I live right by a park here in Virginia, and see all manner of wildlife regularly. If I am lucky, around dusk, a small fox will run by somewhere while I am out walking my dog. I have seen them run many times, and they run nothing like the animal in the footage taken from this car window. The foxes are small, fast, and run with a smooth, fast, low gait. They hug the ground, and can take tight corners easily, almost using their huge tails as a counterbalance.

Likewise, I have seen many dogs run, including my own. Again, a fast, regular runner; nothing heavy or awkward here.

The animal in the film taken from a car window runs in a heavy, awkward motion. One part always seems up in the air, either the front or the back section, while it runs. Foxes and dogs look smoother; their backs stay straighter. The animal in the film seems to run too awkwardly to be a good hunter; it also seems heavy on its feet. Foxes and dogs do not give this impression.

If this was a thylacine in the film, of course, it was still back in 1973. That is over 30 years ago, and less than 40 since the last "official" thylacine died. I hope that someone can come up with some more recent film. None of the archival films show thylacines running, so another sample would help to determine if this animal does move differently from how foxes and dogs run.

Hello China - I run a separate website, and have analysed many of the frames from the 1973 footage. You can check it out here:
http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=19

However - I used a much lower resolution copy; I do plan (time permitting) to work on this again using the footage that Diego has supplied... the first change in my conclusion will be to agree with Cameron Campbell's observation that stripes seem to be visible in some frames...

Now if we could only get a film with the quality of the new Chaotika photo! I don't know if that photo is real, but the quality is great. A film with the possible credibility of the 1973 one, mixed with the photo quality and color of the Chaotika photo, and maybe we would have something to really get excited about.

"A film with the possible credibility of the 1973 one, mixed with the photo quality and color of the Chaotika photo, and maybe we would have something to really get excited about."

Yep - they're called the Cascade beer ads!

Sorry.. couldn't help it!

How could I forget the Emmerichs photos? If Col Bailey feels that they are genuine, who am I to disagree? I wish I could get a copy of the original magazine with the photos in it. I emailed the one on the Cryptomundo board, when they made them pull the photos, saying I would like to buy a copy of the magazine. No reply. Makes you wonder if that request to take the photos off of that site was genuine.

Have you seen the originals? Do you have any idea how I could contact the magazine that ran them, whatever it is? I know that the ones that we saw on the website were more distorted and blurry than the originals. Also, the park ranger people also got excited about the original photos; that says a lot.

Klaus Emmerichs was supposed to go out with Col Bailey to look for thylacines sometime in 2006. I am eagerly awaiting that trip. Maybe something really wonderful will come out of it.

I uploaded to youtube another vid ripped from the 'animal X natural mistery unit'

here we go:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4e4svNE40aQ

later I will post a link to a higher resolution download

When I was still in the States (I left at the very end of August, 2006) I managed to catch the thylacine episode on Animal X. They came to no conclusions. Did they film this sequence at that time, and not want to show it? Or is this something new? Now that I am in Indonesia, it is harder for me to get news of thylacine documentaries. And I don't want to miss a thing!

How did you manage to come by this film? Can you tell me anymore about it? Where was it shot? When was it shot? What do they think that they have on film here? Have any of the thylacine people (such as Col Bailey, and some of the park rangers, or some of the museum people) seen it and had anything to say about it? It is certainly a high-interest film; this is the first time I have seen it. I sure can't wait for your copy in a better resolution.

I also can't wait to hear all I can about this new film. Any light that you can shed on it will be eagerly awaited! I think that the 1973 film is of a thylacine, but that was over 30 years ago. A new film of a thylacine would be an incredible, exciting, discovery.

Yes - the request to remove the photos from the internet is genuine.

I am in regular phone contact with Mr Emmerichs, but I have not seen the originals. I know that previously Mr Emmerichs would have been happy to sell the photos for a reasonably small sum (considering - my opinion), but I don't know what the current status on that is.

Mr Emmerichs did return to Australia in April 2006. This is when he met Col Bailey and also when he gave publishing rights to a Tasmanian newspaper to print the photos - free of charge. At that time he was asking A$1000 from anyone wanting to publish the photos outside Tasmania. This information comes from the website of the European magazine who later also received publishing rights.

I don't know if the European magazine paid for the rights to publish the photos in Europe, or not.

If, perchance, you do want to buy the photos, I can be contacted via the form on my website (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com) and I can forward the request on for you.

I might add also, that my analysis of the image rested heavily on the geometry of the objects pictured in the photos - the relative positions between corresponding objects - and hence did not necessarily require the high-resolution versions to carry out.

At this stage, however, I cannot really move forward on the analysis unless I can see the originals. I need to establish which "layer" (from foreground to background) the thylacine is in. To do this I need to ascertain which leaves appear closer to the camera, which appear further away, by seeing which parts of the image overlap the others.

In my analysis, I *deduce* the layering based on the change in relative position of the objects - so if I can demonstrate by inspection of the originals that the layering is different to my deduction - then I would conclude that the animal moved between photos (because it is actually outside the expected range of movement due to the change in position of the camera between shots).

I realise the above sounds confusing... It's pretty hard to explain in text

My summary is at: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=20

Anyway... now I have to follow that Youtube link to see what this latest footage is about!