, yes a blumming cheek to even bring up the 'Removing him' let alone the aserb statement that he should be.

Jack you state and spout what you believe, write books about, and that entitles any one to read it, or raise points.

Seems that the most prolific Eye Sign Man who drew on a personally wealth of experience and seminars etc man was Bob Flemmings who is sadly no longer with us. And yes I know he spouted etc. at you Jack ad you went off into the distance never to be seen there again. Now I personally wouldn't like to see that happen here, neither you nor Spencer, for it can only be good for the topic if discussed and pointers, believes true or imaginary, and are brought out. Now the worse scenario is when the supposedly 'Well adverse' in this case Jack and possibly Spencer too, stay and in time eventually agree to differ which they certainly will do in time. But to say 'that the last... ‘Give no one any credit when they are instrumental, and well known for their beliefs. So jack, the worst thing you can do is fold, cast insults, and be offended etc. etc. for that does neither you let alone the case for the 'Eye Sign' theory.

I know Connie lives and breathes you like countless others no doubt. But to turn tail would also belittle them when they keep promoting you and you cause and latest Book.

P.s. No need to reply about Bob as he can't answer for his self, and I am not knowledgeable enough to carry his corner, but could only go into the archives, retrieve and post. That with out personal ability wouldn't be fair to his memory or his name. So do us all a favour and forget the threats and insults and discuss / debate this topic knowing full well it is alright to disagree... not to be disagreeable.

[timbarra]

Dear Jack,

I stand in humble apology and not thrashing about in anger, that I offending your beliefs in the religious quarter, yes you are correct maybe I should not have used a religous example as my example.  

I also do not question your musical achievements, i am humbly impressed sir.

As for my attitude ... I am slightly lost by this as I am expressing my views and like all views they can be controversal in all aspects.

As for a truce I think we were in discussion not argueing , i have no ill feeling towards you in anyway whatsoever. i hope you do not take any of which i say to personally ,but beliefs are a personal thing i guess.

you sir need no introduction in the pigeon world, your reputation prceeds you and a very impresive reputation you have to, and this is no buttering up of yourself , i am in humble company and honoured to a point that you found time to message me, I do hope we can possibly e-mail each other and move with the times together, as regards to knowledge within our sport you are among the most acclaimed i am sure.

I wish sometimes that this so called sport of ours could move in the circles of fact and common sense and leave theory behind, eyesign is a sceptical subject jack and i only try to move it in the direction i believe it should have gone 20-30 years ago , but it seems to have still been labelled with the tag of theory. so that is why i stick to facts only, its less arguementative (supposedly) i will brouse your site and hope you brouse mine but if not thats ok, i will cast my factual eye over your findings and birds and see if maybe i can enjoy what you have written, i would like to think maybe you would give what i say about eyesign some further thought and maybe you will see something to take further yourself, eyesign is an existing factor we stand together on that, so maybe there is a base to work together istead of going at each other?  i think the hardest thing for a pigeon man to do is admit he is wrong..... maybe we will have a long wait for ourselves but maybe not.

 

regards spencer and hope you are well sir.

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Roland,

 

You are talking about the most horrific, not prolific, eye sign man who even had to leave Australia for his swindels. Of course I will mention him as you did, which was not necessary. I have no grouse with you neither do I wish to discuss Flemming or eye sign with you. I really should have ignored you altogether as I did your strange bedfellow.

 

However be it noted he was one of the biggest crooks in Australian pigeon history, and I have documented court proceedings to prove it. Strange people you profess to admire.

 

Please leave me alone, I can do without you or your ugly comments in my life.

 

Jack Barkel

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Spencer,

 

There is no reason why you and I can't be friends, although we did not get off to a very good start.

 

I visited your web site yesterday and will do so again.

 

Congratulations it is well laid out.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Jack

[swilcox]

Lasr Saturday i visited one of the worlds best racers, Harm Vredeveld!!! He spoke quite clearly about the benifits of keeping the colour and quality in an eye.

 

Stuart

[timbarra]

hi jack, well i think what roland is trying to say is , lets not argue. but we are not so lets disscuss things all pigeon orientated. thank you for the praise of the web site jack and i do try my best .... you probably spotted the cats too strange combo !!

i think your right we didnt get off to a great start but hey as long as we end on a good note. i am however fed up of the pigeon spotr in general as it does not get any good press, do you not find that also.?

as for eyesign , would you consider telling me which books started you on the trail of eyesign? most started with the s w e bishop book.

 

regards spencer

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Timbarra,

 

When I was in my late teens I visited Stan Bishop and also George Slade after a rehearsal in a hotel in London.

They both answered a lot of questions about breeding and eye recognition that I was confused about. They both attended the Albert Hall that evening and we corresponded regularly after that. I can't say we became great friends but I still have some of the letters which I saved when emigrating to South Africa. I visited several times when my music took me to London, otherwise I would never have met these wonderful fanciers.

 

I can say that S W Bishop was the first for me, although things have changed greatly since then. I would have given my high teeth to be able to share my discoveries on the genetic drift as it is portrayed in the eye with these two great men. I have also realised that the composite, superimposed on the adaptation, means different things between racers, fancy pigeons, and even humans. I have found that I need to be careful in assessing different characteristics in different creatures because all organs are not placed in the same area of the body.

 

I also find when assessing pigeons that the positioning of the pupil muscle, the adaptation, the correlation, Iris and fifth circle are misplaced and misnamed by fanciers that follow different theorists, also creating vast differences in opinions. It is sad that this can't be agreed upon and become acceptable by all. It is also frustrating to hear fanciers who supposed to know their eye sign story referring to a dominant violet. The violet only occurs in the pearl eye, and as all pearls are recessive surely these experts should have realised by now there is no such thing as a dominant violet, and that there are only two base eye colours i.e. yellow and pearl. There is a catalyst eye that is neither pearl or yellow but a genetic split of both, where the adaptation and fifth circle are usually bluish in colour.

 

Very few eye sign evaluators have open minds, they will stick to their beliefs and if you ask them to explain there reasons for things being as they say they are. They come with the answer, I am not telling, it is my secret. Well Spencer I have spent many years explaining why I do and say certain things. I have never replied by saying I am not telling, it is my secret. I am sure new discoveries will be made, but I doubt if any of them will come from a pigeon man, unless he is also a scientist or a biologist. We, the eye sign people are very amateur and limited in our presentations, so causing many doubts amongst those who would otherwise have open minds.

 

Regards

 

Jack

[Roland]

Jack you haven't any papers to prove Bob of anyting of the like. I have, like thousands of others read the courts mandate, and he was aquitted of any wrong doing. That is the Fact. A person was - or wasn't bring in to Austaralia imports etc. that was afriend of Bob's whom Bob apparently  - like countless others - did the eesign for them. So I do believe that you insult his memory, and are misleading many on that. Indeed you owe his memory an appoligy.

For the simple reason is  'Yes he did go court! No he wasn't found guilty! Yes he was aquittered.

[Jack Barkel]

Roland

 

I was advised by one of the most famous scribes in England at the time, to end my friendship with Flemming because he would ride on my name as he did on Bill Carney, and that he was sure I would not like my character linked to his. Yes I believe he even stole photo's from Bill.

 

However I wrote him a nice letter suggesting we should sever any contact with each other. That is when he started to blaggard me, for up until then he tried to be my greatest friend. I was then sent transcriptions of the courts events.

I never left any forum because of him I just ignored him. So your facts are wrong.

 

You have the story of Flemming and my association all wrong I never ever got into an argument with him on eye sign and he never went against me until I decided I did not want anything to do with him. That is when he started to run me down and insult me, for which I from then totally ignored him as I am intending to do to you..

 

Roland you have once again judged me and described me wrongly to all on this list, please let these untruths you are spreading stop forthwith. I have no desire to be involved with any friends of his, that would wish to imortalise a wretch like him.

 

He even phoned a professor of genetics at our local University here who was involved in a project with me. He cursed this professor off the face of the earth for being involved with me, that is how demented and unreliable your late friend was. Please let it be, and let the dead rest, before I give you a eulogy you do not wish to here, for there is more , much more, for when he did sneek back into Australia his wife had shacked up with another man. I am sure you would not like me to carry on with that sequil.

 

Leave me alone, I ask you nicely once again, I have nothing more to say to you. As I said to him, I will say to you, I have no desire to be associated with you . I hope you can take my decision in a much better gentlemanly spirit than your friend did. I do not dislike you, I just would not like you as a friend or even an acquaintance and I suppose the feeling is mutual. Goodbye.

 

Jack Barkel.

[friendsloft]

would just like to say i have only ever spoke to jack Via e-mail and what i have found is a very friendly intelligent pigeonman who is only too happy to give advise freeley if  asked for

Ken

[Roland]

It's fine by me to leave you alone Jack... If you don't take a swipe, a cheap shot then ask! You state what, and how, you did or see things, then tell me I'm wrong,  refer to my friends as lowlifes, and cast other aspertions... Then say 'Let it drop, that you don't want to discuss it etc. and to leave you lone! Blumming cheek!But that's fine also, just don't cast aspertions or untruths first then ask.

So let's just let it drop, and you do what you do best and discuss Eye Theory'. I will certainly leave you alone then, as I know very little of that, except to say it is a theory and everyone to their own.

[Jack Barkel]

Hello to Friendsloft and Rose,

 

I try to help and pass on the knowledge I have gained over the years to all as you say. There are daily pilgrimages to my lofts where everyone is made most welcome. There have been disappointments from a few, but they pale into insignificance and are soon forgotten like a bad dream. To you Rose, keep trying to understand the theories, not everyone approaches the eye theory the same way and it can cause confusion even amongst the most intelligent, so you are not alone.

 

I say, scrutinise the eyes of your best breeders and best racers, then scrutinise those that seem to be lacking in both these departments. From these and the examples on the internet you can soon found a basis on which to make your own selections and evaluations.

 

I am at 70 years of age, surrounding myself with genuine friends and fanciers interested in what I have to offer. I have had to discard many who seem to be only happy when condemning or criticising others, and have removed myself from many lists because they have become more like dog fights than seats of friendly discussions and learning.

 

Free advice is not often believed or appreciated, and seems to be the regular norm with many people. I can't cope with the stress anymore, and this is the only one remaining forum where I am still a little active. I do have a private list that is by invitation only, where there is no excuse for arguments. A place where one can state their views without criticising or insulting anyone else's. I would like to see all lists eventually run on similar principals, the reason I am loath to let this list go, is because I was bred and born in the North East, and will always have fond memories of where I derived my  birth and infant nurture, and the great lads and lasses that I grew up with.

 

When one writes books, makes videos and generally makes a living from pigeons, there is always an element that is ready to try and bring you down. I answer in the region of 350 e-mails a month and many more phone calls, all pigeon related. It is 6-50 am as I write and at 8:00am I will commence with the evaluation of approximately 100 pigeons. This has become a regular routine in my life and I would not have it any other way.

 

I hope to live respected and die regretted, and hope I have not caused any offence by standing up for what I believe to be right and fair.

Thanks for the comments and the friendship.

 

Kindest Regards,

 

Jack

[timbarra]

hi jack,

first i must agree with you that there are 2 colours of eyes , yellow dominent and white reccessive. we agree on that as it is a genetic fact.

I would also like to agree that eyesign so called experts do have different terms for parts of the eye which adds confusion like you say.

I do thibk however eyesign can be taken too far as instance that a pigeon when paired to another pigeon of different eye configaration will breed winners! I know you believe strongly in this and i do not want to put you down in any way, but i guess you think it can be done ...well i know it can be due to the fact that any good pigeons should and i say should breed winners together. so maybe eyesign is not necessarily the knowledgable factor it is claimed to be, i am trying hard to keep an open mind and it is hard believe me , so as you say since the bishop book things have changed alot and will probably change again. well why not now ? why not step back re-consider your findings and not just you but all eyesign men and say hold on eyesign has been used for the wrong reasons. and maybe thinking about it only facts should be used and maybe eyesign would not be so contraversial because theory would cease and nobody could question its authenticity, all i do is try and stick to facts, dcould you let me know your views on this and what do you mean by genetic drift ( drift means move along)

 

 

thanks  spencer

[Ronnie]

Could it be breeding pigeons to produce winners is one big jigsaw and the eyesign is the last missing piece .Yes it is genetic just like the wing is genetic and feathering is.The reason i believe people are so confused about eyesign as a breeding tool is they dont yet have all the other piece's of the jigsaw in place so they just use the eye and say well that didnt produce a winner so eyesign is fake.Also through what i can discern a pigeon will breed more bad than good again maybe people see this as a failing in eyesign.People will generally look for any exscuse for there own failing's and to realise that it may be yourself and not the theory that is wrong could be big mistake in itself.

[Guest]

Jack you make an interesting point about secrets, it seems to me many eye men keep their 'secrets' until they write a book or sell a video?

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Timbarra and All,

 

As I mentioned in a previous posting there are various types of pigeons went into the genetic design to make the racing pigeon what it is today. If the iris goes too thin making the correlation too wide we have the observation in the eye of genetic drift towards the fancy pigeon that was used in the design of the modern day racing pigeon. If the Iris goes too thick, causing the correlation sometimes not to be visible at all, this observation points towards the genetic drift to the long distance homer that was used in the beginning. By this kind of drift we mean drifting in or out and favouring  the genes of one of these particular traits. If by pairing to a method that we observe and correct this drift, so that the circles in the eye are well balanced with the five circles nearing perfection, the amount of genes in the gene pool are well balanced. Of course I can only prove this with my own and my customers records where the average loft only produces 7 % good all round pigeons, whereas I am increasing this figure to more than 50% with birds I select, where I can find compatible pairings to these parameters.

 

Genetic drift is also used as a scientific biological term for viruses that have a vaccine to combat them, and then  mutate into a relative virus that has resistance to such a vaccine. That is another description of Genetic Drift, as used by Virologists.

 

It may be hard to understand if you have not had the experience of seeing me in my job, and may be presumed to be big words. The fact is there is recorded evidence of me doing this with regularity. Any failures are found to be from fanciers who presume they know better than I which of their birds can go together to produce the best. These are the people who pay the fees and still go their own way, and blame me when not following the advice they paid for.

 

The genetic drift is a constant fight in most lofts towards favouring or regressing to one or the other types, I see to it by first correcting the genetic imprint on eye that the eye is of the design that was intended for speed , vitality, stamina and intelligence. If the eye is to my satisfaction I then check the physical attributes to see that these are not drifting towards the tippler or the dragoon/carrier. There are many that have followed me on my tours, that I have been able to talk through these methods of recognition. They are all successful breeders today, and I hope and visualise that someday this art of understanding genetic drift and how to keep it in check will become an accepted fact. Until then the fancier will continue to blame their lack of regular breeding success on Murphy's Law rather than on Mendel's Law.

 

I have the skills to do this with regularity, this is my job, and there will never be any challengers from those that have watched me working. I am able to tell them many things about their good stock birds in a few minutes that have taken them three or four years of guesswork with their stock pigeons to find out.

 

I can develop pigeons to win from the shortest to the longest distance, and if one chooses to use some of them for short blow home races, such selections can be modified by physical modification of certain flights to give them the increased speed necessary. I do not believe in genetically modifying the racing pigeon to create short fast blow home pigeons. I believe this to be the deterioration of the great strains of yesteryear.

 

Many will not agree with me, and it means very little anymore that they do not. There are many of us that can pair to breed for stock purposes, breed for just racing purposes, sports jobs as I call them, and the ultra which I believe is breeding the dual purpose pigeon. All have their place and in my book and all are attainable, some have challenged this ability to their cost, unfortunately the maverick genes are lurking in the gene pool and although with the practice of my theory they do not pop up as often as in the average lofts, I do allow a small percentage failure due to this fact.

 

I do not ask anyone to believe what I claim, my ability to do this has gone before me. I now rather enjoy doing it for people, rather than trying to convince the sceptics that several are sharing my knowledge with great success.

Of course others will come in the future that will improve on what I'm doing, I am at the end of an era, but feel I have opened the door for those more advanced in biological science than myself that will take this hidden mystery of nature and science to the credibility where very few doubts will remain to its credibility and certainly none remain in the circles I frequent as to it reliability.

 

I have tried to be quite frank about what I do for a living, it is accepted by many top fanciers in the world, and the ranks are increasing not decreasing. I keep an open mind on the subject, but will not be distracted by the silly hocus pocus of some who profess to know the subject in its entirety. These people do the theory of the eye more harm than good, if I am asked a question I will answer it to the best of my ability, and give the explanations where I can.

Unfortunately when confronted publicly, such people who try to catch me fall down miserably, I have some laughable stories of such people I have encountered along the way.

 

I hope you have found my response interesting, and that it will cause some sceptics to take another hard look at signs in the eye.

 

The world is a Pandora's Box for  those who wish to pursue the Hidden Mysteries of Nature And Science.

 

Jack Barkel

jackbarkel@mweb.co.za

http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/jackbarkel/

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Albear,

 

You know you may have a point there, I am trying to recollect how much I put in my first book that I had not spoken about previously, and I certainly know I did not divulge the signs of genetic drift as seen in the eye and physical attributes, until I launched my second book.

 

I am busy with a DVD at the moment that will be a revelation to many once I have it completed. I am sure many will say, "who would have thought that"?

 

Keep well my friend and and may I ask, isn't it time you wrote that book with the things you keep us guessing about?

 

Best Regards.

 

Jack

 

 

[Guest]

Jack a book would not be necessary, there is only one item Carney has not divulged, which is the key to the eye, a couple of pages would do it. But it is not something to divulge lightly, Bill has his reasons for not having divulged it..............I have said many times it is not mine to divulge, if it were not for Bill Carney I would ne like 90% of fanciers and say the eye was a load of rubbish, he has not directly helped me but would never have got there if not for him and my faith that he is genuine!

No the only time I will consider divulging is when the great man has passed on, for me he is the owner of it and I would not be disloyal to that principle or his fantastic visits to my lofts in recent years.

And of course Jack I have to prove it now don't I? I have not created any publicity for myself, 90% of fanciers who have come acros 'Albear' in print or on forums have no ides who I am, none can say that I have spouted off because i'm making money out of my beliefs. My ability to select is more important than my ability to race, however fanciers think you should be a winner to be able to select, not necessarily true. However let me say first two races 68 mile 1 & 2 and 143 miles (channel race) 2,3 & 4 not bad I suppose for someone learning how to race after all these years and with yearlings, the winning velocity 1148 in the channel race.

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Albear,

 

I accept what you say for I am of the opinion Bill Carney is the best in his field. However you can't refute that eye sign has taken me to many parts of the world, where my knowledge in the art has brought a great deal of success.

 

Therefore I say, eye sign is a lot of rubbish as practiced by many practitioners who claim to know the art, and do not reallknow why or what they do.

 

I would however say Albear, that I am not the only one who is practicing successfully, and the few of us that make these claims are all working together on the same principals, and acknowledge Bill Carney as the Grand Master. We also claim to know his theory from beginning to end, with a little more added, that he may know but doesn't talk about.

 

It will be very disapointing when Bill passes on, if you find that what you pertain to be Bill's secret, which you claim to have discovered, without him telling you, may not be a secret at all, and have been practiced in other parts of the world.

 

His video in my opinion is just an advertising gimmick to sell pigeons, manufactured by people riding on his reputation, and as for its educational value on the subject, it is also a lot of rubbish. Even his explanation of sexing pigeons by the eye???????? is unclear to most people who have purchased it.

 

Never mind Albear, you and I have a mutual respect for each other I believe.

Therefore all is discussable, and I hope that because you believe you have discovered the all important answer to the secrets of the eye, that you will continue extending your researches into the hidden mysteries of nature and science. Very rarely does one fall on the answers by accident, it takes a lot of in depth research if one wishes to move forward. I myself although having proved to be competent with the best in this particular discussion, will never be complacent of the fact that new discoveries will still be made.

 

If one does not to this they become outdated, and that embraces everyone in every field.

 

Regards

 

Jack

 

[Guest Paulo]

Theres one thing for sure in any sport involving racing animals be it greyhounds, horses or pigeons. The basket or track is the best true selector history has proven that.

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Paulo

 

Hitler put his best athletes together to form the master race, he produced the biggest lot of rejects ever recorded in Germany.

 

No my friend the basket does not select the top or best stock pigeons.

 

Recorded history as proven this to be a fact. Belgian pigeons deteriorated after being the best in the world, when it became the norm of putting winner to winner.

 

I would say, if one does not know any better, the last alternative is to put winner to winner until you breed your whole stock loft down to inferior producers.

 

I am sorry, I am not saying you mustn't follow what you firmly believe to be true. I must however dissagree with such a statement for you are not speaking from recorded fact, but hearsay.

 

Regards

 

Jack

[Guest Paulo]

Its all about results I suppose Jack whatever works for you. Thats the good thing about pigeon racing there are many roads to success.

 

Wonder if Mr Busschaert was an eyesign man? He certainly knew how to select good pigeons.

 

No one can argue that the Durham lads all fly a good pigeon theres very intense competion up here even now in a sport of declining numbers. I've got the upmost respect for the old timers like you and people like JJ Horn, Alf Rothwell, Banty Emmerson. Georgie Latcham etc when you look at the birdages they used to fly against. Pigeon flying was pigeon flying in them days but I reckon if you look back them there would have been loads of people winning who were legends in the pigeon game who never used eyesign and just had an eye for a good pigeon and weeded out rubbish pigeons through training.

 

Out of interest what would your recommendations be for a simple book about eyesign that is easy for people who are new to the theory to understand? Preferably with lots of pictures. I do look at the eye when looking at my pigeons but not at anything specific I just like the eye to be bright and the bird to look intelligent and interested not dull.

 

Regards

 

Paul

[Jack Barkel]

Hello Paulo,

 

I think, and it has been stated in reviews that my book, "The Modern Guide to Eye-Sign & Breeding" is the leading book to date on the subject, with many excellent illustrations. It is available from mO who is a member of Pigeon Basics.

 

I do agree that many top flyers do not use eye-sign at all, but most are constantly bringing in new blood to stay at the top. Good fanciers who do use eye sign, usually stay at the top without constantly bringing in new blood.

 

It is my contention that Busschaert had few claims to fame until he moved to England, when the Geordie fanciers and others, improved his strain and really put him on the map.

 

Paulo you are competing in one of the strongest areas in the world, and I wish you every success in the sport no matter which methods you decide to adopt.

 

Regards

Jack

[Guest]

Paulo, i have also wondered about Busscahert; for me he was also a master selector. His ability was incredible, if it was not the eye it was undoubtedly some other thing that he had sussed. Would love to have met the man. I have seen a lot of fantastic pigeons originating from the originals and what struck me, was there was never any standard conformation, in size/type, however they did have in the majority of instances, the qualities i look for in an eye and outstanding examples of these qualities. So yes I have thought that maybe George Busschaert

had cracked the eye. If he didn't he had found some other indicator, because I know of no other man (other than some eye men) who could do this, (though I am sure there are others and a lot of their 'secrets' have been lost because technology and communication 40 years ago was not what it is today.

As an aside I think it is such a shame that the allround Busscaherts of outstanding quality do not seem to exist anymore the perfect pigeons that would win from 50 to 500 mile at any velocity, that for me was the trade mark of many of his best!