Thylacines in Tasmania (New photos from 1st March 2021)

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Article:
Waters states in the video he has handed the images over to Nick Mooney, a thylacine expert, at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG). A TMAG spokesperson said Mooney has now reviewed and assessed Mr Waters material on Tuesday afternoon, local time.

"Nick Mooney has concluded, that based on the physical characteristics shown in the photos provided by Mr Waters, the animals are very unlikely to be thylacines, and are most likely Tasmanian pademelons," TMAG told CNET. Mooney added the still images are "not so exciting."
[..]

The Tasmanian Government's Department of Parks, Water and Environment believe any sort of group would likely suffer from inbreeding, making long-term survival untenable. "Even if there did exist a few remaining individuals, it is unlikely that such a tiny population would be able to maintain a sufficient genetic diversity to allow for the viable perpetuation of the species in the long-term," it writes.

"Nobody can adequately look at a video and say that's definitely a thylacine, without some DNA evidence," says Andrew Pask, a marsupial evolutionary biologist at the University of Melbourne. "We've got to have a hair sample, a scat sample, something that can back it up."



All we're relying on him for is his testimony that these are current actual pictures from a trailcam. Do you have reason to believe he can't be trusted that far?
I think those pictures did come from a trail cam the way he said. I don't see him as a hoaxer, but I think he's definitely a wishful thinker and wants to believe. Maybe I'm being to conceptual(?). It seems the only reason to analyze the photo down to the pixel is to see if it's a Thylacine, is because he claimed it was. He has the burden of proof and failed to come anywhere close.

Pademelons live in the area. The other 2 pictures look like pademelons. As you point out, the only ligit expert he talked to said it's probably a pademelon, and, despite what he said in his first video about respecting Mooney's opinion, he just ignored it. It's a pademelon.

I know Metabunk is about specific claims and evidence, so, perhaps I'm in the wrong thinking too much about where and from who the evidence came from. If so, I stand corrected.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I know Metabunk is about specific claims and evidence, so, perhaps I'm in the wrong thinking too much about where and from who the evidence came from. If so, I stand corrected.
now that i watched the last 5 mins of his "photo" video, i'm agreeing with you. He was specifically asked to get a height scale and he specifically did not do that.

He also tried to make it look like the animal was heading downhill (by fudging where they crossed the log), i think because he realized how high that hill is and any dog like thing we would see it's head. i thought the area by the log was flat, but it's not. it's actually a pretty steep hill.

i guess we can give him points for filming that, but... as i said he always has his dog with him. he could have used his dog as scale or at least measured the height of the log.so now i'm suspicious of him. even i would have known to measure the height of the log.
uphill.png
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think those pictures did come from a trail cam the way he said. I don't see him as a hoaxer, but I think he's definitely a wishful thinker and wants to believe. Maybe I'm being to conceptual(?). It seems the only reason to analyze the photo down to the pixel is to see if it's a Thylacine, is because he claimed it was. He has the burden of proof and failed to come anywhere close.
Yes.
This is why the debunking part of Metabunk is set up the way it is.
We're not going to determine if Thylacines or UFOs or Yetis exist -- there is no way to prove that they don't, so if you want to believe that they do, that's fine.

But what Metabunk does is look at claims of evidence: we can determine if specific pictures or data are evidence of some belief, or whether there is another explanation that doesn't ask us to believe in something unlikely.

Like you said, it's about the proof: it's about evidence, not about beliefs.
And that's why it may be interesting who the believer is, but what ultimately matters is the evidence they're bringing to the table.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Yes.
This is why the debunking part of Metabunk is set up the way it is.
We're not going to determine if Thylacines or UFOs or Yetis exist -- there is no way to prove that they don't, so if you want to believe that they do, that's fine.

But what Metabunk does is look at claims of evidence: we can determine if specific pictures or data are evidence of some belief, or whether there is another explanation that doesn't ask us to believe in something unlikely.

Like you said, it's about the proof: it's about evidence, not about beliefs.
And that's why it may be interesting who the believer is, but what ultimately matters is the evidence they're bringing to the table.
Yes sir. Have enjoyed the site for years. Just trying to learn how to contribute in a meaningful way.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
now that i watched the last 5 mins of his "photo" video, i'm agreeing with you. He was specifically asked to get a height scale and he specifically did not do that.

He also tried to make it look like the animal was heading downhill (by fudging where they crossed the log), i think because he realized how high that hill is and any dog like thing we would see it's head. i thought the area by the log was flat, but it's not. it's actually a pretty steep hill.

i guess we can give him points for filming that, but... as i said he always has his dog with him. he could have used his dog as scale or at least measured the height of the log.so now i'm suspicious of him. even i would have known to measure the height of the log.
uphill.png
I understand that what he does or says is not the same as the evidence that he presents, but I think it is pertinent to the validity of the claim. I have played with trail cams. Sometimes you get nothing. But I would be curious to see what ells is on those SD cards. What are we not being shown? Does he have a bunch of pictures that clearly show pademelons in the same area?
 

ladyMccormick

New Member
Last week there was a stir in activity relating to Thylacines still being alive in Tasmania.

Things kicked off on February 22nd with a video from Neil Waters, president of TAGOA (Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia. In the video titled "WE FOUND A THYLACINE" Neil claimed to have captured the strongest ever proof of Thylacines still surviving in Tasmania over 80 years after they were declared extinct.

WE FOUND A THYLACINE

In the video, Neil claims to have captured photos of 3 Thylacines, two parents and a baby making their way through the bush, captured by a trail cam. His confidence caused a stir in the Australian news and social media, with Facebook and Twitter coming out to either throw their support behind him or anxiously hold their opinions until he revealed the photos. The video also managed to rack up an impressive 300k views during this time.

Since the video was published Neil has made several radio interviews on the subject of these undeniable photos and defending the work of his organisations and other bushmen who have dedicated their lives to tracking down irrefutable proof of the species is still surviving to this day.

He promised that March 1st he would release the photos for all to see.

Well today Neil kept his promise and released a new video on YouTube, revealing to the world his undeniable evidence of Thylacines in the wild, see below:

THYLACINE JOEY PHOTO

This shot below is the "proof" that Neil has been shopping around for the last week:

FB_IMG_1614577982900.jpg

What Neil is claiming here is that we are seeing the rear end of a baby Thylacine, moving away from the camera in a walk/run gait, one ear at the top left and the signature straight tail behind. I'll forgive you for not seeing anything at first, its like one of those magic eye puzzles.

The issue I've had with this entire thing from the start is that during the last week Neil has taken this photo around to several "experts" (vets, dog/cat breeders) who have all confirmed with him that what they're seeing is anything but a dog or cat, leading Neil to conclude that the only other option is a Thylacine. He claims you can see the classic rear end stripes just before the tail and the foot or "hock" being raised up on the right as it steps through the scrub.

My problem here is that Neil is leading these experts to his own conclusion, rather than letting them view these images in an unbiased way. According to him, their conclusions of what it isn't confirms exactly what it is and therefore in the eyes of science and expert analysis he has finally found proof of a living Thylacine.

This morning when the images hit the internet there was a massive influx of support for Neil and his team for finally proving that these animals are still alive. Sadly the lack of critical thinking in these groups have led to some pretty toxic attitudes towards anyone that would dare show even the slightest bit of scepticism.

I had a look at the photos before watching Neils video and came to a completely different conclusion, fortunately for me there were a few others that shared my thoughts:

FB_IMG_1614577993993.jpg
FB_IMG_1614578017272.jpg
Now I'm not claiming to have solved the mystery, or that my observation is any more valid than another however Occam's Razor surely has to prevail here right? The unfortunate truth about the Australian bush is that we have an absurd number of feral cats that cause massive amounts of destruction to our native flora and fauna. Tabby cats in particular are a problem and there must be hundreds, if not thousands in that area of Tasmania alone.

I dont want to sway the discussion in anyone way or another but I wanted to post here for you all to see what's happened here over the last week and to come to your own conclusions as well.

Thanks!

I found this topic while researching endangered animals in my university thesis. Glad I found it. I'm removing it from the list. Thank you.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I found this topic while researching endangered animals in my university thesis. Glad I found it. I'm removing it from the list. Thank you.

I'm glad you found the thread, given you quoted the entire OP its worth pointing out that the cat's head theory was largely ruled out in the course of the investigation, not that is is thylacine, but it is also not a cat's head.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
I'm glad you found the thread, given you quoted the entire OP its worth pointing out that the cat's head theory was largely ruled out in the course of the investigation, not that is is thylacine, but it is also not a cat's head.

Where was the cats head ruled out?
 

captancourgette

Active Member
I found this topic while researching endangered animals in my university thesis. Glad I found it. I'm removing it from the list. Thank you.
Surely it was on the extinct list and not the endangered list

On a related note nearby in NZ recently
the South Island kokako bird (declared extinct in 2008) possibly may of been sighted again, though the proof is hardly conclusive

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/127468266/bird-call-raises-hopes-of-finding-the-elusive-kkako
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Island_kōkako
 
Top