Suppression, denial, dark forces in industry and government, closed minded science, they're all essential elements of a typical cryptozoological plot. You can do what you like if you stick to this format.
that's exactly right. It can't be argued against with any sort of reason because the answer is simply "they don't want you to know the truth" or that you "have been fooled by them" or whatever. The basic root is that none of these idiots have the slightest idea about how science (zoology, or whatever branch is relevant) actually works and so their obvious answer is "government conspiracy". It's like Creationists and their utter ignorance of any sort of science which allows them to say things like "tide goes in, tide goes out, nobody can explain it" and therefore God did it. You see the ignorance too in "theories" about "cross-breeds" - hybrids always come up in cryptozoology. These sort of people are the ones who give cryptozoology such a bad name, especially because the idiots are always the most vocal of any group. They are just too stupid to know they should maybe stop talking and listen.
Take Waters. He's put up a video of a fox. Everyone with even the most basic knowledge of tiger anatomy can see that. So he says, it's a mainland subspecies. And, I've had that confirmed by 'palientologists'. Call him on why no one else has ever heard a peep about this, and all he has to do is play the conspiracy card. "They've told me, but they won't admit publicly because...." He has made a mistake though, he's named the WA Museum as one of his sources. Not an employee, not a private source from inside, but the institution itself. "I just want people to be educated about the Mainland subspecies that has been confirmed by WA Museum and other Palientologists I know"
I'm confused on how these people can claim that these foxes are a mainland subspecies but then also claim that the mainland population is descended from introduced animals from Tasmania... ~Thylo
I think with those two things combined you'd have two versions depending on who you talked to: 1) all mainland thylacines are derived from Tasmanian introductions. This would negate any "mainland subspecies" idea though. 2) there were already mainland thylacines, it is just that some other ones were introduced from Tasmania. That's what the TAGA lot appear to be saying.
Waters is the one claiming the subspecies to try and cover the discrepancies in his fox video. While the one claiming that the mainland species are descendants of tigers taken there from Tasmania and released (by fishing boat by the way). His claims though, are more about Tasmania. He has to remain anonymous though, because he's had death threats. So he can't show any of his 'good' photos. He can only appear on radio, and show a picture of a macropod's back end. In case they work out it's him. But, apparently, this hasn't stopped the two getting together. Waters, who hasn't had death threats yet, has been to see this man at his home. Has seen the photos, and can vouch for them. God help.
I listened to this second man's radio interview a few months back when it first came out, although I couldn't tell you why. And I got a strong idea that he wasn't so much a hoaxer, as a practical joker.
that was the exact impression I got too - the whole thing was a joke call. I couldn't tell if the radio host was playing along or not; he seemed to be stringing the guy along, but I'm not familiar with him so it was hard to say. Anyway, it was just the way he would suddenly pop out gems about reports that suddenly vanished, or his pauses as if he was thinking things up on the spot. Best of all his "we bred dogs for ten generations to test whether we would get any genetic faults and we got a genetic foot fault, and I've found thylacine footprints with that exact foot fault". And then Waters claims to have been to see the guy and seen all his photos - but of course he doesn't need to prove this because "it has to remain quiet", and so it provides traction for his own agenda. The whole thing becomes self-sustaining.
heh, I just read on their page (you're right, is like a scab you can't help picking at!) someone asking why they couldn't compare the dimensions of the Western Victoria "thylacine" with a known photo (specifically the one with the chicken in its mouth) and there was a reply that the chicken photo was 'a tasmanian tiger not the mainland variety". Then a little bit further on: "Would the head size, in proportion to its body, suggest that it is a youngster?" Neil Waters "Yeah or a mini" Neil Waters "There "was" a mini mainland subspecies"
Is this what's confusing him? PLOS ONE: Could Direct Killing by Larger Dingoes Have Caused the Extinction of the Thylacine from Mainland Australia? I think it might be. Especially if he didn't read the actual paper, and only picked it up in the media. At the moment, I'm trying not to ask him.
I think you'd be right. I had a look for some news articles from 2012 and they do make much of the smaller size. This one - Claims dingoes 'wiped out' Tasmanian tigers - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - says ""A male thylacine was about the same size, maybe a little bit smaller than a dingo. But a female thylacine was about the size of a fox; it was really a lot smaller than a dingo," says UNSW research fellow Mike Letnic." Basically there was probably a cline in size from largest in Tasmania to smallest in the far north and New Guinea (I mentioned this specifically, actually, in this thread: https://www.zoochat.com/community/posts/672912). I've never heard of them being divided into subspecies though (given that they have been extinct a long time everywhere except Tasmania), but I doubt Waters knows what a subspecies is anyway. And his "proven by palientologists from the WA Museum" is probably because the specimens in the study were from WA.
You just have to accept, a lot of people who post seemingly stupid comments on there are entirely new to the subject... Every site has some value though. I trawled through all the photos (meeting along the way, as noted above, our Fossa friend photoshopped by early Zoochat member Patrick some years ago) and came across the early 'Birthday Bay Helicopter photo' of 1957(?) (I thought it was a bit later.) I have never seen that one before. Image is the usual blurry one but animal looks bulky and dark- it would seemingly fit the description of a large dog that was I believe discovered there later. There are some less gullible people posting on there and a lot of general Thylacine discussion too, outside of 'mainland thylacines'. Lots of folk have chipped in just recently it seems. (The T.R.U. page is rather quiet by contrast at present.) But he warns that 'doubters' will be removed... I am somewhat overwhelmed too by all these modern would- be Thylacine searchers. In the old days it was just the accepted experts of their day- Eric Guiler, Ned Terry, Parks & Wildlife etc. Now all and sundry have jumped on the bandwagon- but still with no proof. What does that say?
1. I would dispute the sex/size difference, at least to that extent. The old Hobart zoo photo often given as evidence of such sexual dimorphism is actually of two males- an adult and a much smaller juvenile. No doubt there was a sexual size difference, but I would imagine it was slight, no more than in e.g. Devils and Quolls(?). There are several photos- mostly ZSL ones that appear to depict females. In these animals the head looks rather less top-heavy. and I imagine the photo of two Thylacines lying closely side by side in the Hobart Zoo does show a bonded pair- an adult male and female-for comparison- they are similarly- sized though the female(?) is slightly smaller, with a less heavy head. 2. As discussed on the other thread, I do agree about the cline theory. Almost certainly, as in other marsupials like Koala( and others?) But by the smaller geographical distance, the Thylacines of the southern parts of mainland Australia would have still been closest in size to those in Tasmania.
Yes, that is the sort of umbrella explanation for why the proof is never actually forthcoming. They've got it, but they can't show it. Meanwhile, they and others carry on their 'searches' and discussions about what to do if one was actually found, but why bother if they already know it exists?
it does seem that way. Reading some comments, a lot of them only found their way there because of the publicity Waters is getting in newspaper articles. A lot of the people on the page seem to know very little about thylacine-cryptozoological lore. Just a few minutes ago someone posted that Spanish footage from Youtube of a starving dog, which has been around for years.
they do consistently say throughout the paper things like "it is thought this is due to sexual differences" or "we presumed the smaller ones to be females" [not direct quotes]. I think the only options are sexual dimorphism (which is what they are going with); extreme variability between individuals; or that there were actually two different species living side by side (which is probably unlikely but I'd be betting nobody has looked at genetics of mainland thylacine remains).
This is all rather reminiscent of the ongoing theories about big cats living wild in the UK. Nobody ever produces a decent or believable photograph, and the advocates are secretive.
oh there are Big Cats in the Australian bush too. It's a pretty crowded continent actually, with thylacines aplenty, big cats, yowies, diprotodons, Megalania, Thylacoleo...
