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 -
Carnoferox

New thylacine footage discovered

Recommended Posts

 
Orphalesion

Such a beautiful animal...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

This is so sad. Of all the animals we have lost, this seems one of the very worst losses to me. IDK why, it just always has felt almost a personal loss.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
13 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said:

This is so sad. Of all the animals we have lost, this seems one of the very worst losses to me. IDK why, it just always has felt almost a personal loss.

Not a lot of carnivorous marsupial left and it was the only big one too. It remember us of all the other species we are losing right now with habitat destruction and over-hunting.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbondo

This is not new footage. However, there are some very credible witnesses who claim to have seen the animal over the past 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
21 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Over a minute of film of a thylacine at the Hobart Zoo, shot sometime between 1933 and 1936, has recently been rediscovered by a group of researchers. I believe @oldrover was involved.

 

Yeah, but the credit should go to my two friends Mikw Williams and Branden Holmes, who noticed an anomalous looking entry and tracked it down. I just sat here looking pretty. Thank you fir sharing thus Carnoferox, and I hope you are well. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

A bit of context. We can't prove who it is yet because there's nothing difinitive to give it a date  but I'm 100% certain it's the last captive. That and his size dates it to between about 1933 (ish) and early 36. Can't say anymore than that yet but hopefully we'll be able to put the shots of him in chronological order soon. So far we date inages from three disinct periods of his like in captivity. A baby photo from April 1931, healthy adult from December 1933, elderly fella from May 1936. I think this film slots in between the latter two. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
3 hours ago, oldrover said:

A bit of context. We can't prove who it is yet because there's nothing difinitive to give it a date  but I'm 100% certain it's the last captive. That and his size dates it to between about 1933 (ish) and early 36. Can't say anymore than that yet but hopefully we'll be able to put the shots of him in chronological order soon. So far we date inages from three disinct periods of his like in captivity. A baby photo from April 1931, healthy adult from December 1933, elderly fella from May 1936. I think this film slots in between the latter two. 

You have a photo of the last individual from 1931? That's pretty exciting; it would definitely rule out the claim that it was captured in 1933.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
31 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

You have a photo of the last individual from 1931? That's pretty exciting; it would definitely rule out the claim that it was captured in 1933.

The 1933 idea has finally been abandoned now. Sadly to be replaced by an even more unlikely scenario. See Sleightholme et al 2019.

Sorry I was a bit careless in my previous post though, I say it's him in 1931 and I think that it's all but certain it is, there's good primary evidence that supports it has to be him, yet definitive proof is lacking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
10 minutes ago, oldrover said:

The 1933 idea has finally been abandoned now. Sadly to be replaced by an even more unlikely scenario. See Sleightholme et al 2019.

Sorry I was a bit careless in my previous post though, I say it's him in 1931 and I think that it's all but certain it is, there's good primary evidence that supports it has to be him, yet definitive proof is lacking.

Is this the paper you're referring to? Unfortunately I can't access it to see what they propose.

https://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/abs/10.7882/AZ.2019.032

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
50 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Is this the paper you're referring to? Unfortunately I can't access it to see what they propose.

https://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/abs/10.7882/AZ.2019.032

Yes that's the one. I just tried sending it to you by PM but it exceeds the amount allowed to send. It's terribly flawed, very selective and fails to address any refuting evidence, of which there is plenty.  If you do want to read it PM me your email. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

New Guinea? I'd not read that before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
AnneWithAnE

Aww what a shame. Poor beautiful species. They were so unique.

Share this post


Link to post
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.