The video is difficult to make out. Image Credit: YouTube / Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia
A rather shaky video filmed in Adelaide Hills earlier this year allegedly shows a live Tasmanian tiger.
Believed to have been wiped out by intensive hunting practices, this shy, nocturnal animal, which looks a bit like a dog, has long remained a topic of debate and intrigue thanks to unconfirmed sightings across Australia of what some believe to be Tasmanian tigers still surviving in the wild.
The last known thylacine in captivity was an individual named Benjamin which died of neglect 80 years ago at Hobart Zoo in Tasmania, Australia after being held captive there for three years.
Although it was thought that some thylacines may have managed to survive in the wild for several decades afterwards, by 1982 authorities had declared the species officially extinct.
This hasn't stopped people from continuing to report sightings of the animals, however.
The latest such report, which hails from Adelaide Hills on the Australian mainland, centers around video footage of a dog-like animal with black stripes which was spotted outside some houses.
"We believe our footage to be footage of a small thylacine moving around through the Adelaide Hills," said amateur researcher Neil Water of the Thylacine Awareness Group.
"You can see the body of the animal, it does appear to have some sort dark discolouration which may or may not be stripes. It has a long, stiff, pointy tail."
"Where the tail connects to the body is very wide at the base which is typical of the thylacine."
Firstly, thanks for the welcome. Cheers mate. And I do intend to stay here for a while. I came to join this site a few months ago, only to find I'd already joined in 2013 to post about the tiger, but had forgotten. I think a certain amount of colour variation would been inevitable, but I doubt the sandy beige idea was ever real. So far, the only good evidence I know about is for grey. Certainly the ones passing through Hobart Zoo seem to have been. I think they were probably a good representative sample. The only source we have apart from, as far as I know sparse, eye witness deions are t... [More]
Firstly, thanks for the welcome. Cheers mate. And I do intend to stay here for a while. I came to join this site a few months ago, only to find I'd already joined in 2013 to post about the tiger, but had forgotten. I think a certain amount of colour variation would been inevitable, but I doubt the sandy beige idea was ever real. So far, the only good evidence I know about is for grey. Certainly the ones passing through Hobart Zoo seem to have been. I think they were probably a good representative sample. The only source we have apart from, as far as I know sparse, eye witness deions are t... [More]
Cheers, I have no idea about photo let alone video analysis. Only, that I've been caught out by it before over the Doyle footage. It is obvious, as you say, that you couldn't hope to get a sensible range of any sort from that. I don't know the guy who's pushing the video, but I know of him. He posts over on another site. Everything about this clearly mad though. And has nothing to do with tigers. Even Col Bailey is sceptical.
1. There is some variation in tail length among individual dingos, so this claim is meaningless. 2. As oldrover mentioned, motion compression artefacts plus unknown source combined plus unknown image processing algorithms plus unknown extra compression for web streaming readiness mean that this video as presented is worthless as evidence to support anything except that someone posted a video online. 3. If it is not possible to use this video to make accurate measurements of the subject, then it is meaningless claim that this is a modern living thylacine. But in spite of all this, I'll co... [More]
I think to some people, the tiger is basically just a stripey dog. Without any history, without being unique and without representing a novel example of a mid sized mammalian predator, without any living comparison outside of Metatheria. I wonder sometimes if they think the fact that it's a marsupial is a bit of an affectation. Rather than being a fundamental difference, which means that it had evolved for tens of millions of years independently of the ancestors of canids. Hardly anyone bothers to look at it beyond a couple of Youtube videos and maybe a quick skim through Wikipedia.
The third video by the 'Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia'. It doesn't feature any new fox footage, instead it deals with supposed footprint casts. There's not much to say about it really. The tag on Youtube says that it's a witness explaining the difference between dog, fox and tiger footprints. The witness isn't identified, there's nothing to say whether she's qualified to give the explanation she does. Neither does it give any context for any of the casts. It is pointless.
Well folks I have to disappoint you, I am a retired professional shootter (60 years bush and shooting experience). I started hunting at 8 years of age and only retired a few years ago at 68. I am now 71. Have hunted and trapped in every state of Australia and can tell you, that is definitely a fox. FYI - the fox population in cities is greater than in the country so seeing a fox in urban surrounds is really not uncommon
Yes, I think almost all of us here have the same opinion. In Wales, urban foxes are really common. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. I can't comment on the prints there though, other than to say that I don't have the experience to say anything useful about them. The last video these people released was obviously a fox.
Please Login or Register to post a comment.