Wednesday, April 24, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Creatures, Myths & Legends > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Creatures, Myths & Legends

Possible live thylacine filmed in South Australia

By T.K. Randall
August 24, 2022 · Comment icon 32 comments

Is this a thylacine, a fox with mange, or something else ? Image Credit: Jessie Milde
A woman who had been out on a hike encountered an unidentified creature that may have been a Tasmanian tiger.
When Jessie Milde first caught sight of the mystery creature in Belair National Park in the Adelaide Hills, her first impression was that it was either a "weird looking kangaroo" or a "really scraggy dog".

Her sister, however, was convinced that it was in fact a Tasmanian tiger - a species thought to have been exitinct for decades with the last confirmed sighting being all the way back in 1936.

"It had a really weird gait to it, a sort of lolloping almost movement," Milde told ABC News.
"It was bigger than a fox, but not as big as a massive dog, but it definitely didn't look like a fox."

"The tail was completely different, its back was really sloped down and its head was a completely different shape."

Experts, meanwhile, remain unconvinced, with most agreeing that the most plausible explanation is that the creature was actually a common fox suffering from mange.

The video clip itself can be found on ABC News.

Source: Mail Online | Comments (32)

Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #23 Posted by stereologist 2 years ago
Love this comment: "The documentary was watched by many. " That is what the documentary needs - to make money to make another. Here is another gem: "They got the DNA "of a human being but with a 1% variation in DNA"." The DNA collected in eDNA is a fragment. There is no way they were able to say it is 1% different across the entire human genome. Across the entire genome the variation is around 0.1%. Across short sections of the genome the variation is higher and lower. For the documentary to claim it is human, then they must know which human genes they were examining and then they can compare ... [More]
Comment icon #24 Posted by dragon1440 2 years ago
Yes, and before you scream that bigfoot doesnt exist, just because we have not captured one doesnt mean they don't exist. We just have not captured one, which I am glad for as there are already enough animals being studied for "science" that its good to see there is still untouched animals out there.
Comment icon #25 Posted by dragon1440 2 years ago
I think you need to relearn your zoological history. It was reported for DECADES that the Panda is real and the Western kept saying it wasn't. It took a LONG time for a panda to be caught from when the West first heard rumors of them to when they were proven as a real animal. But then again it takes an open mind to me discoveries. A closed mind only sees what it wants to see, even if the history and facts don't support it.
Comment icon #26 Posted by dragon1440 2 years ago
You do know that eDNA has also many times led to a mystery? EDNA is still relatively new. And yes when it comes to bigfoot eDNA has shown some very interesting things. Watch Expedition Bigfoot, while a bit hooky since its for tv, they have actually discovered things, and use real science also. For instance, yes environmental DNA can be easily contaminated, specifically by human. But certain things are pretty much impossible. For instance some eDNA they sampled found an animal that provided eDNA of a chimpanzee, which America doesnt have wild chimpanzees running around. So either there is an an... [More]
Comment icon #27 Posted by the13bats 2 years ago
Nice but a bit credulous. Its a huge problem when we should have lots of evidence to support a case and we have none. Is horribly flawed, Its a cry from the empty handed true believer trying to save face for having zero. In the case of bigfoot you should do some studies on basic requirements for a creature to exist and survive, we need things like a breeding population, habitats. Food Etc with bigfoot it simply doesnt fit that all we have are anecdotal "stories" no pysical evidence nothing, tracks? No, we do not have the foot that made the track. Crap pics and videos, get real. DNA? None. What... [More]
Comment icon #28 Posted by dragon1440 2 years ago
The presumption of evidence is on nonbelievers not believers. Its almost like a Schrödinger's cat situation. Theres nothing to say 100% certain that its fake, therefore it might still be real. Someone has to prove  it 100% fake. If someone doesnt have proof that it exists, that doesn't mean that it doesn't just that we dont have proof.
Comment icon #29 Posted by the13bats 2 years ago
Nice try, no, its not like that cat, in this case its not "fake" its a real creature just on the witness to prove what they claim it to be. You go right from the dear true believers who have zip to offer playbook. No, it isnt the burden of the skeptic to prove a negative it always been the burden of the story teller to present evidence that supports their claim. Not the skeptics fault the believers never have any.
Comment icon #30 Posted by MysteryMike 2 years ago
Let's see... If Bigfoot did exist. -We would had found dead bodies by now. We find dead bodies of bears, wolves, cougars, deer and such but no bigfoots? If we encounter such megafauna all the time like that, we'd be seeing Bigfoot all the time too. Regardless of population, there's no way such a large creature could remain undetected. -No feces or hair samples ever found. -No fossil record. -We have cameras all the god damn time, especially in this day in age. Not to mention the crazy tech like satellite that has mapped every part of the world. In this day of age to we should get clear photos ... [More]
Comment icon #31 Posted by dragon1440 2 years ago
A lot of these things you mentioned can be explained if bigfoot is intelligent. Bury the dead. We have not mapped every single part of the world considering that you cant map through trees and many reports of bigfoot are in dense forests. Always the escaped chimp theory which is bull. There would have to be A LOT of escaped chimps to explain bigfot.
Comment icon #32 Posted by MysteryMike 2 years ago
Anyone would have found a burial by now. Once again. Why didn't Native Americans have any ornaments coming from bigfoots as they had with other animals like wolves and bears? No fossil record of such a large primate ever being found here in North America? Why haven't paleologists found any fossils? Once again, how eyes easily can play tricks on those especially at night (I bring up once again the Flatwoods monster which was most likely a barn owl). The human mind can be easily fooled or get scared given our nature. And also how hallucinations and nightmares are the causes of alleged encounters... [More]

Please Login or Register to post a comment.

Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News


Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon


For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Recent news and articles