| The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.
Re: Thylacine scats
Posted on: 2007-06-30 14:15:29
By: DougGreene
|
Edited By: admin
On: 2007-07-02 21:19:12
|
(replace text that was accidentally overwritten)
I hope this comes up with concrete evidence, though the statement that the Thylacine was last seen in the wild in 1918 is 12 years too early. Wilf Batty dispatched his in 1930.
I wonder whether "Tigerman" retained the scats depicted in his on-line book -- if so, they should certainly be tested. I am not persuaded however that "Tigerman" actually saw any Thylacines. He did not see stripes on the 2 he is so certain about, and I suspect that Thylacines without stripes are dogs.
[Reply
]
|
Re: Thylacine scats
Posted on: 2007-07-02 11:12:36
By: Anonymous
|
Edited By: admin
On: 2007-07-02 21:19:55
|
I know - the 1918 date was a bit of a shocker - I just don't know where that date came from.
Oh well.
[Reply
]
|
Tasmanian Tiger
Posted on: 2007-07-10 04:06:09
By: Anonymous
|
|
I KNOW that at least until mid 2003 the Tasmanian Tiger was alive. This was the same time I learned what they were! I stood approx. 20m from it, shone a spotlight on it for approx. 2 minutes, watched it seeming to 'stalk' a scent on the air, before I went to get my partner...
I had NEVER seen anything like it, and since researching what it could possibly be that I saw - I know I saw a Thylacine - an animal I knew nothing of until that evening.
[Reply
]
|
Re: Tasmanian Tiger
Posted on: 2007-07-10 12:17:28
By: DougGreene
|
|
I'm sure "admin" will ask soon -- but where did you see the Thylacine? Tasmania or Australia proper? In either case, where more specifically? Time of day or night? Size of animal? How did it walk? Did it make any sound?
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2007-07-15 22:50:18
By: Anonymous
|
|
I have all these details but where is this info best put - it's a bit lengthy!
[Reply
]
|
Re:
Posted on: 2007-07-15 23:00:36
By: Anonymous
|
|
Please contact me via the WLMD Contact Form on this site.
Thank you.
[Reply
]
|
Re: Re:
Posted on: 2008-02-13 07:57:02
By: Anonymous
|
|
A shame there was no reply on this one... it would have been an interesting story to follow up.
Chris.
[Reply
]
|
|