Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

A new look at an old crypto photo

24 posts in this topic

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].

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have said Thylacine, until i realised that the stripes are the wrong end :D

Still could be though. I guess we'll never know :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks 'extinct' like the thylacine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and your point being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

ozenkadnooktiger2.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

ozenkadnooktiger2.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also been having a difficult time with this photo and its mysteries. One thing that bothers me is the front legs and shoulders--something seems off. In particular, the angle of the front right leg as opposed to the left and the positioning of the chest and shoulders. It seems too stiff, especially compared to the hindquarters, which seems more sloped and catlike. Ooohh, if only it weren't in black-and-white, we wouldn't be having so much difficulty! :cry: I would like to believe that the photo is legitimate, and I don't know how people in that time period could alter a photo, and researchers have proven there are still plenty of undiscovered species on this planet, and the possibility of prehistoric species surviving to the present has also been affirmed, and what of the chances of inter-breeding between older species and newer ones? Arrg too many questions, sorry for ranting, folks! :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of or seen this before. The body sort of looks like that from a horse, with something done to its tail. And painted.

Any photo experts here? How hard is it to double impose a photo with the old film? I mean something like you take a photo of some bushland, then take a photo on the same negative of a possibly painted horse, with a plain-ish sort of background and a little bit of bush in front of it. And the horse turned it's head during the photo and got lost in the process somehow.

For some reason the animal and the bush below the animal in the photo looks a little different than the background at the top of the photo. Could mean nothing just something I noticed. I'm no photo expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The body sort of looks like that from a horse, with something done to its tail. And painted.

I agree. Except I can't quite figure if it was painted in stripes (you'd be surprised the lengths people go to for a lark) or if it is a shadow effect from the foliage; whether the tail has somehow been tampered with (if painted with stripes why not do something to the tail?) or if it is a photographic motion-effect:

ozenkadnook1.jpg

ozenkadnook2.jpg

http://home.yowieoca...ola_Tiger_1968/

I second the call for the opinion of those with any photographic (or even any equine) knowledge...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the tail still causes issues with the identification relating to a horse.

I guess if it was a show horse, maybe the tail was bound up??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the tail might have been bound/braided. The stripes are confusing, if this guy was going out to make a hoax then he could have easily painted them on. To me it doesn't really look like light coming in through the bushes. But like I said earlier i'm no expert.

horse-tail-braid-clineja_57112.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Except I can't quite figure if it was painted in stripes (you'd be surprised the lengths people go to for a lark) or if it is a shadow effect from the foliage; whether the tail has somehow been tampered with (if painted with stripes why not do something to the tail?) or if it is a photographic motion-effect:

ozenkadnook1.jpg

ozenkadnook2.jpg

http://home.yowieoca...ola_Tiger_1968/

I second the call for the opinion of those with any photographic (or even any equine) knowledge...

I'm not a photographer but I am an artist and I think that superimposed horse's head is way smaller than the one in the original photo. I think the one in the photo, even though some of it is hidden, is a large robust head like a tiger. You left out the large chin and jaw under your horse's head. And the foliage does not correspond with the stripes/shadows on the creature. That is what my eyes see anyway.

Edit: I think you made a good depiction with the horse. The right front leg of the creature looks a lot like a horse's, along with the neck and withers.

Edited by SpiritTraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't this animal already been discovered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

220px-Okapia_johnstoni_-Marwell_Wildlife,_Hampshire,_England-8a.jpg

Well, if there's one of those on the loose in Australia, even in the 60s, it's worthy of comment and investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.