Hi Jamie keep them coming,love this one which I found out about 7 years ago and helped concrete that all the sightings I had been given were and continue to be correctly sighted,a mainland thylacine
Amaziing encounter. This bloke may have met my ancestors who arrived in Adelaide in 1839. There are still sightings of Thylacines in SA to this day. Good on you, Jamie. Hope the move is going well, mate. Blessings and kindest regards David from Melbourne. 🌏 🙄☝️
Thanks Jamie. This is great. The description if accurate, describes what can only be a sub species of the Tassie tiger (a main land sub species), because of it very different colouration. Not withstanding the lighting conditions of the morning (and the possibility the animal had been digging in the dark soil to get rats and then having soil on its muzzle), it being described as having a black muzzle, a light brown upper coat and a light under belly. It also had hackles, and apparently stripes. Was a very agile and swiftly moving animal (much like a swamp wallaby is very swift.
Very well said. I’m not sure it had round ears. Mainland variants normally have long pointy ears. I guess it’s a different morphology to the one I seen in 2012.
so interesting, definitely sounds like the real deal. This backs up local Aboriginal history and the SA sighting reports of more recent times That comment the witness made about the animal having feet like a Newfoundland dog -- you would only pick that up if you were very close to the animal, which he says he was... 1 yard, I think? Newfoundland dogs have really thick long fur all over, which naturally includes their feet, you can't see the outline of their feet or their toes very clearly because of their long thick fur. Thylacines are not long-haired, they are short-haired like a kelpie, but their short hair does not continue onto their feet and toes like a kelpie's does. With a short-haired dog you can see each toe clearly. But it's in the literature that the hair on thylacines' feet is long and bushy (check out the 1930s videos as well). This would make it harder to see their toes clearly. The long hair can also make their feet look big, or bigger than they really are. I guess this oddly specific attribute is exactly what the witness was referring to.
I wonder how much Mainlanders knew about Thylacines even existing in Tasmania in 1836? His description is unmistakable!
Hi Jamie keep them coming,love this one which I found out about 7 years ago and helped concrete that all the sightings I had been given were and continue to be correctly sighted,a mainland thylacine
Amaziing encounter. This bloke may have met my ancestors who arrived in Adelaide in 1839. There are still sightings of Thylacines in SA to this day. Good on you, Jamie.
Hope the move is going well, mate.
Blessings and kindest regards David from Melbourne.
🌏
🙄☝️
G'day David , thanks Mate
Thanks Jamie. This is great. The description if accurate, describes what can only be a sub species of the Tassie tiger (a main land sub species), because of it very different colouration. Not withstanding the lighting conditions of the morning (and the possibility the animal had been digging in the dark soil to get rats and then having soil on its muzzle), it being described as having a black muzzle, a light brown upper coat and a light under belly. It also had hackles, and apparently stripes. Was a very agile and swiftly moving animal (much like a swamp wallaby is very swift.
G'day Big Red, thanks
Very well said.
I’m not sure it had round ears.
Mainland variants normally have long pointy ears.
I guess it’s a different morphology to the one I seen in 2012.
so interesting, definitely sounds like the real deal. This backs up local Aboriginal history and the SA sighting reports of more recent times
That comment the witness made about the animal having feet like a Newfoundland dog -- you would only pick that up if you were very close to the animal, which he says he was... 1 yard, I think? Newfoundland dogs have really thick long fur all over, which naturally includes their feet, you can't see the outline of their feet or their toes very clearly because of their long thick fur.
Thylacines are not long-haired, they are short-haired like a kelpie, but their short hair does not continue onto their feet and toes like a kelpie's does. With a short-haired dog you can see each toe clearly. But it's in the literature that the hair on thylacines' feet is long and bushy (check out the 1930s videos as well). This would make it harder to see their toes clearly. The long hair can also make their feet look big, or bigger than they really are. I guess this oddly specific attribute is exactly what the witness was referring to.
🤘😎🤘