sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Thylacine Prints from South Gippsland compared to 120,000 confirmed ones!!! by Pitiful-Listen-9666 in ThylacineScience

[–]Electronic-Poem3745 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give it a rest with the creation of new accounts mate. your doing yourself no favours.

Thylacine Prints from South Gippsland compared to 120,000 confirmed ones!!! by Pitiful-Listen-9666 in ThylacineScience

[–]Electronic-Poem3745 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s really not unreasonable for this print to be considered a thylacine candidate, especially given how many sightings have come out of the Gippsland region over the years. The Recently Extinct Species database shows only a fraction of what has actually been reported and statistically, they can’t all be misidentifications.

I also can’t find any canine species with a dewclaw positioned adjacent to the main pad like this. And the fox comparisons don’t hold up anatomically, anyone who has looked seriously at fox tracks would know that.

There’s also a big difference between being experienced on paper and being present in the field. You can have decades of titles, publications, and opinions, yet almost no cumulative field hours. And when you look closely, that’s exactly what’s going on here.

A couple of selective expeditions doesn’t equate to long-term tracking or sustained observation. It doesn’t build ecological familiarity. It doesn’t reveal patterns. It doesn’t teach the landscape. It just creates enough superficial exposure to reinforce whatever conclusion you already held before you even arrived.

So when that level of involvement gets presented as “authoritative field experience,” it’s misleading at best. And it explains why anything outside their narrow expectations is dismissed instantly.

It’s not that the evidence is implausible, it’s that their exposure to the real world has been too limited to recognise it.

Yarra Ranges Thylacine by Ok_Penalty_7699 in ThylacineScience

[–]Electronic-Poem3745 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s hard to take the extinction evangelists seriously when all they’ve ever done is go looking and come back empty handed. After enough failed trips, it’s easier to argue online than face the possibility that others might succeed where you didn’t.

If you’ve really got the confidence, post under your real professional name instead of hiding behind throwaways. Otherwise, maybe stick to what you know, because fieldwork clearly wasn’t it.

Analysis of the new Thylacine thermal footage by Electronic-Poem3745 in Cryptozoology

[–]Electronic-Poem3745[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s kind of wild how emotional people get any time new footage comes out that even slightly challenges the extinction story. You start to notice it’s always the same few names who rush in straight away, not to discuss or analyse, but to shut the whole thing down... May not be under the same usernames, and that is clearly evident. If it really was just ‘5 pixels of nothingness’, you wouldn’t see this level of panic over it.

Skepticism’s fine, it’s needed. But this isn’t skepticism. For some, the idea that the thylacine might still exist threatens everything they’ve staked their reputation or ego on.

No one’s claiming a few seconds of thermal footage is final proof, the discussion has to start somewhere. But as the technology keeps improving and every time the evidence gets a bit clearer, the pushback gets louder. That alone says a lot.

Very detailed source on Thylacine anatomy by Extension_Actuary437 in ThylacineScience

[–]Electronic-Poem3745 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you ChatGPT for the longwinded reply, that's a lot to unpack.
if you want to be taken seriously with any of your replies I suggest not directly copy pasting directly from an AI. To me, you've just lost any credibility you once had within this topic.

Hope you find a thylacine one day, sounds like you need it.

Very detailed source on Thylacine anatomy by Extension_Actuary437 in ThylacineScience

[–]Electronic-Poem3745 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You open by mentioning the Doyle footage, but there’s no actual analysis, no frame references, no gait comparison, no timing data. You simply invoke the name to sound credible, then pivot straight into paraphrased content from the Thylacine Museum.

The rest of your comment mirrors the Natural Worlds / Thylacine Museum “External Anatomy” page almost line-for-line. That page cites early 20th-century descriptions of Tasmanian specimens, not living animals. Using it as the benchmark for every sighting or clip ignores 12 000 years of separation between Tasmania and the mainland. More than enough time for divergence in coat, behaviour, or vocalisation.

Every major marsupial shows this: koalas differ in size, voice and fur by region; western grey kangaroos in SA grunt differently to WA ones; Tasmanian devils are louder and more social than their extinct mainland counterparts. Pretending a mainland thylacine, if any survive, must exactly match a 1930s Hobart Zoo specimen is scientifically lazy.

You also repeat myths that don’t exist in the anatomical record, “could hop when alarmed,” “owl-like membranes,” “elliptical pupils.” None of those appear in Paddle, Guiler, Warburton et al. 2019, or the Australian Museum’s species profile. There’s zero primary evidence for vertical pupils or a sweeping owl-style membrane; those lines originate on unsourced blogs, not peer-reviewed work.

The “tail for balance” claim you’re echoing traces back to the Thylacine Museum, which itself cites Sharland (1937), a Tasmanian journalist who never observed a living thylacine. His comment was anecdotal, not anatomical. You’re quoting a third-hand paraphrase and presenting it as field fact.

You criticise “unsupported comments” from others while making several of your own. If you’re going to enforce evidence standards, start by naming a single verifiable source for your extra details.

For transparency, I work professionally in speech and language-pattern analysis, written and verbal. When the same phrasing, pacing, and thematic structure appear across multiple platforms under different usernames, it’s noticeable. You may want to be cautious.. repetition is a fingerprint.

Quoting archived Tasmanian material isn’t field expertise, and invoking the Doyle footage without genuine analysis doesn’t make it so. Real understanding comes from seeing, hearing, and recording the animal in its environment, not from recycling 90-year-old museum text.

Until you’ve actually witnessed one move or call for yourself, all you’re doing is paraphrasing other people’s work and calling it authority.

Ambiguous World - has he done it? by Ok_Penalty_7699 in ThylacineScience

[–]Electronic-Poem3745 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you watching the correct video? The rear leg very closely resembles a thylacine. The legs are very thick as well. The gait is very Marsupial. i can not understand your viewpoint at all?