A quick note (part 6)
Before we get back on track with the main aim of the image analysis, just a quick note about my last post here at Where Light Meets Dark. Thanks to Anton Higgins' analysis, I drew the conclusion that we could not dismiss Klaus Emmerichs' February 2005 photos of a thylacine on the basis that its stripes are similarly positioned and spaced to those of a thylacine in a 1933 photograph.
Leading in to that, in the post before, I was examining an odd marking on the hind leg of Emmerichs' thylacine. A similar mark was found in the 1933 photo, but the dark colouration across the animal's stomach seemed poorly aligned between photos. In that post I implied that if the 2005 photos were a hoax, then perhaps they were created using a different version (or scale) of the 1933 image than that used in my analysis.
In all fairness, and in light of Higgins' striping pattern analysis, I should add that another possible explanation is that Emmerichs did in fact photograph a live thylacine and did not use a pre-existing photograph to produce a hoax.
We will return to the job of reconstructing the scene as Emmerichs photographed it, in the next post.
Leading in to that, in the post before, I was examining an odd marking on the hind leg of Emmerichs' thylacine. A similar mark was found in the 1933 photo, but the dark colouration across the animal's stomach seemed poorly aligned between photos. In that post I implied that if the 2005 photos were a hoax, then perhaps they were created using a different version (or scale) of the 1933 image than that used in my analysis.
In all fairness, and in light of Higgins' striping pattern analysis, I should add that another possible explanation is that Emmerichs did in fact photograph a live thylacine and did not use a pre-existing photograph to produce a hoax.
We will return to the job of reconstructing the scene as Emmerichs photographed it, in the next post.
posted by youcantryreachingme at 00:58
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home