Anyway the animal is real and the zoo where it is taken is not so obscure.
explain
Anyway the animal is real and the zoo where it is taken is not so obscure.
nothing was said about a captive breeding population. Indonesian zoos get a large majority of their inhabitants from the wild, and the implication is certainly that this individual was captured in New Guinea (the western half of New Guinea -- Irian Jaya -- is Indonesian territory, and lots of New Guinea wildlife passes through trading centres in Jakarta etc). The date was quite specifically stated as being in the 1970s, not today. Why should the Indonesian government have told the Australian government anything?No, no I have not bothered to read all of this thread yet. That is the most amazing and beautiful picture I've ever seen, it must be fake. I would love nothing more then for a captive breeding population to be discovered in Indonesia but this story has everything surounding a hoax- a too-good-to-be-true photo, a date long after the extinction but not anywhere near today, an unknown author, and a relative yet almost completely unknown location. Frankly, I think that, if this were real, the Indonesian government would have allowed Australia to know about it. And what happened to the animal anyway? No clue, right. As much as I wish this where real, I can't see it happening... Unless...!! Unless this were taken at a very small, out of the way zoo that the government and outsiders had very little to do with and was mostly unknown to peopl outside of the area. Still, a lot of breeding would of had to be done for this animal to be real and I don't know if one small zoo like that could handle the job.
and why haven't you read the whole thread yet?! I thought thylacines were one of your primary interests?No, no I have not bothered to read all of this thread yet.
and why haven't you read the whole thread yet?! I thought thylacines were one of your primary interests?![]()
It took me 15 minutes to read the whole thing![]()
sorry I had to pick up on this as well. "A nice exhibit such as [this] one"? You can see maybe six foot in width and maybe twenty foot in depth, and all that is visible is something like dried leaves on the ground. How does that tell you anything about the enclosure, how it is constructed, or how much it cost? And why should the zoo be small? Some of the Indonesian zoos are bigger than many American zoos.I doubt a small, poor Indonesia zoo could afford a nice exhibit such as the one displayed in the photo. Where's the exhibit walls anyway?
explain![]()
The video evidence, though, a lot of it seems legit to me, mostly the older, original ones.
I am a bit confused by the "this photo is too good and therefore cannot be real" argument. Are cryptids only provable by crappy out-of-focus photos?
still, worth bringing patrick's photo back from the dead!DDcorvus said:Very impressive indeed, although it would have been fun if he would have bought it .![]()
I wonder if this photo of mine will convince him?
you and your technology!! In the old days people carried a charcoal stick and a bit of parchment. If they saw something cryptic they drew a half-assed picture of it as their proof.Yes! In fact, most cryptid spotters never even have a camera!![]()
Crikey, so there really are Thylacines out there!!!