Interlude (part 3)

We're between postings here at Where Light Meets Dark and over at Cryptomundo, Alton Higgins has submitted an excellent series of images which overlays the covering photograph from Robert Paddle's book, "The Last Tasmanian Tiger" onto one of Mr Emmerichs' February 2005 photograph.

The results are very interesting.

The match is more than a little perfect. As noted by Col Bailey of the Tasmanian Tiger Research and Data Centrein the original contribution by Mike Williams at Cryptomundo, the newspaper images were "distored ... somewhat to guard against reproduction."

My guess is that this accounts for the somewhat flourescent appearance of the thylacine's stripes. In fact, the greenish "stripes" are more likely to correlate with the usual tan fur colour of the thylacine. If you take a careful look at the photograph on Paddle's book (see centre image in Figure, below), there is quite a high contrast between the dark and light portions in that photo. In particular, the brightest areas tend to follow an arc, similar in shape to a rainbow. This correlates closely to Mr Emmerichs' photo.



Fig 05 (Click to enlarge)
This image shows the 1933 photograph depicted on the cover of Robert Paddle's book "The Last Tasmanian Tiger" (where it is credited to the Archives Office of Tasmania) at centre (black and white), together with two versions of Mr Emmerichs' February 2005 photograph (high contrast at top, and as published at Cryptomundo at bottom).

When considering the following points, note that the centre image may not be presented to exactly the same scale as the other two images. It was taken from the series of overlays presented by Alton Higgins at Cryptomundo.

The curve labelled "1" runs through the bottom edges of the highest-contrast white portions of the animal's stripes. It is identical in size and orientation in all three images.

The two arrows labelled "2" indicate two portions of high contrast pale fur colour on the animal's shoulder. The two arrows are equally spaced and oriented the same way in all three images.

The arrow labelled "3" shows a darker colouration which is visible in Mr Emmerichs' photo, but not in the 1933 print. Further adjustment of the 1933 image may yet indicate that this patch is present in the 1933 photo also. This analysis will be presented here at Where Light Meets Dark.

The arrow labelled "4" shows a significant change in the curve between the animal's hind leg and the thick base of the animal's tail. The deviation is present in all images in approximately the same location.

Arrows 3 and 4 are equally spaced and oriented the same way in all three images.

The correlation between Mr Emmerichs' photo and the 1933 print is fairly high, even with the poor quality reproductions.

Perhaps the most obvious correlation hasn't yet been mentioned here: the number positioning and spacing of the white portions between the dark stripes all correlate strongly also.

Paddle (2000) notes that "observation of photographs of live and dead thylacines demonstrates that enormous variability existed in banding patterns, concerning the total number of stripes, how far down the body and thighs they extended, and whether they were straight or curved, tapering to a single point or ending in a fork".

Given that the norm is for difference in appearance, and similarity is the exception, Mr Emmerichs' thylacine is looking all the more remarkable if it is a genuine 2005 specimen.

However, as previously noted, photographs (no matter how clear) will almost certainly never provide conclusive evidence of the existance of the thylacine. Contrawise - the fact that the thylacine in Mr Emmerichs' photo so closely correlates to a known photo of a 1933 specimen, does not automatically guarantee that the photo is not genuine.

The plot thickens.

References

Paddle, R. (2000) 'The Last Tasmanian Tiger: The History and Extinction of the Thylacine', Cambride University Press, 45.

Read more!

Let the games begin! (part 2)

What can we do with scans of newspaper clippings of digital images? Clearly if you've seen the images at Cryptomundo (be sure to click on them for enlargements), their quality leaves a lot to be desired.

However, as I've argued in the commentary at Cryptomundo and here at Where Light Meets Dark, the composition of the images gives us plenty to work with, but only because we have two photos which have been taken moments apart.

[Side note: The analysis presented here is being conducted piece-wise, in that I will publish results as I get them. Analysing images in this manner takes time, but with the discussion running hot amongst cryptozoologists worldwide, I felt it pertinent to get the argument out there for discussion.]

Apples with Apples

The first obstacle we have to contend with is to ensure the images are resized so that they are to scale. In order to do so, we need to find an element which is present in both photos. Fortunately, there is just such an element - a leaf, which I will call L1 (leaf 1).

The smaller image at Cryptomundo will be called image S. The bigger image at Cryptomundo will be called image B. (The term "larger" was avoided to avoid confusion with using the abbreviation 'L', which in this discussion refers to a leaf).



Fig 01 (click to enlarge)
A close up of both images showing leaf L1. A line was drawn on image B which spans leaf BL1. The image was zoomed to 200% (x2) and the line adjusted until its ends were directly over the leaf edges at relatively identifiable points. A copy of the line was positioned over image S. Image S was iteratively proportionally scaled until the line spanned the leaf SL1 in the same way as the first image. Image S was zoomed to 200% (x2) to confirm the ends of the line were directly over the edges of the leaf. The two lines are identical in length and angle. Screen captures at 200% zoom were taken and positioned side by side to produce this figure.

Note that in figure 01 the orientation of leaf L1 is identical between images. This is relevant to the discussion on camera rotation.

The context

Let's step back a little and see exactly where on the images leaf L1 can be found.



Fig 02 (click to enlarge)
This figure was created to get an overview on how the two images look in relation to each other. The smaller image (S) has been enlarged, and leaf L1 has been horizontally aligned.

Note that many of the other features visible in the image have changed relative position. As per Figure 01, the black lines through leaf L1 were used to ensure the accuracy of the magnification of image S.

Double Check

At this point, let's double check the magnification that was carried out. Another area of the image which is visible in both photos is that depicting the two strips on the rump of the thylacine. Well almost. As you'll see from the discussion of this Figure (below), a small portion of the stripes in one image is obscured.



Fig 03 (click to enlarge)
The rump. This image shows the rump area of the thylacine in both the bigger (B, top) and smaller (S, bottom) images. Each image of the rump is shown with measurement lines (at right) and without (at left). The first measurement made was of the width of the two stripes. The smaller image was measured, then the line duplicated and placed over the bigger image. This author finds the comparison inconclusive for two reasons; the top of the right-most stripe in image B is partly obscured by a leaf and the distinction between the somewhat falsely coloured stripe and the leaves in the image background is difficult to discern. As such, the accuracy of the placement of the lines is questionable.

The second (horizontal) line was placed at the widest visible point between the tail and hind leg in image B. The line was then copied and aligned with the hind leg in image S. It is clear the extent of the line protrudes over the tail of the animal but no conclusion can be drawn as it cannot be ascertained that the line has been placed at the same vertical distance from some fixed reference point (such as the ground or the rump); this lead to figure 04


Inconclusive

Let me emphasise that I found the analysis involving Figure 03 to be inconclusive. However, this analysis inspired Figure 04 (below). If we can vertically fix the position of the horizontal line in Figure 03, from some known point, then we can ask whether the tail has moved with respect to the rear portion of the hind leg.



Fig 04 (click to enlarge)
Figure 04 was created to address one shortcoming in figure 03 – namely the unreliability of the horizontal measurement in figure 03. In figure 04 a vertical line was added to image B which joined the end of the rump measurement to the horizontal measurement between the leg and the tail (at its widest visible point in that image). The indicated length of the line (5.95cm) is irrelevant. The same line was copied and duplicated on image S (line 2). Horizontal line 3 was then moved vertically into position so as to touch line 2 in the same way as shown on image B. Line 3 was also moved horizontally into position so as to touch the hind leg in the same way as shown on image B. The horizontal lines are of identical length between images. In image S, the horizontal line (3) clearly protrudes significantly over the tail for more than 50% of its thickness.

Note that for the horizontal positioning of the line, three visible points on the hind leg are indicated by the arrows. The exact point of contact between line 3 and the hind leg is obscured (in image S) by a mark which resembles vegetation, lying between arrows 2 and 3. The arrows provide points of reference either side of the contact point allowing the contact point to be interpolated.


Additional information is yielded by comparing the line subtended by the three arrows in image S (ie the angle of the hind leg) with the angle of the hind leg in image B; the hind leg appears to be “leaning slightly to the right of vertical”; that is, the top of the line is positioned slightly further right than the bottom. Looking at a point on the hind leg in image B which is equivalent in vertical distance from the horizontal line as that shown by arrow 1, clearly shows the leg “curving to the left” as you progress up the leg.

From this figure we can conclude that
• the leg is depicted at a different angle in each image
• and the tail is further from the leg in image B

One explanation for these observations is that in fact the photos depict a real thylacine or a thylacine taxidermy, and the tail moved with respect to the hind leg between photos. In addition or separately, the hind leg changed position with respect to the camera.

However, before a conclusion can be drawn, consideration must be given to alternative explanations. At this point we analyse the possibility that the photograph is of an inanimate object and question how the observed differences between the photos could be achieved by movement of the camera relative to the animal. It is sufficient to exclude all other photographed objects from the analysis as they have no bearing on the way in which the camera perceives the animal. Subsequent analyses will continue to examine the relative positioning of other elements in the photographs with the intent of determining whether or not consistency exists between the image.

(In plain terms, further analysis will continue to investigate whether it’s plausible to assert that the animal moved relative to its environment between photos.)

Read more!

Tasmanian Tiger Photographed! (part 1)

The photographs

In February 2005, Klaus Emmerichs and Birgit Jansen allegedly captured a thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger in two digital photographs. The couple was touring Tasmania from Germany via a stop in Melbourne where Mr Emmerichs' brother lives.

The couple claim they did not know the animal was extinct, took two photos, then the animal walked away. Later they realised they'd photographed an animal which hasn't been confirmed alive since 1936.

However, the couple had shortly to return to Germany, via Melbourne. In Melbourne they gave copies of the photographs to Mr Emmerichs' brother and allowed him to decide what to do with the images.

The brother flew back to Tasmania where several experts examined the images and agreed they depicted portions of a thylacine otherwise obscured by foliage. They were clear, however, that they could make no comment on the authenticity of the images unless they could be left for forensic investigation. However, the brother took the images back to Melbourne and began contacting media agencies regarding sale of the images.

Over time, the story drifted out of media attention, the images were apparently never published, and things went quiet.

"Stand by their claim"

In April 2006, the story came back into the media limelight when Klaus Emmerichs and Birgit Jansen returned to Tasmania, this time armed with a video camera and determination to prove their original sighting was no hoax.

The photos were supplied to the Sunday Tasmanian (newspaper) without charge, and published. The photographers took the opportunity to make some clarifications regarding their mysterious disappearance back to Germany after the sighting. It was never their intent to profit from the images, although now that they have been published in Tasmania, they are requesting a $1000 fee for publishing interstate.

In addition, the couple responded to several lines of questioning targeted at the image.

Photographers allege the blurring is not consistent with auto focus problems. Mr Emmerichs explains that a night-vision mode was set which increases exposure time, resulting in blurring.

Photos on the camera taken in January have the text 'JAN' to represent the month in their date stamp. However photographs taken in February, including the thylacine images, use the numeral '02' to represent the month. Mr Emmerichs explained that Brigit attempted to alter the camera's clock from German time to Australian time during the flight to Tasmania, also resulting in the different date stamp format.

It has been alleged the photos resemble a famous photo from the 1930s and to date that allegation has not received a response.

So what are we left with?

This is where it gets interesting.

The photos are available for viewing at the popular cryptozoology website, Cryptomundo. Be sure to click on them to view enlargements.

In typical commentary fashion, much debate has commenced on the merit of the photos, including many passionate comments contributed by this author.

The theme for this blog - Where Light Meets Dark - has today been switched to take a good analytical look at these photographs and to make attempts at ascertaining the viability of the photographs being genuine.

Unfortunately, it is 4.24am and I really must sleep, but stay tuned for discussion on the facts and allegations as we have them.

Despite claims that scans of newspaper clippings of digital photos are so degraded as to be worthless, I feel quite to the contrary. One crucial ingredient is the fact that we have two photos, and that gives us plenty to work with...

References

The Mercury News, 16/4/2006, "Picture pair insists their tiger's no fake", accessed 8/7/2006

Cryptomundo, 27/7/2006, "Cryptomundo Exclusive: Thylacine Photos", accessed 29/7/2006

Further Reading

The Thylacine Museum
Thylacine at Wikipedia

Read more!