• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Adamsfiled Thylacine Carcass (Foot Fetish)

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,056
Hi, this is a subject that's been coming up a bit these days, so I've put it in a new thread. Apologies if that's not right.

It's a bit long, and probably only of interest to those who follow the subject.

For at least twenty years now there's been at least one colour photograph doing the rounds, which almost certainly shows a thylacine hind foot. I first saw it about then on a TV documentary with Chris Packham, I'm sure most people will know the one I mean. It is occasionally, but always briefly, available on Youtube. 'The X Creatures: Beyond the jaws of extinction'.

Just recently it's also been published in one of Col Bailey's books. Significantly perhaps, only in black and white.

The story behind this photo appears to change. But, it's not certain whether the two main versions apply to the photo in the book, which is definitely the same as the one in the documentary. Or whether two thylacine carcasses turned up in the same area, and within about ten years or so of each other. Both were photographed in some detail. And photographs of both animal's feet were handed over to two separate researchers. And then, due to the unnecessarily shadowy and complicated way it's all been handled, they got confused.

The original version I heard, as per the documentary, was that in 1991 two hunters out in the Adamsfield area of Tasmania. Came across and shot a dog like animal. Realising afterward what they'd done and fearing prosecution, they photographed the body and kept it quiet. Except that they showed the set of photos to Col Bailey, and allowed him to keep at least one. There appear to be two in the documentary.

But there's a second story, told here;


This version introduces a man known as Rusty, who at about 13:20, tells how he came across the body of a recently dead tiger, sometime in the eighties. Again he takes a series of photos, and again keeps quiet about it. Except to hand over one of the photos to someone, who he doesn't name. But he does say about whoever it was, that 'he'd' made up his own stories about it. Crucially though, at that point the interviewer says that he has seen the photo and that it 'looks like a thylacine foot'.

So the photo Rusty handed over seems certainly to have also been of a foot, as he doesn't contradict him.

For those who may not know, thylacine feet are fairly distinctive. And it is possible to make a pretty certain identification from them. So it isn't quite as random as it may seem.

So, it would seem that the photos from the book, which seem to be the same as those from the documentary, and are therefore in colour. Do show part of a thylacine. I must admit, I have not seen the book, but have that on good authority.

But, assuming that the photos are the same as those in the documentary, and again I've heard from several people who've seen both, that they are. Then firstly, they can't be the ones which Rusty claimed to have taken in the 80's.

They're are clearly not taken in the bush, but on what looks like a table, and on top of what definitely is a sheet of paper of some sort. So that would to me definitely put Rusty out of the running. As he clearly states in the interview that he left the carcass where he found it.

So returning to the hunters' version. Personally I don't know whether they claimed to have left the body in situ or not. But, apart from the whole contradictory nature of the half disclosure. What bothers me most about the photograph itself, is that in it there's photo scale tape. Why would they have that, why would they have used that? As another thread here supports, photo scale tapes are normally more associated with surveyors, archaeologists, museums, police etc. Not the sort of stuff the average person would have knocking about.

Personally, I think that its presence suggests that those photos are private snaps taken by someone, during an examination of a museum specimen.

And to me that's aside from the hugely unlikely scenario of them having kept quiet about it in the first place. Especially after fearing prosecution and deciding to cover up what happened. They've lugged a blood dripping, recently shot corpse home. Put it on their table getting their photo scale tape out.
 
Ahhh. Now I see what you mean, Oldrover.
Yes, hunters would be unlikely to own a photo scale.
Unless, maybe they borrowed one or printed one off?
 
I doubt there was much home printing in Adamsfield in 1991. It looks lovely, and I'd love to go there, but it's remote and rugged.

Honestly, I think they'd have used a bullet or a ruler, or a coin. Anything to hand. It's a long way from conclusive, but to me, it seems much more likely that these shots were taken in a museum.

About which I am gutted.
 
Dammit, I don't have time to watch the video. There's a programme about Madagascar on BBC4 at nine o'clock. But I'm sure your assessments are correct.
 
Just heard a bit more about this from people over there. I'd be interested to here what you make of the above.
 
We have occasionally declared species extinct in Australia, where, given time, they miraculously re-appear in sufficient numbers to be declared extant.

I do hope that the Tasmanian Tiger will re-appear in sufficient numbers and with sufficient genetic diversity to establish this unusual animal back into its rightful place in the Antipodes.
 
I'd love that. But I don't think it's likely. To my knowledge there's never been such a distinctive animal in such a (relatively) small area, and with so many eyes looking out for it, being overlooked for so long.
 
So, two things to add here.

Firstly, 'Rusty' wasn't the photographer as far as Bailey's photos are concerned.

Secondly, the photo showing the photo scale tape is a museum exhibit. And was apparently used as comparison.

The question of why it appears to be on an identical background to the supposed 1990 photo remains unresolved.
 
Is there a pictufe currently online of the animals foot? Would be intrigued to know how it looked "unique"?

Cheers
 
Is there a pictufe currently online of the animals foot? Would be intrigued to know how it looked "unique"?

Cheers

No still pictures on-line I'm afraid. You can see them on a documentary called X-Animals: Beyond the Jaws of Extinction. Which is available on-line. Other than that they're reproduced in the last but one of Col Bailey's books.
 
"X-creatures: Beyond the Jaws of Extinction" rather ;)

That is quite a haunting title by the way, tried to get it a while back without much success, i'm pretty sure it is still on TM facebook page.
 
Just to update this. The feet in this photo came to light a few weeks ago on line (sorry the picture isn't mine to share). I was initially very taken aback as they really do show thylacine feet, no doubt about the identity, and one of them definitely showed what looked like a fresh raw wound.

I didn't accept it, all the other evidence I've come across suggested that thee had to be another explanation, the wounded leg was the furthest from the camera and not terribly clear and not as immediately identifiable as a tiger's foot. And the wound itself was roughly where you'd expect to see a dew claw on a dog. Despite being told by someone who knows more than me that I was wrong and that the wound wasn't really in the right place for a dew claw, I came up with a suggestion that the photo was a hoax created by arranging a museum specimen tiger leg next to a dog's leg with its dew claw cut off.

More recently again the news broke that the photos actually showed the legs of a museum specimen in Victoria. The wound was quite genuine but old, despite this it had a very fresh look. So my suggestion that it was a dog's leg was proved to be nonsense.

This was the best photographic evidence for the tiger's survival beyond 1936.
 
In my work I often need t take photos and have never used a scale.

Something recognisable or a ruler, thats what I use.

Sounds like a museum pic to me.
 
In my work I often need t take photos and have never used a scale.

Something recognisable or a ruler, thats what I use.

Sounds like a museum pic to me.

As above, it's in a storage facility in Victoria.
 
Back
Top