Trio claim to have filmed a Tasmanian tiger

[Matt221]

All very interesting but the blurry camera club always seem to get the picture, having said that how fantastic if just once they managed a good clear photo/ video of a Thylacine 

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, Matt221 said:

All very interesting but the blurry camera club always seem to get the picture, having said that how fantastic if just once they managed a good clear photo/ video of a Thylacine 

But this is a good clear photo. At least the one I directed to is. 

[Stiff]

14 hours ago, oldrover said:

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. 

Thanks for clearing that up oldrover, I'm going with your theory until proved otherwise. Interesting though, and like you say, a strange one.

[oldrover]

2 minutes ago, Stiff said:

Thanks for clearing that up oldrover, I'm going with your theory until proved otherwise. Interesting though, and like you say, a strange one.

Yes, it's very, very weird. 

[Matt221]

10 minutes ago, oldrover said:

But this is a good clear photo. At least the one I directed to is. 

Yep sorry I was looking at somthing else the ya do then you tubeing then eventually posted 

[KevinCthulhu]

On ‎05‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 1:37 AM, oldrover said:

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. 

I'm also confused.  I thought the Adamsfield 'thylacine' was the one filmed bounding across the road.  I assumed we were talking stills from that.  Obviously I'm confused and I defer to your superior knowledge here!  The Adamsfield one you mean is the Adamsfield Richardson (iirc) one yes?  The one of the bottom of two feet?  The only copies I've seen of it are so indistinct that it might be a stuffed specimen's feet, taken from paused TVs with the X Creature episode on them.  Are there clearer ones about? 

What's your thought on the Cameron photos.  I know it's an odd situation at best but surely the creature 'digging' in the tree is a thylacine.  It can't be anything else, unless Cameron was a genius hoaxer.  I'm not really thinking about whether it was dead or not but it is clearly and unmistakably a thylacine for me. 

Chris over at Where the Light Meets the Dark is a lovely, genuine guy.  Not the only person of his ilk about but he does his level best and I think he is generally balanced and tries his best.

[oldrover]

51 minutes ago, KevinCthulhu said:

I'm also confused.  I thought the Adamsfield 'thylacine' was the one filmed bounding across the road.  I assumed we were talking stills from that. 

I see. The Booth/Richardson films. I'd forgotten where they were taken, checking quickly it said 'within 50K of Maydena', so yes Adamsfield is smack in that area definitely. I don't think it was actually at Adamsfield though, as that name always sticks in my mind having read and written about it, a fascinating place even without any tigers. 

 

1 hour ago, KevinCthulhu said:

The one of the bottom of two feet?  The only copies I've seen of it are so indistinct that it might be a stuffed specimen's feet, taken from paused TVs with the X Creature episode on them.  Are there clearer ones about? 

Yes, at WLMD under 'Adamsfield Thylacines', he got it from Facebook though, and funnily enough it was Adrian Richardson who originally posted it in response to a post I started and in which I posted up my paused still from Chris Packham's programme. I was bloody amazed when it popped up, I really wasn't expecting that at all. 

Anyway, assuming you have the same still as me, the one on the left, the double paw shot, is reproduced much more clearly, and you can clearly see a tiger front foot, alongside  what appears to be another, and which has a fresh wound on it. 

So far I know of three, the two on X creatures, plus another which I haven't seen but which also is just of feet. 

1 hour ago, KevinCthulhu said:

What's your thought on the Cameron photos.  I know it's an odd situation at best but surely the creature 'digging' in the tree is a thylacine.  It can't be anything else, unless Cameron was a genius hoaxer.  I'm not really thinking about whether it was dead or not but it is clearly and unmistakably a thylacine for

I had to look at this again, and I must admit they do look better than I remember them. But I don't think it's a thylacine. Against it; for a start, and with the caveat of as it appears in the photos,  the colour is completely wrong, they weren't that colour, but of course that could be the photo quality. Secondly, the stripe pattern is clear enough to be visible and just doesn't look like a tiger at all. Thirdly, and I'm not qualified to say anything about this, but criticisms have been made that the shadows in the photos indicate that they were taken over a period of time, not in quick succession, so it had to be static for a long time. Lastly and most significantly is that they were taken on the mainland, that's a non starter for me. 

For it; it looks like an animal, not some sort of prop, and I can't propose any other identity for it. The tail looks hairless, and that's something most people don't realise, they did sometimes loose their tail hair. Not just that the tail does look very thylacine like to me. Also, it does have what looks like the penile bulge of  a male tiger. And I think whatever it was was a marsupial of some sort, not a dog, and it's light years from the fox videos we see these days. 

I'm not someone whose opinions are particularly valid with this though, I do historical stuff, I know enough to spot the tosh that comes out most of the time, I can spot a dog or fox, but this is a bit more beyond me. Whatever it is is very good. I'll phone a friend for this one and see what he says. 

[rhysinspire]

You got some footage but it is not clear at all. If all of us can see it, then we are convinced you GOT SOMETHING. Here I don't see something; I would say there might be something... But I doubt that something is the Tiger. Doc, your mission now is to get REALLY crystal clear of the tiger... stripes, selfies and all... I have hopes the tiger is still out there.

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, rhysinspire said:

You got some footage but it is not clear at all. If all of us can see it, then we are convinced you GOT SOMETHING. Here I don't see something; I would say there might be something... But I doubt that something is the Tiger. Doc, your mission now is to get REALLY crystal clear of the tiger... stripes, selfies and all... I have hopes the tiger is still out there.

Not sure who or about what the reply was directed at, but if you mean the Booth/Richardson footage that's a quoll. 

[oldrover]

13 hours ago, KevinCthulhu said:

 

What's your thought on the Cameron photos.  I know it's an odd situation at best but surely the creature 'digging' in the tree is a thylacine.  It can't be anything else, unless Cameron was a genius hoaxer.  I'm not really thinking about whether it was dead or not but it is clearly and unmistakably a thylacine for me. 

 

Well, I phoned a friend. He confirmed that the photos were taken over a period of hours, and that there was a backstory he'd gathered  to explain tnis. It's bizzarre. He does acknowledge though that it really does look like a tiger. 

[KevinCthulhu]

On ‎09‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 0:07 PM, oldrover said:

Well, I phoned a friend. He confirmed that the photos were taken over a period of hours, and that there was a backstory he'd gathered  to explain tnis. It's bizzarre. He does acknowledge though that it really does look like a tiger. 

Thanks for that.  As far as I heard it there is a suspicion that Cameron shot a tiger and then posed it taking pictures over a number of hours.  The whole circumstance is extremely odd, he is/was a native Aboriginal trapper and seemingly had no education to speak of.  The pictures are exceptionally weird since it looks for all the world like a thylacine but as you say it is an odd colour and it was left in the same pose for hours.  The whole shadows thing, for me, makes it a bit more realistic, because it its a hoax then the animal is incredibly well done but the shadows are so amateurish.  Sadly he never explained what happened and nobody has ever got to the bottom of it.  If I was being mischievous I'd say the coloration is because its a mainland specimen and has varied coloration.  How the hell it got its head in a tree for hours is a mystery.

[oldrover]

16 hours ago, KevinCthulhu said:

Thanks for that.  As far as I heard it there is a suspicion that Cameron shot a tiger and then posed it taking pictures over a number of hours.  The whole circumstance is extremely odd, he is/was a native Aboriginal trapper and seemingly had no education to speak of.  The pictures are exceptionally weird since it looks for all the world like a thylacine but as you say it is an odd colour and it was left in the same pose for hours.  The whole shadows thing, for me, makes it a bit more realistic, because it its a hoax then the animal is incredibly well done but the shadows are so amateurish.  Sadly he never explained what happened and nobody has ever got to the bottom of it.  If I was being mischievous I'd say the coloration is because its a mainland specimen and has varied coloration.  How the hell it got its head in a tree for hours is a mystery.

Yes, that's what I heard about Cameton too, acted very strange then got scarce. Never came up with a straight answer. What strikes me, and this applies equally to the Adamsfield snaps, if you were going to stage a real recently dead tiger for a photo surely the head would be the thing you'd make sure you got in. Plus in Cameron's case if he really had shot one on the mainland, it's not as if anyone would gave done him for it, so why not come forward to ensure the sort of attention he was seeking with his cryptic photos?

Goes to illustrate though, people are alot more creative than we expect.

[KevinCthulhu]

3 hours ago, oldrover said:

Yes, that's what I heard about Cameton too, acted very strange then got scarce. Never came up with a straight answer. What strikes me, and this applies equally to the Adamsfield snaps, if you were going to stage a real recently dead tiger for a photo surely the head would be the thing you'd make sure you got in. Plus in Cameron's case if he really had shot one on the mainland, it's not as if anyone would gave done him for it, so why not come forward to ensure the sort of attention he was seeking with his cryptic photos?

Goes to illustrate though, people are alot more creative than we expect.

The usual 'explanation' is that the animal was shot in the head and that is why the head isn't shown.

I understand that the thylacine is protected by Australian law not just Tasmanian and killing one carries a serious punishment.  Overall the whole thing just doesn't make any sense at all and likely will never be resolved.  He wasn't on his own since some of the pictures show the shadows of other people but nobody has ever come forward to tell the story.

[KevinCthulhu]

3 hours ago, oldrover said:

Yes, that's what I heard about Cameton too, acted very strange then got scarce. Never came up with a straight answer. What strikes me, and this applies equally to the Adamsfield snaps, if you were going to stage a real recently dead tiger for a photo surely the head would be the thing you'd make sure you got in. Plus in Cameron's case if he really had shot one on the mainland, it's not as if anyone would gave done him for it, so why not come forward to ensure the sort of attention he was seeking with his cryptic photos?

Goes to illustrate though, people are alot more creative than we expect.

I don't know if you've read the original New Scientist article about Cameron but here is a link to the Google Books scan of it.  The quality isn't wonderful but you can see it well enough.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_7sirll_RDUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=kevin+cameron+aboriginal&source=bl&ots=Q3Yx_JtUYK&sig=Wd6h6Y2px_or2EVhNxge6Syb5VU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-6P6l8KDZAhVHCMAKHZNqDZ4Q6AEIWzAN#v=onepage&q=kevin cameron aboriginal&f=false

It starts on page 44.  I'd not read it in years and to be honest the tone is far more accepting than I recall.  The author seems to be knowledgeable or the peer review would never have allowed this through to publication.  Odd how it simply disappeared.  The photos just seem so authentic except for the odd shadows, which interestingly aren't wrong in the two picture of it in the tree stump.  I genuinely don't know what to think of it.

Edited February 12, 2018 by KevinCthulhu
Additional information

[KevinCthulhu]

3 hours ago, oldrover said:

What strikes me, and this applies equally to the Adamsfield snaps, if you were going to stage a real recently dead tiger for a photo surely the head would be the thing you'd make sure you got in. Plus in Cameron's case if he really had shot one on the mainland, it's not as if anyone would gave done him for it, so why not come forward to ensure the sort of attention he was seeking with his cryptic photos?

I'm sure I read somewhere that someone (Col Bailey?) had the full set of Adamsfield photos or had seen them and the head was in them.  But for whatever reason these things seem to tend to happen, the only ones he has in his possession or has shown were then ones of the feet.  Another bizarre set of circumstances.

[oldrover]

27 minutes ago, KevinCthulhu said:

I'm sure I read somewhere that someone (Col Bailey?) had the full set of Adamsfield photos or had seen them and the head was in them.  But for whatever reason these things seem to tend to happen, the only ones he has in his possession or has shown were then ones of the feet.  Another bizarre set of circumstances.

Now here's where it gets really weird. I spoke to someone recentlyon FB who said that there is a set of photos showing a full tiger, but, I've never heard about this anywhere else, so frankly I'm very doubtful. As Bailey's photos they're all of the feet only. 

I'm not sure if the source for the full set is supposed to be the same as the one who suppied them to Bailey. I speak sometimes to the man who the fingers udually point to as being Bailey's source about other things, and of course I've mentioned this business to him, he denied any connection with Bailey's photos tome. Elsewhere though I've seen him accuse Bailey of snatching them from him, and elsewhere again claim to have photographed a dead tiger (natural causes) in situ. Which of course the Bailey photos aren't (in situ), they're clsarly against an artificial background. 

So, is it possible that this guy's set are the same ones reputedly seen by 'some people' which show a full tiger? Well, not according to what people have said to me, the 'guy' said his tiger had died naturally, and the set supposedly shows one that's been shot. 

Truth is it's crazy, and the truthis I do know a little more than I can post, but my take is thst contrary to Chris Rehberg's idea of this confusion pointig to there being three tigers, I think if you keep getting less tigers everytime you learn more you're generally heading in the right direction. 

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, KevinCthulhu said:

The usual 'explanation' is that the animal was shot in the head and that is why the head isn't shown.

I understand that the thylacine is protected by Australian law not just Tasmanian and killing one carries a serious punishment.  Overall the whole thing just doesn't make any sense at all and likely will never be resolved.  He wasn't on his own since some of the pictures show the shadows of other people but nobody has ever come forward to tell the story.

I think they'd have to prove intent. And I think it'd be fairly easy to make a strong enough case that he had no reason to believe he couldn't have known what he was doing as he was pulling the trigger. 

Even in Tasmania in the days of John Lord being head of the Fauna Board, they made provision for accidentally killing a tiger. 

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, KevinCthulhu said:

I don't know if you've read the original New Scientist article about Cameron but here is a link to the Google Books scan of it.  The quality isn't wonderful but you can see it well enough.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_7sirll_RDUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=kevin+cameron+aboriginal&source=bl&ots=Q3Yx_JtUYK&sig=Wd6h6Y2px_or2EVhNxge6Syb5VU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-6P6l8KDZAhVHCMAKHZNqDZ4Q6AEIWzAN#v=onepage&q=kevin cameron aboriginal&f=false

It starts on page 44.  I'd not read it in years and to be honest the tone is far more accepting than I recall.  The author seems to be knowledgeable or the peer review would never have allowed this through to publication.  Odd how it simply disappeared.  The photos just seem so authentic except for the odd shadows, which interestingly aren't wrong in the two picture of it in the tree stump.  I genuinely don't know what to think of it.

That article is very interesting. 

 

[oldrover]

4 hours ago, oldrover said:

That article is very interesting. 

 

Returning to that article. The photos as they appear there are fir me far less tiger like. The colour is much more correct but the stripe pattern is way out. The tail itself looks far less like a thylacine's, but the thickening at the base is till there, but this is the only detail that seems right, and it's not clear enough to say much about. So overall, colour and thickening, seem fairly consistent, but the rest of it, most niteably the stripes don't.

The biggest probkem is the text. Athol M Douglas seems to have made some made some effort to emphasise Cameron's lack of formal education, writing,

'He is intelligent, but until recently was illiterate. So he couldn't have learned about the thylacine from libraries. I find it inconcievable that anyone with his background could posses colour photos of the thylacine as well as the casts, and his detailed knowledge of the animal'. 

To demonstrate this knowledge Douglas lists some of Cameron's observations, 'he correctly describes the males as being darker than the females', 'he says that he has never known a thylacine return to a kill', 'it swayed from side to side and sort of hopped until it got into its stride, then it outran his dogs'. None if which is real, there's no evidence that shows coat differences between sexes,  they did return to kills, and they dud not have this sort of strange clumsy gait, and are not likely to have outrun a dog. But the crucial thing is, the latter two points were believed at this time, that was what was in the books. So Cameron is recounting what you could have read or heard in thise days, but not the reality of the animal. Soneone was feeding him informaton from somewhere, or he got it himself, and from the same now very dated sources Douglas was using to check it against. Of the two I think Cameron was probably the sharper. 

So what we are left with is Dougkas relating a backstory which tells pretty clearly Cameron was making up stories based on the imperfect evidence and opinions of the day, or lying to give it a name. 

And here at this link (it's a terrible piece) we have an appparent statement from Dougkas that just before the article was Published in the New Scientist, he'd caught Cameron out.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AAZlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=athol+m+douglas+thylacine&source=bl&ots=38WG5-L4Z1&sig=1sP03h7bUypyTqP3Th4wDykFr7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQm43NyqHZAhWDLcAKHZgFCskQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=athol m douglas thylacine&f=false

 

[KevinCthulhu]

20 hours ago, oldrover said:

Returning to that article. The photos as they appear there are fir me far less tiger like. The colour is much more correct but the stripe pattern is way out. The tail itself looks far less like a thylacine's, but the thickening at the base is till there, but this is the only detail that seems right, and it's not clear enough to say much about. So overall, colour and thickening, seem fairly consistent, but the rest of it, most niteably the stripes don't.

The biggest probkem is the text. Athol M Douglas seems to have made some made some effort to emphasise Cameron's lack of formal education, writing,

'He is intelligent, but until recently was illiterate. So he couldn't have learned about the thylacine from libraries. I find it inconcievable that anyone with his background could posses colour photos of the thylacine as well as the casts, and his detailed knowledge of the animal'. 

To demonstrate this knowledge Douglas lists some of Cameron's observations, 'he correctly describes the males as being darker than the females', 'he says that he has never known a thylacine return to a kill', 'it swayed from side to side and sort of hopped until it got into its stride, then it outran his dogs'. None if which is real, there's no evidence that shows coat differences between sexes,  they did return to kills, and they dud not have this sort of strange clumsy gait, and are not likely to have outrun a dog. But the crucial thing is, the latter two points were believed at this time, that was what was in the books. So Cameron is recounting what you could have read or heard in thise days, but not the reality of the animal. Soneone was feeding him informaton from somewhere, or he got it himself, and from the same now very dated sources Douglas was using to check it against. Of the two I think Cameron was probably the sharper. 

So what we are left with is Dougkas relating a backstory which tells pretty clearly Cameron was making up stories based on the imperfect evidence and opinions of the day, or lying to give it a name. 

And here at this link (it's a terrible piece) we have an appparent statement from Dougkas that just before the article was Published in the New Scientist, he'd caught Cameron out.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AAZlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=athol+m+douglas+thylacine&source=bl&ots=38WG5-L4Z1&sig=1sP03h7bUypyTqP3Th4wDykFr7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQm43NyqHZAhWDLcAKHZgFCskQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=athol m douglas thylacine&f=false

 

Thanks!  Fascinating stuff.

[oldrover]

The Adamsfield photos (feet) have been debunked.

Edited due to a request from the source which published the story.

Edited February 26, 2018 by oldrover

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 9/10/2017 at 5:35 PM, 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. 

Well there are also very few references for Bears being hunted for sport but i do not see them extinct. Or any other animal which is hunted bear might not be good example because of numbers of them but... You know what i mean.

I will never manage to drop one picture from my mind and that is photo of one 'blue blooded' aristocrat with his feet on thylacine's head. I can't possibly accept such a view, view that incident leads to extinction because that was pure savagery.

Sorry for late answer.