|
|
Post by youcantry on Jan 3, 2014 8:14:55 GMT 10
Things are getting really interesting regarding the photo of the thylacine paw that Col Bailey published in his book which was allegedly shot in 1990 near Adamsfield.
In this video clip the "Thylacine Research Unit" (TRU) interviews "Rusty" - a Tasmanian bushman who recounts 3 sightings of tigers during his lifetime in Tas. The third account concerns a dead animal he found in a den which he photographed, and the interviewer says the photo he saw, which was of a foot, matches thylacine.
This clip has generated much discussion on both the TRU Facebook page and in a Facebook group called "Thylacine Adventurers".
|
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Jan 3, 2014 11:00:14 GMT 10
Rusty confirms that he took a number of colour photos of the dead thylacine. Is this the same set of 10 photos shown to Saggitarius by a famous researcher? From discussion about Col Bailey's new book on ProBoards thylacoleo.proboards.com/thread/3853/col-baileys-book-shadow-thylacine, Saggitarius says: "I have to be careful here that I don't divulge the identity of the person, or myself either at this stage. Let's just say I was in a job where I was doing some research into Thylacine sightings in the Loch Sport and Briagolong areas of Gippsland and this fellow came to Victoria to meet me. He urged me to keep trying to find proof because Thylacines were not extinct. He then produced the photos as evidence. I would have loved to have scanned a couple but that technology was not readily available to me at the time. Not sure he would have allowed it. As I recall, the photos were taken in the field and were very clear. Bullet entrance wound was small and exit wound not much larger. Photos of the feet were close-ups showing the pads and toe-nails. I would say that the photos were taken pre rigor mortis as the animal was obviously able to be moved into different positions to photograph the feet etc" So who did Rusty initially show the photos to? What famous thylacine researcher Guiler? Mooney? Who did the researcher show the set of 10 photos to? Col Bailey saw some and published the front foot photo in his new book. Rusty says he still has the original photos, but he says there are only a few, not 10. Rusty says they were taken with a polaroid instant camera and when he showed Col, kept one of them. Rusty said he could not tell why the animal had died and insists it had not been shot. Rusty said the thylacine had been dead for some time and had flies all over it. In Col Bailey's new book Shadow of the Thylacine p. 171-172, Col says the photos where taken by a standard SLR film camera (not polaroid instant). The person who showed him the photos allowed him to make a copy of the paw photo, but wishes he had a copies of them all. Col's story is that two men hunting wallaby accidently shot the thylacine when it started them in button grass. Col says the thylacine was freshly dead with graze on its hock, blood still evident on one of the animal's legs. So who is telling the truth? TRU will go investigate the den site where these photos were taken. They are hoping to find some remains that can be analyzed. Rusty has a permit to shoot feral cats but denies he shot the thylacine or that it was shot. Questions: 1) Did two hunters accidently shoot the thylacine? Did they take the 10 photos with a film Camera? 2) Did word get back to Rusty or did he hear the animal get shot and he then tracked the dead thylacine to its den in Adamsfield? Rusty brought with him a polaroid instant camera and took a few photos. 3) Could there have been two sets of photos or two different animals? |
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Jan 3, 2014 11:09:44 GMT 10
More description about the 10 photos Rusty has, Saggitarius is interested in seeing the photo in Col's new book: "I am keen to get a copy of the book. I was shown the colored photos of a shot Thylacine perhaps 20 years ago. A Thylacine researcher showed me about 10 prints which showed front and back feet, head and jaws, overall body, bullet entrance wound and exit wound. How he obtained the prints from the hunters was dubious and so they have never seen the light of day. I wonder if this front paw photo you refer to is one of the ones I saw." YouCanTry says: "Thanks Saggitarius. I don't want to compromise your position. The details you've provided are consistent with the report in Col's book in the fact that the tiger allegedly shot at Adamsfield was shot in 1990 (ie the timing matches), and there was at least one photo taken which shows the pads on the underside of a forefoot - this photo is included in the book (ie the photos you saw included one showing a foot's pads). There is a photo of a taxidermied specimen on Cameron Campbell's online Thylacine Museum, here: ://www.naturalworlds.org/.../external/external_anatomy_8.htm ... having the caption "Palmer view of thylacine manus..." - this is essentially the same view shown of the thylacine allegedly shot at Adamsfield. If you find the book in a shop there is a section in the middle with photographs on glossy pages. The photo is there (alongside the one I just linked, as a reference - and they basically look the same). Chris." Read more: thylacoleo.proboards.com/post/29350/edit#ixzz2q2Ucp6TQ |
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Jan 3, 2014 11:16:02 GMT 10
Does anyone have a link to this documentary? In it Col Bailey talks to interviewer Chris Packham about the photo of the thylacine foot and the story behind it + location. I want to see how it lines up with Rusty's story. Chris Packham's X Creatures from 1998 entitled 'Beyond the Jaws of Extinction' discussion of the foot is apparently at the 16 minute mark. I also read on ProBoards that there was another documentary that talked about the Adamsfield thylacine foot photo, does anyone have a link to that too? All the Thylacine documentaries were online on the T.R.U. website but now most of the links are broken. The videos may have been removed for copyright reasons. I posted youtube links to all the thylacine documentaries I could find on www.facebook.com/groups/37005777558/10152120390967559/?notif_t=like The Great Search for the Thylacine facebook page, the X Creatures is the only one I am missing. |
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Jan 10, 2014 9:17:08 GMT 10
This message is for Saggitarius regarding the Adamsfield thylacine 1990. What do you make of the recent discussion on Thylacine Research Unit fb page about the dead foot photo in Col Bailey's book? www.facebook.com/thylacineresearchunit Tracker Scout, aka "Rusty" claims it is his photo. One of three polaroids that he took. Tracker says Col Bailey snatched one from his hands and then published it in his new book. I read that you saw a series of around 10 colour photos of a shot thylacine. Is this a different animal and different photos? Some international thylacine enthusiasts are debating whether Rusty or Col are telling the truth - or could it be a case that both are telling the truth? Were two different dead thylacines found in the late 1980's or early 90's in Tasmania? Feel free to join our debate on The Great Search for the Thylacine Facebook Page. www.facebook.com/groups/37005777558/ |
|
|
|
Post by lurcherman on Jan 27, 2014 7:30:37 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on Jan 29, 2014 9:23:21 GMT 10
This message is for Saggitarius regarding the Adamsfield thylacine 1990. What do you make of the recent discussion on Thylacine Research Unit fb page about the dead foot photo in Col Bailey's book? www.facebook.com/thylacineresearchunit Tracker Scout, aka "Rusty" claims it is his photo. One of three polaroids that he took. Tracker says Col Bailey snatched one from his hands and then published it in his new book. I read that you saw a series of around 10 colour photos of a shot thylacine. Is this a different animal and different photos? Some international thylacine enthusiasts are debating whether Rusty or Col are telling the truth - or could it be a case that both are telling the truth? Were two different dead thylacines found in the late 1980's or early 90's in Tasmania? Feel free to join our debate on The Great Search for the Thylacine Facebook Page. www.facebook.com/groups/37005777558/Sorry for the delay. I have these things called holidays and have been away camping. I have had a quick look at Facebook but will do some more when I have more time. The colored photos I was shown were not Polaroids but very clear coloured prints from a photo lab, still in the packet. I don't believe that the foot photo in Col Bailey's book would be one of them because it is black and white. If it was one of the prints I saw, why not show it in color? It may well be from the same animal. Perhaps two of the hunters took separate photos, one on film, the other Polaroid. What I can't understand is why these photos I saw have not made the light of day, so many years later. There are opportunities for the hunters to hide behind a few little white lies so that they do not reveal themselves as the shooters. (Eg.. A recently deceased relative gave them the photos.) The photos I saw showed close-ups of the head and mouth which I think would be a far better photo to release rather than a foot shot. I think I was told by the person who showed me the photos he had an opportunity to borrow the negatives for a few hours without the hunters' knowledge and had a mate in a camera shop run off the prints and then the negatives were returned. If that memory is correct, then there must be one, possibly two, photo shop personnel who printed off the photos - the originals and second copies. Maybe they even made another set for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jan 30, 2014 12:00:02 GMT 10
I don't believe that the foot photo in Col Bailey's book would be one of them because it is black and white. If it was one of the prints I saw, why not show it in color? I think all the photos in the book are black and white? Might be as simple as the decision to use the cheaper printing method of black and white rather than colour. But I do agree - releasing a colour version, even just online, would provide significant additional information about this piece of evidence. As regards the question of why the photos haven't made the light of day - basically it seems like those with access are being secretive, for whatever reason. I don't think that's the real issue. More to the point is this: whether or not the photos ever make the light of day, if they are in fact genuine/legit (and the single foot photo does give the story credibility in my opinion) then the tiger was out there and alive in 1990. That's 54 years after the accepted extinction date, and 24 years before today. If they made it 54 years then they could probably make it another 24. The Tas environment around Adamsfield has probably not changed all that much - *except*, to the east is the Florentine Valley, which has been the subject of much media publicity for the fact that protestors have been trying to prevent logging activity there. If that forest plays/played a significant part in the Adamsfield tiger's life cycle, and if it has been significantly modified such that whatever remaining tiger population is/was significantly impacted, then perhaps the tiger is now no longer there. Col Bailey adds a claim for a 1995 sighting in the Weld Valley further south. (The Weld basically joins the Florentine at the highway). If his testimony is also credible, then we're talking survival for 59 years past extinction date, and to just 19 years before today. |
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jan 30, 2014 21:06:45 GMT 10
trixiemurie the Chris Packham documentary was on you tube a year or so ago, since then it's been pulled. I saw it then and I saw it when it first aired here in the UK in the late 1990s. In it Bailey has several photos all of which are in colour. One is shown in close up but very briefly.The photo is shown too briefly and indistinctly to make any judgement on it.
I did though get the strong impression that it was a part of a real animal, and I also believe that the anatomical details did at a glance match those of the thylacine. Also I believe that they show parts of a thylacine that died in the late twentieth century about as much as I believe in Narnia.
The following however is certain; 1)Bailey had colour copies of the photos back in the 90s, 2)in his book he's chosen to use black and white,3)it is very likely that their colour could immediately reveal them to be hoaxes and finally, 4) 99% of people haven't got a clue what colour a living thylacine was but Col Bailey almost certainly has.
|
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jan 30, 2014 23:11:08 GMT 10
Unfortunately, "X Creatures" is not a good term to search for Internet videos with... I can find bits of the first 5 episodes, but nothing on the final one.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jan 31, 2014 0:35:52 GMT 10
That's because the 'Beyond the jaws of extinction' has been removed. It was only briefly up on there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on Jan 31, 2014 8:33:19 GMT 10
I did though get the strong impression that it was a part of a real animal, and I also believe that the anatomical details did at a glance match those of the thylacine. Also I believe that they show parts of a thylacine that died in the late twentieth century about as much as I believe in Narnia. The following however is certain; 1)Bailey had colour copies of the photos back in the 90s, 2)in his book he's chosen to use black and white,3)it is very likely that their colour could immediately reveal them to be hoaxes and finally, 4) 99% of people haven't got a clue what colour a living thylacine was but Col Bailey almost certainly has. Hey exolddrover, Am I missing something here or are you a believer in Narnia? Or are you suggesting the photos were a hoax? I am 100 percent positive that the coloured prints I saw were of a thylacine which had been living and breathing only minutes before the photos were taken. Only one shot showed the whole carcass (yes with some brown nugget you could doctor up a dead dingo to roughly resemble a thylacine) but the rest took the trouble to show the distinctive feet, the mouth, bullet entrance and exit wounds. Of course, we could be talking about a completely different set of photos, and for that matter a completely different animal. |
|
|
|
Post by mingle on Jan 31, 2014 8:56:44 GMT 10
I can't see why anyone who's in possession of genuine photos of a thylacine wouldn't want to make them public in some way (even via a 3rd party, anonymously, etc.)
Even if the originator (supposedly) shot said animal, a photo without a body is no proof of wrongdoing on their part.
Same deal with the Cameron photos - they look pretty genuine to me, although the animal looks to have been arranged/staged for the shots.
I don't think there's any chance of anyone being prosecuted/blamed for accidentally killing a supposedly extinct creature.
At best the person in possession of the original negatives would stand to make a pretty penny from releasing them.
Just my $0.02...
Cheers,
Mike.
|
|
|
|
Post by dennisw on Jan 31, 2014 9:25:05 GMT 10
The thylacine is pretty unique as it is listed as both extinct and endangered (therefore a protected species) so if someone shot one they could be charged, if you ran over it or otherwise somehow killed it accidently no charges would eventuate.
|
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jan 31, 2014 11:03:40 GMT 10
I'm pretty sure there would be a statute of limitation on killing an endangered animal, and in that time frame, the Thylacine wasn't officially extinct. As Mike says, you could just upload them somewhere anonymously or hand them to someone via a 3rd party. Obviously the guy hasn't been that careful, a few people have copies - why haven't they surfaced?
That they haven't surfaced is suspicious. I have no idea why Col wouldn't be offering his up for greater scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jan 31, 2014 17:59:03 GMT 10
That they haven't surfaced is suspicious. I have no idea why Col wouldn't be offering his up for greater scrutiny. People have to watch the film The Hunter and take note of the social dynamics. I don't think people realise just how accurate that film is in so many more ways than just the tiger. |
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jan 31, 2014 18:29:51 GMT 10
Yeah, I've seen it, I realise there is stigma - but still. I just can't believe that people are able to keep this secret so well, given how cavalier they have been with the photos in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Feb 1, 2014 0:21:40 GMT 10
That they haven't surfaced is suspicious. I have no idea why Col wouldn't be offering his up for greater scrutiny. People have to watch the film The Hunter and take note of the social dynamics. I don't think people realise just how accurate that film is in so many more ways than just the tiger. So are you saying that after telling the world that he's seen a thylacine, writing books and articles saying that the tiger definitely exists, and hunting it since the 1960s, he's not going to use the best bit of evidence at his disposal because of social pressure? Not only that, but social pressure in the state where he's already doing all of the above. Instead he puts them his book but obscures them so they're useless to anyone except the believers who'd accept anything so long as it pointed the way they wanted. Variants of this tale are among the oldest themes in cryptozoology. |
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on Feb 1, 2014 9:45:14 GMT 10
Just suppose, someone stole photos of a dead thylacine from the person who took the photos. Is he going to publicly release the photos and out himself as a thief? I doubt it.
He would know that his family, friends and others in the thylacine hunting confraternity would think less of him as a person. Once the original owner of the photos discovered who stole them, there might even be some heavy handed retribution coming his way.
If the original owner (say one of the shooters) was also an underworld figure or have links with such persons, our thief might even fear that on one of his expeditions he might have an unfortunate accident, fall over a cliff or become Tassie Devil tucker in some dense patch of bush.
Possessing the photos might become a real mental burden, complete with cold sweats and sleepless nights.
I would love the photos to appear again and be critically judged but for the reason suggested above, they might not surface for a while yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by seth24 on Feb 1, 2014 12:59:04 GMT 10
just saying your supposition has merit, with all the 'secrecy' and maybe 'burden' which would come with it would all this be
entirely, only be for the welfare of the animal and not through any personel gain. Iam sure there is a lot of evidence, whether
that be in the form of a personel sighting, a genuine photo or video or maybe if you are genuinly blessed have come into actual
'contact' with the animal, as per col bailey's in 1995, that remain undisclosed. The main objective, as i think other thylacine
enthusiusts woulsd agree would be the sole welfare and protection of the animal. And in order for this to happen we need that
vital piece of undeniable evidence. As long as this 'evidence' is handled appropriately and handled by the 'right' people.
This is the major concern cheers seth
|
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Feb 5, 2014 8:21:17 GMT 10
What I find interesting is that "Rusty" doesn't want to talk thylacine on facebook page, Thylacine Adventurers and claims he can't find the original polaroid photos of the dead thylacine. He insists it was not shot. I don't believe him. If you look on facebook, he posts many old time photos of Adamsfield, mining, landscape terrain, and tracking photos. He is an expert tracker hired by the State to eradicate feral cats and follow up on potential thylacine sightings. Why keep his secrets and does he really think this is protecting the thylacine. I have corresponded with Col Bailey and there is more to this story. Col was given one of Rusty's coloured photos of the the dead thylacine and it was published in black and white in his book - like all the other photos (must be for cost savings, yes). There were more photos, who has them and where are they? The government is pressing forwarding with de-listing World Heritage Site forests = home of the thylacine. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/coalition-strip-tasmanian-forests-world-heritage-listing The land has been clear cut to withing 300 meters of Churchill's cabin where the last thylacine was caught for Beaumaris Zoo. Now is the time to make these photos public and help resurrect the thylacine to endangered status. Help the environmentalists protect these ancient forests. Give them some ammunition and at the same time, help the thylacine before it is too late! If we don't act now, thylacine will really become extinct. |
|
Thylacoleo Gal
Administrator 
Thylacoleo Gal
The Singularity is near.
Posts: 3,689 
|
Post by Thylacoleo Gal on Feb 6, 2014 7:41:36 GMT 10
...
The government is pressing forwarding with de-listing World Heritage Site forests = home of the thylacine. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/coalition-strip-tasmanian-forests-world-heritage-listing The land has been clear cut to withing 300 meters of Churchill's cabin where the last thylacine was caught for Beaumaris Zoo. Now is the time to make these photos public and help resurrect the thylacine to endangered status. Help the environmentalists protect these ancient forests. Give them some ammunition and at the same time, help the thylacine before it is too late! If we don't act now, thylacine will really become extinct. Yes, but how?  |
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Feb 7, 2014 6:13:13 GMT 10
Col was given one of Rusty's coloured photos of the the dead thylacine and it was published in black and white in his book - like all the other photos (must be for cost savings, yes). There were more photos, who has them and where are they? So what you're proposing is that in a book about the hunt for the Thylacine, the best evidence is put up in black and white to save a bit of cash? At what point does this all just get too fantastic? |
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Feb 8, 2014 11:31:30 GMT 10
I suppose I could ask Col to send me a colour photo of the thylacine paw! I contacted him and we have been discussing thylacine matters and he has answered a lot of my questions.  I also noticed now that Rusty has the two other photos of the set of three polaroids he took, they are no longer "lost." There is also quite a bit of discussion on Thylacine Adventurers fb page about whether Col's photo is actually Rusty's. Rusty claims his paw photo showed more of the hind leg, leaves and grass. Col's photo shows a ruler beside it and Rusty claims he never carries one when out in the field. So perhaps there really were two thyalcines who died around 1990 in the Adamsfield area and perhaps both Col Bailey and Rusty are telling the truth about two completely different animals. |
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Feb 10, 2014 6:39:16 GMT 10
Trixiemurie I'd be very interested to hear what the response would be to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on Feb 10, 2014 14:56:09 GMT 10
The photos I was shown back in the early 1990s were definitely not polaroid so there must be two photographers photographing the same animal -- or two different animals.
I can't believe the person who showed me is not a visitor to this board. I would love some input from you, even if you have to create a non-de-plume and pretend you are from Boliva or somewhere distant. I promised I wouldn't say who showed me the prints so the ball in in your court if you want to shed a little more light on how you came by them(perhaps presented as a hypothetical)
|
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Feb 11, 2014 6:07:00 GMT 10
The photos shown in the documentaries weren't Polaroids either, they were far too big as I recall.
Experience must tell you these photographs are without doubt fake, the question is who's scammed who.
|
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on Feb 11, 2014 8:12:32 GMT 10
The photos shown in the documentaries weren't Polaroids either, they were far too big as I recall. Experience must tell you these photographs are without doubt fake, the question is who's scammed who. My experience of 40 years working with photos and occasionally faking them too (for honourable reasons) tells me these were no fakes. Remember it predates the possibility of digital manipulation by a couple of years unless the faker was at the forefront of available technology and worked for Adobe or Apple. Photoshop did not really start to become publicly available until around 1992 by which time I had seen the photos. I would not trust any modern photo because Photoshop and similar programs enable you to create what isn't there. Back 25 years ago it was a different story. |
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Feb 11, 2014 12:25:27 GMT 10
Mate, I'm not saying the photos weren't of a thylacine. After all I saw them too, we all did probably. What I am saying is that they weren't from a thylacine that died later than 1936. I'm also saying that that'd be easy to prove if those photos were made available in colour.
Further, and this is the unpleasant part, I'm saying I'm not the only one who realises this.
|
|
|
|
Post by trixiemurie on Jul 17, 2014 17:15:03 GMT 10
Warren, you are pals with Rusty, aka Tracker Scout on fb, and interviewed him in the video posted above. Have you seen the full set of 10 coloured photos of the thylacine? Do you know who has a copy of the second set? If Col Bailey has full second set, he is not telling (for now?) In Shadow of the Thylacine, he mentions that he promised not to reveal more about a story, (hermit that lived in the forest) until someone passed away. Hmmm...
|
|
I also noticed now that Rusty has the two other photos of the set of three polaroids he took, they are no longer "lost." There is also quite a bit of discussion on Thylacine Adventurers fb page about whether Col's photo is actually Rusty's. Rusty claims his paw photo showed more of the hind leg, leaves and grass. Col's photo shows a ruler beside it and Rusty claims he never carries one when out in the field. So perhaps there really were two thyalcines who died around 1990 in the Adamsfield area and perhaps both Col Bailey and Rusty are telling the truth about two completely different animals.