Mystery Beast in Far north Queensland

I can't say i have heard of anything like this before here in Australia.
Can anyone shed some light on what they think it might be?
Newspaper clipping
***right click on link and select save target as***

[edit on 27-11-2005 by Spica]

Links not opening for me.

Can you check it?

Yeh... Quiktime comes up with ?... Please provide another link.

Sounds like some kind of wild dog that got loose. I just went back and reread it. If you look at the pics of wild dogs in Africa there are several that are similar to that description.

[edit on 11/27/2005 by Zaphod58]

I believe this is what was trying to be posted. Correct me if I am wrong.

www.defence.gov.au...

Interesting, and we may be able to keep an eye on this one:

Air Force newspaper is offering a prize for the best explanation of the No. 4 Rifle Flight members’ sighting. Entries should include a photograph or sketch of an animal that meets the description and a reason why the creature would be in the area.

Good criteria set for the contest too.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sounds like some kind of wild dog that got loose. I just went back and reread it. If you look at the pics of wild dogs in Africa there are several that are similar to that description.

The description doesn't completely fit the true "African Wild Dog" description, although the hyena fits the bill perfectly. Question is how/where did it escape. Or it could be another species of wild dog...?

It sounds like the creature keeps in the same area, so it should be easy enough to set a (non-lethal) trap to catch it.

I wonder if it could be a Thylacine, which isn't that far from the description?
Thylacine

Then there's also the supposed Queensland Tiger (Tasmanian Tiger)? Although the animal doesn't sound as aggressive as the Queensland Tiger.
Article by Loren Coleman

Curious footprint though. I don't see a date on the article. Does anyone have a date?

Is it just me, or is that a damn big paw print. I'm assuming thats a 308 shell put there for comparison?

I'll see if I can find some more on this

[edit on 28-11-2005 by madhatter]

I was thinking Thylacine at first, but that IS a pretty big paw print.

I found this site Giant Mystery Cats Of Australia it might be worth checking out.
It's a start anyway



[edit on 28-11-2005 by madhatter]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I was thinking Thylacine at first, but that IS a pretty big paw print.

Agreed. But not only is it big (for a waist high animal!? ) but also extremely odd-shaped. I can only guess what the animal's foot looks like.

It reminded me of a hippo's footprint... I double-checked this, but the 4 toes are in 3 different directions, so that's not it. ( Hippo Print )

This is what the average wild dog's footprint looks like.
This is a hyena print.
Siberian Tiger Print
Wombat Footprint

There is just nothing like it!? The lack of claws or nails in the print makes me wonder if it's not a cat (but felines are easy recognizable animals!) or in fact a whole new/different species. A true criptiod?

I doubt it's a cat. I don't know of any cats that have longer front legs than hind legs. Usually it's just the opposite, so they can push off with their hind legs, and build up speed for the chase.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I doubt it's a cat. I don't know of any cats that have longer front legs than hind legs. Usually it's just the opposite, so they can push off with their hind legs, and build up speed for the chase.

I agree. Strongly doubt that it's a cat, because it would easily have been recognized and described as feline. But then again, Australia has the tendency to turn up weird animals. Kangeroos. Platypus - whatever the plural is... LoL!. Koalas. Tasmanian Devils. I think it's safe to assume that we can't compare the animal with the rest of the world's animals. The same rules just don't apply to the land Down Under...

already came across a pic of a similar creature somewhere i think it was a hoaxus gigantecus, but seriously looks like a hyena , looks only , if that pic has been taken with a nightvision scope then they make them with built-in cameras now , and last but not least i do not see the usual granularity of night vision equipment , that granularity even happens with high end hardware, the colours do not match the usual night vision either but that could be due to the printing .
It looks like the trees on the left hand side are real but then a little further to the right it looks photoshopped , the track is flat like it would have been left on a rocky surface, but then again how could you leave tracks on such a hard surface, the gravel (looks like gravel at least) wouldn't have that perfect structure nah seen more convincing stuff

Hvitserk, I'm with you on the pic... hoaxus gigantecus
I completely ignored the picture because I took it as an "artist's depiction" of what the guys looked at... But if they placed the picture as "this is the actual thing we saw and photgraphed" then I think the case is closed...

The clipping actually says it is a sketch by the guy of what he saw so we can rule out hoaxus gigantecus I hope.
Also it is the November 3rd 2006 edition of the paper

I have a hard time believing any creature would cause large rocks as well as small pebbles to completely move out from under the paw pad from a what appears to be rock-like surface. It would step on them and then off again as any creature would. But, as you can see in this picture, in this supposed paw print where the pads have applied pressure to the ground, all the rocks and pebbles (even sand it seems) have been moved completely out of the way exposing the smooth surface of the ground under it. I don't know about you, but this sends a little red warning light to me.

I have to agree, that "paw print" looks like someone drew it in the dirt with their finger.

It all points to a thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger),

The longer front legs than back (thylacines back legs look shorter due to bend)


The small head


The print (dogs and cats have 4 pad prints, the thylacine has 5)

Why didn't they shoot it?