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.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?
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.