Trio claim to have filmed a Tasmanian tiger

[oldrover]

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

It's maybe better that video is not clear and that many will believe it ain't true so the area will be relieved of new 'Tasmanian tiger tourism'. Hopefully, as a result, we can hope that animal will have time, if it really did survive somehow.

It makes me sad, especially when i see pictures with all those 'blue blooded' hunters who show them as trophies. Hunting is sadistic if one doesn't hunt for food.

There are very few references to thylacines being hunted for sport. As Nic Haygarth's new paper points out almost all thylacines captured or killed where incidental bonuses, rather than the target. What they were actually after were Walaby, kangaroo, and possum. That's where the money was. 

[CJ1983]

Low quality blurry image of something at a distance, definitely a Tasmanian tiger.

[Galactic Goatman]

On 9/10/2017 at 11:35 AM, oldrover said:

There are very few references to thylacines being hunted for sport. As Nic Haygarth's new paper points out almost all thylacines captured or killed where incidental bonuses, rather than the target. What they were actually after were Walaby, kangaroo, and possum. That's where the money was. 

I thought many were hunted for killing sheep? (Even though they did not have a strong enough biteforce.) 

[+Hammerclaw]

"CLAIMED TO HAVE FILMED" is immediately suspect. They shouldn't have to "claim" anything, just show their film.

[oldrover]

7 hours ago, AustinHinton said:

I thought many were hunted for killing sheep? (Even though they did not have a strong enough biteforce.) 

Well, the thing is there was a bounty on them, but they probably weren't hunted as such. As in people didn't set out to kill them for the reward, it wasn't enough, and there just weren't enough tigers.  Rather, that they went out trapping for game, and when they captured a tiger, they'd have presented it for bounty. Later on of course, as they got more rare, their value soared, but even then, or especially then, they weren't worth deliberately targeting because the chances of finding one were so slim. 

Perspective is an estimate of 1.5,000,000 possum skins traded in 1934, as opposed to 1928, the year when an unusually high number of live tigers were traded, figure there was about 10. Number of men out trapping, would, as that prior figure suggests, be large, but only 10 of them got lucky in a bumper year. Plus, with one exception which I think is wrong, only one man is documented to have captured more than one single (other than mothers with cubs on board) from 1922 onward. Obviously, in years before this when they were more plentiful, some men did make multiple captures, but still, not for much return per tiger. 

The thylacine's bite force was actually very powerful, and the jaws themselves were capable of standing the strain of delivering them, but the base of the skull, wasn't up to the job, and would probably/possibly failed under the kind of stresses produced by a struggling animal of significant size. Think of a dog like a Staff biting and hanging on, the thylacine was probably not very good at that. At least, that's a synopsis of the actual conclusions of the Attard and Wroe paper that started the whole weak jaw anecdotes to start doing the rounds. But, as Nick Mooney said the other day, these are estimates not measurements of the living animal's performance. Personally, I'm fairly impressed by the idea they didn't tackle large prey, but it's more from tooth wear patters than that paper, as, just for one thing, I found the simulation they ran very dog like, and that's probably a mistake with the thylacine. For example, their fore limbs were far more flexible and possibly much more capable of 'wrestling', than those of a dog, so that might have mitigated the weakness at their skull's base, I don't know. 

[Galactic Goatman]

16 hours ago, oldrover said:

Well, the thing is there was a bounty on them, but they probably weren't hunted as such. As in people didn't set out to kill them for the reward, it wasn't enough, and there just weren't enough tigers.  Rather, that they went out trapping for game, and when they captured a tiger, they'd have presented it for bounty. Later on of course, as they got more rare, their value soared, but even then, or especially then, they weren't worth deliberately targeting because the chances of finding one were so slim. 

Perspective is an estimate of 1.5,000,000 possum skins traded in 1934, as opposed to 1928, the year when an unusually high number of live tigers were traded, figure there was about 10. Number of men out trapping, would, as that prior figure suggests, be large, but only 10 of them got lucky in a bumper year. Plus, with one exception which I think is wrong, only one man is documented to have captured more than one single (other than mothers with cubs on board) from 1922 onward. Obviously, in years before this when they were more plentiful, some men did make multiple captures, but still, not for much return per tiger. 

The thylacine's bite force was actually very powerful, and the jaws themselves were capable of standing the strain of delivering them, but the base of the skull, wasn't up to the job, and would probably/possibly failed under the kind of stresses produced by a struggling animal of significant size. Think of a dog like a Staff biting and hanging on, the thylacine was probably not very good at that. At least, that's a synopsis of the actual conclusions of the Attard and Wroe paper that started the whole weak jaw anecdotes to start doing the rounds. But, as Nick Mooney said the other day, these are estimates not measurements of the living animal's performance. Personally, I'm fairly impressed by the idea they didn't tackle large prey, but it's more from tooth wear patters than that paper, as, just for one thing, I found the simulation they ran very dog like, and that's probably a mistake with the thylacine. For example, their fore limbs were far more flexible and possibly much more capable of 'wrestling', than those of a dog, so that might have mitigated the weakness at their skull's base, I don't know. 

Interesting read! Sorry to perpetuate a false fact. 

[oldrover]

15 minutes ago, AustinHinton said:

Interesting read! Sorry to perpetuate a false fact. 

No, it's fine mate. You're not perpetuating it, that's just the way it's been reported. And personally, I think it's great that people are discussing that. 

[Galactic Goatman]

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

No, it's fine mate. You're not perpetuating it, that's just the way it's been reported. And personally, I think it's great that people are discussing that. 

Thank you.  For now on you are my thylacine expert. 

[Astra.]

On 08/09/2017 at 6:42 AM, Sundew said:

Well of course, I am too, but this creature seems about as difficult to photograph as bigfoot. 

I know what you mean, but the difference between BF and the Tasmanian tiger, is that one is still regarded as being a myth, where as we know without a doubt that the tassie tiger did exist, but unfortunately became extinct. 

[oldrover]

8 hours ago, AustinHinton said:

Thank you.  For now on you are my thylacine expert. 

Well, thank you very much.

 

8 hours ago, Astra. said:

I know what you mean, but the difference between BF and the Tasmanian tiger, is that one is still regarded as being a myth, where as we know without a doubt that the tassie tiger did exist, but unfortunately became extinct. 

A major point though is that whilst the thylacine is a real, but extinct, animal, that reality is almost incidental. Both to the majority (but not all) of those who believe it's still around, and also in a lot of the mainstream literature on the subject. 

Also, a lot of, if not all, of the descriptions we have of them are just as anecdotal and frequently about as reliable as a bigfoot report. It's a sad state of affairs. 

[+DieChecker]

What about this photo....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-07/rival-thylacine-group-sceptical-of-vision/8883178

To me this doesn't match the known fur patterns of a taz tiger. But, it is a interesting pic.

[oldrover]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What about this photo....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-07/rival-thylacine-group-sceptical-of-vision/8883178

To me this doesn't match the known fur patterns of a taz tiger. But, it is a interesting pic.

Tabby cat. Not content with a picture of a cat's harris, they then tried to claim that there was a thylacine cub's face visible in the grass somewhere here. 

The photo is one of those put out by 'Andrew' the farmer from N. E. Tasmania. This guy first appeared on a Hobart Radio show, and claimed great and intimate knowledge of the thylacines that lived in his area, I think he said there were around 100 pairs. Anyway, he had to remain anonymous, because he was in fear of his life, he'd had death threats you see, from 'them'. But bravely he released some pictures of a wallaby and appeared on 'Destination Unknown', Anyway it  all got a bit

 

[Astra.]

2 hours ago, oldrover said:

Also, a lot of, if not all, of the descriptions we have of them are just as anecdotal and frequently about as reliable as a bigfoot report. It's a sad state of affairs. 

Agree, but even so, there is still more chance of these desperate thylacine chasers to capture a genuine one on film (which of course is most unlikely) than to 'ever' capture on film a genuine oversized hairy man-beast roaming the forests such as Bigfoot. At least we have evidence that the Tasmanian Tiger existed, unlike the mythical and fantastical man/ape

All and all, I find it rather bewildering there is even a comparison between a creature that was real, and a creature that has never been proven to exist. It's ridiculous to say the least. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Astra.

[Myles]

12 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Agree, but even so, there is still more chance of these desperate thylacine chasers to capture a genuine one on film (which of course is most unlikely) than to 'ever' capture on film a genuine oversized hairy man-beast roaming the forests such as Bigfoot. At least we have evidence that the Tasmanian Tiger existed, unlike the mythical and fantastical man/ape

All and all, I find it rather bewildering there is even a comparison between a creature that was real, and a creature that has never been proven to exist. It's ridiculous to say the least. 

I agree.   The 2 really aren't very comparable.   You could replace bigfoot with fairy, leprechaun or giant people.     At least the tiger existed.   

[Astra.]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree.   The 2 really aren't very comparable.   You could replace bigfoot with fairy, leprechaun or giant people.     At least the tiger existed.   

Yep, and lets not forget to throw in the Loch Ness monster on that list while we're at it Myles.

[oldrover]

22 minutes ago, Astra. said:

All and all, I find it rather bewildering there is even a comparison between a creature that was real, and a creature that has never been proven to exist. It's ridiculous to say the least. 

I'd agree with that. But, while I must emphasise that there are sensible and well informed people who believe the thylacine is still there, although personally I disagree. The majority of the thylacine hunters aren't looking for the thylacine of fact, but  rather for the construct that's evolved in the decades since its extinction. To the extent that they might as well be, and pretty much are, looking for an animal that never existed. 

The real thylacine is actually a pretty obscure creature, and one which only a handful of people know anything about. 

[Silent Trinity]

While I concede that the Tasmanian Tiger may well still exist, as it has been seen in the past that species thought to be extinct still cling to life from time to time....I do not think this is the smoking gun or "definitive proof". It is all too distant and "fuzzy" and could just as easily be a domesticated house cat. I too would welcome the definitive proof via video that this elusive creature exists but alas this is not it  

[oldrover]

Actually there is a photograph that's generally been given the thumbs up out there. Unfortunately I can't say much more, as I stick to my word when I promuse to be discreet, and can't show it here because this site won't let me link to the site that's posted it (although it's a perfectly legit site), and I won't rip it off because that's not right. 

If anyone wants to see this photo you need to go to wherelightmeetsdark.com.au and go to the section Adamsfield thylacine 1990. Just to make clear, I have no affiliation of any sort with that website, it is though a perfectly safe visit. 

What does the photo show? A thylacine foot, and next to it another leg with a fresh wound on it. Do I belueve it's genuine, not on your bloody Nellie. But it is the best hoax I've ever seen. 

Just to add, if anyone is inclined to visit the link, don't worry about the text there, only worth looking at the photo. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by oldrover

[Aardvark-DK]

Ah, the video was shot with the famous blurry filter !

No don't think it was a Thylacine either, could just be a dog...

 

[KevinCthulhu]

On ‎03‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 2:19 PM, oldrover said:

Actually there is a photograph that's generally been given the thumbs up out there. Unfortunately I can't say much more, as I stick to my word when I promuse to be discreet, and can't show it here because this site won't let me link to the site that's posted it (although it's a perfectly legit site), and I won't rip it off because that's not right. 

If anyone wants to see this photo you need to go to wherelightmeetsdark.com.au and go to the section Adamsfield thylacine 1990. Just to make clear, I have no affiliation of any sort with that website, it is though a perfectly safe visit. 

What does the photo show? A thylacine foot, and next to it another leg with a fresh wound on it. Do I belueve it's genuine, not on your bloody Nellie. But it is the best hoax I've ever seen. 

Just to add, if anyone is inclined to visit the link, don't worry about the text there, only worth looking at the photo. 

That is genuinely fascinating.  I have never been much impressed by the Adamsfield thylacine to be honest.  I think it's a fox for what that's worth.

However, I can second your recommendation on Wherelightmetsdark, Chris is a fantastic man who does some wonderful work.

I actually believe that the best thylacine photo available from modern times is the Kevin Cameron thylacine in the tree base.  The photo clearly shows a thylacine, there is nothing else it can be.  However, I know the circumstances surrounding it are dubious in the extreme, so although it can only be a thylacine, it might be a stuffed specimen, some sort of faked picture although unlikely from the time period it was taken and the man who took it.  Plus of course the alleged pictures of the one supposedly shot in the 1990s which Col Bailey (I think it was?) had on that Chris Packham show (X Creature was it?).  That is promising but won't seem to come out.   Sorry to be vague, I don't remember much but seeing a fleeting camera pass over the picture.

[+Hammerclaw]

Any photographic evidence--especially of the extraordinary or fantastic--where one has to use one's imagination to see what the photographers claimed they photographed, really isn't much in the way of evidence, at all. It's like the blur in the photo of the hallway, that's suppose to be the ghost of Aunt Louise.

[oldrover]

Just now, KevinCthulhu said:

That is genuinely fascinating.  I have never been much impressed by the Adamsfield thylacine to be honest.  I think it's a fox for what that's worth.

However, I can second your recommendation on Wherelightmetsdark, Chris is a fantastic man who does some wonderful work.

I actually believe that the best thylacine photo available from modern times is the Kevin Cameron thylacine in the tree base.  The photo clearly shows a thylacine, there is nothing else it can be.  However, I know the circumstances surrounding it are dubious in the extreme, so although it can only be a thylacine, it might be a stuffed specimen, some sort of faked picture although unlikely from the time period it was taken and the man who took it.  Plus of course the alleged pictures of the one supposedly shot in the 1990s which Col Bailey (I think it was?) had on that Chris Packham show (X Creature was it?).  That is promising but won't seem to come out.   Sorry to be vague, I don't remember much but seeing a fleeting camera pass over the picture.

I'm a bit confused here. The photo I linked to is the 'shot photo'. I'm afraid I don't know any other Adamsfield thylacine that might have been a fox. Only this photo which  definitely has at least one thylacine foot in it. 

I also have to say I wasn't recomending Where Light Meets Dark, I was saying where the photo can be found. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slating it, but the only tiger site I'd recomend would be the Thylacine Museum. 

[oldrover]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Any photographic evidence--especially of the extraordinary or fantastic--where one has to use one's imagination to see what the photographers claimed they photographed, really isn't much in the way of evidence, at all. It's like the blur in the photo of the hallway, that's suppose to be the ghost of Aunt Louise.

Which is what makes the Adamsfield feet photo so good. One of those limbs is 100% from a thylacine. That doesn't make the whole picture, or rather what the picture suggests, genuine. But it does mean somebody with access to a top end museum quality specimen staged a hoax. Which makes it a little more interesting than your usual blurry fox photo.

[Stiff]

17 hours ago, oldrover said:

One of those limbs is 100% from a thylacine. That doesn't make the whole picture, or rather what the picture suggests, genuine. But it does mean somebody with access to a top end museum quality specimen staged a hoax.

Just out of interest oldrover, what makes you think it's definitely a hoax?

Don't get me wrong, I trust your judgement 100% as I know you really know your stuff on these things. Just curious.

[oldrover]

Just now, Stiff said:

Just out of interest oldrover, what makes you think it's definitely a hoax?

Don't get me wrong, I trust your judgement 100% as I know you really know your stuff on these things. Just curious.

Thanks Stiff. Don't trust me on this one though, I'm very much in the minority of thinking it a hoax. And am really not talking about flakey types at all. 

I think it smells though. All we ever have had are feet photos. And never connected to anything. Just crops of feet. Then you have the back story, which I'm sorry, I can't go into. That screams hoax. Then we have the fact that historical evidence, an area where I'm very confident in, seems, seems mind you, to suggest an absolute extinction date around the end of the 30's. There's no getting around that one for me. So I'm forced to conclude hoax. 

But, that is a thylacine front leg nearest the camera, a modern colour photo, there is no doubt about that. And I have no idea just who the hell was in a position to use one of those in a hoax. This is a really strange one.