+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-general-section)
+--- Forum: Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-debate-and-discussion-about-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: For Waverider (/topic-for-waverider)
For Waverider - Pckts - 10-11-2016
If any of you are active on Carnivora you'll notice @WaveRiders calling a few of us out on Carnivora over koch's lion which I couldn't care less about. What I don't like is the fact that he is well aware that some of us (me for one) are banned on Carnivora and unable to discuss any claims which he is making. So, if you would like to discuss something new here, then feel free but don't call us out on a different forum when you're already a member here.
@BoldChamp don't try to say me and @Roflcopters are the same person.
RE: For Waverider - Polar - 10-11-2016
I have noticed this trend on Carnivora as well (visit there on a daily basis), especially on the thread marked as "Body Lengths and Weights of Tigers, Lions, Bears..."
He seems to be obsessed with that particular thread, and although many of his data points are quite correct, he seems to have the most issue in determining how to measure a big cat's total body length: he contradicts himself there.
In addition, I used to have an account at Carnivora with the same name "Polar" in 2014, but shortly after, Taipan banned me for "support of the tiger in the Lion vs Tiger thread without sufficient evidence". This was Taipan's exact reason for my ban, and he didn't even define what "sufficient" meant.
Carnivora has a larger database of factual and scientific documentation than WildFact (Ursus Arctos, for example), yet Carnivora is filled with an exaggerated amount of particular animal fans based on the animals in which Taipan chooses to prefer.
RE: For Waverider - GuateGojira - 10-11-2016
@Pckts, don't worry about them. You know that they only want a War. Both of them are typical hardcore-lion-fanatics, just that. They are atavism of old times when only tiger-vs-lion existed.
That lion from Richard Kock was not confirmed by anyone, not even him confirmed it, and he gives two different answers, which is tricky. Interestingly, the only CONFIRMED record from Kenya is a male lion of 230 kg, confirmed by the Kenya Wildlife Service and Dr Patterson in his book about the Tsavo lions. Probably the same lion, but adjusted for stomach content? We don't know and sincerely don't care.
Now, the problem is that Nowell & Jackson (1996) quoted the record, so most of the modern books just copy-paste it with no real justification. But it is interesting that not even the "great lion lover" Yamaguchi accept this record, in fact he quoted the lion of 260 kg of Etosha (stomach content included) as the heaviest lion on record.
Waveriders and Boldchamp only want attention, they are jealous that our forum not just survived, but is a success, without need of silly "vs" debates. They are like the Da Vinci Code, they gain the attention of the common people for a moment, but latter they are ignored and they post forgotten.
Don't worry about them, time will take care of that.
RE: For Waverider - Spalea - 10-11-2016
I confess too to have been a member of "Carnivora" for a long time. As you say Carnivora has perhaps a larger database of factual and scientific database than Wildfact, but what is the point if mostly forumers, having a mental age of 5, are definitively obsessed by any fights between animals ? And among these, a lot of these were particularly stupid (bengal tiger vs tiger shark for exemple) without considering fights between actual and prehistorical animals, fight between animals and movie ghosts (alien, predator...) and so on.
As concerns the endless, eternal, perpetual, never-ending, debate lion vs tiger, allow me to say that there are also a lot of fanatic tiger fans...
RE: For Waverider - Tshokwane - 10-11-2016
Carnivora is quite an odd place.
It's contradicting. You have a huge amount of info available, I learned a lot there, but at the same time much of it got diluted thanks to the attitudes of the people posting.
At the same time, there was zero doubts of the bias from Taipan. Sure, we all have favourites, but he manipulated some threads a lot to his liking. There was this constant feeling that whenever you disagreed with him, it wasn't long to be written off as a "kid" or downright censored for disagreeing with him and his pet.
As for Waveriders, I agree with Pckts.
It's easy to posture and shout a lot in a different place where the rules are different and the moderation reflects that.
I have to say, though, that some members strike me as very knowledgeable and at the same time humble, they felt no need to posture, or to show off their knowledge.
I'm talking about Ursus arctos, chui and Ceratodromeus and, to a lesser extent in the humility part, Warsaw. They are the ones that come to mind right now.
RE: For Waverider - BoldChamp - 10-11-2016
@Pckts I could very well be wrong that you are roflcopters, but the both of you are very similar in your posts. I apologize if i`m wrong. However, moving on, WaveRider made some interesting points, such as on the Chitwan tigers actually not being measured between pegs, like Sunquist stated to me through email. A tiger can be straightened as much as possible during measuring, but using a cloth tape to measure the length, going along the spine, is a comparatively straight measurement, but definitely not between pegs, and it would definitely add a few inches to the total, actual length.
Also, Guate is right that Richard Kock did not verify the 272 kg lion, but then, he wasn`t the one who published the figure. He states if the published documents was sourced from the original reports (which still exists), then it is reliable. The KWS reported that weight, indicating that they have those records. It was reported here:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2982/0012-8317%282001%2990%5B1:TSOMAL%5D2.0.CO;2
RE: For Waverider - BoldChamp - 10-11-2016
(10-11-2016, 07:57 AM)Polar Wrote: I have noticed this trend on Carnivora as well (visit there on a daily basis), especially on the thread marked as "Body Lengths and Weights of Tigers, Lions, Bears..."
He seems to be obsessed with that particular thread, and although many of his data points are quite correct, he seems to have the most issue in determining how to measure a big cat's total body length: he contradicts himself there.
In addition, I used to have an account at Carnivora with the same name "Polar" in 2014, but shortly after, Taipan banned me for "support of the tiger in the Lion vs Tiger thread without sufficient evidence". This was Taipan's exact reason for my ban, and he didn't even define what "sufficient" meant.
Carnivora has a larger database of factual and scientific documentation than WildFact (Ursus Arctos, for example), yet Carnivora is filled with an exaggerated amount of particular animal fans based on the animals in which Taipan chooses to prefer.
(10-11-2016, 08:09 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @Pckts, don't worry about them. You know that they only want a War. Both of them are typical hardcore-lion-fanatics, just that. They are atavism of old times when only tiger-vs-lion existed.
That lion from Richard Kock was not confirmed by anyone, not even him confirmed it, and he gives two different answers, which is tricky. Interestingly, the only CONFIRMED record from Kenya is a male lion of 230 kg, confirmed by the Kenya Wildlife Service and Dr Patterson in his book about the Tsavo lions. Probably the same lion, but adjusted for stomach content? We don't know and sincerely don't care.
Now, the problem is that Nowell & Jackson (1996) quoted the record, so most of the modern books just copy-paste it with no real justification. But it is interesting that not even the "great lion lover" Yamaguchi accept this record, in fact he quoted the lion of 260 kg of Etosha (stomach content included) as the heaviest lion on record.
Waveriders and Boldchamp only want attention, they are jealous that our forum not just survived, but is a success, without need of silly "vs" debates. They are like the Da Vinci Code, they gain the attention of the common people for a moment, but latter they are ignored and they post forgotten.
Don't worry about them, time will take care of that.
No, i`m not jealous of attention. You seem to be very biased towards the lions, excluding certain pieces of data you find unconfirmed, but using data on tigers that isn`t confirmed, presenting lengths over curves of Bengals and Amurs as being straight-line measurements, when clearly they were not. Why would i be jealous of some forum? Haven`t even been posting much. The 272 kg lion was confirmed by the KWS, here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2982/0012-8317%282001%2990%5B1:TSOMAL%5D2.0.CO;2
RE: For Waverider - BoldChamp - 10-11-2016
Weights of adult male tigers from Chitwan has also been published of about 400 lbs for 2 specimens, and another of 450 lbs, posted by WaveRiders.
RE: For Waverider - Pckts - 10-12-2016
(10-11-2016, 07:50 PM)BoldChamp Wrote: Weights of adult male tigers from Chitwan has also been published of about 400 lbs for 2 specimens, and another of 450 lbs, posted by WaveRiders.
Great, let's see them......
And his misinterpretation on what sunquist actually says holds no water. Cloth or metal, pegs or straight line, curves or not, gorged or not etc.unless specific person involved with the measurements gives detail, which sunquist does, we can make whatever assumptions but not if detail is provided.
Do you really care if you deduct a inch?
It's not going to change anything, tiger averages are going to stay the same.
I'm also pretty sure that everyone here including the mods who can see our IP addresses can vouche that copters and myself aren't the same poster so I can assume that you ever claiming that again is done for?
RE: For Waverider - Shardul - 10-12-2016
@Pckts
I suggest you ignore these people. When the words of a scientist, who actually weighed the tigers in the jungle, and published the data in a scientific journal, holds no credibility in the eyes of these people, what difference are our opinions going to make? These people are prejudiced and deceitful, but try to put on a mask of neutrality and objectivity in order to further their agenda.
RE: For Waverider - BoldChamp - 10-12-2016
(10-12-2016, 08:04 PM)Pckts Wrote:(10-11-2016, 07:50 PM)BoldChamp Wrote: Weights of adult male tigers from Chitwan has also been published of about 400 lbs for 2 specimens, and another of 450 lbs, posted by WaveRiders.
Great, let's see them......
And his misinterpretation on what sunquist actually says holds no water. Cloth or metal, pegs or straight line, curves or not, gorged or not etc.unless specific person involved with the measurements gives detail, which sunquist does, we can make whatever assumptions but not if detail is provided.
Do you really care if you deduct a inch?
It's not going to change anything, tiger averages are going to stay the same.
I'm also pretty sure that everyone here including the mods who can see our IP addresses can vouche that copters and myself aren't the same poster so I can assume that you ever claiming that again is done for?
Male tiger weighed just under 400 lb (181 kg) in Chitawan NP, Nepal, on March 1980 by Mishra (2010), with weight stated to be “the normal size for an adult male”
*This image is copyright of its original author
Male tiger with age evidently estimable 6.5-7 years old from the info provided in Mishra's book weighed at 450 lb (204.1 kg) in Chitawan NP, Nepal, on 1st January 1985 by Mishra (2010).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Full account of a tiger hunt of King Mohammad Zahir Shah of Afghanistan in the early 1960s guest of King Mahendra of Nepal reported by Mishra (2010) with a male tiger shot and weighed at over 400 lb (181.4 kg) in Chitawan NP, Nepal stated to be “a big male”
*This image is copyright of its original author
Not to mention the sample size of 7 males, for Chitwan tigers is not based upon 7 individual males, but instead 2 or 3 specimens weighed several times throughout the years, including each weighings as a separate sample.
RE: For Waverider - BoldChamp - 10-12-2016
(10-12-2016, 08:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: @Pckts
I suggest you ignore these people. When the words of a scientist, who actually weighed the tigers in the jungle, and published the data in a scientific journal, holds no credibility in the eyes of these people, what difference are our opinions going to make? These people are prejudiced and deceitful, but try to put on a mask of neutrality and objectivity in order to further their agenda.
Who said the scientists holds no credibility? I certainly didn`t. But, i do make sure the words of those scientists is based upon ""extensive"" data, and if i happen to find more data (only reliable ones), i will include that with the scientific ones, and make a judgement based upon that.
RE: For Waverider - BoldChamp - 10-12-2016
And @Pckts Sunquist`s measurements is not merely an 'in' difference in comparison to between pegs measurements. More like 3-4 inches, maybe 5. I have personally found that a good average length for tigers, is about 9ft 3 in., for Bengals and Siberians. It makes sense when you compare food intake to the weights of these animals.
RE: For Waverider - Shardul - 10-12-2016
(10-12-2016, 08:56 PM)BoldChamp Wrote:(10-12-2016, 08:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: @Pckts
I suggest you ignore these people. When the words of a scientist, who actually weighed the tigers in the jungle, and published the data in a scientific journal, holds no credibility in the eyes of these people, what difference are our opinions going to make? These people are prejudiced and deceitful, but try to put on a mask of neutrality and objectivity in order to further their agenda.
Who said the scientists holds no credibility? I certainly didn`t. But, i do make sure the words of those scientists is based upon ""extensive"" data, and if i happen to find more data (only reliable ones), i will include that with the scientific ones, and make a judgement based upon that.
Show me "extensive data" on the 272 kg lion.
RE: For Waverider - Pckts - 10-12-2016
(10-12-2016, 09:03 PM)BoldChamp Wrote: And @Pckts Sunquist`s measurements is not merely an 'in' difference in comparison to between pegs measurements. More like 3-4 inches, maybe 5. I have personally found that a good average length for tigers, is about 9ft 3 in., for Bengals and Siberians. It makes sense when you compare food intake to the weights of these animals.
No its not, if you're comparing over the curves to between the pegs then its 3-6 inches or so, but trying to split hairs between a straight line or between the pegs, or trying to say that sunquist really weighed or measured them "this way" even though he specifically says how it was obtained is incorrect.
Your "food intake" to weight ratio would also be an impossible equation as well.