Here are his statements taken from the "imaginary lion" thread:
Lies about the size of the bengal tiger:
1. Statement: "Bengal tigers do not surpass Siberian in size, Bengal tigers are smaller than Lions at species level," [...]
2. Statement: "Rofl yes the Sunderban population is at least 1/4 of remaining Bengal tiger population Dr. Yamaguchi is percise in his 160 kg estimate."
My remarks: He is wrong. Yamaguchi did not used a WEIGHED average. Scientists don't do this and Yamaguchi states this himself. Therefore 160 kg is the figure for all tiger subspecies and isn't influenced by 80 % by bengal tigers.Until yet he failed to see or is to ignorant that sunderban tiger don't have a impact of 25 % on the size of bengal tiger aswell as bengal tiger don't have an impact of 80 % on the estimate of 160 kg.
Mistakes about sunderban tiger population:
1. Statement: "According to the 2011 tiger census, the Sundarbans have about 270 tigers". Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12877560
My remark: If you klick his link there are 70 tigers mentioned not 270 as he said. The census is about the indian part of the sunderbans only.
2. Statement: "The bengal population numbers are speculative even more so with Sunderban. The physorg article states 1674 total bengal tigers (WLII 1627), 274 Sunderban, project tiger says 5-7000 global, while refraining from giving a total for the Sunderban's bengals." http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-23/kolkata/29807139_1_sundarbans-tiger-census-tiger-population
My remark: If you klick his link there are 90 tigers mentioned not 274 like he said. Again his link is about the indian part of the sunderbans only.
Now the worst part:
P. t. tigris 3 212 kg mean ..Notes: All weights taken from Slaght et al. (2005),
..Some weights were listed in Forest Department records, but they were probably mostly guesses, considering the reports of corresponding body lengths (some list ed as over 12 feet). Tiger weights were taken in the field from two ra dio-collared tigers and one tiger killed by local people in a village adjacent to the Sundarbans...Trap effort was not recorded for the first two years, and fo r the last two years e ffort totaled 332 and 174 trap nights respectively (one trap night = one bait or cage set out for one night).
[...]note the 3 weights of Bengal tiger was 212 kg stomach content weight unverifiable, baiting at night is noted.
If you klick his link you will see that these statements are out of context. There are no notes about the tigers weighing 212 kg and about if they were baited at night. The excerpts he posted were only about sunderban tigers but the way he posted it - he only excluded one sentence - aswell as his final statement ("note the 3 weights of Bengal tiger
was 212 kg stomach content weight unverifiable, baiting at night is
noted") implies that they are about the 212 kg tigers.
"It appears your frustrated-angry because you are proven inaccurate on the number of Sunderban population, greater than your lowball100 proposed# a realistic figure of 350-500 range roughly 25% of the wild Bengal tiger population."
My remark: I have never give him an inaccurate number of the sunderban population. As you can see above I just correct him regarding his sources.
Is this enough for a ban? Maybe, but it's hard to decide. Because he acts so stubbornly and ignorant and also starts to talk about himself in third peson I would say yes.
Edit: The thread can be deleted