In my quick summary on the state of the analysis of the 2005 Emmerichs photos, I received a comment from Vance as follows:
"I would love to hear what you think about the photographs."
As I have held a few discussions with Mr Emmerichs regarding these photos since that summary was written, I thought I would respond to Vance's question in this new post...
As I've written during this analysis, I believe the photos show a consistent scene - that they were actually taken by a camera photographing the log, the foliage and the thylacine.
That leaves us asking whether the thylacine is real and alive.
In order to determine whether or not the animal moved between photos I would need higher resolution images to see if I can accurately confirm which "layer" (from foreground to background) that the animal appears in, and then whether or not the animal changed its position relative to its environment by an amount larger or smaller than expected due to the change in position of the camera.
I have been in discussion with Mr Emmerichs and as a result am in the process of investigating further features of the images which I have available. Mr Emmerichs emphasised that in the original images there is much more detail visible, including fur, the positioning of the ears (which differs to the 1930s Fleay photograph to which Emmerichs' photos have been compared) and he claims that it is obvious the animal moved between shots.
Additionally, I agree with veteran thylacine researcher (of 39 years) and author Col Bailey that Mr Emmerichs presents himself as genuine. Mr Bailey, has seen the original images and is in no doubt that they depict a real, live thylacine.
Nick Mooney, biologist with the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife service, who has been investigating thylacine sightings for 20 years also had no problem identifying a thylacine when he viewed the original images. His only question at that time was whether the photos were genuine, which is the subject of the analysis here at Where Light Meets Dark.
A reporter with the Gazette sent an enquiry to Ricoh, who manufactured the camera used by Emmerichs and Ricoh confirmed that if the image exists on the camera's internal memory (which it does), then it could only get there by the camera itself taking a photograph, and not by uploading from a PC.
This leaves us with only one possible way of feigning the image - photographing something that looks like a thylacine. Given the opinions of Bailey and Mooney, my discussions with Emmerichs and my conclusions on the photographs themselves, there is a good case to state the photos are genuine.
Do recall however that at the start of the analysis I acknowleged that no photograph, no matter how clear, will ever be accepted as proof of existence of living thylacines.
Interested readers might like to see my article describing my own experience photographing a swamp wallaby in Oatley Park where I raise several questions relating to the authenticity of photographs.
In that instance, there can be no doubt that my photos are genuine (in my mind at least!) and I suggest that this can be verified by following a variety of lines of enquiry.
In the case of Emmerichs' photos, similar lines of enquiry support his claim that the photos are genuine.