Thylacines in Cryptozoology

This is the first time I've seen the Rilla Martin photos and I am very confused by it as well. The stripes definitely don't look real and to be honest I have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at, though definitely not a Thylacine.

~Thylo:cool:
 
Chlidonias said:
...and just before, while reading some other stuff, I saw that they had an article in yesterday's Australia's Daily Mail about (wait for it) the Rilla Martin photo from 1964!
Did a Melbourne woman photograph a LIVE Tasmanian Tiger in 1964? Picture shows a mysterious animal that has experts baffled | Daily Mail Online

The story doesn't explicitly link this "news" with the TAGA (they come later in the story in relation to the videos discussed earlier in this thread, and it does say about the Western Victoria one that "the group's founder, Neil Waters, said there is no doubt that it is a thylacine but said it could well be a sub-species of the creature."). However, curiously, the Rilla Martin photo is branded with a copyright to the Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia (?!).

It really is like Waters' has just found out about thylacines and is suddenly all like "oh my God, look at this photo - I have to get this publicised so that other people will learn of it!".... and every other person on the planet who knows anything about thylacines in a cryptozoological context mumbles "umm, yes, this is brand new information...." and then rolls their eyes.
Click to expand...

Thing is with Waters is that he's not just trying to set himself up as an expert with these inane videos. He's trying to raise money of the back of them.

He's stuck with the problem that the animal shown is obviously not a thylacine. To try and get round this, he's claiming that it's a mainland subspecies.

So far fair enough, he could just be honestly stupid. But, he's made a claim here and there that his 'subspecies' have been verified by one or more 'palientologists' involved in the Naracoorte excavations. And, on one FB comment he's claimed that it's been verified by the WA Museum. Not bright.
 
This is the only recent photo that's made me think.
 

Attachments

  • thylacine_2_by_pickleweasel360-d62uwkt.jpg
    thylacine_2_by_pickleweasel360-d62uwkt.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 41
I think this thylacine shot is intriguing, and raises several questions about how plastic their phenotype is:

 
ThylacineAlive said:
This is the first time I've seen the Rilla Martin photos and I am very confused by it as well. The stripes definitely don't look real and to be honest I have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at, though definitely not a Thylacine.
Click to expand...
I am genuinely surprised it is the first time you've seen the photo. It is really well known in thylacine lore.

I have never really understood why it attracts to much thylacine-attention because it clearly looks nothing like one - at least mangy fox videos could fool someone. I do understand why people like to attach it to surviving Thylacoleo stories, but it still doesn't bear any resemblance to what that would have looked like in life. (There are lots of art-works of Thylacoleo out there painted to look like the Rilla Martin animal, but despite that they still don't look like what is in the photo).

The more you look at the photo the less it makes sense. The outlines on the forebody are really sharp, for example, like it is just stuck on the background. Is it a faked composite of two photos? Or did the newspaper simply enhance the outline? (I have a number of old animal books where an animal is enhanced and it looks like a really badly-faked photo, but it is just due to the poor techniques they had available at the time). Is the forebody even really connected to the hindbody or is it just an illusion created from two separate objects? Is that really a doggy sort of head, is the forebody really as hulking as it appears? Is it even an animal or just a log?

I have no explanation for the photo. To me it looks like an actual animal (as opposed to a cut-out or model or simulacra) but which has been modified either intentionally or innocently so that it looks different. But what it is I have no clue.

It should be noted that the negative and photo no longer exist as far as anyone knows, and so all the shots you see are versions of that (possibly modified) one as it looked in the newspaper. There really is no way to say what it shows.
 
ThylacineAlive will like this one (hopefully he can get the audio): https://soundcloud.com/tasmania-tal...dcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Basically it's one of those conspiracy guys claiming that there are healthy populations of thylacines in Tasmania and the government knows all about it but is keeping it hidden. You know, because.

So he claims that there are (and he's saying this is a Parks and Wildlife Service estimate) 100 breeding pairs in northeast Tasmania [that's northeast Tasmania in case you thought that was a typo] - he reckons he has photographed probably 30 or 40 animals himself. Then he lists examples (according to him) which have been shot or hit by cars through the 1970s onwards (including the Parks and Wildlife Service having shot animals).

Oh, also the mainland population which does exist is derived from a pair released at Wilson's Promontory many years ago.

I came across the audio via the TAGA Facebook and of course Neil Waters is saying that he has seen all this guy's photos and they are all undeniable thylacines.
 
Chlidonias said:
ThylacineAlive will like this one (hopefully he can get the audio): https://soundcloud.com/tasmania-tal...dcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Basically it's one of those conspiracy guys claiming that there are healthy populations of thylacines in Tasmania and the government knows all about it but is keeping it hidden. You know, because.

So he claims that there are (and he's saying this is a Parks and Wildlife Service estimate) 100 breeding pairs in northeast Tasmania [that's northeast Tasmania in case you thought that was a typo] - he reckons he has photographed probably 30 or 40 animals himself. Then he lists examples (according to him) which have been shot or hit by cars through the 1970s onwards (including the Parks and Wildlife Service having shot animals).

Oh, also the mainland population which does exist is derived from a pair released at Wilson's Promontory many years ago.

I came across the audio via the TAGA Facebook and of course Neil Waters is saying that he has seen all this guy's photos and they are all undeniable thylacines.
Click to expand...

Wow... that is quite the story:p Do those museum photos actually exist? Did he ever actually email the photos?

I've heard about the conspiracy before, though the reason I heard was that it was to protect the lucrative timber industry. If it was discovered that Thylacines survived in forest set for clearing, it'd cripple to Tasmanian economy:p

~Thylo:cool:
 
Last edited:
ThylacineAlive said:
Wow... that is quite the story:p Do those museum photos actually exist? Did he ever actually email the photos?:p

I've heard about the conspiracy before, though the reason I heard was that it was to protect the lucrative timber industry. If it was discovered that Thylacines survived in forest set for clearing, it'd cripple to Tasmanian economy:p
Click to expand...
I don't know if the photo is actually in the museum labelled as an "unknown animal" as he claims, but the photo which it apparently is, is pictured on the Facebook page for the Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia (it's pictured a few times, I think all in the comments under the two times this audio account is linked). It may be the museum photo or it may be one the guy sent to the radio station - I wasn't clear on which. Supposedly this is the only photo he allowed out and all his others showed much more clearly that the animal was definitely a thylacine. One should obviously not question why he would release one crap photo and no good ones.

The photo is from behind and looks very much like a small macropod (there is one guy on the Facebook page arguing this quite convincingly and Neil Waters arguing back with what amounts to "no mate this is definitely a thylacine"). From one photo there's not much one can say, but it does appear to have some stripes on the top of the tail base. I would say it is actually a Banded Hare-wallaby - of course the reply to that would be "no it was taken in Tasmania" to which my reply would be "how do you know that? You only have that guy's word for it."
 
just throwing this in here for anyone interested, if you put "brindled dingo guy ballard" into Google Images the first few photos are of wild dingos with a roughly "striped" pattern. (Guy Ballard studies dingos and the photos are from his Twitter). I thought it was kind of cool.
 
Last edited:
Chlidonias said:
just throwing this in here to for anyone interested, if you put "brindled dingo guy ballard" into Google Images the first few photos are of wild dingos with a roughly "striped" pattern. (Guy Ballard studies dingos and the photos are from his Twitter). I thought it was kind of cool.
Click to expand...

BREAKING NEWS: Dingoes hybridized with Thylacines during the prehistoric settling of the continent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actual image of one:
4822488_original.jpg


~Thylo:cool:
 
Chlidonias said:
The photo is from behind and looks very much like a small macropod (there is one guy on the Facebook page arguing this quite convincingly and Neil Waters arguing back with what amounts to "no mate this is definitely a thylacine"). From one photo there's not much one can say, but it does appear to have some stripes on the top of the tail base.
Click to expand...

I saw this photo on another site previously but have just looked again. My immediate reaction was its a Wallaby of some sort, caught in flight, in mid-bound from behind. The hocks of the hindlegs are parallel and the rear feet clearly off the ground The tail is typical of a Macropod species. The only 'stripes' I can see on here are what look like two furrows in the fur above the root of the tail.

Of course one would query why the 'clearer' photos were not produced as evidence- possibly because they would show it was a Wallaby more clearly? ;)There is always some 'reason' why the best or irrefutable evidence is never produced.:rolleyes:
 
Pertinax said:
I saw this photo on another site previously but have just looked again. My immediate reaction was its a Wallaby of some sort, caught in flight, in mid-bound from behind. The hocks of the hindlegs are parallel and the rear feet clearly off the ground The tail is typical of a Macropod species. The only 'stripes' I can see on here are what look like two furrows above the root of the tail.
Click to expand...
yeah, it looks exactly like one to me too. It's pretty clearly a smallish animal too, nothing like thylacine-size. I'm not sure if the stripes are furrows or actual stripes. My intial reaction was "well those would be an illusion from the fur" but they do look like real stripes (I have to say I have only seen a small photo on Facebook - the stripes may look different on a larger photo). From one photo I'm not sure on that point.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I've heard about the conspiracy before, though the reason I heard was that it was to protect the lucrative timber industry. If it was discovered that Thylacines survived in forest set for clearing, it'd cripple to Tasmanian economy:p

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

That theory has been used for many years now as the over-riding reason why there is so much secrecy about the Thylacine and any official blackout about its purported continued survival. I heard this when I first visited there in the 1970's, and its been a continuous presence ever since.

It doesn't explain why the ever-growing band of searches/ searchers and would-be Thylacine discoverers who are working completely independantly of any government organisations, have never so far been able to prove its existence either.
 
oldrover said:
The stripped fosa photo from here has turned up on the TAGA FB page. Tragically though, someone told them what it was.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/412534695566501/permalink/712881725531795/
Click to expand...
I wonder if that was intended as a joke which didn't work so he just said "thanks". I mean, if he got it off Zoochat (which I thought he probably did, because he says "... found it on an online chat forum with reference to Indonesia...?") then he would have to have read the thread and seen it was a fossa. Although having said that, if he got it off that thread he would need to be a member here (otherwise he wouldn't have been able to see the attachment) in which case it was definitely a joke.

But then I guess more likely is he got it from this other forum where the picture is in the post - London Zoo Archives | The Quest for Thylacoleo - and where Indonesia is mentioned multiple times without irony. It is identified on that page, but perhaps he missed it. I guess that is you on there further down the page mentioning Zoochat. I found it amusing it appeared to have those thylacine enthusiasts completely fooled.
 
that TAGA Facebook page is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Someone posted a link to a study about limited genetic diversity in thylacines, and Neil Waters says "Maybe inbreeding has caused the animal in our 2nd video to have such a big rear shock ??" [shock, meaning hock, in reference to the Western Victoria fox video discussed earlier in this thread] and a brilliant lady on there responds with "I doubt that an inbred thylacine is the most likely explanation for a blurry animal in the distance not having thylacine proportions." :D

Then someone else says "So genetic bloodline was limited in Tasmania, there was the introduction of several of them in Vic (Wilsons Prom) along with other species early 20th century. If this occurred, the subsequent breeding of Tasmania genes to mainland thlacine genes would surely have increased their genetic diversity significantly?"



But even better was the discussion between two people about suppression of evidence of Diprotodon...

"An Aboriginal community rang me about a baby diprotodon. It was 30 kilograms with its mouth still sealed. They also called the museum who confiscated it never to be heard of again. Closest thing I have come to to a miracle"

"WOW .. was it alive by any chance ... nd almost all authority hide some things .. I heard there was a book or report on the mainland thylacine sightings thats never disclosed as ppl will get terrified"

"It was alive when I received the call but our sanctuary is 3 hours from where it was. They rang an hour later and said it had died. We went down anyway to see where they found it (hoping to find a huge burrow ) but it was all locked up and no one was allowed in"

"OMG that surely would have been the greatest scientific discovery of the last 2 centuries ... too bad maybe its resting in one the archives of any uni or museum"

"Another community (Nullabor) that recently surrendered a wombat to us said they have seen a diprotodon, I must ask them about the thylacine. They have a huge reserve that is barely touched"

"if they see a diprotodon they are bound to see a thylacine .. Diprotodon is reported to exist some 1.6 million years ago .. but usually aboriginal communities are too shy to speak about this nd dont like the official hassle"



I know it's kind of pointless re-posting comments from idiots on Facebook, but for mockery purposes it was too good to pass up.
 
They will be claiming a feral domestic goose is a newly-discovered dwarf Genyornis next :p
 
I just don't get their "suppression" angle when it comes to things like this. The government wants to hide that Diprotodon isn't extinct because.... why exactly? If that's the case how does any new species or rediscovered species get announced - surely they would all be suppressed?

Neil Waters just had a new article about Adelaide thylacines in one of the papers (No Cookies | The Advertiser) and in it he is saying that the reason scientists won't admit that they know the mainland thylacines are still extant is either because they "are keeping the fact hidden in an effort to protect them, or that they’re simply too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong." That is his actual theory - that there is too much embarrassment for any zoologist to become famous for proving thylacines still exist. It's beyond idiotic.
 
Chlidonias said:
that TAGA Facebook page is the gift that just keeps on giving...




I know it's kind of pointless re-posting comments from idiots on Facebook, but for mockery purposes it was too good to pass up.
Click to expand...

It's like picking a scab isn't it. I can't leave it alone at the moment.

I concede the diprotodon thread is definitely the best. Bu I also like these;

this about the photo of Batty, dead tiger and dog;

Stripey seems to be unrestrained. The weapon appears to be a side by side, given what I know of rural living probably 12G, no good outside of 50 metres, probably closer to 25.

Does anyone know the story behind this photo?

And this one on the rear limb proportions.

Length perception is dependant on width, ie an A4 sheet of paper looks the same length as an A3 sheet if held closer. In this case the animal is injured, lives in a warmer climate, and is thought come from a smaller subspecies, making its legs skinnier, and therefor giving the appearance of being longer. The key is proportions between bones. and you need a side on view to determine that as well as the knowledge of how much size variation exists in the population. That why the front limb is more important because a thylacine has a short flexible wrist like a cat while the fox has an extend inflexible wrist to make it run faster.

The fox/thylacine hybrid hypothesis also intrigued me. But not in a charitable way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top