Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Live thylacine allegedly caught on camera


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

On 9/8/2016 at 11:44 PM, SSilhouette said:

Well that's not true is it?

Yes, it is.  Are you unfamiliar with the word "true"?

On 9/8/2016 at 11:44 PM, SSilhouette said:

 Most here are not convinced it isn't a thylacine.  What a weird religion. 

What religion is that?  The one that accepts everything they see without question?  The one that doesn't need physical evidence to make someone believe in something?  The ones that you continuously support?

On 9/8/2016 at 11:44 PM, SSilhouette said:

Anyway, it looks very much like the thylacines I've seen on film and have watched closely, extensively.

"Extensively"  I don't think you know what that word means, either.  BTW, it doesn't really look like one.

On 9/8/2016 at 11:44 PM, SSilhouette said:

 I'm probably more of an expert than "most here" because I've been working with, breeding and training all types of animals. 

AH, here comes the wild claims of intellectual superiority.  Can you prove that you are probably more of an expert than every single person here?

You're failing and flailing again.

On 9/8/2016 at 11:44 PM, SSilhouette said:

 

Image result for thylacine

^ A taxidermy specimen.

 

The OP video again:

 

Doesn't look like a thylacine.  I hope it is, but it most likely isn't.

Funny religion you subscribe to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2016 at 11:58 PM, SSilhouette said:

Not really.

Yes, really.

On 9/8/2016 at 11:58 PM, SSilhouette said:

The wild of Australia and particularly Tasmania hold out hope that not every single male and female thylacine was wiped out.

"Holds out hope"  You just hypocritely supported Habit's post that you just denied with that one phrase....

On 9/8/2016 at 11:58 PM, SSilhouette said:

This footage is pretty compelling.

Not really.

On 9/8/2016 at 11:58 PM, SSilhouette said:

 Too bad the camera's auto focus didn't stay with the animal the whole time.

Yeah too bad that happens ALL OF THE TIME when it comes to these kinds of things.

On 9/8/2016 at 11:58 PM, SSilhouette said:

 But it sharpened enough to see the face for a brief second, the gait for sure and the sloped hind end and the long stiff tail.  The color is right on the mark too. 

If you're doing that, you're altering the footage specifically to make it look like what you want it to.  Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Well the video comes close to verification.

No, it doesn't.  It's no more of a verification than any video of bigfoot is.  You're just displaying an uninformed amount of wishful thinking.  Which is good, many, if not all of us, hope that thylacines come back.  This video doesn't show that to be true.

15 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

I think the video and many other eyewitness accounts lends credence. 

Well, it and they don't lend credence to anything.

15 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Of course with such an endangered species, are you suggesting that someone kill one to provide proof?  That would be irresponsible.  However I'd think setting up a trap for one might be a good idea where they are trapped alive.  Putting them in a zoo would be cruel and might deplete what's left of the wild population; which may be very few?

Since this video shows nothing of proof, finding and trapping a live one is the next step.  But, as with bigfoot, if they're around, they'll leave a body.  No bodies yet.  Just like bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Zalmoxis said:

Actually, there is no way of really knowing because I saw it out on the peripherals of my vision. When I turned my head it was too late but I distinctly remember it looked like a straw flying through the sky. Was a microsecond in time.

Well, too bad you didn't get a better look at it, followed up by clear and steady camera work if that were possible.  It is most likely one of those things I posted, and least likely anything paranormal or alien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Well, too bad you didn't get a better look at it, followed up by clear and steady camera work if that were possible.  It is most likely one of those things I posted, and least likely anything paranormal or alien.

It could've been a Da Vinci cigar for all I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zalmoxis said:

It could've been a Da Vinci cigar for all I know.

:) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oldrover said:

 

Firstly, no. Thylacine were not in any way kangaroo like. Marsupial and kangaroo are not interchangeable. Just because the most famous marsupial group has evolved a saltatorial gait, it does not mean that you should expect to see it in every representative of the others. Although it is true that there is a saltatorial dasyurid.

Thylacine tails weren't especially thick, and weren't especially inflexible. Anyway, the tails of the zoo animals are not representative of a normal healthy wild specimen. Because in life the base of the tail also doubled as a fat store. There is only one photo which shows this, that of a healthy nursing mother.

In fact the skinny tails of the stressed captive animals, even show the vertebrae under the skin, this is what's led people to mistakenly think the base of the tail was stripped. 

Again though, like the colour, these are details not generally known. 

Sorry, disagree.  They look like kangaroos who filled a predatory niche and went down on all fours.  When the one in the old film stands up, it's tail acts to plant sort of a quick stiff stabilizer on the ground; a thing dogs and cats don't do with their tails.  Kangaroos are marsupials.  The tails of zoo animals would not rewire the nervous system that controls their involuntary movements when the creature stood on its hinds to see what the keeper was baiting it with on the other side of the fence.  Watch the old video again.

And though the thylacine has a canine type face (elongated snout from a wedge shape), it's tail is much longer than we see in canines; and stiffer.  The face on the animal in the OP linked video is that canine wedge-shaped, but with an exceedingly long tail.  Much too long for a canine.

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SSilhouette said:

Sorry, disagree.  They look like kangaroos who filled a predatory niche and went down on all fours.  When the one in the old film stands up, it's tail acts to plant sort of a quick stiff stabilizer on the ground; a thing dogs and cats don't do with their tails.  Kangaroos are marsupials.  The tails of zoo animals would not rewire the nervous system that controls their involuntary movements when the creature stood on its hinds to see what the keeper was baiting it with on the other side of the fence.  Watch the old video again.

And though the thylacine has a canine type face (elongated snout from a wedge shape), it's tail is much longer than we see in canines; and stiffer.  The face on the animal in the OP linked video is that canine wedge-shaped, but with an exceedingly long tail.  Much too long for a canine.

Again, no, you seem to be confusing marsupial with kangaroo. Kangaroos are not closely related to thylacines. Have a look at the diagram. 

Image result for marsupial phylogenetic tree

 

Thylacine are Dasyuromorphs, Kangaroos are Macropods in the order Diprotondontia. Not the same. I have no idea where you're getting kangaroos from. 

At the point where tigers and kangaroos shared a common ancestor, neither had developed anything like the specialised body plans that we see today.  

But, I do agree that the thylacine might have used its tail as support while rearing up. But not for any common reasons with kangaroos. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Again, no, you seem to be confusing marsupial with kangaroo. Kangaroos are not closely related to thylacines. Have a look at the diagram. 

 Kangaroos are Macropods in the order Diprotondontia. Not the same. I have no idea where you're getting kangaroos from. 

At the point where tigers and kangaroos shared a common ancestor, neither had developed anything like the specialised body plans that we see today.  

But, I do agree that the thylacine might have used its tail as support while rearing up. But not for any common reasons with kangaroos. 

Are kangaroos marsupials or not?  I guess you're saying they're not?  I checked just now.  Kangaroos are marsupials.  But the topic is about whether or not the image of the long-tailed "dog" in the video is a thylacine or not?  I was just speculating on evolution of how the thylacine came to be a predator from an obviously upright background.  It's clear the way their back feet articulate that they used to be upright most of the time.  It's like their Achilles tendon isn't quite strong enough to hold those heels up high and constant like on dogs?  And the ease with which they stand up and stay there, using their long club tail to balance is reminiscent of the kangaroo.  Even you admitted that.

 

"But not for any common reason with kangaroos".  Why not?  Going up on one's hind legs might have a similar reason, to reach things up higher.  lol..  Plus, there's something about the thylacine's mannerisms that smack of a kangaroo.  Kangaroos when they're not resting, appear to be a little fussy & grabby.  Plus the eyes of a thylacine look similar; something about the look in them, color and shape.

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oldrover said:

As to the tail lengths. Here's a canid with a long tail;

Image result for fox

And here's a couple of tigers for comparison

Image result for thylacine

Thanks for noting the stark difference.  Stiff and used for balance in the photo in black and white.  Undulating and furry in the fox.  The fox by the way is not the type of canid I was talking about.  The creature in the video is not a fox.  The closest coparison is a dog.  With key differences.  Dogs (canis lupis, canis domesticus) don't have such long tails as the animal in the video.

One of the key features that differentiates though, besides the tail, is the extra long length of the femur bone.  The patella is usually tucked way up next to the body in most four-footers .  If you can freeze the frame at :38 in the video, you can see that there appears to be a longer femur and a knee located lower than usual; as compared to a dog's body.  Also the heel which remains high kept in dogs at a trot or walk, looks like it drops down near to the ground as you see in your black & white photo above; especially the female in the foreground.

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks feline to me....what is strange is that they were videoing before  it appears, then it goes blurry and stops...why not follow it.

this seems very much like someone taking a video of their neighbours cat and trying to pull it off as something else.

fgs...follow the creature next time if you want to claim an unusual creature.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

Are kangaroos marsupials or not?  I guess you're saying they're not?  I checked just now.  Kangaroos are marsupials.  But the topic is about whether or not the image of the long-tailed "dog" in the video is a thylacine or not?  I was just speculating on evolution of how the thylacine came to be a predator from an obviously upright background.  It's clear the way their back feet articulate that they used to be upright most of the time.  It's like their Achilles tendon isn't quite strong enough to hold those heels up high and constant like on dogs?  And the ease with which they stand up and stay there, using their long club tail to balance is reminiscent of the kangaroo.  Even you admitted that.

 

"But not for any common reason with kangaroos".  Why not?  Going up on one's hind legs might have a similar reason, to reach things up higher.  lol..

I think I understand the confusion. You seem to think that marsupials are all one group. They aren't, they're an entire 'infraclass'. The same taxonomic division as Eutheria, also wrongly called placental mammals. Does that make sense?

As in whales, elephants, bats and primates are Eutherians. And like marsupials, share a common ancestor. But they've diverged significantly. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Looks feline to me....what is strange is that they were videoing before  it appears, then it goes blurry and stops...why not follow it.

this seems very much like someone taking a video of their neighbours cat and trying to pull it off as something else.

fgs...follow the creature next time if you want to claim an unusual creature.

Wow, that porch has to be absolutely tiny or if it's a normal porch, that "cat" (with the wedge shaped head and protruding snout like a dog's) has to be the size of a N. American mountain lion.  And with a tail just as long as a cougar too.  With a dog's protruding face though.

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

Wow, that porch has to be absolutely tiny or if it's a normal porch, that "cat" (with the wedge shaped head and protruding snout like a dog's) has to be the size of a N. American mountain lion.  And with a tail just as long as a cougar too.  With a dog's protruding face though.

How do you see a wedged shaped head and protruding snout? The video i see is not clear enough to show that..is there another video? Can you see the eye colour too?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

One of the key features that differentiates though, besides the tail, is the extra long length of the femur bone.  The patella is usually tucked way up next to the body in most four-footers . 

No, the patella is not held up close to the body in either dogs or thylacines. Just look at the photos, look at the skeletons. 

Are you saying that the tiger has a proportionately longer femur? 

Image result for thylacine skeleton

 

Image result for dog skeleton photos

There are differences in limb to body ratio, and the metatarsus is significantly shorter in the tiger. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

I was just speculating on evolution of how the thylacine came to be a predator from an obviously upright background.  It's clear the way their back feet articulate that they used to be upright most of the time.  It's like their Achilles tendon isn't quite strong enough to hold those heels up high and constant like on dogs?  And the ease with which they stand up and stay there, using their long club tail to balance is reminiscent of the kangaroo.  Even you admitted that.

Why would a thylacine have come from an 'upright background'? Given that both kangaroos and tigers both diverged from each other while their common ancestor was a quadruped. 

 

50 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

"But not for any common reason with kangaroos".  Why not?  Going up on one's hind legs might have a similar reason, to reach things up higher.  lol..  Plus, there's something about the thylacine's mannerisms that smack of a kangaroo.  Kangaroos when they're not resting, appear to be a little fussy & grabby.  Plus the eyes of a thylacine look similar; something about the look in them, color and shape.

Yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with reaching things. Kangaroos are grazers, though not exclusively, so they have to bend down, not up. The reason kangaroos are more upright is locomotion. 

Personally, I believe tigers may have reared up while tackling prey. Not to move around. 

But, in fairness, you aren't the only one who thinks this. 

Mannerisms that smack of a kangaroo? The only mannerisms of a tiger any but a handful of people alive today have seen, are those on the seven films. And apart from lying down, none are common with kangaroos.  

If you want to see animals that do have common features with thylacines, look at their nearest relatives. The Dasyurids. Especially the quoll. 

Edited by oldrover
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

Looks feline to me....what is strange is that they were videoing before  it appears, then it goes blurry and stops...why not follow it.

Because they wouldn't have the clickbate to post then if they showed it was a cat.  But you know that.

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

this seems very much like someone taking a video of their neighbours cat and trying to pull it off as something else.

Yep.  You may not be right, but that's a very accurate assesment.  More accurate than claiming it's a thylacine with absolutely no proof whatsoever, and completely relying on religious-type wishful thinking.

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

fgs...follow the creature next time if you want to claim an unusual creature.

:tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SSilhouette said:

 that "cat" (with the wedge shaped head and protruding snout like a dog's) has to be the size of a N. American mountain lion.

Now I'm positive you didn't watch the video and you are just making up stuff as you type, or you're just trolling for the fun of it.  None of those things are in the video.

1 hour ago, SSilhouette said:

  And with a tail just as long as a cougar too.  With a dog's protruding face though.

From the tail?  Wow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honey, someone shrunk our thylacine ! :o  It is a tiny thing the size of a domestic cat, if it is not actually a cat.

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, freetoroam said:

How do you see a wedged shaped head and protruding snout? The video i see is not clear enough to show that..is there another video? Can you see the eye colour too?

 

You wait until the head shows on the slower close ups and freeze the video.  Also, for a house cat and proportion, you didn't say if you thought the porch size would have to be tiny.  And for that matter, the house too : )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oldrover said:

No, the patella is not held up close to the body in either dogs or thylacines. Just look at the photos, look at the skeletons. 

Are you saying that the tiger has a proportionately longer femur? 

Image result for thylacine skeleton

 

Image result for dog skeleton photos

There are differences in limb to body ratio, and the metatarsus is significantly shorter in the tiger.  

Look a the difference in tail length.  That long tail on the thylacine is what you see in the video.  Look at how much farther the scapula goes up in the dog.  And yes, the rib cage in the thylacine is more shrunken up high, which is what sets the height for the remainder of the body; which makes the femur look longer or more "down" in the thylacine.  The angle of the metatarsus is quite low compared to the nearly vertical one of the dog.  And the vertebrae in the long tail are much more robust, thicker in the thylacine.  This more than anything coupled with the dog-face in the video is what makes me think it's a thylacine.  Also for a brief moment you can see things that look like stripes above its haunches.

Edited by SSilhouette
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

You wait until the head shows on the slower close ups and freeze the video.  Also, for a house cat and proportion, you didn't say if you thought the porch size would have to be tiny.  And for that matter, the house too : )

 

3 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

You wait until the head shows on the slower close ups and freeze the video.  Also, for a house cat and proportion, you didn't say if you thought the porch size would have to be tiny.  And for that matter, the house too : )

There are some big cats about...maybe this is why the person wanted to video it. 

Freezing the video when it is that blurry only shows a distortion..no way you can make out what you are saying.

The fact the video is running before the animal appears is suspicious...all the more reason it is likely the animal has just walked out of its own home. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Look a the difference in tail length.  That long tail on the thylacine is what you see in the video.

I promise you, I'm aware of the tail length in thylacines. I have been for many, many years. What you see in the video is a blurry, fleeting glance of something. You could not possibly have measured it with any accuracy. That much is indisputable. And, it's equally indisputable, that, as I've said, there is an animal in that area with a tail body ratio similar to that of the tiger. 

Vulpes_vulpes_skeleton.JPG

The fox. Now, before you mention the difference in the vertebrae of the tail, or the position of the scapula, the length of the femur, or anything else. Non of that is relevant to the video. As it's too indistinct to map any anatomical points. And most of the subtle features of the skeleton wouldn't be visible even in a clear film. Bottom line is the tail length fits. 

Also, I hope you can see that arguing about the size, ratios and positions of bones is pointless anyway. As a quick glance at the fox and dog skeletons show quite a variation, in the canids alone. So trying to compare them with an unrelated group is doubly pointless. 

I know you said the fox wasn't the canid you had in mind, but, it is the canid that I have in mind. You also said that a dog was a better fit. So, I'll ask you for one objective reason, why for a smallish, low slung, orangey, long tailed canid, a fox wouldn't be your first choice. 

Before you say because it doesn't look like it to you, remember I've asked for an objective reason. One that isn't biased.

 

5 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

And yes, the rib cage in the thylacine is more shrunken up high, which is what sets the height for the remainder of the body; which makes the femur look longer or more "down" in the thylacine.

No idea what you mean by 'shrunken up high'. If you're trying to say the thylacine has a long body and short legs, yes, that's true. Everyone knows this. But I've no idea where the rib cage comes into it. 

 

5 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

The angle of the metatarsus is quite low compared to the nearly vertical one of the dog.  And the vertebrae in the long tail are much more robust, thicker in the thylacine.

Yes, the hind foot is held with less of an angle to the ground, agreed. And you're right, the tail vertebrae are more robust. More similar to a big cat than a canid. But, where does any of that relate to the video? 

5 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Also for a brief moment you can see things that look like stripes above its haunches.

No, you really can't. You can't make out any detail on that video at all. 

Be objective SSilhouette. The tiger isn't a lot of nonsense like bigfoot or the Nessie. It was a real living and unique animal. It deserves more respect than to be reduced to a couple of stereotypes so that it can be shoehorned into some crummy little video. If we start with flights of fancy, and half understood internet 'facts' about them, we loose what little of them we have left. And that is not a lot. 

If you genuinely are interested in thylacines for what they were go here; http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/ and read what the real experts know about them. It's far more interesting than blurry videos.  

Edited by oldrover
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.