This is the trouble isn't it. It's always going to be like a 'B' picture with no third act. Because there's nothing there. You can role play it to just short of a climax. This is why Waters is going to run out of steam when the last of these five videos has got old. It does irritate me that trying to make money out of it. Especially when I also get the impression he's so anti debate over on his page.
I'd expect traffic on that site to plunge once the initial interest/publicity has died down. The TRU site also gets sudden peaks of interest/response after any new expose but they are shortlived too.
I was just over there now reading, and they are going on about "trolls" (which I take to mean anyone who doesn't believe them). They have started up a lot about Big Cats on the page as well - like I said above, Australia's a pretty crowded continent!
Meanwhile, outside the TAGA FB page, the footage is bombing. Normally I'd take no satisfaction in that. But, I just don't like the way Waters has behaved. He's not, in my opinion, dealing with his 15 minutes very gracefully. He's posted publicly, to purposely ridicule, private messages he's received from people who clearly may not be that well. He's tried to stifle any debate, at least that's my impression. And what's the worst f it in my opinion, he's relegated the tiger to a parody by trying to pass a sick fox of as one. Anyway, two videos down three to go.
I'm going to try and ignore the Facbook group from now on. It just annoys me But yeah, it's that situation where a group is predominantly inwards-looking so they give each other the impression that they are the majority view (e.g. the video shows a thylacine) when outside of their own circle everyone else can clearly see they are talking nonsense for the most part. I will wait with "anticipation" for his next videos though...
I agree. It's pointless, he'll have his few moments in the flickering light of a couple of fox videos then go back to whatever it was he did before. A few people will part with their cash, but I doubt very many or very much. I'm looking forward to the other videos too though.
'Search for the Thylacine' has now become largely electronic (i.e.via internet videos etc) but still no better evidence is being produced than the older searches did, despite the much larger number of searchers, the use of video and remote cameras etc etc. Its all just helping to generate more and more confusion though.
Here's some video I found of a supposed thylacine sighting. Funny how they always manage to be such poor quality. https://weather.com/science/nature/news/tasmanian-tiger-wolf-instinct
It seems there is a similar problem in the USA. Sightings of 'alien animals' are often really coyotes with mange. Dead, skinned raccoons have also been identified as 'chupacabras' or the like. I have seen a genuine 'goatsucker' - an alternative name for a nightjar.
that's alright, but you are correct they always are of poor quality. Because if they were of good quality they wouldn't be able to be used as "evidence" (or, conversely, everyone would now know that thylacines aren't yet extinct). Like probably everyone here, I would love someone to come up with a genuine thylacine video which showed clearly that it isn't a fox or whatever, and which isn't obviously a photoshop job. But I don't think that is going to happen, ever. I think the "believers" who promote blurry fox videos genuinely do think that "disbelievers" are close-minded and are simply refusing to "believe" thylacines are not extinct because they have some agenda to do so. When in reality all "we" ask is for some solid evidence - of which there is none. All the actual evidence points to thylacines being extinct. If solid evidence is produced to show otherwise, then "our" viewpoint changes. It sounds like a cliche to say it, but that's how a scientific process works. Otherwise all you have is a belief system.
I've only seen a still (not a video) of a bounding Wallaby, a video would give away its true identity, but yes, they could also feature too.
Whereas 'theirs' never need change, proof or no proof.; Actually I still keep an open mind about them being rediscovered in Tasmania, or even being found in New Guinea, (but not in mainland Australia) though I think it highly unlikely.
I would like them to be rediscovered, and if there should be verifiable evidence that they exist I would embrace that, but I unfortunately do not believe it to be so.
