International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Another Thylacine Photo?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 11th, 2006

Did another Down Under vacationer snap a photograph of a thylacine?

I was tipped off to this photo on The Book Of ThoTH message forum. The text accompanying the photo is also included below.

A friend of mine went on vacation to Australia, and he e-mailed me this picture a week ago- he said he snapped a picture as soon as he saw the animal, and the flash made it run away.. He said it was small, like a puppy, and it ran akwardly towards a larger "striped German-shephard /Kangaroo thing", and they both disappeared into the brush.

He called it a "Striped Puppy Kangaroo Thing", and he sent it to me because I used to be a vet tech and can ID almost any animal, and am especially good with dog breeds. I think he may have seen 2 Thylacines, but it’s not a good picture. He took one as they were running off, too, but you can’t see anything in it except bushes and the night sky. When he showed me the picture, I told him I thought they may be Tassie Tigers, and that he should tell someone.I also told him to hold on to his pictures since in my research I read that sometimes when people report sightings park rangers confiscate their evidence. He wrote me the next day saying that everyone he talked to told him he didn’t see a Tassie Tiger, and he said a policeman he mentioned it to threatened to take him in for pranking. When he told the cop it wasn’t a prank, the cop told him "You didn’t see anything, understood?"

I’ve known this boy forever, and he is always honest (brutally so, at times)

Thylacine Photo

Click on image for full size version

What do you think?

He finally ok’d me to share it, but he wants his identity to remain private. He was very offended by the people in Tasmania calling him a liar, and the cop shook him up pretty bad. He seems convinced that that cop will track him down, the poor guy

Anywho, it’d be nice to find out what other people think of this…

I think it’s damn convincing. Aside from the damn plant in the way, I’d say I’m convinced. The number of stripes is variable, from what I’ve read, and this is also a pup, as he said.. I can’t find any info on patterns of pups- does anyone else have info?

If anyone is out there who maybe has equipment to maybe edit out the plants or something, that would be great

By the way- He said he was hiking near "Savage River" when he took this photo, and that it was not far from a wildlife preserve or park of some sort, yet he was also not far from all sorts of factories and mining operations…

If this truly is a Tassie, then that’s also a horrible place for some polluting, disgusting mines.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

147 Responses to “Another Thylacine Photo?”

  1. Alton Higgins responds:

    Is there a way to get the whole picture, uncropped?


  2. Giant_Catfish responds:

    Wow nice close up photo, can’t really make out any standout feature of the creature besides its stripes running down its back, too bad you can’t see the tail or ears and face better.

  3. Brindle responds:

    Very Nice.

  4. jayman responds:

    The location isn’t clear – was this in Tasmania or on the mainland?

    In any case, it’s the best alleged Thylacine photo I’ve seen to date. I feel the back end is to the left and you can see to just past the ankle joint of the right hind leg. The tail base looks thick as in a Thylacine or kangaroo.

    Somebody should check a picture of a bandicoot for comparison, I believe they are striped too.

  5. Bennymac responds:

    The cop telling him he didn’t see anything seems a bit odd to me. What is the motive for that?

    It’s a decent pic, but still inconclusive.

    Whatever it it, at least it looks well fed.

  6. oldbutnotstupid responds:

    this one seems promising. A bandicoot stripes come up light and dont seem to wrap around the back of the animal as this does.As for the cop ,maybe they know the tigers are there and in their own way are trying to protect them from an influx of people who would show up if the news got out. If this is a small breeding population . I’m with the cop on that point. This is the most convincing photo Ive seen.

  7. Shihan responds:

    Looks like a wild deer fawn or possibly a feral piglet to me.

  8. shovethenos responds:

    Very interesting. Couple observations:

    – The stripe pattern does look different from the pictures and film footage – the stripes are wide, appear to run for most of the back, and don’t seem to narrow and condense toward the rear. As someone else said this might be because it is a pup or juvenile. I wonder if that kind of information is recorded somewhere.

    – It doesn’t look like the bandicoot pictures I could find, but there are a lot of bandicoot species. Is there anything else in the area that could have a stripe pattern and coloration like this?

    – There seems to be some kind of bald spot or abrasion on the right flank – the pink patch.

    In any case if everything is legitimate this is a very promising picture.

  9. Maohk Kiaayo responds:

    I don’t know if thylacines had such a dramatic curviture on the back leg (being on the left side of the photo). I don’t know what else it could be. Most feral piglets they are usually white spotted and white striped over a brown background. I think that if there was ever a chance to find a cryptid the thylacine would be the best bet.

  10. Bexta responds:

    the thing that makes me disbelieve this is purely because he said Tasmanians were calling him a liar, etc.

    That would be completely untrue, people here are so excited by the prospect of something thought to be extinct being sighted, and also a LOT of Tasmanians have seen them with their own eyes so I very much doubt someone would harrass him for mentioning it – especially when he thought it was a kangaroo.

  11. drypondscout responds:

    Well at least we can expect more on this if nothing else.

  12. One Eyed Cat responds:

    “Striped Puppy Kangaroo Thing”, sounds more to me a attempt to give a mental picture of all the attributes of what he saw — NOT that he thought it was a kangaroo.

    I have to side withe the ones thinking this is promising. the photo has the look and ‘feel’ of a real animal. Not a lot of information about thylacines was passed down to succeeding generations after it as declared extinct. They had to know some things to hunt them.

    Sad really not only was the animal considered gone. No one thought the next generations would be curious about them.

  13. JRC responds:

    The officer may also have tried to scare him off due to the mining operations. If one could prove that the Thylacine does live in the area, it would instantly be one of the most endangered animals on the planet. There would be tremendous pressure to either disrupt or even close the mining operations in the area. The officer may have been putting the financial interests of corporations and the townspeople before nature. This is all assuming that this IS a Thylacine of course.

  14. btgoss responds:

    Found this good link on Google.

    Not a bad match, the color is a bit off. But maybe the museum piece has faded.

    This is my favorite lost animal, so maybe this means it has finally been found.

  15. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Despite the author’s opinion that the second photo shows nothing, I would be very interested to see it.

    As usual, if you are reading this, and you have that photo, you can either contact me via a third party by emailing the editor at cryptomundo, or via my website (click on my name above this comment) where I will get straight to work on analysing the image that we do have available…

  16. charlie23 responds:

    When I enhanced the image in photoshop, the face clearly resembles a platypus with the characteristic bill. Of course with no tail or legs visible.

    I’m voting hoax. 5 minutes and I can add stripes to anything 😉

  17. fredfacker responds:

    I’d say it’s either a very promising picture or somebody painted stripes on their dog/pig/whatever.

  18. Scarfe responds:

    Like Shihan and Fredfacker, who both mentioned this might be a pig, I have to say it certainly looks that way to me.

    After using photoshop to lighten the image and sharpen the edges and lines, what appears to me to be a pig-like snout is visible on the extreme right of the image. Also, look at how the leg tapers. Very tiny. Very piglet-like. I don’t know much about pig anatomy or wild piglet anatomy, but something here tells me this is a pig. I have included a link to an image in which I outline the animal as I see it and use arrows and text to draw attention to what I think are some relevantly curious, pig-like features.

  19. MrInspector responds:

    The cropped image makes it difficult to identify. I think I can say for certain that it isn’t a bandicoot, a wombat, or a roo.

    It’s certainly an interesting looking animal, and there’s always a possibility that it might be an unidentified animal that’s not a thylacine.

    The stripes don’t appear very thylacine like, and the animal appears very low as if it had stubbier legs. Also, and this may be an illusion created by shadow, but it appears to have a very rodent looking eye, though I won’t swear to it.

  20. Sky King responds:

    “The cop telling him he didn’t see anything seems a bit odd to me. What is the motive for that?”

    Anytime a cop threatens you with, “you didn’t see anything, understand?”, you can bet the farm they’re intentionally protecting information – or SOMETHING.

    There’s simply no other reason they’d SAY something like that, unless they’re intentionally protecting something.

  21. Sky King responds:

    “When I enhanced the image in photoshop, the face clearly resembles a platypus with the characteristic bill. Of course with no tail or legs visible.”

    WOW! Funny you should say that: my first impression was, “somebody messed with a photo of a platypus!”

    Not that I necessarily believe that it’s likely – it was just a first impression. And contrary to popular opinion, first impressions ARE sometimes wrong.

  22. YarriWarrior responds:

    Now this is a tough call to make! The photo appears to be a genuine animal-but what is it? These are my opinions. It doesn’t look too terribly like a thylacine, as the stripes are a complete mis-match. Even the mummified thylacine found in a mainland cave didn’t have that arrangement. The piglet suggestion may have some merit, as the legs “seem” to be vary tapered, but then again it is a very young animal, and if this person is telling the truth, it wouldn’t be hanging out with a dog-like creature. It reminds me of the animal caught on film on the mainland that looks a bit like a lion cub with a marsupial hip structure. Is is interesting to note that it may have a pig-like snout much akin to the snout of reported Queensland tiger/cat type creatures.(Thylacoleo?) Rilla Martin said the creature she photographed had a pig-like nose. Someone should email that guy her photo and ask him if it looks anything like the adult creature he spotted. There is a pic from a museum in Australia of a wakeleo reconstruction that looks very much like this new photo. It is almost the same angle as this photo was taken. I will have to dig it up. Yarri

  23. YarriWarrior responds:

    And by the way, it’s spelled wakaleo! Yarri

  24. jayman responds:

    I just don’t see how this can be a platypus – its short back legs jut out to the side, like those of a reptile. This animal’s legs clearly seem to be vertical.

    In old pictures of the Thylacine I have seen, the thick tail gives the hindquarters and back legs a distinctly un-doglike (or un-piglike) look.

  25. shovethenos responds:

    Couple things:

    – That stripe pattern is strange. I reviewed the video clips I have of the films taken of thylacines in the zoo. Although fairly different, the stripes could be a natural variation. Especially if the patterns change when pups and juveniles mature.

    – I examined another theory and discarded it, but in the interest of keeping the analysis of the picture as objective and scientific as possible I’ll mention it. I thought for a moment that the photograph might be a hoaxed picture of some kind of mounted animal, partly due to the bald spot on the animal’s right flank. But after more thought I deduced that bald spot was the wrong color – it was too pink. The spot was pink because there’s blood being pumped through the skin there. Yeah – I guess that skin color could be hoaxed too, but it doesn’t look that way. In my opinion the skin tone of the bald spot or abrasion tends to indicate that the picture is of an actual living animal.

  26. EEB responds:

    This is a link to my interpretation of the photo.

    I agree with Scarfe on most points (even before seeing his link), but I think the head may be shaped differently, and that the eye may be farther forward. There is definitely something that looks like a small eye farther back on the head, but in my version that is where the ear attaches.

    If the eye is indeed placed on the side of the head, then I’d say it was a prey species like a pig (as in Scarfe’s drawing), but if it’s placed farther forward (as in my sketch), I’d say it was some kind of predator (like a dog or thylacine).

  27. DissingCryptids responds:

    I certainly hope you had permission to post this…

    I myself wish that the photographer took an image of the head, and possibly different body angles. His exact reasoning for not doing so makes it clear to me something is up.

  28. a_welch90 responds:

    This is a pretty interesting pic. Not quite enough detail to see exactly what it is but it very well could be a thylacine, or just something mundane as usual.

  29. EEB responds:

    Oh, another thing to add… It looks to me like the animal in the photo has a dark muzzle. It’s interesting that the photographer compared the adult animal to a German Shepherd. Could that be because it had a dark muzzle as well, and perhaps stripes roughly where the black saddle would be on a Shepherd? I’m just wondering why he picked that breed in particular as a comparison.

  30. Shoogur responds:

    EEB – I’m just wondering why he picked that breed in particular as a comparison.

    Um coz maybe that’s what the creature remind him of, a german shepard? If the creature has GS traits would it have made more sense for him to say it reminded him of a poodle? sorry, sarcasm..

    Anyhoots, interesting picture. I’m really hoping it wasn’t photoshopped. *fingers crossed* that it is a thylacine. Wishful thinking.

  31. youcantryreachingme responds:

    My analysis is now available at my website also.

  32. quill responds:

    After comparing this photo to older Thylacine pictures, the rib cage/ body structure (what I can make of it, anyway) seems to be quite similar. Of course, without a full-body photo we won’t know for sure, but at least there’s hope there.

    Another thought- if this was a pup, and there was a larger one nearby it, there has to be at least one more adult. 😀

  33. cromcrom responds:

    Couldn’t that picture be one of a dingo, or of another kind of tamed wild dog, with “drawn” or “faked” brown lines “painted” on it ???

  34. mikew responds:

    Could be a dog.

    I have seen some forms of hounds which had very odd stripes on them like this.

    In the right light/conditions they would look thylacine like.

    The photo, most likely a hoax.

    The bit about the “cop tracking him down” , what for, a photo.


    The story sounds ridiculous and the giving away of the photo and “the photographer wants to remain anonymous” spells hoax too.

  35. Little Jessie responds:

    I’m only 21 but i think its a great photo. I did a report on them when I was in 10th grade but way out of practice now. Just joined. Hope to be just as impressed by everything else I see in this site.

  36. DWA responds:

    Other than the Patterson-Gimlin film, I’ve never seen cryptid evidence more interesting than this. OK, I may have to count all those — I mean ALL those — sasquatch tracks.

    Note I don’t say “compelling,” “convincing,” or anything like that. I’m wondering if another Oz marsupial — quoll? native cat? bandicoot? wallaby? — might be what we’re seeing here.

    but this much I’m sure of. It’s an animal. With a very intriguing coat pattern, given what we know of the thylacine.

    That’s enough for me, for now.

  37. DWA responds:


    Not a platypus, or a hoax. This is too well done to be a hoax. (And I have no IDEA where platypus could be coming from.)

    Lay off the Photoshop fumes, guys. Sometimes pictures show what they show. Whatever it is.

  38. Jean Souetre responds:

    This “smells” like a hoax prompted by ulterior motives. For me, the dispositive evidence of a hoax appears in the last paragraph of the piece, in which the author references “disgusting mines,” pollution, etc. This seems to be an obvious effort by an area resident or local nature lover to shut down industry in the vicinity by waving a doctored Thylacine photo.

  39. DWA responds:

    Nope, no hoax.

    Your feelings about mines and pollution (fact: they’re DISGUSTING) has nothing to do with your ability, not to say your inclination, to perpetrate a hoax. This is NOT a hoax. You know how you can tell it’s a hoax? It’s clearly SUPPOSED to be something it clearly ISN’T. Never seen an exception to that rule.

    It’s an animal photo, undoctored. Now: what kind of animal?

    Two requirements for the serious crypto:

    1. A knowledge of Occam’s Razor. (Hint: Occam never heard of Photoshop.)

    2. No axe to grind. (Jean. :-D)

  40. Bob Michaels responds:

    I only hope it`s true, if not back to the Cloning lab.

  41. Bob Michaels responds:

    I only hope it`s true, if not back to the Cloning lab.

  42. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Little Jessie – welcome! :)

    Regarding photoshop – I feel that both this and Emmerichs’ photo are genuine photos of some object.

    It may be plausible that photoshop has been used to blend together multiple images, but I still don’t think so – getting the shadows from the grass correct would be a monumental job.

    However – the shadows give us more information: a flash was used. The story says it was night. I’m pretty impressed by a few things here – that a person got *that* close to a thylacine (at all, let alone at night), and that the camera focussed perfectly in dark conditions – not an easy task for digital cameras, nor amateur photographers using manual cameras or manual settings on digital cameras.

    These are the main reasons I feel that this could be a photograph of a museum specimen which is being displayed in a “real life” scene.

    Regarding the alleged actions of unknown police officer. I won’t voice my own opinion on the matter, but I will report that in Tasmania people seem to be polarised into pro-thylacine and anti-thylacine camps. Actions like the one described are not only not unheard of, but they are in fact remarkably common if all the sightings reports are to be believed.

    However the usual reason for suppressing evidence of the thylacine relates to the logging industry, not the mining industry.

    For those who don’t know, Savage River is on the West Coast and is north of Queenstown where the mines are. It’s a remote area and in the vicinity of Emmerichs’ photographs from 2005. There is a free online PDF book called “Magnificent Survivor” in which the author, Tigerman, talks about the likelihood of 3 remnant populations of thylacines in Tasmania – a small population in the north east (irrelevant here), and two larger ones in the northwest and southwest with the latter two migrating and possibly mixing.

    The present sighting is in the right location for these two latter populations.

    Therefore all the details of the story are, in fact, fairly typical of a Tasmanian sighting.

    If the story is genuine, then should the photographer and publisher choose to do so, they should be able to provide the original images with EXIF information attached so we can establish timeframes, verify the part of the story that says there is a second photo and compare that second photo to this one for consistency in lighting, landscape, etc.

    Naturally, if they *don’t* decide to share this additional information, it doesn’t discredit the claim any, but it doesn’t help either.

    I am hoping they are willing to provide the original versions of both photos and I will gladly add them to my analysis at Where Light Meets Dark.


  43. kittenz responds:

    Nobody wants thylacines to be found alive in the wild more than I do, and I SO wanted to see something I could believe when I read the blog topic, but I’m sorry, I am just not convinced.

    The stripes just do not look right, and too much of the parts of the animal which could positively identify it are obscured. My first impression was “fake”. Not a fake photo, a fake thylacine. I think somebody painted stripes on a dog. The stripes look like they are on top of the fur; you can look through the dark hair and see lighter fur underneath. In all of the photos of thylacines that I have seen, and also the films that were taken of known living animals, the stripes are dense and dark and there is no light-colored fur visible within the dark fur of the stripes. Also the fur BETWEEN the stripes on the genuine thylacines was paler that the rest of the body fur and on this animal it is not. Plus the stripes do not taper sharply down the side in this animal, and in every photo I can find of known living thylacines the stripes not only taper, but they become much more narrow toward the front of the animal.

    I think it is a dog and that somebody painted the stripes on and then photographed it using a bright flash.

    I do not think it could possible be a piglet. Wild piglets do have stripes, but their stripes are longitudinal not transverse as on this animal.

    Oh how I wish this was the real thing, but I am convinced that it is not.

  44. jackowenspillman responds:

    Where would we be without Sky King? You’re like the superman of crypyozoology, according to you.

  45. mauka responds:

    Looks good, right size and right tiger like stripes. All we need to see now is the head and the tail.

  46. jayman responds:

    I will say again, I see no way this can be a platypus. A platypus has hind legs which sprawl to the side like a reptile’s. This animal has vertical hind legs. I’m not saying it couldn’t be faked, but not with a platypus.

  47. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Kittenz – I agree about the lighter fur, the stripe spacing, the stripe shape. However the fur colour may not mean much – thylacine did come in different shades.

    Incidentally, every time I wade through a couple hundred thylacine photos, I am surprised at the variability in stripes. Most animals look pretty much similar, but there are in fact some individuals with far fewer stripes than average, or shorter, or thinner (and hence a wider gap between them)… so whilst this animal’s stripes are quite unlikely from a genuine thylacine, there is probably still a credible possibility. ie, maybe a 5% chance.

    Jayman – I agree about the leg negating a platypus – but if that’s a hind leg, where’s the head?

    Someone linked to a sketch of their interpretation of the photo – at a glance it looked feasible. I intend to study it in more detail and compare it with the photo. If the illustrator is happy to permit me to use their illustration on WLMD, I’ll write up the comparison there.

    Kittenz wrote: “Oh how I wish this was the real thing”… I’m convinced (for a range of reasons) the Emmerichs photos from 2005 are the real thing – even without having seen the original high-res versions.

    At this point I’m not completely prepared to discard this present photo, but I’d like to see and hear more of the story to see how it corroborates the facts as presented in the posting above.

  48. RockerEm responds:

    Idk what to think.This is quite a challenge.The stripes are interesting but aren’t thycalines supposed to have almost a zebra-like pattern where there is white stripes there too?Interesting photo ;]

  49. DWA responds:

    Right, jayman.

    And to others who say this isn’t a thylacine (including kittenz, for all she might have a point): has any of us seen one alive?

    I’d like it shown it isn’t, rather than presuming it from the start.

  50. unitedcats responds:

    This farm raised guy took one look and said “Hmm, why would someone paint stripes on a pig?” Hoax.


  51. big max responds:

    Why be automatically suspicious? I think many of us would agree that thylacine’s still exist in remote Tasmania and even on the mainland (a friend of mine spotted one at close range at Waratah Bay near Wilson’s Prom in 1985). A smaller population surviving through the 1900s may have become a somewhat mutated variation of the original species due to in-breeding. I would say it’s a pup of that sort of background.

  52. DWA responds:

    Well indeed, big max, why be automatically suspicious?

    Skepticism until evidence is produced is one thing. Falling all over yourself to deny something is another thing entirely. Sometimes people here sound as if they just found out Santa Claus isn’t real!

    It’s a picture of a wild animal, until the photographer comes out and says it ain’t. Now…what kind?

  53. Slugwart responds:

    Having lived in Tasmania for 30 years it screams hoax to me. Firstly, the whole story sounds like a episode of the X files. I have never known a Tassie cop to act remotely like the cop in the story is supposed to have acted. What possible reason could there be for a police officer to threaten a tourist over a photo of a thylacine. Is it really likely that the existence or not of the thylacine is a government conspiracy to which the police force generally are privy to.

    Secondly, the photo is very close up. In my experience you don’t simply stumble upon wild animals in Tasmania such that you could get a photo so close. The animal takes off long before you would get this close.

    Having said this it does certainly look like a thylacine. My guess is that it is simply a photo of a model thylacine on display in a museum. From memory I think both Hobart and Launceston museums have displays which look very similar to the setting of this photo.

  54. swnoel responds:

    Opening a full view of this pix, it is clear that there is another stripe in the very lower corner.

    The patch area looks odd and there appears that this animal if alive may have been struck by a vehicle.

    Mange, hair slippage, not sure what were seeing. Color doesn’t look faded enough for taxidermied animal of required age.

  55. Pvolitans responds:

    If the picture purportedly shows a juvenile thylacine, then the next logical step would be to examine what a juvenile thylacine looks like based on existing records. A quick search on Google provides these links (those with access to academic databases might be able to get better pictures):

    Pic 1
    Pic 2
    Pic 3

    Pic 1 shows that the striations on a young Thylacine are fewer and more widely spaced, although the photographic flash used to take the picture of this stuffed specimen has reduced some detail. The more regular, bolder stripes may only appear in more mature Thylacines as an indication of sexual maturity.

    Keep in mind the possibility that the photograph could be of a Thylacine variant possessing less distinct stripes, diminished due to small population inbreeding.

    The ears of the animal (behind the grass) seem to be folded back (typical canid fleeing response with head low, ears tucked back, tail between legs). Assuming this animal was fleeing from the photographer and that it has behaviour similar to that of canids, the ear-folding response is consistent and expected. Has ear-folding when fleeing ever been recorded in marsupials / Thylacines?

    However, the coincidental omission of both the tail and head in the same picture though does raise a red flag. In a quick random snapshot (as it was supposed to be), the probability of having both these features omitted/obscured just doesn’t quite cut it, unless the photo was of course, doctored.

  56. SimpleSimon responds:

    Newbie post here, hi guys =)

    Twas I that found this photo, I’m pretty divided over whether its a thylacine or not, but for what its worth, I dont believe its an intentional hoax. The reason being, I stumbled on the photo during Hours of searching for thylacine sighting related articles and pictures (I was actually looking for the Emmerichs photos, which I never got to see). Anyway, the photo was in a nondescript little post on a pretty small, random site. If you were going to hoax, you’d do it properly and go straight to the top with your shiney photo, not stick it on a blog nobody will read.

    I can definitely see the piglet possibilty, the legs look very wrong for a dog-like, or thylacine-like animal. Also the point about the stripes having a slightly see-through property is interesting. The ‘fur’ looks quite piggy too, but I’ve never seen a pig striped like that.

  57. SPCBAT242 responds:

    i dont know compared body shape to musuem one looks exact.Its not a dog or pig the story doesnt scare me either some people im sure would want to protect them from onlookers tramping through the woods heres the question it looks to good and the floppy ears bother me thought thylacines ears where up right.
    it looks to good i dont know i know its noty a dog even though pit bulls boxers have same stripes but look under neath its middle thgat looks like a premature baby marsupial under itvery small.

  58. SPCBAT242 responds:

    Wheni say premature i mean on ground near front leg

  59. joppa responds:

    My first impression was feral piglet. But besides bandicoots (what a cool name), what else has stripes in Tasmania, because pigs have all kinds of various markings.

  60. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Thylacine ears are as movable as a canine’s ears.

    DWA – any of us can locate footage of a live thylacine. After all – we’re not inspecting a live animal right now, but a photo.

    Interesting point that the photo was posted on an obscure forum. But perhaps (assuming a hoax) it was never intended for a global audience? Just a couple of friends having a joke with each other in a forum that they’re all members of.

    I’m not *saying* this is a hoax, but saying there is a legitimate way to explain *how* a hoax might be designed for the small context of a single online forum. (Oh, and it’s actually not a small forum).

  61. DWA responds:

    youcantry – my point is simply that old footage is all we have to go on; it’s all b/w (right?); and I wouldn’t try too hard to dis this photo on the basis of that, given natural variation among individuals.

    In short: convince me. But I don’t think this is a hoax, at any rate.

  62. black wings responds:

    I have to say, I think the odds of this being real are fairly good. Good compared to a lot of the photos we see on here. It appears to be a live animal and it doesn’t look at all piglike to me (I’ve been around pigs and had friends who raised them) and at the rear, it does appear to have the appropriate thickness that we see in thylacine photos leading into the tail.

    That being said, it is curious to me that the photo was SO good. It is extremely close up and not at all blurry. For an amateur night shot of a clearly retreating animal, it’s amazingly detailed and clear. Also, if this is a pup and an adult was nearby (presumably the pup’s mother) then it is strange that not only did the photographer get close enough to snap this photo, but that he wasn’t treated in an aggressive or hostile manner. We are, after all, talking not only about a mother w/ child, but we are talking about a predator species here.

    This, to me, is the biggest detraction from the possible truth of this story.

    I would also very much like to see an uncropped version of this photo along with the other photo, regardless of how detailed it is. It could at least give us more details on the body shape of the animals in question and at least a glimpse of the adult.

    That could make all the difference in the world in determining the authenticity of the report.

    We could at least rule out the platypus that way, I’m pretty sure 😉

  63. skunkape_hunter responds:

    Could the strips be the shadows from the grass above ? Looks like that to me.

  64. Kushtaka responds:

    The Thylacine has long been my favorite cryptid. I WANT to believe.

    When I 1st viewed the image (before reading the article), I thought, “Too small to be a Thylacine.” Upon reading the article, the photo is said to be of an immature animal. This seemed more plausible.

    For those who have speculated this might be a dead mounted Thylacine, I would suggest that it would have to be of a Thylacine pup. This, to me, seems highly unlikely someone would have access to such a specimen to use as a prop in a hoax. I mean, mounted Thylacine pups can’t be common enough for someone not to notice one missing from its normal display.

    That being said, I am INTRIGUED by this photo and whatever hope it might give to those of us who truly want this wonderful animal to be part of our real and recognized world. To come out of the shadows of cryptozoology and to be welcomed back to the land of the living. This is my hope. I am too fond of this cryptid to give an unbiased opinion of this photo/evidence. Unless something screams “hoax” to me, I will welcome any bits of evidence we can gather and relish any images obtained of these alleged sightings. If some of these are discredited as hoaxes, then so be it. I’m not going to discredit all evidence just to prove I can’t be fooled. The survival of this species is more important than my ego.

  65. DWA responds:

    Nope, Skunkape, those are NOT shadows. That, to me, is one of the plainest things about the photo. Whatever those markings are — and I tend to let Occam’s Razor tell me they are naturual stripes — they are on the animal, for the duration.

    I’m not sure that the inability to match the stripe pattern up with the markings on known photos/footage is necessarily a strike against, either. Individual variation happens. And fact is we haven’t retained enough observation records from enough people to be really sure. We have this nasty tendency to kill off before we catalogue.

    Kushtaka, IMHO, has the Proper Crypto Attitude. Stop trying to see hoaxes behind every bush. Let the story come out, then judge. (And put down that Photoshop manual!) A lot of people who jump on the hoax bandwagon do indeed look like they’re doing it to prove they can’t be fooled. They look silly, to me. Why even come to this site? Real hoaxes, with rare exceptions, tend to be, well, risible.

    Let’s root for Bigfoot for a change, you know?

  66. satarina responds:

    whether the pic is hoaxed or not, i have to laugh a little bit… when we get fuzzy, blurry pics of cryptids, we ask why the pics are never clear. when we get this, which is in focus and not blurry at all, it makes us suspect it’s fake. has all the fakery and hoaxing made us too cynical? will we accept actual photographic proof if/when we see it?

    i’d love for this to be a Thylacine… but until there’s a little more info, i’m not going to even try to decide.

  67. DWA responds:

    Well, satarina, the funny thing is that an excellent point has been made above that the clarity of this photo itself is suspicious.

    As I’ve pointed out on another thread, grabshoot wildlife photography — particularly that of a cryptid, which is one partially because of how well it stays out of sight — should rarely, if ever, produce a clear photo. And from the story provided, this was clearly a grabshoot. In fact, here’s another problem with the story: if the animal was scared BY THE FLASH, as the story says, we shouldn’t be seeing this view of the animal. (At least I don’t think so; maybe they were on the move when the shot was taken, and the flash just sped them up. The story doesn’t say.)

    But you’re right about one thing you’re almost saying: there will almost never be photographic PROOF of a cryptid. Photo EVIDENCE will have to be supplemented by more before science is satisfied. And so with many of us.

    Photoshop is THAT good. 😀

  68. Alton Higgins responds:

    I have reservations about speculations that thylacine pups may have exhibited striping patterns that differed from adult patterns as a basis for considering the recent photo as possibly valid.

    The striping pattern visible in the photo does not appear to be all that comparable to those seen in the old photos. On that basis, I lean strongly towards the position that the photo subject has been misidentified as a thylacine.

    Naturally, I would be more than pleased to be proven wrong. Seeing the uncropped photo(s) could be very helpful. I hope Chris succeeds in his efforts on that front.

  69. mememe responds:

    Well, I’ve looked at this photo and it is plainly a fake. I know such a statement will make me not well liked but its true.

    And I know plenty of you would like me to explain the method used to show this photo as fake, but alas in doing so I also teach the fakers how to make better fakes.

    By the way does anyone know, Thylacine were they pouch breeders?

  70. Tengu responds:

    The stripes are indistinct, but if it’s a pup then they might be softened.

    I have two growing tabby kittens here and it’s interesting to see how their fur changes as they mature.

    Thylacines are hopping animals like kangaroos (only much less so) and so they have bald patches upon their heels.

    Some of the post does seem a bit “X files” but most of the Tasmanians I know would keep quiet about it.

    In the vicinity of mines there may well be just a few people, the animals won’t be disturbed and its possible the locals/miners have seen them popping in and out often and don’t want attention drawn to them.

    Thylacines are shy animals, nevertheless are very curious about people. It wouldn’t surprise me to find them living near people who ignore them. (as opposed to a touristy area when they might get attention.)

    It’s suburbia here, but we have plenty of Roe deer living around. (a similar sized animal) you just don’t see them much.

  71. larzker responds:

    I don’t have time to go through the 50,000 responses to see if this has been mentioned but I think the debate on this should be is it stuffed or real. I’ve seen vacation photos of people outdoors with a real ‘taxidermied’ thylacine. I’m not sure if it was on museum grounds or at a zoo but obviously the general public can have access to stuffed thylacine.

  72. youcantryreachingme responds:

    mememe – yes, pouched young, up to four at a time in a rear-ward facing pouch.

    I agree, exposing the fakes gives ground to others for making better fakes, but that’s going to happen anyway.

    There are plenty of fantastic photoshop efforts that look sensational – all the more so if they are reproducing an apparently “antiquated” photo (say, like a 1920s washed up beach creature… not that I’m saying our mystery fish is fake – I believe that one to be real).

  73. Kushtaka responds:

    DWA, thank you for the kudos.

    I believe the pic is real — i.e., not Photoshopped. I believe the animal is real — i.e., not a taxidermy specimen. Do I believe the stripes are natural or unnatural? THAT is the question I’ve asked myself. It is entirely possible that someone could paint stripes on an animal as a hoax. There have been several animals thrown out there in the debate — dog, pig, platypus, etc. Of these, a dog would be the most likely prop used for a hoax. However, logic tells me that if you are going to use a real animal to hoax a Thylacine, why not an animal the correct size of a Thylacine? Why something so small? This animal is clearly smaller than a full grown Thylacine. This would fit the Thylacine pup claim.

    So, this leaves me with thinking this might be a domestic puppy with spray painted stripes — which, to me, doesn’t sit well. Or, the story is even remotely true and we are, in fact, looking at a fleeing Thylacine pup.

  74. peterbernard responds:

    Well, I’ve done some pranks in my time, so I have to say the reason the “cop” part of the story was included was to explain why we’re not being given the name of the photographer– Because he’s afraid of retribution from a rogue officer, haha. This allows the author of the prank a great deal of leeway to elaborate on the other parts of it without having to answer any real questions that might reveal what it is actually a picture of.

  75. alanborky responds:


    Eek! I dislike being so vehement about this pic because initially the sender seemed so sincere, hence my trying my damnedest to make it, if not into an actual thylacine, then at least something mysterious – but it’s neither; and it’s neither for two reasons: first because, as I understand it, thylacines were vicious little b*st*rds, especially when it came to invasion of their space, and yet whoever took this pic took it up very close; and second because the stripes are all wrong: not only were thylacines stripes at their most concentrated down towards and around the rump, but they were broad only across the spine, being otherwise short, narrow and tapered before concluding in definite points; furthermore, though the stripes along the main torso were perfectly vertical, those around the rump were inclined inward at something like 45 degree angles.

  76. youcantryreachingme responds:

    DWA – the old footage is B/W, but we have museum specimens which give us some indication of colour variation too.

    You’re right, too about photographic evidence never amounting to proof, as I’ve just also mentioned in the more recent Borneo Mammal article here at Cryptomundo.

    Sad, but true. Tantalising, nonetheless – otherwise why do thousands of us flock here with every morsel of evidence that trickles in? 😀

  77. Tengu responds:

    Thylacines do display stripe variation.

    13-18, and some specimens have ghost striping on the tail.

  78. DWA responds:

    youcantry: right.

    That we don’t have comprehensive coat-pattern information for every individual of the species doesn’t mean we can’t say, based on what we know, this doesn’t really LOOK like the thylacine evidence we have to which to compare it. The “great middle” around which variation happens is an important component of review; and I have to admit, the rump stripe pattern on thylacine film/photos/paintings I’ve seen is, well, not quite what’s in this photo.

    But it is so rare to get a photo that is (a) this clear, even though not showing anything conclusive, and (b) not oh so very obviously a fake…I mean, I’m not only seeing tons of posts, but no “that zipper is definitely not a standard sasquatch characteristic” jokes.

    What satarina was talking about earlier is both the good and bad of this crypto game. You don’t want to get jaded by yet ANOTHER phony hunk of evidence, sure. But the more stuff you see, the more adept you get at seeing.

    We hope, eh?

  79. BLinkThylacine responds:

    I cancelled a much longer post in favor of one observation –

    For those arguing about the striping pattern, do note that the bald patch on the rear leg seems to obscure what would be a more typical thylacine stripe due to lack of fur. e.g., the rear stripes from photographs we have from the 30’s wrap across the top of the hind leg, where this photo doesn’t show this. The fur is missing, either from mange or an injury.

    I truly hope one day to pat a Thylacine on the head.

  80. Kelly responds:

    The story doesn’t match the picture. He said he came across this animal and as soon as he shot the photo the flash caused it to run off (it looks like it’s already fleeing or conveniently obfuscated from a clear view). Did he roll over out of a sleeping bag and find it sniffing around and shoot the pic from six inches? How do you come across an animal from point blank? Plus the anonymity issue always detracts from authenticity. This is an animal sighting not a witness to a mob hit.

    Looks like a dingo with a stripe or even some kind of a deer from someplace other than Australia or Tasmania.

  81. Kushtaka responds:

    Close proximity to a wild animal does not necessarily make it immediately a hoax. I live in an area where the vast wilderness and “civilization” brush elbows with each other every day. I cannot tell you how many wild animals of all shapes and sizes I have gotten close enough to trip over! I’ve been so close to wild mother animals with their young that I could have eaten them. Sometimes the animals actually approach me (even with young in tow) or we are quite simply taken by mutual surprise. When this happens, it is common for me to have the animal inspect me for a while before one — or both — of us decides to move on. For me, such close encounters can last up to 20 minutes, even with a camera. Large wild predatory animals have been known to approach me even when I’m operating noisy machinery. Close encounters with large predatory and prey animals has occurred to me time and time again — wolves, bears, deer, wildfowl, etc. I’m not that special. I can’t be the only human who encounters these fabulous beasts in close proximity in their natural habitat, residential, or industrial area. You’d be amazed how many wild animals with little human contact do not fear humans…because they haven’t had enough experience with humans to recognize us as a possible threat. Considering how rare Thylacines are (if they are still in existence), it’s easy to imagine they haven’t encountered enough humans in modern times to fear us. Sometimes, even Nature’s children can be caught off guard. That doesn’t make them any less natural.

  82. kittenz responds:

    OK. Thylacines do show variation in the degree of striping. That’s a fact that is documented with photos, film, and descriptions from life by objective observers.

    But even taking that variation into consideration, the stripes on this animal look fake. Even preserved, stillborn thylacine infant had the stripe pattern ON ITS SKIN, meaning that the color within the stripe went all the way down to the skin – as it does for instance in tigers. Granted that there can be some variation in striping, each stripe is still a solid color, and the stripes on the animal in this picture look like they are on the surface of the fur.

    Have any of you ever seen the results of a dog-grooming art competition? Various breeds of dogs, mostly poodles of course but there are many other breeds that are entered as well, are clipped, dyed, and painted to look like anything from a tiger to a hot-air balloon. No kidding, this is true.
    And what imaginative youngster has not at one time or other painted stripes or spots on the family pet with fingers paint, tempera, or markers? It’s easy and fun and doesn’t even hurt the pet as long as the color is waterbased and nontoxic. It doesn’t take an airbrush. A 39 cent foam brush from Home Depot works just fine.

    I didn’t get the opportunity to see the Emmerichs’ photos; they had been removed before I found this site. I’d love to see them. I believe that thylacines still hang on somewhere, and I WANT to be convinced. I WANT to see photographic evidence that I can believe. If someone did produce a CONVINCING fake photo I’d probably fall for it hook, line and sinker, because I WANT TO BELIEVE.

    I just don’t believe this one.

  83. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Kelly – the sleeping bag analogy is closer to the truth than you might think. Col Bailey – who has commented on thylacine threads on Cryptomundo previously – has a book named “Tiger Tales” which talks of a New Zealander working in the Tasmanian bush who had a thylacine come up inside his tent and sniff at him.

    The allegation that this is a young thylacine adds credence to the possibility of getting up close.

  84. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Regarding stripe patterns, in considering the Emmerichs photos of 2005, Alton Higgins – also a commentator here at Cryptomundo – provided me with a composite image which examines stripe patterns amongst a number of individual, albeit adult, thylacines.

    If you look at Alton’s stripe pattern analysis on my website, you’ll note how close together the stripes are on all animals.

    Similarly, the Tasmanian Museum has photographs of a rug made from eight thylacine skins which show similar characteristics.

  85. swnoel responds:

    Here’s a pretty good photo.

  86. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Just a note. I’ve started referring to this as the Chaotika thylacine. Chaotika is the online name of the person who first published the photo, and the photographer wishes to remain anonymous.

    By dubbing it the Chaotika thylacine I hope to distinguish it from the Emmerichs’ thylacine, and any subsequent photos that may come up.

    Something tells me this won’t be the last one! 😀

  87. kittenz responds:

    Good idea, youcantryreachingme !

  88. kittenz responds:

    Here is a link with a picture of one kind of Bandicoot. There are several kinds but I think that this one is the one to which people are referring.

    Here’s another one:

    These animals are apparently quite small, about 10 or 12 inches body length plus a tail about half the body length. The Chaotika picture does not look much like either of these creatures; in fact the only similarity is that they are both partially striped.

  89. shovethenos responds:

    Well I went through all of the known mammals at the Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service here.

    There is really no other animal that looks remotely like what is pictured above except the thylacine. So in my mind this narrows it down to an actual thylacine or a hoax. Some thoughts on this:

    – Just my opinion, but to me the stripes do not look painted on.

    – Re: A possible stuffed thylacine. I entertained this theory and discarded it. Part of my reasoning:

    (1) The abrasion on the right flank looks too authentic. It’s a healthy shade of pink underneath. Yes, it might be possible to simulate this with paint, but see my next point.

    (2) Although there is a possibility that a thylacine was shot and stuffed recently, the most likely prop for a hoax would be a pre-extinction specimen. That would make the specimen most likely over 70 years old. I don’t think a 70 year old specimen would look as authentic as the one pictured. Even with some touching up.

    (3) Also, a stuffed pre-extinction specimen would probably conform to the conventional stripe patterns we see in all the other pictures and specimens. But in this case we seem to have an animal that has markings similar to a thylacine but unlike any other of the native fauna.

    I’m still up in the air on the authenticity here, but its still compelling and it holds up to a decent amount of scrutiny and skepticism.

  90. Pvolitans responds:

    Anyone noticed how, assuming the head is to the right of the picture, the back of the creature slopes downward from the rear towards its front?

    Thylacines have longer rear limbs, giving them a rear to front downward sloping back and a more loping gait (typical marsupial locmotion). This distinguishes it from the more common animals such as canids and felids.

    That’s food for thought.

    Will be following this article closely. Everyone, keep the opinions coming.

  91. Chinagrrl responds:

    I have been keeping up with this new photo since the first comment went up, but alas, the web is pretty spotty here in Jakarta and I haven’t been able to get back on for more than a few minutes until now.

    I have read all of the posts, and they have already brought up just about every thought I have regarding this new photo. I want the Chaotika thylacine (thanks for the great name, youcantryreaching me!) to be real; I want proof that this wonderful animal is alive. I also want to pet one on the head. I am having trouble with this new photo, though.

    One thing that I find seems very common with many of these photos is that somehow, we are always trying to figure out what we are seeing from the side of whatever-it-is. Like with the 1984 photos from the Aborignal tracker, again, there is simply no head. We are seeing a portion of SOMETHING–but what? Painted piglet? Painted dog? Real thylacine pup? Who knows?

    In the latest photos of some of the new mammals that are cropping up, what leads me to believe them is that you have an entire animal. There is no secrecy about the find. The details of how the photo came to be are provided. Somehow, this makes them seem “right,” and this new photo, “not quite right.”

    I have also come upon wild animals in both the day and the night when I was walking my dog before I left the States, as I lived right by a park. I had foxes, deer, and opposums run near me. On one occasion, I saw an opposum on a fence, and was able to get close enough to observe it for a good 15 minutes. Had I taken any photos of these animals, I could have produced something more akin to the new photos of the latest mammal discoveries. And if I had encountered a policeman, and talked to him, I would have been able to give you a name, too, since I nearly always ask people their names.

    I hope we have not heard the last from the photographer of this animal. I would love to get more information about this photo. Klaus Emmerichs has at least given us his name; has met with Col Bailey; and might go out with Col to look for thylacines. If I ever am able to take even a terrible photo of a thylacine (!) I would be contacting someone like Col Bailey the same day.

    How about it, new photographer? Convince me that this is real. I want to believe you saw what you said you saw. For once, there is even a clear photo. Until then, I am not sure what I am seeing your picture.

  92. SimpleSimon responds:

    The points being made about it not being impossible to get close to wild animals are, of course, valid. Around here we have urban foxes everywhere, a quick walk around the block at dusk and you’re gauranteed to see one. The place isn’t littered with them, but they simply don’t fear us. However, a couple of miles down the road, we’re into more open country where the wildlife, including foxes, etc is far more timid. One day quite recently I was out running in the woods, rounding a corner on the path I came across a wild male fox in excellent condition. He was literally smack in the middle of the narrow track, crossing over in front of me, no more than 5 meters away. I’m not sure which of us was more shocked, for a moment we both just froze. But the fox didn’t bolt straight away, he spared me a few seconds worth of appraising glance, weighing up whether or not I was a threat, before taking off. Had I been walking that day with a camera out around my neck, I could have easily got a great shot of him, broadside on, head cocked towards me, immaculate coat. If I HAD brought a camera, and if my encounter had been with some kind of cryptid, doubtless the resulting photo would be deemed a hoax by many. ‘Far too close up, much too clear.. the animal’s even looking at the camera!’

    All that said, I still dont think we’re looking at a thylacine up there.

  93. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Just pursuing the barred bandicoot option a little further (there are two, by the way: Western – now restricted to two small islands, and Eastern – still widely distributed, but declining in numbers rapidly).

    The natural history museum in Wiessbaden has rearing up on its hind legs. Whilst unlikely a natural pose, (or not commonly a natural pose), it does show the animal’s body proportions could match that of our mystery creature.

    Secondly, Victorian Parks had a photo of an Eastern barred bandicoot published, which showed a reversal in colouration as regards the stripes. It is no longer on their website, but the thumbnail is available via Google’s cache.

    At the same time, this barred bandicoot being handled by a person shows how small this animal really is.

    A little more poignantly, perhaps, so does this one.

    John Gould’s “Mammals of Australia” has an illustration of the bandicoot which rather resembles early illustrations of thylacines also, from 1863.

    Another size comparison shows yet again the apparent reversal in colouration.

    And this museum mounted western barred bandicoot shows the matching body shape (accounting for it being a taxidermy!) including the broad tail-base which was mentioned earlier.

    I’d say an Eastern barred bandicoot is nearly on equal footing with the thylacine in terms of similarity in this photo.

  94. Kelly responds:

    Upon further investigation I think it is safe to say it doesn’t look like Thylacine striping. It has far too few stripes BUT, if it is real and isn’t a creature that is all together from someplace other than where the poster says it is why not entertain the dingo/thylacine hybrid possibility? I still think the story rings false due to the whole backstory of threats from of all people PARK RANGERS!! Since when did park rangers start acting like Mob Hitmen? Too much story usually means too much hooey.

  95. Chinagrrl responds:

    Kelly–I agree that I also have a problem with the “park ranger hitmen” part of this story. It sounds too much like the “reason” that this photographer has to remain anonymous.

    However, re the dingo/thylacine hybrid theory–I don’t think that a placental mammal (dingo) could interbreed successfully with a marsupial mammal (thylacine). The dingo is born at full-term; a thylacine would be born in an embryonic state, and have to go on to mature in the pouch. To my knowledge, when these two branches of the mammalian family diverged in our deep past, they diverged for good.

    Having said that, yes, it does also look like a possible dingo pup with stripes added to it. Maybe, for all we know, that is what we are seeing. No head; no tail; no part that could help give us a clue. Even with a quick shot, I could have taken a more credible photo of a raccoon, or a deer, or a ‘possom.

    But threatening park rangers? Why? I have never met one who acted like that, in any park I have ever visited anywhere in the world. Maybe it is the story that goes with this photo that also makes it seem “not quite right.”

  96. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Dingos and thylacines can’t breed. Also, dingos are on mainland, thylacines – well this one anyway – is alleged to be in Tasmania (offshore).

    Again, I have no personal comment on the alleged human behaviour, but I will point out that such claims are not isolated – in other words, this wouldn’t be the first person claiming to have seen a thylacine to go on and make similar claims about the way in which that news was received. Yes, even down to threats of jail (a story of a man who trapped and killed a thylacine in, I think, the eighties or earlier, comes to mind. No time now to find the reference, sorry, but see for a string of sightings which includes the story).

    Also, have a read of this Tasmanian-Times article by Col Bailey – especially from the sections “Survival would be a long shot” and “Vested interest within this state”.

  97. plesiosaurus responds:

    Interesting pic isn’t it.

    One of the things that suggests to me that it could be thylacine is the upward arch of the back. The pic at the top of the page shows a captive thylacine with an arch or hump in its back, a feature that appears on a couple of the known thylacine pics. The animals appear to have an unusual ability to arch their backs upwards and downwards, as shown in film 4.

    The average hoaxer may not be aware that this behaviour is characteristic of thylacines, so unless its a museum specimen, as some have suggested, the arching of the back in this new pic supports its identification as thylacine.

    And the stripes? The thylacine I saw in 1992 had no stripes, and various witnesses I have spoken to report a wide range of decoration on the coat, both in terms of number and distribution of stripes.

    Eastern Barred Bandicoot? Good call Chris but this animal appears a bit bigger than the average bandicoot, although it’s difficult to be certain without a scale object. And, if the witness is to be believed in his report that the animal was accompanied by a larger individual, then bandicoot looks less likely.

    And – erm – whats this about a Park Ranger threatening the witness?
    “he said a policeman he mentioned it to threatened to take him in for pranking. When he told the cop it wasn’t a prank, the cop told him “You didn’t see anything, understood?”

    On the other hand, I agree with Kittenz (43) who points out that the dark stripes appear to be light underneath, suggesting that they have been applied from the top.

    So – is it a thylacine? Is it OK to say I don’t know? Next time someone takes a pic of a thylacine can they please make it a video, about 3 minutes, from about 5 metres away, in broad daylight? Thats all I ask.

  98. kittenz responds:

    Yes plesiosaurus that would be really terrific!

  99. kittenz responds:

    I don’t think the back looks arched in this photo. I think that what some people are seeing as an arched back is really just due to the angle from which the photo was shot. That curvature to me just looks like the left side of a dog turning slightly to the right, shot from about human eye level with the camera pointing downward at an angle.

  100. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Lol. :) Yes – discussion got off track – the original story mentions police, not parks officers.

    I also don’t think it’s a bandicoot – I just think a bandicoot is as likely as a thylacine. In large part that’s due to the stripes, but also the proximity of the photo and the quality of focus given flash was used.

    Still awaiting more from Chaotika and/or the photographer…

  101. Raptorial responds:

    The back legs look a little marsupialoid, but the head says one thing to me-dachshund. I have a dachshund, and the head is pretty much exactly like hers, right down to the ear backflop.

  102. YourPTR! responds:

    Wow a pretty amazing pic and the best i’ve seen so far! It appears to be either the real deal or a hoax in the form of a stuffed animal or digital manipulation. How did he manage to get in so close? A view panned out showing the animals head and tail would have been so much nicer! Regardless, this is a very exciting development and I look forward to hearing updates. Please keep us posted. :)

  103. youcantryreachingme responds:

    ok – I wonder why the forum account (book of thoth) has been suspended by the webhost? (although the error message says to contact the billing department…)

  104. YourPTR! responds:

    I expect they simply haven’t yet paid their hosting for the month. Looks like a standard message to that effect to me. Let’s hope it is only temporary, I notced that myself earlier and I was looking forward to checking out the comments on that forum!

  105. cor2879 responds:

    The best Thylacine photo to come out since the last one died in captivity

  106. YourPTR! responds:

    Yeah, it’s promising alright. I am glued to my seat in anticipation. Problem is it is still inconclusive. If only we could see the head or at least the tail. It could be anything! Photo shop, museum display, bandicoot (unlikely I think), pig, painted dog or even tantalisingly the real thing! I really hope more details are forthcoming. The uncropped original and the 2nd pic would be great to see and help us in identifying just exactly what is in that image. I’m about 50/50 on whether this is a hoax/misidentification or real at the moment.

  107. kittenz responds:

    I don’t think it’s real. But I hope that somebody somewhere does get pix or film of a real one soon. Surely it is just a matter of time.

    After all, the black-footed ferret (another one of my favorite “extinct” beasties) turned up – critically endangered but alive and in a breeding population – a few years back.

    I hold out the hope that soon, hopefully very soon, the thylacine will too.

  108. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Kittenz – I have a feeling that before the end of 2010 we will have our answer :)

    I don’t know why, or where it comes from, but there you go.

  109. quasi-modo responds:

    I think the Australian government is covering up things, maybe in an attempt to save the precious view animals alive (if still).

  110. kittenz responds:

    youcantryreachingme ,

    I sure do hope that’s so. It would be wonderful.

  111. plesiosaurus responds:

    Party Time
    Happy Birthday Youcantry :)
    Hope you dont have to wait till 2010 to get your present!

  112. Crystalwren responds:

    I would sincerly like to believe this photograph and I do think that it is very convincing. Some thoughts:

    1.) Has anyone thought to analysis the photo for photoshop? I am not a professional, but is there some way to compare pixelation, data compression, things like that?

    2.) One hears stories of Thylacines being sighted in Tasmainia with fair regularity. One also hears stories that there are locals who will firmly deny the sightings because they feel that the best way to protect them is to simply leave them alone.

    3.) I’m inclined to think that the creature in the photograph is alive. Not nessesarily a tiger, but certainly alive.

    4.) The base of the tail looks very thick for a placental mammal, who tend to mave slender, flexible tails. But this could be explained by the angle of the photo and the curviture of the leg.

    5.) It’s highly unlikely that a wild animal would allow the photographer to get so close, but it does happen. It’s happened to me several times and I don’t know who was more surprised, me or the beastie. If the animal in question is indeed a juvenile it becomes even more plausible; young animals are like young children. Careless and unaware of danger.

  113. youcantryreachingme responds:

    hahaha. Did I publish that? 😀 Thank you plesiosaurus.

    Crystalwren – I like your analogy with children – careless and unaware of danger :)

  114. CryptoInformant responds:

    Ha! I remember when I was 5 and grabbed an electric fence. That was the best time I’ve ever had being electrocuted, though the scariest. I can just imagine a little Thylacine checking out a cricket while its mom watches, when some tourist w/ a camera walks by and snaps a photo just after his footsteps alert the pup and it starts running back to its mom.

    P.S. The positioning of the fur reminds me of my Boxor, who does not have stripes, and the head shape looks like that of several puppies I’ve seen.

  115. Crystalwren responds:

    With further thought I feel I must add to my comments above. (And will probably repeat a lot or most of what’s already been said above- sorry.)

    If it is a hoax then it’s quite a remarkably well-done one.

    Firstly, the photograph crops out the two main areas that would provide a definitive identification: the skull/jaws and the tail/rump. While the skull of a thylacine is superficially similar to that of a canid- at least until it yawns- any decent biologist worth their degree would be able to tell the difference; especially if so much as a single tooth were apparent, given the dramatic difference between marsupial dentation and mammal dentation. Even better for identification purposes is the rump and tail area for obvious reasons; the only animal that comes close to the size and hip and tail structure is a wallaby and you’d have to be flamin’ blind to mistake one for the other. The photo also crops out two other important identification areas, the paws and the back legs. I’m not familiar with thylacine paw structure but again, logically speaking it would have to be only superficially similar to that of an equivalent-sized placental mammal. The back legs are again only superficially similar to a canine’s legs and don’t really hold up to comparison. The front legs do look fairly similar, however. It’s a pity that the shot is of the animal’s back and not its belly. Rib structure would surely be helpful, but then there’s always the practical consideration of height difference. (Curses.)

    Secondly, speaking of legs, the witness’s description of running ‘akwardly’ tallies with accounts of the thylacine’s gait; a bizarre ‘hopping’ run.

    Thirdly, to reiterate my point above, getting a clear photograph of a juvenile as opposed to an adult is surely much more likely. Juveniles of all species generally don’t all make it too adulthood. Mostly because of lack of food, but often because they are stupid. They get caught, they can’t catch food, food sees them coming and vacates the area, etc.

    Fourthly, the fact that the stripes don’t match with many known photos actually makes it that much more convincing for me. I’d be suspicious if they were an exact match. It’s simple common sense that the stripes are going to vary from individual to individual, area to area, (possible) subspecies to subspecies. For example, line up all a hundred or so chestnut racehorses with a white stripe on their nose. You’d think that they’d all fit the bill of a single classic stripe down their nose and to a degree you’d be right given the genetic similarity of an given breed. But surely on one end you’d have the beasts with the barest smudge of white between their eyes and on the other you’d have beasts that look as though they’ve dunked their whole head into a bucket of whitewash. A domestic creature is probably not the best example but I’m sure you get the idea.

    If this is a hoax, then the people who set it up have either done their basic homework and/or are very lucky. The beast in the photograph does resemble a piglet. (It’d have to be a domestic piglet, of course.) I’ve no doubt that the beast, whatever the species, was at the time alive. Skin tone, the bare patch on the leg, the appearance of the coat, the appearance of the animal as a whole- I’ve seen a lot of mounted animals in my life, and no matter how skilled the taxidermist it you’d never mistake a mounted animal for a live one, not at any short distance anyway. I’d also think that mounted thylacines are scarce enough for an uproar to be raised if any went missing from a museum.

    This is Tasmania we’re talking about. It’s astonishingly easy to loose human beings who don’t want to be lost; how easy would it be in comparison to hide a smallish, shy species in isolated pockets of some of the most inaccessible country in Australia and New Zealand? Especially if the Tassie thylacine is as suspected, at least partially arboreal?

    That said, if there are tigers remaining in Tasmania (we’ll ignore the occasional reports of ones on the mainland) I fear for their future, no matter how protective of them the locals are. You have the burgeoning population of foxes and other feral species, loss of prey animals and habitat, and add to that, the cancer virus that’s currently wiping out the devils. It’s probable that the virus wouldn’t be able to jump species to the thyliacines- probable, but not impossible. It happens, both in domestic animals and in the wild.

  116. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Crystalwren – just a couple of quick points. I’m going to counter your points one by one – not to be difficult, or necessarily say I personally disagree, but just to show how some of this logic (on both our parts) really can lead us to no reasonable conclusion at all.

    I agree, the missing head and tail are critical, but if this were a hoax, it would not be hard to acheive. Take a photo of a taxidermy which is in situ in a museum. Alternatively, take a photo of a dog with stripes painted on. Crop the photo.

    Remember, we don’t have the original camera-versions of this photo.

    If you’re setting out to produce a hoax using, say, a small painted dog, you have all the time in the world to take a hundred photos if you want, before you get the one you’ll launch on the world.

    I can’t really comment on legs or ribs, as I’ll admit – from photos alone I find the physiology of the thylacine remarkably similar to dogs.

    I agree with you – the liklihood of photographing an independent juvenile is probably higher than photographing an adult.

    I disagree with your logic applied to the stripe pattern. The stripes – as presented – are drastically different to any known image of a thyalcine, including those animals which were sparsely striped. For this to be genuine, we’d also be staring at a striping pattern never documented before. Again, not impossible, but not likely (in my opinion).

    I agree the skin tone implies a live animal, but I want to point out you can’t trust colour as a diagnostic feature. Any image editing software could have altered the hue of the entire image to produce something more life-like from a photo of a taxidermy.

    Again – it may well be a dog which is, in fact, alive.

    I have seen mention here on Cryptomundo that thylacines were presumed arboreal – but I don’t find any such references in the printed literature. I think this is a false conception, although it is true they could jump very well.

    Also, I wouldn’t describe an adult male thylacine as “smallish”. They were easily 4 to 6 foot long and the largest non-human mammal on the island.

    You mentioned ignoring the occassional mainland sightings. Mainland sightings actually outnumber Tasmanian sightings by more than 10 to 1. Actually, some of the most intriguing recent non-Tasmanian sightings are from Irian Jaya near the border of Indonesia and New Guinea (as discussed elsewhere here on Cryptomundo, in the Steve Irwin threads).

    I love the critical thinking, but I think without the photographer coming forward with the original images, we really can’t take this story too much further :(

  117. kittenz responds:


    “I think without the photographer coming forward with the original images, we really can’t take this story too much further”

    I agree. There’s too much room for doubt here, not only with with this photo but also with its “back story” and the way it was originally released.

    I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you are right about unmistakable proof of living thylacines turning up before 2010. That would be a great birthday present for everybody!

  118. Crystalwren responds:


    You’re absolutely right. The reasoning on both our parts leads to nothing, really, except to shake up my former conclusion that the photograph is genuine. Thinking hard about it, I’m tending more towards a hoax.

    I am convinced that the animal in the photograph- whatever it may be- is alive. It’s difficult to explain, but everything about it, skin, fur, colour, etc, tells me that it is a live beast and not a mount or a computer generation. This is an instinctual conclusion on my part so it doesn’t hold up much to logic and reason.

    We really need to see the original photograph and the photos on either side of it. It might help to see the site in situ but since that can’t be achieved, I’d settle for someone trying to identify the vegetation. Verifying that this is, indeed, Tasmania would be the first step towards establishing authenticity.

    I’ll stand by what I said when the difference between the stripes on the beast and the stripes on known specimens of Thylacines isn’t really an issue for me. Within five or so generations it’s possible to breed a stripe-less zebra. Any remaining populations of Tassie tigers would be very small and extremely inbreed, making the incidents of mutations very high indeed. It is strange that if the photograph is faked, the hoaxers did such research as to come up with a very convincing photograph- eyewitness accounts of the gait, showing enough of the beast to look convincing but not enough to make identification of any sort- that they made such an elementary mistake as to get the stripes wrong. Despite my vague interest in the tigers I didn’t know for a long time about their strange way of moving.

    I’ve read very convincing arguments about thylacines being able to climb- I’ll try to find the addresses for you later on this week, but I think I’ve only read the one printed article- and for the life of me I can’t remember where is was from and I can tell you right now that I’ll never find it.

    While the thylacine bone structure is superficially similar to that of a dog (apart from the hips and tail) I don’t think you could really mistake the two.

    Mainland sightings are interesting in of themselves, but I would like to say that I have read an interesting old essay on a creature called a ‘yarra’. I’ve not read anything since other than odd mentions, but according to the essay, the yarra was an arboreal predator with a distinct liking for chicken. It was often shot by settlers as it broke into chook pens and was described as cat-like, reddish fur with wide bands of white around its body. Mention was often made of its spectacular dentation. Marsupial teeth are striking and very prominent. If there is an unknown marsupial predator on the mainland, it might be only superficially similar to a thylacine. That said, it’s worth considering a tiger nicknamed ‘Old Hairy’, found in a limestone hole in the Nullarbor Plains. It’s been carbon-dated at 4 600 years old, but according to The Fortean Times #213 certain of the senior management at the Melbourne Museum dispute this and argue for one years old. The article goes on to further state that there are reports of live sightings around the area, but then, one must take anything The Fortean Times says with a considerable grain of salt.

    Four feet long isn’t very large, but you’re right, six feet is.

    I wasn’t aware of the thylacine being sighted in New Guinea, but then I haven’t read any of the Irwin threads. Could you provide me with any links to that information?

  119. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Some 1997 articles on Indonesian thylacines are available as linked, but I think I must have remembered their mention on the Irwin threads incorrectly. That is – I can’t find them mentioned on the Irwin Cryptomundo threads – or for that matter, on any other Cryptomundo threads; sorry.

    I am very interested in your Fortean Times reference. I hope I can access that online – because I have always struggled to believe that an eyeball and tongue could survive for over 4000 years – even if in an ideal cave environment.

    I have heard of a skeleton found in north-west Western Australia originally dated at 80 years before present, subsequently dated at several thousand years old with the explanation that the sample was contaminated by another animal’s bones when the first date was calculated. However, I have also heard that the contaminating bones were found *under* the thylacine. Information on this specimen is notoriously hard to find – online at least.

    I didn’t realise the Thylacine Hole specimen was nicknamed “Old Hairy”.

    I’m fairly sure the Times is accurate in reporting sightings near Thylacine Hole – as long as you count anywhere along the southern edges of Western Australia and South Australia as “near”.

    Robert Paddle in his book quotes one scientist who inspected the remains of a thylacine killed in the Blue Mountains (New South Wales) in the 1800s. The scientist also mentioned two specimens from South Australia. Aboriginal people from a particular area of South Australia well knew of the thylacine in the early 1800s, although they hadn’t sighted it for close to 100 years at that time. South Australian thylacines were also mentioned in passing in local South Australian newspapers in the 1800s. All of these reports are in the book “The Last Tasmanian Tiger”.

    All of a sudden, Old Hairy’s being less than 100 years old is entirely possible. The 1973 South Australian Doyle footage is entirely possible. The Kevin Cameron specimen may well have been from Western Australia (I’m still not sure of the final verdict in that case). The modern day South Australian and Western Australian sightings still retain plausibility.

    Even in the commentaries here on Cryptomundo, one reader from Western Australia brought new sighting information from a few years back, to light.

    Back to the Chaotika thylacine – I agree it looks very lifelike. I honestly don’t know what to make of it and your point is quite valid that they would have gone to the trouble (assuming a hoax) to create an excellent image and plausible story, only to miss the boat regarding stripes.

    Hmmm. Here’s hoping they share a little more info! :)

  120. kittenz responds:


    Instead of listing here specific sites, of which there are many, I’ll just suggest that you google “Tasmanian tiger, New Guinea” & get a lot of links with lots of information.

    Also check out the Thylacine section here from the list over to the right. There are lots of good reads and many contain links for further investigation.

  121. YourPTR! responds:

    One of the things that is known about the thylacine is that it is extremely resilient to inbreeding. This could very well be the reason it has managed to cling to survival against all odds, presuming it has of course.

  122. youcantryreachingme responds:

    YourPTR! – on what do you base that? I have read a quote from Nick Mooney saying something similar, but I’m wondering where the idea comes from?

  123. YourPTR! responds:

    Just something I have read several places online. Probably extremely wasn’t the right word, more “unusually resilient to inbreeding” would be more appropriate. Anyway I have no reason to disbelieve this. I will have a look see if I can dig the info up.

  124. muffintop responds:

    I love comment 4 from Crystalwren:

    “The base of the tail looks very thick for a placental mammal”

    Yeah, that’s because you are looking at its head. You can’t even see the tail in the picture.

    This is a domestic dog such as a Pinscher with some dye sprayed on it. It looks stationary (no motion blur). It probably took quite a lot of shots to obscure it’s head sufficiently. Nice cover story, but it’s a fake.

  125. kittenz responds:

    I’m open to the possibility that there may be local variants of the thylacine with stripe patterns that vary from those found in Tasmania. Regardless of that, this photo looks fake and its back story is preposterous.

  126. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Kittenz – you’ll have seen my link to Tigerman’s book in the recent “Wildlife Experts Field Cryptid Questions” thread.

    If you haven’t already, have a read through that and you’ll see that the back story for Chaotika’s thylacine makes it fall squarely within normal tiger sighting description – or rather, post-sighting witness experience descriptions.

  127. kittenz responds:

    Yes, thanks, I had already read the Tigerman’s book awhile back… a good read. It’s true that this account falls “squarely within normal tiger sighting description – or rather, post-sighting witness experience descriptions” – maybe too squarely. It just seems too pat to me; it does not have the ring of authenticity about it that some of those sightings have.

  128. youcantryreachingme responds:

    kittenz wrote “maybe too squarely”.

    I’m inclined to agree.

  129. bumodo responds:

    I am going to have to say fake on this one. It is easy to add a few stripes in photoshop or the darkroom, but to miss every possibly identifying feature of an animal takes some talent.

    The whole story seems shaky to me. I don’t think that there is a conspiracy in Tasmania to hide the Tassie Tigers.

    Dan Hill
    Coast to Post – Coast to Coast AM Blog

  130. Marcos responds:

    “You didn’t see anything, understand?” – it’s not an episode of the X-Files.

  131. Chinagrrl responds:

    After reading another hundred or so comments on this photo, I find I still feel most comfortable with my original assessment of this new photo. No head; no tail; no way to figure out what the animal is. Stripe pattern all wrong; no reason to think that the gene pool would now have the thylacine displaying widely-spaced stripes all down the entire back of the animal.

    The photographer could only catch a glimpse of this animal, yet the animal in the photo is still, not a moving blur. The photographer was virtually right on top of the animal, yet could not get any sort of better photo.

    Great secrecy surrounding the provenance of the photo, as well as anything at all about the photographer. A “cover” story that conveniently explains why this must be the case. No more information forthcoming.

    I still arrive at my original feeling about this one. It still just isn’t “quite right.” I want to find evidence that the thylacine is out there, right now, in 2006. I just am not finding it at this time through this photo.


  132. 2jboys responds:

    If the flash scared the critter, the first picture taken should have been of its startled face. There’s also something not right about this photo – the animal doesn’t appear to be in motion, and the shadows from the blades of grass on its back don’t look right. Combined with a questionable story and the fact that the original poster has not been back with any more information, convince me this is a fake, unfortunately.

  133. mememe responds:

    Does this uploaded pic help?

    When the link loads click the main picture to see the larger version.

  134. youcantryreachingme responds:

    2jboys – the original poster has responded to my attempts at reaching her – but there can be days between messages.

    I am waiting on another response, to my request for permission to publish an update on the story.

  135. youcantryreachingme responds:

    … and my update on the Chaotika thylacine is now online – just click on my name and then the announcement.

  136. vaughan responds:

    As a professional photographer for 30 years, and an amateur naturalist all my life I would say that this is without a shadow of a doubt, a hoax. I have just checked out the image in Photoshop as well.

    The duration of a camera flash (tube) is effectively instantaneous – we are talking about 1000th’s of a second… which would give a similar sized ‘mammal’ no time whatsoever to startle and mobilize! The marsupial thylacine had a brain 40% smaller than a counterpart mammal – making it allegedly much ‘mentally slower’. The flash illumination does not fall off beyond the animal indicating that the area above and below it are in the same plane. The beast, is therefore lying down. The photograph would appear to have been correctly exposed and I believe that it has been ‘darkened’ afterwards for effect.

    In my humble opinion this is nothing more than a dead Red Fox, (Vulpes vulpes), suitably decorated for the occasion.

    PS, wherever the subject was photographed, the fox has been introduced to Tasmania – how irresponsible can you get!

  137. tassie responds:

    There are many Tasmanians that are of the opinion that perpetuating the myth of the Tasmanian tiger diminishes the acceptance and responsibility of having persecuted it to extinction…… it has also added to an over scepticism amongst Tasmanians that have had a generation of questionable? reported sightings with NO real physical (none? no fur, no roadkill, no carcasses, no scat nothing) or even remotely plausible photographic proof…….. this scepticism has influenced more recent issues such as foxes establishing themselves as pests in Tasmania. This due to Tasmanians being very hard to convince of their existence. The old “ill believe it when i see it with my own eyes, mentality” the reality being we definitely do have foxes and we definitely don’t have tigers, people believe we have tigers but cant be convinced we have foxes…(major environmental disaster unfolding, yet nobody believes its true)
    Such a very sad state of affairs, now our only other endemic carnivorous marsupial the Tasmanian devil is facing extinction due to a rare cellularilly transmissible cancer, (DFTD) with the possibility that’s its trigger is linked to agricultural or forestry related chemical contamination, unproven but certainly very plausible. Also very embarrassing to both these industries and the government for allowing this tragedy to unfold. As long as the mythical notion of the last thylacine is kept alive the enormity of our impact on this island is diminished, to drive two endemic, incredible animals to extinction in less than 100 years is simply unforgivable, Time to take responsibility and accept the truth, its gone and we are to blame, I would like to think we have learnt a lesson but I fear we have not.

  138. youcantryreachingme responds:

    Arguably the Eastern quoll is your second endemic carnivorous marsupial… but that’s a minor point :/

  139. eliza responds:

    I’m young, but I know enough about tassie tigers to know one when i see one. In that picture i know for a fact that it is a real tassie tiger i have compared it with some other pics of tassie tigers and its the same. i am obsessed about them and i know that it is one. do not listen to what other people think cause they are wrong it is definitely real.

  140. nu responds:

    Those are not stripes. They are an illusion created by the shadows of the larger stems. The fact that the smaller shadows cast on the animal by the smaller stems are exactly the same shade/tone/colour is a clear indicator.

    It looks very much like a small dog with what appear to be floppy ears.

  141. joshuafelipe responds:

    This has all the signs of a hoax. Here are a few.

    (1) It’s totally absurd that the person who took the photo would be afraid to reveal his identity because he’s afraid of the police. That sounds like a lame excuse for hiding the identity of the supposed photographer, and avoiding closer scrutiny.

    (2) It’s totally absurd that the police would be deliberately suppressing evidence that the tiger is alive and well — least of all because of financial interests. Tasmanians would stand to make millions and millions of dollars if the tiger is still alive.

    (3) The supposed photographer called the animal a ‘striped puppy kangaroo thing.’ This suggests he had never heard of the Tassie tiger — one of the world’s most famous animals — even though he was out in the Tasmanian bush with a camera taking pictures of animals. This even more totally absurd than (1) and (2). The description is a feeble attempt to portray the photographer as innocent and honest, while also sounding like it must be a tiger: “If he doesn’t even know what a Tasmanian tiger is, then how could the photo possibly be fake?”

    (4) I can’t understand what the rest of you are saying about the photo. No legs of any kind are visible. Where are the tiger’s legs??? Assuming the right hand side is the front of the animal, then it seems to have a short stump for a front right leg, and a slightly larger stump at the back right. What is this? A double-amputee tiger? Also, no head is visible. You can’t see any part of the animal’s head. HELLO!!!! Isn’t that a bit odd? I mean, if you were going to fake a picture of a tiger using some other animal, isn’t that exactly the part you’d have to leave out. Y also can’t see the tail, which is another part you’d have to leave out if, for example, your picture was actually of a platypus…

    (5) The body shape, as noted by others, is exactly like that of a platypus. If this is in fact a platypus, then you would expect the faker to have real trouble making (a) the head and (b) the legs and (c) the tail look convincing, since a platypus’ heads and legs and tail are not even remotely tiger-like. Maybe that’s why the legs are TWO LITTLE STUMPS and the head and tail are INVISIBLE.

    (6) As noted by others above, there’s a strange pink patch at the back right of the animal. That strange pink patch is exactly where the faker would have to mess around with the image to get rid of the platypus foot. So what we have is a stumpy, indistinct leg with a strange pink patch. Surely this is a totally obvious fake??

    This seems to be a photo of a platypus, crudely patched up, cropped, and given a silly and obviously false back-story.

  142. egerniaman responds:

    I always thought this could be a photo of a zebra duiker. Not to say an african antelope is running wild in Australia, but that someone photographed one and is passing it off as a Thylacine

  143. Squiver responds:

    This photo certainly is a hard one to make a call on.

    It does have a genuine feel of a realistic animal to it, and if it’s a photoshop job, it’s a damn good one. The reflection of the camera flash and the contrasting shadow on the back of the creature are in perfect congruence, starkly visible, and the fur pattern seems small and fine enough to be appropriate for the small creature (which would usually not be the case if the striped pattern fur was cropped off of an image of an animal with similar stripes, such as a tiger).

    However, I think I might be leaning towards the comment about the photoshopped platypus. References have been made to the odd taper of the leg as I agree, but I was also trying not to dismiss the aforementioned “padding” on the back of the leg, and also, the seemingly strange “toes” that fold under the said foot. After hearing the suggestion of the platypus photoshop, it occured to me that that padding and foot could just as easily be the webbing of a platypus (er,) foot, photoshopped so as to best look like the foot of a conventional mammal.

    This is all not to mention the fact that, unless I don’t understand the process of pickling (which is very possible so don’t give me a whole lot of credit for anything I say…), there are pickled specimins of Thylacine pups at the Thylacine museum, and though they have no fur patterns left on them they are certainly not shaped anything like the subject in this photo; in fact, they most closely resemble a miniature sized version of their parents in proportion perfectly, as is much the case in most marsupial species (again, I’m no expert).

  144. Squiver responds:

    In addition I don’t know if you can find these photos of the pickled pups online directly, but I know I saw them in a video on the Thylacine by the “Animal X Natural History Unit” on Youtube, on part 8 I believe of their attempted information gathering of the Thylacine (I’m really not sure who they are…)

  145. moonandtheriver responds:

    I’m not seeing a platypus bill for the head, the first thing I thought of was an ear, like on the other side of the head. I see two visible dog type ears. The head would be hidden between the ears probably pointing downward or lower to the ground, as puppies & young dogs tend to slink away a bit when scared. At least in my experience. Looks more dog like to me than platypus or pig. Whether its a dog, dingo or Thylacine I have no idea. I certainly hope its a Thylacine.

  146. Farrah_01 responds:

    Hmmm… let’s see. This photo is obviously photo shopped or whatnot because of many reasons, actually. The top silhouette of the animal shines unnaturally and is faded into the stems of grass that sprouts in front. Plus, the shadow beneath the animal is too dark, no sign of ground can be seen within the shadow, which makes it obvious that the photo is just a hoax.

    As for the animal:

    The thylacine’s striped are skinny and close together, these, however, are quite thick and go up all the way to the neck while the thylacine’s striped only went from the tail to the mid-part of the back. And the striped aren’t light brown as portrayed in the picture above but dark brown.

    As for what animal this might be… perhaps a smaller animal considering the thylacine was not this tiny, maybe a numbat, a small marsupial with stripes, could be the cause of this hoax.

  147. HawaiiDiverMom responds:

    Just noticed that the cubs and mother lack the white stripes that are seen in some adults, as seen here.But seem to be much darker than above posters pic.

    Here is the same group of juveniles and mother one year later

    stinks that they are in B&W, makes it very difficult to distinguish shades of coat color, but it gave me a decent reference for size in a juvenile TT. That I didn’t have before. Assuming that the photographer is not freakishly tall or freakishly short. When I saw OP’s photo, I thought, that seems rather small. But, and this is not to say I believe it is a TT, it SEEMS to be relative in size to the proven photos of TT juveniles.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.