• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
This is (IMHO) the most convincing photo:

thyla.png
 
There are enough resources online for a smart person to create these images and concoct this story, but it's very compelling, and I'd really like this to be true. Years of deeply held scepticism about thylacine survival isn't going to be overturned with a few pics and a sketchy anonamous story. But, I hope this prompts some proper investigation.
 
There are enough resources online for a smart person to create these images and concoct this story, but it's very compelling, and I'd really like this to be true. Years of deeply held scepticism about thylacine survival isn't going to be overturned with a few pics and a sketchy anonamous story. But, I hope this prompts some proper investigation.
It will be interesting to follow the story and see how the photos stand up to scrutiny,the weak link is the story and fine detail.
 
The fact that the eye-witness was quite reluctant to share and seemed very socially awkward was a plus point for authenticity I thought. Not sure what to make of him getting his airports mixed up though.
Yeah, it makes sense to me he's quite awkward and self conscious and doesn't want to be seeing images of himself online connected to what, if true, would be a major story. However, do not underestimate the ability of some people to concoct just such apparently self consistent personas when practicing devious antics such as faking cryptids. To my mind, it just as likely backs the story that it hangs together he's the sort of person who wouldn't want the attention, as it weakens his story that he's conveniently someone who wouldn't want the attention.

Curiously, what everyone finds most damning is what I find most convincing; the airport mix-up. I'm not a good traveller, in the sense I really struggle to retain knowledge of where places are in relation to each other, frequently mix up names of places, etc. Someone perpetrating a hoax would probably get the story straight in his head, checking everything online. Travelling to places they've never been, on the other hand, hearing place-names and airport names that are sometimes the airport one's in but sometimes destination airports, probably having been more of a tag along than the person organising the trip, and after the fact misremembering Hobart as a more familiar name like Darwin, pretty much seems like something I'd do when relating a travel tale and someone would have to correct me.

I'm a nightmare to go anywhere on the tube with. If you're not sure where you're going or got to change, don't expect anything useful from me.
 
This is (IMHO) the most convincing photo:

View attachment 76811
If it is a hoax then this is either a digitally manipulated still from the old zoo footage or a taxidermists handiwork. Something about the eyes doesn't look right to me in these shots, they don't seem alive.

But I'm torn on this like so many.
 
Last edited:
I'm inclined to think the images are manipulated from images that can be found online of taxidermy and even illustrations. It's well done, and the story is clever. But I have to balance it with the likelihood thylacines are still about.

With some cases there can be a number of possibilities. Is there something genuinely anomalous? Is it what it appears? Is this person hoaxing? Is this person being hoaxed? How much of a story is embellished? How much is misremembered?

With this, there seems two possibilities. This guy has genuinely encountered and photographed a thylacine, and therefore a population of thylacines has survived in Tasmania undetected all this time (or I suppose as an outlying possibility, cloning has secretly come much further than we thought and covert reintroductions have happened), or this guy's an outright hoaxing liar.

I can't make a decision on the basis of the guy or his story. He seems mostly convincing but I believe we often underestimate how convincingly many people can lie. But, based on the likelihood of thylacine survival (or clandestine cloning-and-releasing operations), I've got to go with hoax.
 
I generally find Galante's TV persona a tad annoying although he appears a bit more measured in this.

Is the guy's annonymity there so that if the questions get too difficult he can just vanish from the scene? Or alternatively if there is any credit taken for a hoax, he can take it but if it generates a lot of unpleasantness he can vanish?

I'd love it to be real but if the image is manipulated it should be easy to prove and the altenative is some sort of model/stuffed Thylacine. The open jaw pic worries me, it is one thing that would be very characteristic of a Thylacine and maybe one a faker would chose.

I'm more inclined towards hoax but I'm going to sit on the fence for a while until the experts get to it.
 
I generally find Galante's TV persona a tad annoying although he appears a bit more measured in this.

Is the guy's annonymity there so that if the questions get too difficult he can just vanish from the scene? Or alternatively if there is any credit taken for a hoax, he can take it but if it generates a lot of unpleasantness he can vanish?

I'd love it to be real but if the image is manipulated it should be easy to prove and the altenative is some sort of model/stuffed Thylacine. The open jaw pic worries me, it is one thing that would be very characteristic of a Thylacine and maybe one a faker would chose.

I'm more inclined towards hoax but I'm going to sit on the fence for a while until the experts get to it.
Yes.
Whilst I'm sure all of us Forteans here would love it to be true, I'm erring very slightly on the sceptical side with this one.
 
Is the guy's annonymity there so that if the questions get too difficult he can just vanish from the scene? Or alternatively if there is any credit taken for a hoax, he can take it but if it generates a lot of unpleasantness he can vanish?

Believe me when I say, no one is interested enough to ask this guy any questions. Anyone with any knowledge of the species can see straight through these pictures. Whether they're manipulated from an original image or created by AI (in which case they're closer than I've seen before) there are screaming anatomical cues that at least two of the images were based on a dog, or based on something that was.
 
Believe me when I say, no one is interested enough to ask this guy any questions. Anyone with any knowledge of the species can see straight through these pictures. Whether they're manipulated from an original image or created by AI (in which case they're closer than I've seen before) there are screaming anatomical cues that at least two of the images were based on a dog, or based on something that was.
Do tell, if you're able. I'd be genuinely interested.
 
Be as verbose as you like. I love an anatomical analysis.

I can't give you one of those as I'm not qualified, all I can say is why it doesn't match a confirmed thylacine image.

Firstly, in the lower two images the rostrum doesn't appear to taper outwards (see the Fleay photo) as it should towards the rhinarium / black bit of the nose, which itself is far too small and too narrow. The former might be due to image quality but the latter is definitely not. Look at the width compared to the placement of the eyes in animal on the left in the 1925 photo, which is of a mature female it gives you a better idea, it's practically the width of the gap between. The image below (sorry about the order) is of a mature male, now it appears relatively smaller there, but it's still hitting the corner of the eye, now look at the bottom left image.


1715806443467.jpeg

The chest in one of the images (bottom left) is way too wide, looks like some sort of pit bull. The profile of the back end (top right) tells us that this could only be a mature male, that tail into the body look is due to the penile mound at the base of the tail (remember the scrotum is forward of the penis in a marsupial), the Fleay photo is a mature male and look at its chest. So, we have three characteristics which are consistent with a dog, but not with a thylacine.

Then there's the ears, they're not that dissimilar to those in the Fleay photograph, but subjectively, they really just look terrible, but that is subjective I admit. Then we have the colour, it's lousy, it's that of a museum mount that's been in the sun for 100 years. See the one in the Natural History Museum in London. But that could be image quality. That said, top marks to the creators for putting in a lighter colour between the stripes, unfortunately it's not the right lighter colour but again that could be attributed to image quality.




1715804317986.jpeg


Credit to David Fleay.


1715805980932.jpeg


Circa 1925

1715804662588.png
 

Attachments

  • 15th thylacine.jpg
    15th thylacine.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 6
  • Domain tiger 3..jpg
    Domain tiger 3..jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 8
Be as verbose as you like. I love an anatomical analysis.

I can't give you one of those as I'm not qualified, all I can say is why it doesn't match a confirmed thylacine image.

Well I'll take what I can get. It's not like I've been frequently checking the forum throughout the day hoping you'd give us your opinion or anything (I have, though).

But, I wasn't disappointed. That all makes sense. But someone clearly knows enough about thylacines to have done a reasonable job on these pictures, all the same.

EDIT Also a great opportunity to spend time looking at all the wonderful thylacine pictures.
 
Another thing, where's the chest flash in the bottom left image. You can't see it in the 1925 photo because the middle and right animals are in shadow, but the alleged image isn't, there should be a white flash on its chest plain as day.
 
Well I'll take what I can get. It's not like I've been frequently checking the forum throughout the day hoping you'd give us your opinion or anything (I have, though).

But, I wasn't disappointed. That all makes sense. But someone clearly knows enough about thylacines to have done a reasonable job on these pictures, all the same.
That's very kind of you to say.

We've been aware for a while that AI was a potential problem, so experiments have been going (not by me I'm useless) to see what it can do, so far only rather unearthly images have resulted. So, if this AI it's better than what we've seen. But to get an idea of show successful it is as a thylacine picture it's worth noting that most people are very unimpressed.

I don't like to speculate but I think the reason the man appears disguised is because he's playing a prank on Gallante. I'm not sure I should say what I think of Gallante but it isn't flattering, I think someone may be trying to make a fool of him.
 
That's very kind of you to say.

We've been aware for a while that AI was a potential problem, so experiments have been going (not by me I'm useless) to see what it can do, so far only rather unearthly images have resulted. So, if this AI it's better than what we've seen. But to get an idea of show successful it is as a thylacine picture it's worth noting that most people are very unimpressed.

I don't like to speculate but I think the reason the man appears disguised is because he's playing a prank on Gallante. I'm not sure I should say what I think of Gallante but it isn't flattering, I think someone may be trying to make a fool of him.
I've never paid much attention to the guy but that's partly because the first I heard about him was in the context of criticism and that's pretty much the only time I ever hear anything about him. Probably, I should give him a chance instead of listening just to his critics, but there's only so much time in the world.
 
Photos and stories like this really have to be definitively located as well. We have no evidence these were taken in Tasmania. They could be from any dark backyard. In these days of photo manipulation, it's actually a safer bet to assume an extraordinary photo is not real.
 
What about the possibility that a small group of Tasmanian practical jokers might be raising dogs of a certain shape, dyeing them in tiger stripes, and showing them off along roads to see what kind of reaction they can create?

Admittedly, it's a lot of work for a gag, but arguably less than wandering remote forests in North America wearing a high-end ape costume.
 
What about the possibility that a small group of Tasmanian practical jokers might be raising dogs of a certain shape, dyeing them in tiger stripes, and showing them off along roads to see what kind of reaction they can create?

Admittedly, it's a lot of work for a gag, but arguably less than wandering remote forests in North America wearing a high-end ape costume.
One of the photos shows a skinny tail protruding backwards and sloping down in a manner clearly intended to evoke images of thylacines, but which is uncharacteristic of canines. Also, perhaps more obviously, there's the gape in the profile photo. So I doubt it could be done that way. No, I think whoever sent these pictures to Galante was at least aware of manipulation of the photos (or, potentially, creation of whatever was photographed, but these days digital manipulation seems more likely).
 
Photos and stories like this really have to be definitively located as well. We have no evidence these were taken in Tasmania. They could be from any dark backyard. In these days of photo manipulation, it's actually a safer bet to assume an extraordinary photo is not re

I admit I could only take so much of Gallante's video, but none of the details given by the 'witness' rung true. Aside from Darwin International, the drive time between Natone and Hobart is around double his 2 hour estimate. You'd be very unlikely to try to sleep at Hobart's little airport, believe me I've been stuck there. I got the subjective impression that this person had never been to Tasmania.
 
Having now given in to morbid curiosity and watched a bit of Gallante's video I think two things are evident. Firstly the gape photo is absolutely crazy. I think many of us can guess why it was initially omitted. The subject of this photo is without any doubt artificial. It kills this with absolute certainty.

Secondly, Gallante doesn't believe this crap any more than I do. If there was a minute's doubt he'd be insane to publicise the photos. I have no respect for him whatsoever, but he's certainly playing his marginally less absurd PNG photo story closer to his chest.

Another thing, who are these 'experts' that Gallante keeps talking about? I know who one is, and Gallante attributed a sighting to them which they deny publicly and privately, so I doubt they'll be best pleased. Other than that I'm not aware of anyone being approached.

This is sub - Animal Planet level nonsense.
 
I want SO MUCH to believe this is real. Part of me counteracts arguments with - well, maybe the population of thylacines has just reached a level where they are starting to become 'visible'. If a very very small number had been left alone, perhaps they've now managed to outgrow their area and are more 'out and about' needing new territory. Inbreeding could have resulted in deformities and deviations from the 'norm'.

But the sceptical part of me, that knows what AI is capable of, is shouting fake.

But I want it to be real...
 
I want SO MUCH to believe this is real. Part of me counteracts arguments with - well, maybe the population of thylacines has just reached a level where they are starting to become 'visible'. If a very very small number had been left alone, perhaps they've now managed to outgrow their area and are more 'out and about' needing new territory. Inbreeding could have resulted in deformities and deviations from the 'norm'.

But the sceptical part of me, that knows what AI is capable of, is shouting fake.

But I want it to be real...

But the reality is they're not becoming visible. What people may not realise is that there are an awful lot of remote cameras in Tasmania, the progress of DFTD has been tracked this way for decades. One, just one, study put around 750 out for over a decade in the area any seen in the area where these photo were supposedly taken would have had to have come from. Real people are trudging in and out for miles, year after year, and the results - nothing to indicate a thylacine. Then we have Mickey Mouse photographs being highlighted by an ex-gonzo TV presenter whose had his contract cancelled. As for inbreeding producing individuals that look like poorly imagined fakes, I think more respect for a unique lost species is warranted.
 
What about the possibility that a small group of Tasmanian practical jokers might be raising dogs of a certain shape, dyeing them in tiger stripes, and showing them off along roads to see what kind of reaction they can create?

I've been looking for a new hobby! Is this actually illegal? Don't want an illegal hobby but this really calls to me...
 
Back
Top