A new look at an old crypto photo

[Still Waters]

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~]

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 August 19, 2010 by Wearer of Hats

[Mr.United_Nations]

and your point being?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

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]

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 August 20, 2010 by DieChecker

[j b]

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 August 22, 2010 by j b

[KRS-One]

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

[TigressFlameroseX39]

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! 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!

[DKO]

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.

[Night Walker]

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:

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

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

[+DieChecker]

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??

[DKO]

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.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Hasn't this animal already been discovered

[Mr.United_Nations]

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

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