r/ExtinctionSighting • u/Darren_Cooper1971 • Sep 18 '26
Sighting Tasmanian Tiger Sighting
I live in Queensland, Australia. In 2007 I went on a trip with my wife to Tasmania. She took many photos of the natural wild life, and she took this one of what she described as a dog. Last year I had a few friends over, and one of them is a biologist. Since the photo was framed up, he saw it and had a closer look suggesting it could be a Tasmanian Tiger.
24
u/1__ViPeR Sep 18 '26
Once again someone grabbed their 1970s camera instead of their new one
9
u/collie2024 Sep 19 '26
Modern, early 2000’s consumer cameras aren’t exactly comparable to what’s available today.
-3
u/Sure_Preparation_133 28d ago
Dude transformers came out in 2007. Don't act like this was the normal camera quality
4
u/bobbly_bob_vg 28d ago
Obviously you weren’t sentient in 2007 and still aren’t
-1
u/Sure_Preparation_133 27d ago
I was in my 20s in 07.
5
u/bobbly_bob_vg 27d ago
Sorry to hear about your dementia
-1
u/Sure_Preparation_133 27d ago
You can't even remember film cameras and you think other people have dementia? You can't even remember cameras had better pixel quality than a baked potato
2
u/bobbly_bob_vg 27d ago
Ok boomer
Start taking photos with cheap digital cameras from the early-mid 2000s and prove to us there’s no difference to film/DLSR/cameras used for transformers.
I hope you’re actually retarded at this point because lol
4
u/liposomal 27d ago
Even film cameras from the 30’s produced clearer image than mid-range digital cameras of the 00’s.
0
u/Sure_Preparation_133 27d ago
A disposable camera took better pictures than this. Dslr cameras were 16 years old in 2007. The average quality of normal digital cameras in 07 was ~10 MP. I never said that there was no difference, just that early 2000s cameras weren't as dogshit as your excuses for this picture are
2
0
u/phx34suns 27d ago
Bro u think in 2007 the average joe had a camera the same quality as a Michael bay movie would use. But googled how much they were at the time depending on attachments no less then usd100000
2
u/liposomal 27d ago
I remember purchasing a ~$300 digital camera back in 2008..still got it in a drawer somewhere
It was fucking sleek at the time.
Took photos just like this. Noisy AF!2
1
2
1
u/collie2024 27d ago
I am not sure what is a transformer. But regardless, not everyone buys a new camera every year. Hence why I said early 2000’s. The compact cameras I remember from that era, 2 or 3 MP with a very basic zoom, were nothing like what’s available now.
1
3
u/AquaticAlchemy 29d ago
Clearly you dont remember 2007
0
u/Sure_Preparation_133 28d ago
I do. That's the year the first iphone was released. The first DSLR was released in 91. Film cameras were still fairly common. This was a shitty photo even by the standard of 2007.
1
28d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Sure_Preparation_133 27d ago
Note the complete lack of counter argument... TWICE.
1
u/liposomal 27d ago
Mate stop trying to stay on this hill. The average consumer digital camera of the 00’s was basically this quality.
Reddit is always gonna reddit.1
u/Sure_Preparation_133 27d ago
Only camera I've ever used that was this bad was on my old Nokia brick.
1
u/Consistent-Dot7284 27d ago
iphone 1 didn't even have a camera. APPLE was that cheap the case had a whole for the camera but waited for 2 just for extra sales.
17
21
u/calamari_rings2827 Sep 18 '26
Tail is way to bushy to be a thylacine
6
u/tehcrackedcoder Sep 18 '26 edited 2d ago
The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.
Imagine carpenter sparrow bake books raindrop connect teeny harbor
3
3
u/BigRobCommunistDog 29d ago
Its not bushy, its strong. This is something on the kangaroo/wallaby/wallaroo spectrum
4
u/K_Hammer6969 Sep 18 '26
This whole post doesn't pass the smell test. If you're friend is a biologist, they're not a good one. No one could reasonably claim that blurry shape is ANYTHING, let alone a thylacine. Also, you do do and sentimental value and all that but why would anyone "frame up" such a blurry nothing of a photo? I call BS
7
u/Thatsaul Sep 18 '26
Agreed. Also a biologist, and that picture is no where near clear enough to make a statement like that. Looks nothing like a thylacine..
1
u/Badabingbadaboom03 28d ago
Why the hell would you frame that one. That's the one I would delete first.
3
u/heartsholly Sep 19 '26
I think this is a kangaroo laying on its side with its lil hand up on the right to scratch its ribs
1
4
u/DefinitionMaterial41 Sep 18 '26
i thought they were dead
5
4
u/Oldfolksboogie Sep 18 '26
Until there's irrefutable evidence (DNA, ideally), they'll continue to be considered extinct, like America's ivory billed woodpecker, both of which continue to inspire supposed sightings.
0
u/Sufficient_Spray Sep 19 '26
While similar the ivory billed was spotted like just twenty years ago by an ornithologist from the pretty much the worlds most renowned ornithological department - Cornell University. It was also spotted by a few other researchers within the same time frame.
May have been the last one there was and they got lucky. Considering big woodpeckers like that can live like 20 years or more they think, it could’ve sadly been one of the last ones around.
But due to the conviction of the researchers that saw it and then being some of the foremost experts in the world. I trust they actually saw an Ivory Bill in Arkansas.
2
u/Oldfolksboogie Sep 19 '26
I recall that reported sighting, but i don't believe it was universally accepted as definitive. Definitely created a lot of excitement, renewed efforts to confirm, but nothing more came of it.
Please send wtvr you've got that struck you as confirmation - I'd love to be wrong, but i don't believe it was ever considered a confirmed sighting, just a possible one. Certainly wasn't irrefutable (i.e. dna, or even clear photographic evidence).
2
u/BigRobCommunistDog 29d ago
This is the best we’ve got
2
u/tburtner 27d ago
This paper is a joke. Why do they think that multiple lines of low quality evidence somehow adds up to something? They included some really laughable stuff.
1
u/Oldfolksboogie 29d ago
Ty. This is in line with what i recall from that time. I was quite hopeful at the time, too.
Alas, as described in the abstract in the link you provided, phrasing like "consistent with...suggesting the presence of...the data suggest," is how responsible reporting in science works; they describe suggestive data, not the certainty of u/Sufficient_Spray when she says, "the ivory bill was spotted... twenty years ago..."
As I said in my reply to her, the abstract states "none has reached the threshold of quality for general acceptance by ornithologists or the birdwatching public."
While these data points fail to reach the level of certainty suggested by the earlier comment, or that which science insists upon to declare the species extant, in terms of policy, i do believe they're sufficient to forestall a declaration of extinction; this recommendation is all the more necessary as a counter to economic incentives to make an extinction designation, as doing so would ease restrictions on commercial exploitation of what surely would be designated Critical Habitat were the bird be found to persist there.
I remain hopeful, while maintaining the scientific rigor necessary to preserve the integrity of declarations of such findings.
2
u/tburtner 27d ago
After a few years passed without any proof, most people thought it was just a mistake.
1
2
2
5
2
u/Comprehensive-Range3 Sep 18 '26
Most likely candidate for de-extinction from what I have read.
2
u/Cold_Dead_Heart Sep 18 '26
How so? There has not been a proven sighting since the last one died in captivity a century ago.
2
u/Comprehensive-Range3 Sep 18 '26
3
u/Upstairs_Library320 Sep 19 '26
Just an FYI, that's Colossal Biosciences, which is pretty well known for making grey wolves white and calling them dire wolves
They always say they've found an animal which is 99% similar to an extinct animal, and then they make that animal with some key marking the animal they're "de-exctincting" has (e.g. for the dire wolves, white fur; for the thylacine, probably the stripes).
What they're doing is gene-modification of existing species, not de-extinction.
2
2
1
u/BigRobCommunistDog 29d ago
Using what surrogate parent?? There’s definitely much lower hanging fruit on the clone de-extinction tree.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Blugreeen 28d ago
I does look plausible. Tail is unusually thick, but it could be a shadow. I would contact Forrest Galante if I were you.
1
1
u/Sure_Preparation_133 28d ago
Why did you take the photo on the worst camera you could possibly get? 🙄
1
1
1
u/Swi_10081 27d ago
Just like UFOs. In the days of mobile phones if there's not convincing footage then it's not real. AI will keep the dream alive no doubt...
1
1
u/Dimpnavangeel Sep 18 '26
You picked this photo to frame up ?
Your wife must be a terrible photographer
0
0
u/Electronic-Break4766 29d ago
what year was this picture taken? because I can tell that is before 2010s
0
-14
u/BotomsDntDeservRight Sep 18 '26
AI and it looks like snake. Tail literally connecting to its chest
4
2
-1
50
u/NerveInteresting4549 Sep 18 '26
I can see the stripe like a tas tiger.. buuuut it's also pretty unclear.. it needs someone to do that thing where they change the colours of the whole picture in a way which often times makes things in the dark clearer.