There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-19-2019, 05:05 PM( This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 05:11 PM by Shadow )
(04-19-2019, 04:45 PM)Lycaon Wrote: This just seems like a convoluted attempt to cover up poaching
Even too convoluted maybe? Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching?
I think, that they really have been first looking it to be just a normal territorial fight, but then in further investigation noticing, that it has been most probably some other animal and then been very curious to find out what. Starting to make some complex conspiracy sounds for me simply too much trouble, it is just a tiger after all, not prime minister of India or something :)
If you look at publishing dates of news, you notice, that oldest one has different information and the two published after it have same information. It is quite normal, that the earlier article about something is, the more there are smaller or bigger mistakes which then are corrected later. That same thing happens in every news, when there is some accident etc. Best informative value is always in articles a little bit after some finding, when details have been checked and double checked :)
The 2 most recent articles state the tiger was fished out of the water.
That of course carries it's own questions as well.
There was that term floating in second article, true, whatever was meant by it then. In last article then again it wasn´t said like that. But this is typical for news about accidents and that kind of incidents.
Yes but the first 2 articles have later publishing date than the last one and both mention either the tiger being fished out of the watering hole or being found in the watering hole, so most likely that's where he was.
If you look at publishing dates of news, you notice, that oldest one has different information and the two published after it have same information. It is quite normal, that the earlier article about something is, the more there are smaller or bigger mistakes which then are corrected later. That same thing happens in every news, when there is some accident etc. Best informative value is always in articles a little bit after some finding, when details have been checked and double checked :)
The 2 most recent articles state the tiger was fished out of the water.
That of course carries it's own questions as well.
There was that term floating in second article, true, whatever was meant by it then. In last article then again it wasn´t said like that. But this is typical for news about accidents and that kind of incidents.
Yes but the first 2 articles have later publishing date than the last one and both mention either the tiger being fished out of the watering hole or being found in the watering hole, so most likely that's where he was.
Yes, in the watering hole for sure, but was it on the shore partially floating or floating in the middle of that is another question. But I didn´t mean to disagree about it, that there it was :)
(04-19-2019, 04:45 PM)Lycaon Wrote: This just seems like a convoluted attempt to cover up poaching
Even too convoluted maybe? Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching?
I think, that they really have been first looking it to be just a normal territorial fight, but then in further investigation noticing, that it has been most probably some other animal and then been very curious to find out what. Starting to make some this complex conspiracy sounds for me simply too much trouble, it is just a tiger after all, not prime minister of India or something :)
Only one person stated that it "possibly" could be a Bear and that was based off a photo trap shot only.
No vets stated anything about a bear, in fact no other person I've seen has mentioned it being a bear and Siddharth Singh is saying it's a result of infighting from a younger Male.
If you look at publishing dates of news, you notice, that oldest one has different information and the two published after it have same information. It is quite normal, that the earlier article about something is, the more there are smaller or bigger mistakes which then are corrected later. That same thing happens in every news, when there is some accident etc. Best informative value is always in articles a little bit after some finding, when details have been checked and double checked :)
The 2 most recent articles state the tiger was fished out of the water.
That of course carries it's own questions as well.
There was that term floating in second article, true, whatever was meant by it then. In last article then again it wasn´t said like that. But this is typical for news about accidents and that kind of incidents.
Yes but the first 2 articles have later publishing date than the last one and both mention either the tiger being fished out of the watering hole or being found in the watering hole, so most likely that's where he was.
Yes, in the watering hole for sure, but was it on the shore partially floating or floating in the middle of that is another question. But I didn´t mean to disagree about it, that there it was :)
04-19-2019, 05:20 PM( This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 05:21 PM by Shadow )
(04-19-2019, 05:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 05:05 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 04:45 PM)Lycaon Wrote: This just seems like a convoluted attempt to cover up poaching
Even too convoluted maybe? Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching?
I think, that they really have been first looking it to be just a normal territorial fight, but then in further investigation noticing, that it has been most probably some other animal and then been very curious to find out what. Starting to make some this complex conspiracy sounds for me simply too much trouble, it is just a tiger after all, not prime minister of India or something :)
Only one person stated that it "possibly" could be a Bear and that was based off a photo trap shot only.
No vets stated anything about a bear, in fact no other person I've seen has mentioned it being a bear and Siddharth Singh is saying it's a result of infighting from a younger Male.
I have seen on these articles as latest thing, that it would be most probably a sloth bear. After autopsy etc. So I intend to believe that as most probable situation.
If you look at publishing dates of news, you notice, that oldest one has different information and the two published after it have same information. It is quite normal, that the earlier article about something is, the more there are smaller or bigger mistakes which then are corrected later. That same thing happens in every news, when there is some accident etc. Best informative value is always in articles a little bit after some finding, when details have been checked and double checked :)
The 2 most recent articles state the tiger was fished out of the water.
That of course carries it's own questions as well.
There was that term floating in second article, true, whatever was meant by it then. In last article then again it wasn´t said like that. But this is typical for news about accidents and that kind of incidents.
Yes but the first 2 articles have later publishing date than the last one and both mention either the tiger being fished out of the watering hole or being found in the watering hole, so most likely that's where he was.
Yes, in the watering hole for sure, but was it on the shore partially floating or floating in the middle of that is another question. But I didn´t mean to disagree about it, that there it was :)
This is your version:)
Hahaha :) No my friend, that is what is in those articles, just read links you share
04-19-2019, 05:40 PM( This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 05:41 PM by Shadow )
(04-19-2019, 05:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 05:05 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 04:45 PM)Lycaon Wrote: This just seems like a convoluted attempt to cover up poaching
Even too convoluted maybe? Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching?
I think, that they really have been first looking it to be just a normal territorial fight, but then in further investigation noticing, that it has been most probably some other animal and then been very curious to find out what. Starting to make some this complex conspiracy sounds for me simply too much trouble, it is just a tiger after all, not prime minister of India or something :)
Only one person stated that it "possibly" could be a Bear and that was based off a photo trap shot only.
No vets stated anything about a bear, in fact no other person I've seen has mentioned it being a bear and Siddharth Singh is saying it's a result of infighting from a younger Male.
If you read this article and what is said about nature of injuries.
When combining that statement to it, that there also is actually seen a big sloth bear which looks like to be injured. So no, not only camera trap photos. That is also why I think, that this case looks like to be fight between these animals. Not one single detail, but overall information combined makes it look like to be most obvious situation.
04-19-2019, 05:42 PM( This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 05:44 PM by Pckts )
(04-19-2019, 05:40 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 05:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 05:05 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(04-19-2019, 04:45 PM)Lycaon Wrote: This just seems like a convoluted attempt to cover up poaching
Even too convoluted maybe? Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching?
I think, that they really have been first looking it to be just a normal territorial fight, but then in further investigation noticing, that it has been most probably some other animal and then been very curious to find out what. Starting to make some this complex conspiracy sounds for me simply too much trouble, it is just a tiger after all, not prime minister of India or something :)
Only one person stated that it "possibly" could be a Bear and that was based off a photo trap shot only.
No vets stated anything about a bear, in fact no other person I've seen has mentioned it being a bear and Siddharth Singh is saying it's a result of infighting from a younger Male.
If you read this article and what is said about nature of injuries.
When combining that statement to it, that there also is actually seen a big sloth bear which looks like to be injured. So no, not only camera trap photos. That is also why I think, that this case looks like to be fight between these animals. Not one single detail, but overall information combined makes it look like to be most obvious situation.
It's the same account, nothing new.
The autopsy results of death by a large carnivore, no mention of a bear from anyone involved in the autopsy.
(04-19-2019, 04:45 PM)Lycaon Wrote: This just seems like a convoluted attempt to cover up poaching
Even too convoluted maybe? Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching?
I think, that they really have been first looking it to be just a normal territorial fight, but then in further investigation noticing, that it has been most probably some other animal and then been very curious to find out what. Starting to make some this complex conspiracy sounds for me simply too much trouble, it is just a tiger after all, not prime minister of India or something :)
Only one person stated that it "possibly" could be a Bear and that was based off a photo trap shot only.
No vets stated anything about a bear, in fact no other person I've seen has mentioned it being a bear and Siddharth Singh is saying it's a result of infighting from a younger Male.
If you read this article and what is said about nature of injuries.
When combining that statement to it, that there also is actually seen a big sloth bear which looks like to be injured. So no, not only camera trap photos. That is also why I think, that this case looks like to be fight between these animals. Not one single detail, but overall information combined makes it look like to be most obvious situation.
It's the same account, nothing new.
There is statement about nature of injuries and why sloth bear is suspected. You said, that only thing indicating to sloth bear were camera trap photos and that was not the case. So maybe you just forgot to mention it then?
04-19-2019, 05:46 PM( This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 08:11 PM by Rishi )
(04-19-2019, 05:41 PM)Diamir2 Wrote: "that it would be most probably"-it was not there!
You quoted comment about water hole, there are two articles saying, that it was found from there. If you mean something else, maybe you could first say what do you mean?
It's the same account, meaning the same person who said it could be a sloth bear is the only one saying that. So anything to do with a sloth bear, injuries from a sloth bear or a sloth bear in the area with scratches is all the same person and they have nothing to do with the autopsy.
Now in regards to the autopsy, the actual scientific study of what caused the death of the tiger, they only mention it was a large carnivore and the tiger died of puncture wounds and hemorrhaging. No veternian on staff mentioned anything about a bear.
04-19-2019, 06:12 PM( This post was last modified: 04-19-2019, 08:11 PM by Rishi )
(04-19-2019, 05:54 PM)Pckts Wrote: It's the same account, meaning the same person who said it could be a sloth bear is the only one saying that. So anything to do with a sloth bear, injuries from a sloth bear or a sloth bear in the area with scratches is all the same person and they have nothing to do with the autopsy.
Now in regards to the autopsy, the actual scientific study of what caused the death of the tiger, they only mention it was a large carnivore and the tiger died of puncture wounds and hemorrhaging. No veternian on staff mentioned anything about a bear.
I dared to assume, that this person talking about injuries have had discussions with veterinarian team before making statements based on his status as DTR field director
So I admit, that I give some value to his statement combined with other known things about this case. Of course this kind of case always leaves some room for different theories.
Of course there are many theories always, but sometimes it can be also good to sit back and think, that maybe it is just what it looks like to be, a dead tiger killed by another animal. If they would want to cover up poaching, they could just say, that tiger killed in territorial fight with another tiger. Why really start to make up something complicated if only wanting to cover up poaching? 
