I don’t know if it’s because my web browers is not rendering images or pictures as well as it should, however I make rather nothing at all of the second photo, while perceiving some features in the first one.

In the first, I see what is or at least appears to be the head of the animal, light greenish eyes, which I presume is due to lighting reflecting off the eyes, and then, to the left and upper side of the head, I see what looks like or something like what could be mistaken for an antler, a bit like that of a moose.

Perhaps some people already mentioned that, for I haven’t taken the time to read all of the reader comments; but then even if someone else has, then you’ve now another one.

I see what you see, Try. Exactly.

How they got the image? Couldn’t tell you. But I see a thylacine sniffing the air.

NOT a deer.

Without that clarification, their colouration can add to the impression that Mr Emmerichs had attempted to manufacture the photos (albeit somewhat poorly).

Let me add one more comment about the criticism that the thylacine looks very similar to a 1930s print. In all honesty I still cannot make out the front half of the animal in detail. But if I am interpreting the posture correctly, then it appears to have its head lifted and be sniffing the air.

Robert Paddle’s book has a very similar image on the cover, but I don’t think you can say that a 1930s photo was used for a forgery in this case. My reason is that that posture was often adopted by thylacines.

The 7 published videos at The Thylacine Museum, showing living thylacines, show many of the animals briefly engaging this posture. For having only a few hundred frames of this animal, we have quite a significant number of instances where it has adopted this pose, therefore it’s not unreasonable to expect it might be captured in a photo in this way.

If anyone sees the posture (in Mr emmerichs’ photos) differently, please let me know.

On his return to Tasmania earlier this year, he engaged me to assist him in his efforts to gain credence for his photos.

Because his command of the English language is only fair, he found difficulty in expressing himself and felt frustrated because he felt no one belived him.

Acting on his behalf, I have thoroughly investigated his claims and interviewed him at length, as well as visiting the location of his sighting, and I am of the opinion he is an honourable man and is telling the truth about this matter.

I must point out that financial gain was never his motive, and he has so far not recouped the expense involved in pursuing this matter, which I might add is quite considerable.

It is therefore a quest of passion to prove to the world that the thylacine still exists.

These two photos are most definitely of a thylacine, there is absolutely no doubt about that.

The fact that the photos reproduced here appear out of focus and of poor quality is because they have been reproduced from a tabloid newspaper which had in turn had distorted the photos somewhat to guard against reproduction.

This was after a somewhat watered down story appeared in a Tasmanian newspaper that in my opinion did not give a fair and unbiased appraisal of the story.

They were up to that time the only published examples of the two photos taken by Mr Emmerichs near Tasmania’s Lake St Clair in February 2005, and which have since been published in a European magazine.

I have been investigating claims of thylacine sightings for almost 40 years after I believe I saw the animal in 1967.

Mr Emmerich’s photos are some of the best evidence I have seen regarding a post-1936 extant thylacine survival.

My research has taken me to most parts of the island in search of this animal and I firmly believe it still exists.

There are of course doubters and unbelievers of the continued existence of the Tasmanian tiger, as there are of a host of other cryptic animals the world over.

But, having thoroughly researched Mr Emmerich’s claims, I am looking forward to joining him in a search for his tiger when he returns to Tasmania next year.

Col Bailey; Tasmanian Tiger Research & Data Centre - New Norfolk, Tasmania 7140

My first impression on glancing at the photographs was that they displayed the remains of a very decayed tent left out in wind and storms for far too long.

I strongly suspect that thylacines survive but these blurs aren’t viable evidence in favor of that view.

I’d be very interested to see what, in the existing literature (Barring Patty, because we all seem to be using her as a good example already), you guys would consider GOOD photographic evidence of cryptids. Surely there have been a few promising pics over the years, and now seems to be a good time to remind ourselves of them. Just a friendly suggestion…