Another live thylacine video surfaces online

[ouija ouija 35,464]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3793848/Is-incredible-footage-appearing-extinct-Tasmanian-Tiger-running-fields-Victoria-proof-Thylacine-exists.html

New evidence of a 'sub species' of thylacine  seen fairly regularly by a woman in Victoria. Video of one of the animals and an explanation of why it is definitely not a dog, dingo or fox. worth a watch.

[HandsomeGorilla 6,096]

Filmed with a potato by a chicken. 

Honestly, though, this is atleast mildly interesting. It also hops along like the Thylacine did, or maybe it's a dingo with an injured leg? 

Kinda cool, though. The thylacine is one of very few cryptids that I think might actually (still) exist somewhere. 

[Lucas Cooper Merrin 2,728]

Its definitely no fox!

[ouija ouija 35,464]

25 minutes ago, Not Your Huckleberry said:

Filmed with a potato by a chicken. 

Honestly, though, this is atleast mildly interesting. It also hops along like the Thylacine did, or maybe it's a dingo with an injured leg? 

Kinda cool, though. The thylacine is one of very few cryptids that I think might actually (still) exist somewhere. 

I think it's a thylacine with an injured front leg. Not a dingo because they have a slightly 'feathered', curved tail.

[Lucas Cooper Merrin 2,728]

I would say you are correct, there must be a small pocket of them hiding somewhere

[Chaldon 338]

I don't believe my eyes! This footage is so long and so much clearer than the other dubious films where only a glimpse of a tail can be seen. I am 90% certain this is indeed a live thylacine!

[Dewlanna 16]

Very cool! I'll be following this thread! 

[Buzz_Light_Year 4,266]

They may have a credible sighting with this one. Especially the rigid tail.

 

[Torchwood 493]

I think we have a winner..

[Thorvir 13,943]

Uh...the first "actual and real" footage of a live thylacine in modern times is on the Daily Mail?  Seriously?  Not at some university scientific foundation or anywhere of even slightly more repute than the Daily Mail?  Really?  Anyone think that through first?

It appears to be a dingo, and it looks like it's injured.  Poor thing.

[oldrover 5,479]

Sorry everyone, this video has been around for years, and is definitely not of a thylacine. It's definitely a canid. The proportions of the hind limbs confirm this 100%. 

[oldrover 5,479]

44 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Uh...the first "actual and real" footage of a live thylacine in modern times is on the Daily Mail?  Seriously?  Not at some university scientific foundation or anywhere of even slightly more repute than the Daily Mail?  Really?  Anyone think that through first?

It appears to be a dingo, and it looks like it's injured.  Poor thing.

That is a little alarm bell isn't it. Personally, I'm not sure the Daily Mail is the Daily Mail, because it says so on the front. 

This video  has been around for years though. It probably did appear in the Mail then though too. 

Edit: this isn't the video that's been round for years, there's another. Both feature foxes, I mean mystery animals, running about with kangaroos, or wallabies, in the background. This video is it seems new.

Edited September 17, 2016 by oldrover

[Farmer77 28,114]

9 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Uh...the first "actual and real" footage of a live thylacine in modern times is on the Daily Mail?  Seriously?  Not at some university scientific foundation or anywhere of even slightly more repute than the Daily Mail?  Really?  Anyone think that through first?

It appears to be a dingo, and it looks like it's injured.  Poor thing.

No scientific foundation or "credible" scientist or organization is going to put their names behind just a video.  So yes any new discoveries made via video will most likely first be announced on what people consider less than credible sources. 

[oldrover 5,479]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No scientific foundation or "credible" scientist or organization is going to put their names behind just a video.  So yes any new discoveries made via video will most likely first be announced on what people consider less than credible sources. 

Thing is, I think if there ever was a video of modern living thylacine, which there sadly won't be, it'd be obvious enough to someone who knew what they were looking at. Just as this is obviously a canid. So they might. But, I don't know.

[oldrover 5,479]

And well done to the Mail for failing to be bullied into spelling thylacine with an a. 

[OverSword 56,604]

34 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Uh...the first "actual and real" footage of a live thylacine in modern times is on the Daily Mail?  Seriously?  Not at some university scientific foundation or anywhere of even slightly more repute than the Daily Mail?  Really?  Anyone think that through first?

It appears to be a dingo, and it looks like it's injured.  Poor thing.

That is clearly not a Dingo  I'm not sure it's a thylacene either though.  When you look at the video posted by Buzz of the last known thylacene above. The proportions in the legs of the animal in the OP video don't quite match up.  But like they pointed out this would be a mainland thylacene rather than a Tasmanian thylacene so the legs may differ.  I'm sure no one here is an authority on the subject.

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by OverSword

[Nnicolette 2,028]

Its pretty clear and crazy that people are still talking about sources. If you arent adept at identifying animals try comparing a picture and this video i mean its plain as day. Here is a telltale indicator... The heels are much lower than any other similar animal and always of course the obvious shapes of the haunches, tail and head. This one is pretty young.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Nnicolette

[oldrover 5,479]

27 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The proportions in the legs of the animal in the OP video don't quite match up.  But like they pointed out this would be a mainland thylacene rather than a Tasmanian thylacene so the legs may differ.

You're absolutely right, the proportions of the legs. They really fall outside the range for a tiger. They're smack bang in what you'd expect from a canid. Obviously that's just a rough estimate, but it's definite they're too long for a thylacine.

The tigers that lived in mainland Australia were the same species as those found in Tasmania. Bear in mind that Tasmania was connected to Australia by land during the last glacial maximum. Not that long ago.

The above photo is of a mainland tiger, who's remains were found in a cave in  the Nullabor Plain back in 1966. 

[ouija ouija 35,464]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

No scientific foundation or "credible" scientist or organization is going to put their names behind just a video.  So yes any new discoveries made via video will most likely first be announced on what people consider less than credible sources. 

And then, presumably, one of these sub species Thylacines would have to be caught to be properly identified. Would it be lawful to simply snatch one of these animals out of the wild and into captivity?

edit to say: the video mentioned in the OP is from 2008.

Edited September 17, 2016 by ouija ouija

[seeder 31,266]

The sad thing is....with the interest in possible live thylacines, some trophy hunters will be out to shoot it. Then they can say....Yes...it WAS a live thylacine after all....

[oldrover 5,479]

4 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

And then, presumably, one of these sub species Thylacines would have to be caught to be properly identified. Would it be lawful to simply snatch one of these animals out of the wild and into captivity?

No, the thylacine is still a protected species. Any attempts to trap it are illegal. All the old time Tasmanian investigators, like the late Ned Terry, had to abandon their humane traps years ago.

There was talk about altering their protection status recently, which is probably a good thing, as it'll allow research material to move between institutions more freely. I don't think it's actually been changed yet though. 

 

[OverSword 56,604]

oldrover, you seem to know a bit so tell me, are thylacenes not considered canids?

[HandsomeGorilla 6,096]

Nope, they're marsupials. 

[OverSword 56,604]

Now that you mention that they do have mouths really similar to opossum.  interesting.

[ouija ouija 35,464]

And both sexes have a pouch, apparently!