Male tiger konda's true death reason?

[GuateGojira]

(07-29-2014, 09:55 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: "In fact, I am 100% sure that all these giants are no heavier than 260 kg"

Ok, so you are wrong?

2ndly,

''Those naturalist have the same sickness that affected Dr Vratislav Mazak, they are biased toward they favorite animal, in they case, the Bengal tiger."

This is unfounded, as many of these naturalist take pictures of many tigers from different areas. As well as taking pictures of much more than just Tigers, they take amazing bird photos, primate, water, etc. They spend hours and hours searching for more than just tigers, I suggest you take a look at the photos they post. Back to Tigers, they share and discuss them, most importantly, they have more of a right to say anything in regard to sizes of tigers compared to others than any of us could ever hope for. You, I,  and everybody else on this forum has never seen a prime bengal male or lion male for that matter in the wild. These guys see them every day, I chose to take their words over yours my friend. Thats like you trying to tell me about war because you have seen WW11 documentories compared to a WW11 Veteran telling me about war. You have no idea until you see it for yourself. That is fact.
 

 

 

(07-30-2014, 09:08 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(07-30-2014, 09:33 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(07-29-2014, 09:55 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: "In fact, I am 100% sure that all these giants are no heavier than 260 kg"

Ok, so you are wrong?

2ndly,

''Those naturalist have the same sickness that affected Dr Vratislav Mazak, they are biased toward they favorite animal, in they case, the Bengal tiger."

This is unfounded, as many of these naturalist take pictures of many tigers from different areas. As well as taking pictures of much more than just Tigers, they take amazing bird photos, primate, water, etc. They spend hours and hours searching for more than just tigers, I suggest you take a look at the photos they post. Back to Tigers, they share and discuss them, most importantly, they have more of a right to say anything in regard to sizes of tigers compared to others than any of us could ever hope for. You, I,  and everybody else on this forum has never seen a prime bengal male or lion male for that matter in the wild. These guys see them every day, I chose to take their words over yours my friend. Thats like you trying to tell me about war because you have seen WW11 documentories compared to a WW11 Veteran telling me about war. You have no idea until you see it for yourself. That is fact.
 



 

Pckts, I clearly said that those males of Kanha, that your “friends” say that weight 270 or 300 or even 320 kg, are the ones that DON’T weight over 260 kg. I repeat it, I clarified it, but still, you don’t understand.
 
The defense of opinions of people that take photographs is useless and although I clearly say that they opinions about the ecology of the tigers are important, I also clearly say that we CAN’T know the weight of an un-weighed specimen. Peter say that, Apollo agree with that, Tigerluver prove it with science, so, why is this stubbornness of proving that those tigers are “exceptionally” large, when probably they are not.
 
My statements about the biased points of view of those photographers are not unfounded, it is only the simple truth, and you are my best example now. This guys have saw those tigers in the wild, that is true, but I ask, which are they credentials? At least, here WE have studied tigers through several scientific documents and have collected the largest database in the web about records of sizes, but these guys are only taking pictures and even they observations in the wild, although valuable, are just “qualitative” and not “quantitative”, which at the best, can be classified as “anecdotal” and no more relevant than the old reports of Naturalists in the Journal of the Bombay of Natural History Society, in the years 1800 and 1900.
 
Again, READ MY WORDS, I am not saying that those reports are “unreliable”, put a good eye with this, I am just stating that they are appreciated but most be proved trough scientific test and repetitive observations until we can take them as “facts”. Qualitative evidence can be exceptions to the norm and can be also random events. Quantitative evidence is based in the scientific method and can be tested and quoted as facts.
 
We have seen live captive specimens of several sizes and in several places of the world. So, we are not ignorant in the issue. A large male tiger looks good in a picture, but how we can take an estimation of its size if we have nothing to compare it? Most of those “naturalist” that you quote are no more educated than most of us here. They only advantage are that they live in the place and have good cameras.
 
For example, I can also talk about the size of the wild jaguars in El Petén, Guatemala, as I have saw some huge specimens of c.130 kg, from MY point of view, but I will never say that this figure is true, especially when scientists have captured jaguars in Belize and they weight no more than 70 kg in the area.
 
Numbers are first; they can be collected, quantified and analyzed. The “opinion” of a photograph is valuable, but most be tested first with evidence. Witness can be deceived by the eyes, they heart or they personal interests.
 
The point here is why are you so mad with this issue? I mean, all this is irrelevant, but you are still stuck in this. The same happen with the white tiger issue, you were arrogant and against all the evidence, but at the end, several posters showed to you that white tigers were a reality in the wild. Is this theme the cause that you are now against me? If that is the case, sorry for making you feel bad. But if is not, then, why are you stuck with this issue?
 


 

"This guys have saw those tigers in the wild, that is true, but I ask, which are they credentials?"

Do I need credentials to know that Andre the Giant was larger than Spud Webb?  (tiny basketball player incase you don't know)



" At least, here WE have studied tigers through several scientific documents and have collected the largest database in the web about records of sizes, but these guys are only taking pictures and even they observations in the wild, although valuable, are just “qualitative” and not “quantitative”, which at the best, can be classified as “anecdotal” and no more relevant than the old reports of Naturalists in the Journal of the Bombay of Natural History Society, in the years 1800 and 1900."

So it continues to sound like you are speaking of estimated weights by AsianBuffalo?
But these photos and accounts are from far more than one random person on the internet. They have names attached, resumes on some, credentials, etc.
It sounds like you don't even know what you argueing about any more.

This was strictly about you saying Tigers don't get over 260kg in the wild and you were "100% sure" and me saying you could never be 100% sure and tigers have already weighed more than that, so you were wrong.

Everything else is hogwash, no offense. No body is talking about weights, they are talking about the size of these tigers, whether compared to others they have seen or just individuals. The only we know any of these ID's and stories is because of them.

Lastly, I'm not "mad" about anything. I was simply pointing out that you could not be 100% sure and that was all.
You choose to take it on a completely different route.

 

When I say “credentials” I clearly stated that this is about they estimates of size, and you know very good that “AsianBuffalo” is not the only one with weird estimations, or are you going to denied it now?
 
I know very well what we are arguing here, this is no longer about the ridiculous idea that I am wrong or not, this is about a witch hunt against me, since the issue of the white tigers, or not???
 
Obviously this is NOT strictly about the 260 kg issue, especially when I already explained my words and provided evidence for it. And of course, I am still 100% of my words, I am always sure of what I state, and when I am wrong because the data is incorrect, I show why.
 
Finally, from my point of view, the route of this discussion (because this is not even a debate) is the same since the beginning, I put a personal idea just to stop your silly discussion with Pantherinae and at the end, it was you, and only you, which began with this nonsense. I provided the reasons why I think that those Central Indian tigers are not over 260 kg, but I don’t see any evidence from your side to prove it wrong.
 
You want to continue, or you will drop this silly idea of quoting a single paragraph out of context? I simply don’t know why you are so affected about this.
  Reply