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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wheni say premature i mean on ground near front leg
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.
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).
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.
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 😉
Could the strips be the shadows from the grass above ? Looks like that to me.
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.
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?
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.
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. 😀
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
THIS IS A DEFINITE FAKE!
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.
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? 😀
Thylacines do display stripe variation.
13-18, and some specimens have ghost striping on the tail.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here’s a pretty good photo.
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! 😀
Good idea, youcantryreachingme !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 tasmanian-tiger.com 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”.
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.
Yes plesiosaurus that would be really terrific!
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.
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…