Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Thylacine post 1936 sightings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Cryptozoology - mystery quadrupeds
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anome_Offline
Faceless Man
Joined: 23 May 2002
Total posts: 4895
Location: Left, and to the back.
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-05-2012 02:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm concerned by the number of typos on a webpage maintained by the Australian Museum.

The questions raised are interesting, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-05-2012 18:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like looking at the pictures, I can't see how they can say that it could have been a mount though.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anome_Offline
Faceless Man
Joined: 23 May 2002
Total posts: 4895
Location: Left, and to the back.
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-05-2012 18:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does seem odd that they would have used a stuffed thylacine in exactly one photo, since none of the other photos show it in the same pose.

I think it's more likely that it was posed by using a dead chicken to lure the thylacine into position for the photos. The question then becomes was it done to deliberately undermine conservation efforts, or at least to justify the continued cull, or was that a decision made by the Museum when they got the photos, or is it all an unfortunate coincidence?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-05-2012 19:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not one for conspiracies so I'd go for unfortunate coincidence.

I don't think it was shot in a zoo though I think it was in private hands.
Back to top
View user's profile 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 01:20    Post subject: Extremely compelling thylacine story from the 60's. Reply with quote

Came across this;

http://thylacoleo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2932

on a another site I've taken to reading recently, on advice from another poster here.

Personally I think that story rings true, it's not sensational and doesn't appear to be connected with selling anything. Apparently the author as well as being a keen conservationist was absolutely loaded.

Interesting photo there as well.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 02:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks like a stuffed specimen plonked there for the camera.
However that unsensational account seems quite convincing. If people can encounter them without trying then surely it ought to be worthwhile somebody organising a proper search.
Back to top
View user's profile 
amyasleighOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 03 Nov 2009
Total posts: 474
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 10:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fascinating link. (I concur with Bigfoot73, that the picture looks contrived.)

I agree that the account’s matter-of-fact nature is a point in favour of its truthfulness. Also in favour, I feel, is that the author tells that he did not, himself, see the animal involved – though I suppose that a contrary view could be taken here, along the lines of “an extra link in the chain of reporting – the more links, potentially the weaker...”. Account is from 1963 / 64, nearly half a century ago. I can readily accept the species’s flesh-and-blood survival at that date; but opine with oldrover, very regretfully, that it seems 99.75% (or more) untenable nowadays.

Once again – people almost never seem to get lucky with cryptids ! The TV people responded to the author’s invitation to come and film the thylacine, but they messed it up...

Thylacine, and Bigfoot, appear to be two cryptids re which the water is still further muddied, by actual or potential complications involving “the powers that be” and their putative doings / wishes. The prominent wildlife official reportedly consulted by the author, stating that capturing a thylacine was forbidden by law (presumably a part of the species’s fully-protected status, granted in 1936, far too late); plus his saying “We know there is a tiger in your vicinity because we have taken plaster casts of his foot marks [in a location] reasonably close to you, but we want no publicity.” This would seem to chime in with the opinion ventured quite often; that “those in charge” in Tasmania know – or knew between 1936 and whatever may have been the date of extinction – of the thylacine’s surviving in the wild. That information “kept under wraps” by them, however -- they deeming that, the best chance for the species’s continuing survival; and / or at the behest of vested interests which are best-served by its being believed that the species no longer exists.

In the extremely unlikely event of the situation described in the piece linked-to, being repeated today somewhere in Tasmania; I wonder what would be the response now, of officialdom-re-wildlife, if consulted by the “finder”?
Back to top
View user's profile 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 17:31    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think that the photo is of a live post 1936 thylacine. Its face is good though, much better than the stuff it and hope for the best style of taxidermy you normally see. That's remarkable enough in itself.

Quote:
However that unsensational account seems quite convincing. If people can encounter them without trying then surely it ought to be worthwhile somebody organising a proper search.


To echo what Amyasleigh said it was nearly fifty years ago, there was no real doubt they were still around then, it's a different story now. Their existence now, while not completely impossible, would be a miracle.

I think the best we can do today is try and preserve what little we did know about them, because I think even that is under threat.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 18:36    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can vaguely remember FT mag featuring the discovery of tortoises in Denmark 1500 years after the Romans were thought to have eaten the last one. Some would have us believe there are still specimens of megalania prisca
alive and well in SE Australia 40 00 years after the most recent fossil find although interest in finding one is understandably low.

I agree with Amyasleigh, it seems odd that the Australian government should go to the trouble of drafting and passing legislation to protect a species which apparently died out years previously. Covert conservation or not maybe there are grounds for hope.
Back to top
View user's profile 
amyasleighOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 03 Nov 2009
Total posts: 474
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 20:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:

I agree with Amyasleigh, it seems odd that the Australian government should go to the trouble of drafting and passing legislation to protect a species which apparently died out years previously. Covert conservation or not maybe there are grounds for hope.

Slightly crossed wires over detail here, I think. Robert Paddle in his book "The Last Tasmanian Tiger", recounting the tragi-farce of relations between European man and the thylacine, tells of how the Tasmanian Government put in place under law, total protection for the thylacine with effect from July 10th 1936; at which time it was generally supposed (which the balance of evidence would seem to bear out) that a few of the species survived in the wild. This law was passed very much too late, and subsequent to a number of decades over which the Government had paid a bounty for every dead thylacine brought in.

Paddle muses ironically about the last thylacine ever seen alive for totally certain -- the Hobart Zoo's solitary specimen, which died on September 7th 1936. He whimsically wonders whether, in the 59 days between enactment of protection, and death of the last known-for-sure member of the species, anyone thought to go to the zoo and tell the good news to the forlorn solo inmate...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anome_Offline
Faceless Man
Joined: 23 May 2002
Total posts: 4895
Location: Left, and to the back.
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 26-06-2012 20:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

The picture of the thylacine does seem oddly lifeless, like a stuffed animal plonked in the grass, but so do the pictures of the Devil and the Tiger Cat. It could just be the photography, or they could all be stuffed.

Legislation to protect thylacines is probably more an indication of its status in the public consciousness. Certain elements of the environmental lobby campaigned for it in the hope that there were some still out there. After all, if there are any, we don't want people to start shooting them so they go extinct again.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-06-2012 07:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thylacine received legal protection in 1936, it wasn't declared extinct until 1986. At the time of this encounter they were still considered to be out there, as Amyasleigh says rightly.

But yes you're right BF it is a strange situation. I'm a freak for these and have been for 25 years, but I'm not sure what their exact status is. On Tasmanian Government statements you find one paragraph stating they're extinct, then a few lines down they'll say 'presumed extinct'. Then they'll say about them being legally protected.

Quote:
After all, if there are any, we don't want people to start shooting them so they go extinct again.


Not really no.

Thylacines are 100% definitely likely to be extinct.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anome_Offline
Faceless Man
Joined: 23 May 2002
Total posts: 4895
Location: Left, and to the back.
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 28-06-2012 10:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

oldrover wrote:
The thylacine received legal protection in 1936, it wasn't declared extinct until 1986. At the time of this encounter they were still considered to be out there, as Amyasleigh says rightly.

Not really. They were considered to be extinct after 1936. It's what we were told in school. They waited before making it official, but they usually do.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 28-06-2012 15:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Not really. They were considered to be extinct after 1936.


Who by?

There was plenty of official conservation activity aimed at the thylacine well past that period as late as the 60's. A official expedition just before the war found evidence of a population still in the wild, as did Guiler far later, the main authority on the animal.

The 1936 extinction date is in hindsight, nothing more, at least in an official sense and in the minds of those who were actually conducting the active studies of the animal that anyone's subsequent information would be based on.
Back to top
View user's profile 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2227
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-07-2012 17:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading an Australian government web page today and came across this;

Quote:
Examination of photographs taken of alleged thylacine sightings have generally revealed the animal in question to be a feral dog with striped markings. The most intriguing of these was a report made in 1977 of a group of thylacines, including a female with young in her pouch, somewhere on the New South Wales-Victorian border. Some photographs of the sighting were published in the press and appear convincing. Scientists are reluctant to say any more without hard evidence.


It's a long time ago now in the sense of current news, it's even before the sighting by Naarding, and I'm sceptical in the extreme about mainland sightings, but still has anyone here heard of this?

Edit, just looked about a bit and found this story repeated in a few places, what I'm really looking for is any word on the photos.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Cryptozoology - mystery quadrupeds All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group