• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

There's no mention of mange. The author says fox but never talks about why a red fox would appear to have a slender tail profile.

It's not a minor mistake. The animal's appearance suggests a thylacine because it has mange.
 
EHocking said:
This is exactly my point.

They had recordings of extant woodpeckers that were not IBWP, which they used to declare the existence of IBWP, because its knocking was similar.
But they had no recording of an IBWP knock and then carried on analysing their current recordings with the verve, vigour and inventiveness of the best Bigfoot "Researcher".
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I'm missing your point. If I'm looking for sounds of Campephilus A but I only have recordings of the similar Campephilus B, it makes fine sense to me to search recordings for signatures of Campephilus B sounds as plausible evidence for Campephilus A in an area outside the distribution of Campephilus B but within the historical distribution of Campephilus A.

Analysis of the double-knocks was actually quite robust, with comparison to similar sounds only revealed through the physical parameters of Campephilus B double-knocks and any sounds that met strict criteria to match those parameters.

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the Lab's conclusion that there was at least one extant Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005. I don't have a problem with the double-knock analysis from automated recording units. They deployed these things all over the Southeastern US and the only place they obtained recordings that met their stringent criteria was in the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas.
 
William Parcher said:
There's no mention of mange. The author says fox but never talks about why a red fox would appear to have a slender tail profile.

It's not a minor mistake. The animal's appearance suggests a thylacine because it has mange.
Click to expand...

Well,
http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agric...eeds/pest-animals/a-z-of-pest-animals/red-fox
Foxes are susceptible to the same diseases as dogs which are transmissible between these animals. Mange and distemper are thought to be important causes of mortality in wild fox populations, however little is known about their role in regulating Australian fox populations.
Click to expand...
 
The footage is amazingly steady for being taken with a cellphone. At first I thought I was looking at 35mm digital on a tripod.

Also, that appears to be a cultivated field. Looks like crop rows in the foreground.
 
At about 1:10 in the Thylacine video on wiki where the Thylacine puts a whole section of it's back legs on the ground for support...do dogs do that when in similar poses?

I don't think so?

When the Thylacine is just walking around, it stays up on it's feet like a dog.

When I see pics of a dog looking up a tree for a squirrel, the back legs are usually up on the feet, not like the Thylacine.
 
Last edited:
One of the things I find interesting with this video discussion is how it clearly refutes the footer claim that video footage is useless and that skeptics would never give any footage the time of day.

Clearly this does not seem to be the case, at least what I can see with this alleged Thylacaine video.
 
dmaker said:
One of the things I find interesting with this video discussion is how it clearly refutes the footer claim that video footage is useless and that skeptics would never give any footage the time of day.
Click to expand...
What could be more fun than analyzing some piece of ambiguous evidence for its possible paradigm-shifting implications?!
 
Resume said:
http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com....ay-thylacine-moonta-sunrise-further-analysis/
Click to expand...
I'm really amazed that the author and the other guy "Kay" he quoted both use mange fox outlines without any mention of them being that.

It's majorly significant that the animal must be afflicted with mange before its outline begins to resemble a thylacine. This is important for the analysis of this video but it's also important for the analysis of other purported thylacine videos. It also matters a lot for people who might see one of these and think they are seeing a thylacine. Yet there is no mention at all in the articles. It's so weird.

Here's a normal red fox outline.
 

Attachments

  • red-fox-silhouette-at-sunset-roeselien-raimond.jpg
    red-fox-silhouette-at-sunset-roeselien-raimond.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 2
William Parcher said:
I'm really amazed that the author and the other guy "Kay" he quoted both use mange fox outlines without any mention of them being that.

It's majorly significant that the animal must be afflicted with mange before its outline begins to resemble a thylacine. This is important for the analysis of this video but it's also important for the analysis of other purported thylacine videos. It also matters a lot for people who might see one of these and think they are seeing a thylacine. Yet there is no mention at all in the articles. It's so weird.

Here's a normal red fox outline.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the mange in OZ is too mundane to mention.
 
What's the reason for all the Thylacine ambiguity if they haven't been seen in over 80 years? All of a sudden one's gonna show up? Even supposing there's just a single breeding pair that only replicates itself incestuously every 10 years long generation, how could they have not been found by now? So many previous specimens were easily found, hunted and killed, yet now they're sleek and stealth ninjas never to be "officially" seen again, but they're out there? To paraphrase The Shrike, Bigfoot anyone? :p
 
The Shrike said:
I'm sorry but I'm missing your point. If I'm looking for sounds of Campephilus A but I only have recordings of the similar Campephilus B, it makes fine sense to me to search recordings for signatures of Campephilus B sounds as plausible evidence for Campephilus A in an area outside the distribution of Campephilus B but within the historical distribution of Campephilus A.

Analysis of the double-knocks was actually quite robust, with comparison to similar sounds only revealed through the physical parameters of Campephilus B double-knocks and any sounds that met strict criteria to match those parameters.
Click to expand...
Marginally compelling, except for the fact that Pileated WP (common in the area) also have been known to produce double knocks that are indistinguishable from double knocks of Campephilus woodpeckers.
My bolding.
According to Cornell, "In most cases, these can be identified by their proximity to typical Pileated drum rolls".
So doubt remains even on identifying common Pileated knocking.
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the Lab's conclusion that there was at least one extant Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005. I don't have a problem with the double-knock analysis from automated recording units. They deployed these things all over the Southeastern US and the only place they obtained recordings that met their stringent criteria was in the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas.
Click to expand...
Well, I have to argue that applying their "stringent criteria" is all well and good, but when one of the critical double-knock criteria, the inter-strike interval, appears to be largely arbitrary. Unfortunately the only document that seems to be missing from their site, is the one that explains how they determined a range of 60-120ms.

They argue that their conclusions that the double-knocks are plausible evidence because it is "quantitative" - but it is quantified against a seemingly arbitrary benchmark whose documentary evidence is currently missing - since 2007 or so according to the Wayback Machine (your GoogleFu may be better than mine).

As I said, I felt they acted just a little like wide-eyed, wishful-thinking "cryptozoologists" of a lesser scientific background. As such, Cornell's endless analyses and discussions need to be taken with just as much salt, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom