23 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

scienceblogs.com said:

Photos purported to show 'mystery animals' are always great fun. One of the most perplexing and curious of the lot was taken on a box Brownie camera near Goroke, western Victoria, Australia, in 1964. I'm referring, of course, to Rilla Martin's photo of a strange, striped, running mammal.

This photo has generally become known as 'the Ozenkadnook tiger photo'; in fact, the term 'Ozenkadnook tiger' was and is used for a supposed mystery beast (suspected by witnesses and locals to be a mainland Thylacine Thylacinus cynocephalus) seen since the 1880s across southwestern Victoria and southeastern South Australia (Healy & Cropper 1994). The specific photo is, therefore, better known as 'the Rilla Martin photo'.

Martin reported that, while on holiday one day in 1964, she was driving along between Goroke and Apsley. With time to spare, she chose to drive along the dirt track near Ozenkadnook. She'd been photographing relatives while at Goroke (where her cousin lived) and had the camera next to her, on the front seat. In the woods close to the road, she caught sight of an unusual animal, standing at the edge of the scrub. She stopped the car and snapped one photo, just as the animal began to run away [a close-up of its head is shown below].

Read more...

[Insignia]

I would have said Thylacine, until i realised that the stripes are the wrong end
Still could be though. I guess we'll never know

[j b]

it looks 'extinct' like the thylacine

[DieChecker]

It certainly is an exciting photo. It does not look like thylocine to me. Maybe the thylo-lion.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

there's something "not quite right" about that picture.
You know, it looks like it's been "added digitally". It's quite smooth.
And this is the first time I've heard of it, and I live in Australia and crytpo-fauna is something of a hobby of mine.

[~TheBigK~]

Wearer of Hats, on 19 August 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

You know, it looks like it's been "added digitally". It's quite smooth.

Like they messed with the photo in more recent years? Just curious, cause I have no idea what they would've been able to do in regards to that in 1964.

Either way, if it's not faked it looks like it was an awesome animal. Maybe it was a cross between a Thylacine and something else?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

What I mean is that this "photo from 1964" is brand new to me. And after some investigation, the only place that seems to have it is a website from 2008.

Edited by Wearer of Hats, 19 August 2010 - 11:14 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

and your point being?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Pompey_Lad_18, on 19 August 2010 - 11:20 PM, said:

and your point being?

My point is that I approach the picture with a dubious eye, on the grounds the creature looks CGI'd in, and I've not heard about it in the years of amateur study I've given the topic.

[Night Walker]

Wearer of Hats, on 20 August 2010 - 05:06 AM, said:

My point is that I approach the picture with a dubious eye, on the grounds the creature looks CGI'd in, and I've not heard about it in the years of amateur study I've given the topic.

The picture is in Malcolm Smith's (1996) "Bunyips & Bigfoots" and it is briefly discussed:

... the Rilla Martin photograph, which was taken in western Victoria in 1964, and has been reporoduced in numerous publications since. The more I look at it the more disturbing I find it - it doesn't fit any species, known or unknown. However, the splashes of white sunlight in the foreground and the complete whiteness of the rump suggests that the white shoulder stripes are a light-and-shadow effect. And although the build and stance of the body is not really what one would expect of a large dog, it cannot be ruled out. (p. 83)

[Night Walker]

If the striping is due to light-and-shadow effect then it's overall colour would be basically a uniform light colour - like, say, a palomino horse.

Perhaps there has been too much attention on it's head and facial features which could be distorted in a number of ways (eg motion, foliage). If we compare the lower half of the creature and compare it to a horse it seems quite compatible.



Perhaps the Ozenkadnook tiger is a larger animal with hooves - a horse or deer.

[Holter]

Looks like it's missing the top half of it's head. Like the photo was manipulated. And i suppose you could put this down to the technology at the time but there's a clear line down the middle seperating shades of colours that runs exactly along the line where the stripes on the 'animal' stop.

[DieChecker]

The stripes seem to me, to not be generated by shadows. The trees and brush nearby do not support the pattern or the crispness of the stripe edges.

The tail would seem to eliminate horses and deer. Could be a dog of some kind, I think.

Edit: I've seen boxers and pit bulls with tiger stripes and they also have a deep chest and thick tail.

Edited by DieChecker, 20 August 2010 - 06:51 PM.

[j b]

Night Walker, on 20 August 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

If the striping is due to light-and-shadow effect then it's overall colour would be basically a uniform light colour - like, say, a palomino horse.

Perhaps there has been too much attention on it's head and facial features which could be distorted in a number of ways (eg motion, foliage). If we compare the lower half of the creature and compare it to a horse it seems quite compatible.



Perhaps the Ozenkadnook tiger is a larger animal with hooves - a horse or deer.

i dont think its either of those...  i dont think that any animal is similiar that exists today... the body shape is very unusual... im not saying its looks like a hyena but its different like a hyena is to a common dog...  really makes me scratch my head for sure...

(edit) it reminds me of a kangaroo that walks on four legs lol

Edited by j b, 22 August 2010 - 03:24 AM.

[KRS-One]

And in today's "Garfield without Garfield"...