• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Most reports I've read of Thylacines' running style sounds quite different to what we see in the Doyle footage. From what I can gather, they had more of a hopping motion with their back legs, and some described the front and back ends as like two different animals. This footage of a Quoll (largest acknowledged remaining marsupial predator on the mainland) gives you some idea of the way the Thylacine might have moved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjQzIAkMmoo
 
The squares are down to bad compression, if you're describing what I think you are. The best quality versions of the film clearly show the widening at the end of the tail on the crispest, sharpest frames and it isn't any kind of artefact.

I'd also love to see evidence of surviving thylacines - the tragic demise and possible continuing existence of these animals was one of the main draws that pulled me towards interest in cryptozoology as a kid, but I think we have to be careful not to apply our wishful thinking to evidence that can be clearly debunked, such as this video.
 
It's hard to know how to respond to that really, I respect your view point. And I can't pretend that my defence of the tail width is an informed one, but equally I cant concede the point either without seeing a 'crisp, sharp frame', I cant get anything like that, the still I posted is representative of the best I can get.

As to the foot leg proportions I could say that the same still supports my point of view, but on pausing the film I have to admit that I can find stills which support yours equally.

I dont feel that you've debunked this film, and I'm not sure it can be because of the quality of the film.
 
If even one frame shows an extended rear foot below the ankle joint that is too long for a thylacine, it disprooves the theory of the animal being a thylacine, and several frames do.

If the tail widens at the end, it disproves the theory that the animal is a thylacine, and it clearly does.

If I get time, I'll extract screenshots and show you exactly what I mean, but I really think if you look at the film without applying wishful thinking, it's really pretty clear that the animal can't possibly be a thylacine.
 
If one frame shows an elongated canid type foot and another shows a shortened thylacine type foot, as many do, it shows that neither are a reliable indication of what was actually there, and that the film quality is awful.

As for wishful thinking there's not a lot I can say as regards that, except for the fact that I'm very aware that it's likely to be a factor here and I'm trying to compensate for it. Hopefully you will be able to post screen shots of a better quality than I can get.
 
oldrover said:
If one frame shows an elongated canid type foot and another shows a shortened thylacine type foot, as many do, it shows that neither are a reliable indication of what was actually there, and that the film quality is awful.

As for wishful thinking there's not a lot I can say as regards that, except for the fact that I'm very aware that it's likely to be a factor here and I'm trying to compensate for it. Hopefully you will be able to post screen shots of a better quality than I can get.

Unfortunately, photography doesn't work that way. The shortened appearing metatarsus frames are simply caused by the leg angling away from the camera. The frames where it looks longer though can't be explained this way, as in these shots, the leg is being seen at maximum extension at an angle perpendicular to the camera - bear in mind that if the angle of the lower leg was pointing away from the camera, it would appear to be extremely short - absent altogether!

It's only the frames where maximum length is seen that can be used - If the longest visible shot had a short looking metatarsus, there could be an argument for the animal being a thylacine.

I'm a keen naturalist and wildlife photographer, so very familiar with IDing animals, especially birds based on key identifying features from poor quality photos and this particular feature is an absolute killer to the thylacine theory.

I've created shots that demonstrate the point I'm trying to make:

http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo ... ertainment

Closeup of mystery animal, showing relative bone lengths:
http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo ... ertainment

Closeup of fox, showing relative bone lengths:
http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo ... ertainment

Closeup of thylacine, showing relative bone lengths:
http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo ... ertainment
 
Look - I am not discounting wishful thinking on my part at all.

It is just that it looks more marsupial to me - that's all.

Hope against hope perhaps...
 
lordmongrove said:
I think of all the cryptids the tazzie wolf is the most likley to exist with the orang-penek and giant anaconda close behind.

What do you make of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBy3vmSY ... re=related

No clear view of the legs as far as i can see.

Too blurry really for any sort of conclusion - but the overall body shape looks right. Looking again at the Doyle film, there is a hint of bushiness on the tail, but it also isn't clear enough to be sure. Sigh...
 
Just had another look after reading the discussions- yes I think you can see the lower hind limb very clearly at a few points and it looks too long for a thylacine. Also it appears to have large flapping ears, thylacines have fairly small ears.
 
Sorry - I'm a bit like a dog with a bone here - but I just found a quote on the net from a 1981 Tasmania sighting that seems to confirm exactly what I thought is going on here:

The following day [after the sighting] I called the Parks and Wildlife people. After a bit of umming and ahing, I was able to speak to someone who showed a little interest. I remember him asking a few questions, not particularly scientific, and then he said, "Yes, it looks like you saw what you saw. Now, will you do us a favor and shut up about it? Don't tell anyone."

Now - regardless of what the film shows - I am more confident that they know more than they let on. Source and some good reading here:

http://www.tasmanian-tiger.com/files_analysis.htm

Also this one:

http://www.tasmanian-tiger.com/files_sighting11.htm
 
I can't but in to the conspiracy theory. I don't see how it would be in the interest of wildlife authorities to cover up the known existence of a rare animal. If they went public, they could secure a large amount of funding from international wildlife organisations and public funding to set up a dedicated preserve and provide proper protection for the animals.

If I was attempting to manage wildlife and I knew critically endangered animals were in an area that was fringed with gun and trap toting farmers, I wouldn't go round trying to hush up farmers; I'd desperately want to have the land taken over as a wildlife reserve, including a suitable buffer zone around the actual area the animals were found in, so the louder I shout about their existence, the better.

What you tend to see more often with rare animals is pulicity of the existence without details of specific location.

Take for instance the recent first breeding of purple herons in the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/10423630.stm
In this case, the event was immediately publicised and the general location was revealed, but the specific site was kept secret and guarded on 24 hour watch from idiot egg collectors. Once the birds have reached a certain stage, viewing facilities will be set up for the public.
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
I can't but in to the conspiracy theory. I don't see how it would be in the interest of wildlife authorities to cover up the known existence of a rare animal. If they went public, they could secure a large amount of funding from international wildlife organisations and public funding to set up a dedicated preserve and provide proper protection for the animals.

You've got to understand Tasmania - there's really only two things going on there economically: tourism and logging. Fishing too, but that is irrelevant here.

Admit that these animals are still there - bang - large areas would be closed to tourism AND logging. There is already a large part of the island closed off to the public and to logging - close off any more and there will be huge economic repercussions for these people. And a large part of the sightings are in the excact area that is still open to both tourists and loggers. Get it now?
 
No, I don't get it at all - There is plenty of room on Tasmania for dedicated wildlife reserves. If we've got room for many such places on mainland Great Britain, an 85,000 sq. mile island with 60 million people, there should be plenty of room for huge reserves on a 35,000 sq. mile island with a population of only 500,000.

As a member of the wildlife authorities, I'd be doing everything in my power to get rid of the loggers, which would involve maximum publicity of the plight of the animals.

Why do you perceive that cretaing tassie tiger reserves would harm tourism? Such reserves would become a huge draw for naturalist tourists and pull large sums in to the local economy. People wouldn't only be attracted by the thylacines themselves but for the rest of the native fauna and flora that would be allowed to flourish.

New Zealand seems to manage very well under similar circumastances, with its offshore islands providing successful refuges for endangered endemic species.
 
Well, we're not going to agree here I sense. :lol:

Ok, only 500,00 people, only 3 industries, only two of them on land.

The park rangers have family, they have friends, they are members of their local communities. The logging industry brings in by far the most amount of money, followed by tourism and then fishing. But the fishing is mainly happening in the south. The tourism and logging is happening in the north and east. And that's where most of the sightings are.

Most of the west is closed to anyone. Now - a single confirmed thylacine would not result in more tourists because the area where they were sighted would be instantly closed off to tourists and loggers - and there goes the livelyhood of your community.

The other thing is - I think the park rangers know they are out there and the best way to protect them is to leave them alone - tourists and all. So leaving things the way they are is a win-win situation. Tourists are still coming, logging is still going on, and the beasties are left alone.

If that doesn't make sense to you - well, so be it.
 
Then it sounds like Australia needs to sack its ecologists. If the animals are there, they must be in a fairly localised pocket and not widespread, or there would be better evidence by now. Only that local pocket would be impacted and that could still be a pretty large reserve, without impacting overall logging interests. The whole idea of setting up reserves is you sacrifice the larger area to maintain a protected smaller area without devastating all economic activity in a region.

I also can't see naturalists being driven this way - if I was a wildlife warden (a career I hope to end up doing one day) and I found something as astounding as an extant population of thylacines, protection of that population would become my number one priority. certainly over local and relocatable economic interests. I'd want to see proper protection put in for the animals and a captive breeding programme started to help increase their numbers, not hushed up coercion of local witnesses and continued industrial logging in their habitat, with continued free access for all.

I just can't buy this conspiracy explanation on an island with that much space. It sounds very similar to the logging company bigfoot conspiracy of the Pacific NW in America.
 
Fats_Tuesday said:
Then it sounds like Australia needs to sack its ecologists. If the animals are there, they must be in a fairly localised pocket and not widespread, or there would be better evidence by now. Only that local pocket would be impacted and that could still be a pretty large reserve, without impacting overall logging interests. The whole idea of setting up reserves is you sacrifice the larger area to maintain a protected smaller area without devastating all economic activity in a region.

Ah - seriously, and no persoanl insult meant there at all, but I don't think you understand Australia that well. We are a resources based country as our last Prime Minister found out the hard way. He wanted to impose a tax on the mining industry. And he was gone in a week or two. Stabbed in the back by his own Deputy.

On the election back in 2004, the Labour Party wanted to protect more forrest areas - and lost nearly every seat in Tasmania. Now think again - there's an island full of loggers and people living off eco tourism - and they vote conservative.

Maybe you understand a bit more know why I find the conspiracy a bit more believable - maybe not. Come down here and visit the palce - you'd be amazed.

They'd like you to believe we are some sort of eco utopia - meanwhile, we've killed off more animal species than about any other country and the government is doing bugger all about it while kow towing to any overseas company that wishes to exploit and pollute more pristine environments. THAT is the story here.
 
Very sad sounding state of affairs. I'm planning on getting over to east coast mainland Australia for a holiday early next year, but won't have time for Tasmania, which I think to do justice, I'd need to have a full holiday in. It's very high on my list of places to visit though, so will no doubt be on for a future wildlife photography trip (fingers crossed I find a tiger - there wouldn't be anything hushed up about my tale or blurry about my images if I found one!).
 
Fats Tuesday thanks for the reply, unfortunately due to carelessness and over confidence I find I've backed myself into a position where I actually have to do some work, I will however as soon as possible take a proper look, with an open mind and give it the consideration it deserves.


have quickly read through the thread since Friday, and I too have never been very impressed with the conspiracy theory, but I'd like to hear more about this-

Most of the west is closed to anyone.
 
oldrover said:
I too have never been very impressed with the conspiracy theory, but I'd like to hear more about this-

Most of the west is closed to anyone.

As a fellow Australian (who actually lives in a rural area) I've got to say that I feel Zilch is overstating the case, and rather simplifying the situation in Tasmania. There are more than three industries in Tasmania, don't forget Tassie is the Apple Isle (10% of Australia's apples) and the world's largest grower of legal opium poppies for medical supplies.

It is also the cradle of the green movement in Australia, and the Greens as a political party, and has the largest proportion of Greens of any Australian parliament. The logging and woodchip industry is powerful, no doubt about that, but not to the extent that they would be able to cover up proof of the continued existence of the Thylacine in my opinion.

As for the west being closed to anyone, not true, as you can see from the Tassie Parks and Wildlife website:

Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

Recreation within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities ranging from extended walks through to half hour strolls. Arguably the best wild river rafting in Australia occurs on the Franklin River, while the many lakes in the WHA provide world-class angling.

Walking in the WHA

Want to go bushwalking? There are over 1,000 kilometres of bushwalking tracks and routes in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA). Increasing numbers of bushwalkers visit the WHA every year. The area includes some of Australia's best known long distance walking tracks, like the Overland (five days), Frenchmans Cap (three days) and the South Coast (seven days) tracks. These are particularly popular over summer. Less used tracks are also becoming more popular.

When walking, please remember to follow the Leave No Trace guidelines - a set of guiding principles that help minimise our impact on the places we visit
Bushwalking (day walks)
Not everyone wants to take a backpack and camp overnight. The vast majority of walkers in the WHA are day walkers after a less arduous experience. Shorter trips ranging from 10 minutes to full day walks are located at major visitor service points such as Cradle Mountain, Lake St Clair, Hartz Mountains and the Franklin River Nature trail. Signs along many of these walks introduce visitors to the vegetation, landforms, animals or history of the area.


Camping

A number of campsites in and around the WHA allow camping for modest overnight fees. On some popular walks such as the Overland Track, huts are available to the public. However, it always wise to carry a tent when walking in the WHA in case of mishap or if a hut is full. Details of camping and costs are available at our Camping and Cabin Fee Information pages.

Angling
Fishing

The angling is superb in the lakes of the WHA

After walking, fishing is the second biggest recreational use of the WHA. The Central Plateau area has been a famous trout fishery for over 100 years. The area is known as the land of a thousand lakes and has many alpine tarns formed by glacial action some 8,000 - 20,000 years ago. Major lakes in the area are stocked with trout by the Inland Fisheries Service - see their web site for details of the permits needed to fish in inland waters. Lake Pedder in the Southwest National Park, Lake St Clair, Macquarie Harbour and the Gordon River are also popular trout fishing areas.

Boating

Cruises on Macquarie Harbour and the Lower Gordon River are very popular. These trips form the mainstay of the economy of the small port of Strahan, an idyllic village which is known as the western gateway to the WHA. The wild and remote natural harbours of Port Davey and Bathurst Harbour in Southwest National Park are popular with sailors and the occasional intrepid sea kayaker. See our boating notes for further details.
Climbing & abseiling

Relatively few people undertake climbing in the WHA, primarily due to its remoteness from vehicle access. Despite being several days' bushwalk from the nearest road, the towering vertical cliffs of Frenchmans Cap are a major climbing destination in the WHA.

Rafting and kayaking
Rafting the Franklin River

Rafting and kayaking in the WHA mainly occurs on the Franklin river. The full trip down the river is a magnificent 12 day wilderness rafting experience through some of the most spectacular scenery in Australia.

The proposal to dam the river for hydro electric power was a pivotal conservation issue for Australia in the early 1980s. In 1981 the area was protected in the Franklin–Gordon Wild Rivers National Park and was given World Heritage status in 1982.

See our Franklin River rafting notes for further details.


Overflights
Landing in the south west

Flying over the WHA is a spectacular way to see the wilderness and has limited impact on the environment. Flights occur into Southwest National Park, by float plane into the upper reaches of the Gordon River and around Cradle Mountain. The Parks and Wildlife Service liaises with aircraft operators to determine flight paths which reduce the impact of aircraft noise for recreationalists on the ground.

Caving

The World Heritage Area contains some of Australia's deepest, longest and best decorated caves. Numerous other caves occur in the WHA, some containing archaeological sites of great significance dating back over 30,000 years. Due to the fragility of these environments and the potential dangers of exploration, access to many caves requires a permit and is limited to speleological club members. Marakoopa Cave and King Solomons Cave are open to the public. Regular guided tours are available over well-constructed paths within the caves.

Hunting

Hunting of wallabies, rabbits and ducks is allowed in some small specified zones within the WHA where hunting occurred before World Heritage listing. The effects of hunting on wildlife are carefully monitored. A hunting licence and permit is required.

Recreational vehicles

As over two-thirds of the WHA is managed as wilderness there are few recreational vehicle tracks. However the track to Adamsfield is a popular adventurous recreational vehicle route and other short scenic routes, such as the route to Bird River are regularly used. Some tracks are closed seasonally or can be difficult under certain conditions -- check with the local ranger station if you are planning a trip. Permits from the ranger are required for some tracks.
Roads and sightseeing

The Lake and Lyell highways traverse the WHA for 16 and 59 kilometres respectively and provide an excellent way to visit the WHA. Short interpreted walks and picnic facilities are avaiable at several points along the Lyell Highway -- an excellent way to experience the Wild Rivers National Park. The Gordon River and Scotts Peak roads into Southwest National Park also offer spectacular views of the rugged mountains of the WHA.

Mountain biking, bike riding

Bikes are allowed only on roads open to motorised vehicles, not walking tracks. Bicycle touring on the Lyell and Lake highways through the WHA is popular.
Horseriding

Horseriding is limited in the WHA to the Central Plateau Conservation Area and two small areas in Cradle Mountain–Lake St Clair National Park. You need to be an experienced rider with a horse used to travelling in rough country. Some areas require permits and have number limits. Ask ranger staff for details.
Nature study

The WHA offers an excellent opportunity to observe firsthand the natural environment. Take the time to investigate closely the wide range of plants, invertebrates, birds and mammals, and their tracks and traces. For scientists, the region provides a rare chance to investigate the processes of nature across a variety of undisturbed ecosystems.

Relaxing

Whether at the end of a long day's walking, or in the comfort of a wilderness lodge, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area provides the perfect environment to simply relax. For many people, the value of the WHA lies in the inspirational setting in which they can unwind from the pressures of an increasingly hurried and artificial world.
 
DougalLongfoot said:
oldrover said:
I too have never been very impressed with the conspiracy theory, but I'd like to hear more about this-

Most of the west is closed to anyone.

As a fellow Australian (who actually lives in a rural area) I've got to say that I feel Zilch is overstating the case, and rather simplifying the situation in Tasmania. There are more than three industries in Tasmania, don't forget Tassie is the Apple Isle (10% of Australia's apples) and the world's largest grower of legal opium poppies for medical supplies.

Maybe, but If you've seen the difference between the natural forest in Tasmania and the monoculture without much undergrowth that's left once the loggers are done, you may change your mind there. Anyway - I've said all I wanted to say - it's time to let someone else do the talking.
 
Fats Teusday, go to

http://www.katsmeowdesign.com/whereligh ... eThylacine

then to enhanced quality footage analysed and see frame 3

I'm forced to admit this is damning evidence indeed for it being a Thylacine,
also that I'm still not inclined to dismiss the film is evidence of the fact, that when it comes to Thylacines, despite the fact I'd never before believed in mainland sightings, I'm not able to be objective
 
oldrover said:
Fats Teusday, go to

http://www.katsmeowdesign.com/whereligh ... eThylacine

then to enhanced quality footage analysed and see frame 3

I'm forced to admit this is damning evidence indeed for it being a Thylacine,
also that I'm still not inclined to dismiss the film is evidence of the fact, that when it comes to Thylacines, despite the fact I'd never before believed in mainland sightings, I'm not able to be objective

I'm not sure what evidence you're seeing in that frame for it being a thylacine - it clearly shows canid proportions, as did the frame I showed in my earlier post.

That web site is selecting its frames poorly, as they don't select the clearest frames, where the foot can clearly be seen to be of canid length.

The thylacine had a freakishly short foot which would stand out like a sore thumb if it was caught on film, and this film simply doesn't show that.

Combine that with the remains of a bush on the tail, the lack of right body shape (looks too short for thylacine) and all you're left with is a probable mangy fox running across the road.
 
Sorry, perhaps I'm not being clear, I said that frame 3 is damning evidence for a thylacine, meaning that I agree with you that it does indeed show a canid type foot.

Thylacine hind feet were significantly shorter than a canid's no doubt, but freakishly short is an overstatement, please excuse me if that sounds like sour grapes. Were it not for that frame, I'd still say that the general quality of the film precludes a definitive explanation. It's a killer for me because though it's been enhanced the proportions seem to fit a canid to well for it to be an artifact.
 
oldrover said:
Sorry, perhaps I'm not being clear, I said that frame 3 is damning evidence for a thylacine, meaning that I agree with you that it does indeed show a canid type foot.

Thylacine hind feet were significantly shorter than a canid's no doubt, but freakishly short is an overstatement, please excuse me if that sounds like sour grapes. Were it not for that frame, I'd still say that the general quality of the film precludes a definitive explanation. It's a killer for me because though it's been enhanced the proportions seem to fit a canid to well for it to be an artifact.
Apologies - I misunderstood you.
 
None necessary. I was pretty convinced, 99.9% with this one, unusual for me but where it comes to these things, heart rules the head I'm afraid, though as I said I've never taken mainland sightings seriously before. When I put it up originally I did so knowing that it could well be debunked, and it was, and a good thing too, as however much you want to believe something and how many chances you want to give it, it's pointless being deluded.

So well done there Fats Teusday, not the result I think any of us would have liked, but the right one.
 
Agreed about the foot-length looking inconsistent with a thylacine. But the same analysis also seems to show the head and neck looking pretty inconsistent with a fox - so where does that leave us? The poor film quality is just defeating it seems.

Does a fox - or any canid - carry its tail in such a stiff manner?
 
I'm not really seeing inconsistency with a fox there. It also clearly has a fox's ears.

The unfortunate animal is clearly suffering from mange, so the gait and stiffness of the tail could just be brought about by the discomfort of the condition.
 
Well, as everyone has said already, the film quality is so poor we are all possibly chasing phantasms, but doesn't the neck look a little short and thick, and the head a little heavy for a fox?

That tail tuft is very damning though. And sad. Much nicer to think it was a healthy thylo than a poor suffering mangy fox!

Additional thought - would a fox that mangy be capable of running that fast? I don't have any clue about dog-pathologies you see.
 
Back
Top