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.
07-27-2014, 10:07 AM( This post was last modified: 07-27-2014, 10:08 AM by sanjay )
Here I tried to translate Rofl last post in reply of Vinod, so that other can understand. ( sorry if i done it wrong rofl [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img] )
"Do you think that big male tiger can be found in Panna national park only ? All I want to say that, Panna is only place from central India where the male tigers have been weighed. Tigers are also found in Tadoba national park and the largest among them is waghdoh. All the tourism industry always praise waghdoh and keep saying that he is the largest Indian male tiger, so there should be no doubt in this. Also, I respect your opinion and experience therefore I am writing all these in Hindi language (Common Indian language).
(07-24-2014, 10:23 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: GUYS! Do you know that you are arguing about the size of cats that had not been measured or weighed???
In fact, I am 100% sure that all these giants are no heavier than 260 kg and no larger than c.205 cm in head-body length and c.105 cm in shoulder height. The only one probably larger than this size is Wagdoh and of course, the giants of Kaziranga.
The pictures show tigers of great size, but we most be serious, a modern tiger over the presented dimensions above are incredible rare, and none of these great males seems to be of that size.
Gaute, I would suggest not using "100% sure".
You know that is impossible to say, especially the fact that 260kg is attainable for tigers. The only tiger you can compare them to that you have actually seen on video is Madla, and the only video he has is not enough to say he is larger than many other males that have been photographed. You know as well as anybody, its impossible to tell the size of a tiger from one film clip or photo, I have seen many tigers that appear every bit as impressive as madla. Especially in kaziranga, Kahna, tadoba and even Ranthambhore, as of late. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Sorry my friend, but I am not only 100% sure that all those tigers don't surpass my estimated "large" size, but I am also 100% sure that this type of debates, with "0" reliable evidence, apart from sightings and pictures, is already irrelevant.
We can't take opinions are "evidence". The tigers from Central India seems as large as the largest Nepalese males, this is true, but not extremely large as those of Kaziranga. Pictures and biased witness are not evidence, only measurements in the field.
By the way, what it is true is that modern Ranthambore males ( year 2000 and over) look more massive than the old ones from 1980 and 1990. In that time, a 220-230 kg male was a large one for the area, now a 250 kg male is not out of question.
Ok, so measurements in the field prove that tigers get over 260kg.
07-28-2014, 07:55 PM( This post was last modified: 07-28-2014, 07:56 PM by GuateGojira )
(07-28-2014, 06:01 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Ok, so measurements in the field prove that tigers get over 260kg.
Yes, several specimens measured in the field weighed much more than 260 kg, that is for sure. This is just my figure for the normal largest males, like a trademark for a large Indian tiger.
My point its that this debate is based in biased estimation, instead of real measurements. You complain for the white tiger picture, despite the evidence of direct witness of it, however here you base your statements in "testimonies" of unknown people and pictures from different angles with no comparison points. Beautiful pictures, yes, but evidence of "something", of course not.
Has any here tried, at least, to found the email of Indian scientists that have radiocollared tigers lately, like for example, Konda (T-7)? He was radiocollared and weighed with a GPS collar the 28 of October of 2007, there is also another dominant male from Kanha named Punchkatta (T-6) radiocollared the 17 of October of 2007, so there most be a person with those records over there.
(07-28-2014, 06:01 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Ok, so measurements in the field prove that tigers get over 260kg.
Yes, several specimens measured in the field weighed much more than 260 kg, that is for sure. This is just my figure for the normal largest males, like a trademark for a large Indian tiger.
My point its that this debate is based in biased estimation, instead of real measurements. You complain for the white tiger picture, despite the evidence of direct witness of it, however here you base your statements in "testimonies" of unknown people and pictures from different angles with no comparison points. Beautiful pictures, yes, but evidence of "something", of course not.
Has any here tried, at least, to found the email of Indian scientists that have radiocollared tigers lately, like for example, Konda (T-7)? He was radiocollared and weighed with a GPS collar the 28 of October of 2007, there is also another dominant male from Kanha named Punchkatta (T-6) radiocollared the 17 of October of 2007, so there most be a person with those records over there.
There were several tigers collared in Kanha for studies and research.
10 tigers were collared in Kanha during 2004-2009 period.
I contacted a couple but none replied [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]
(07-28-2014, 08:15 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: There were several tigers collared in Kanha for studies and research.
10 tigers were collared in Kanha during 2004-2009 period.
I contacted a couple but none replied [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]
Yes, but from those 11 specimens, only 4 (2 male and 2 female) were full adults, all the others are subadults, but still, it will be interesting to know about them. I write to Joseph Vattakaven, but he only told me that the figures are not yet published and that he will send me a email when they would be available.
07-28-2014, 08:49 PM( This post was last modified: 07-28-2014, 08:51 PM by Apollo )
(07-28-2014, 08:39 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:
(07-28-2014, 08:15 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: There were several tigers collared in Kanha for studies and research.
10 tigers were collared in Kanha during 2004-2009 period.
I contacted a couple but none replied [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]
Yes, but from those 11 specimens, only 4 (2 male and 2 female) were full adults, all the others are subadults, but still, it will be interesting to know about them. I write to Joseph Vattakaven, but he only told me that the figures are not yet published and that he will send me a email when they would be available.
Sometimes I really get irritated when these experts and scientist use small weighing scales.
One such incident happened in PTR where the male bottomed 200kg scale, unfortunately we will never know the males full weight.
I get pissed when I see incidents like this [img]images/smilies/angry.gif[/img]
(07-28-2014, 06:01 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Ok, so measurements in the field prove that tigers get over 260kg.
Yes, several specimens measured in the field weighed much more than 260 kg, that is for sure. This is just my figure for the normal largest males, like a trademark for a large Indian tiger.
My point its that this debate is based in biased estimation, instead of real measurements. You complain for the white tiger picture, despite the evidence of direct witness of it, however here you base your statements in "testimonies" of unknown people and pictures from different angles with no comparison points. Beautiful pictures, yes, but evidence of "something", of course not.
Has any here tried, at least, to found the email of Indian scientists that have radiocollared tigers lately, like for example, Konda (T-7)? He was radiocollared and weighed with a GPS collar the 28 of October of 2007, there is also another dominant male from Kanha named Punchkatta (T-6) radiocollared the 17 of October of 2007, so there most be a person with those records over there.
You mean I did show skepticism of a ADULT white tiger surviving in the wild until I saw enough evidence from qualified indivduals and I admitted that it is most likely true that ADULT white tigers exist in the wild.
Now onto the next claim, I never said a word about any weights, ever!
The individuals Im quotting are naturalists who live and safari in these parts. They are the reason you get to even see these images and know about the history of any of these cats. Im not quoting Bold right now, Im quotting photographers who spend every day with these cats and other wild life.
Lastly, you just proved yourself wrong.
You said you were 100% that no wild tigers weigh 260kg or above but just admitted that tigers have weighed more than that in the wild.
So what exactly are you trying to say Gaute, Im not sure I see any point here.
07-29-2014, 08:58 PM( This post was last modified: 07-29-2014, 08:59 PM by GuateGojira )
Pckts:
1. From your words, should I think that you finally accept that adult white tigers were real???
2. Those naturalist have the same sickness that affected Dr Vratislav Mazak, they are biased toward they favorite animal, in they case, the Bengal tiger. I appreciate a lot they photographs, but even then, they are not the best source for "size and weight". They are naturalist, like you say, so I will believe in they anecdotal sights (like those of Jim Corbett, for example), but I will certainly will not believe in they size estimation, that is too difficult to get, even for true experts.
3. Should I show you my REAL words? Here we go:
“In fact, I am 100% sure that all these giants are no heavier than 260 kg and no larger than c.205 cm in head-body length and c.105 cm in shoulder height. The only one probably larger than this size is Wagdoh and of course, the giants of Kaziranga.”
From these words, where do you get this sick idea:
Pckts say: “You said you were 100% that no wild tigers weigh 260kg or above”
Read again dude, I NEVER say that ALL Bengal tigers weight "less" than 260 kg in these days. I say that the large males from Kanha and Ranthambore (like Konda), those which kept you discussing, are in fact, about 260 kg in the best case. In 100 years of hunting records, the heaviest male hunted in the entire Central India was of 255 kg, there are not enough records from the Ranthambore region to take any conclusions, but they do look at about 250 kg in the best cases, and we have no idea about Bandhavgarh, although some estimate them at over 260 kg too, but these are only estimations and vary from people to people.
However, I CLEARLY said that exceptionally large males like Wagdoh or the specimens from Kaziranga, and I most add the entire Terai region, show specimens that probably reach over 260 kg. The Gwalior-Kumaon region present specimens of up to 272 kg, Nepal provided specimens of up to 320 kg and the Assam region give us large males of up to 256 kg, although the samples here are very limited. Even then, in the same time period, this region (north India) presents heavier specimens than those of Central and South India. From the few specimens hunted-captured in the Western Ghats, the heaviest was of 227 kg.
It seems that there is a clear variation between regions, with southern specimens been lighter, central ones been medium to large sizes and northern males been the largest of all. Interestingly, the three regions present specimens with maximum total lengths of over 310 cm, despite they body mass differences. Obviously, this is based in a few samples gathered through several years, but at least, we can draw some conclusions based in actual data.
"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.
(07-28-2014, 08:15 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: There were several tigers collared in Kanha for studies and research.
10 tigers were collared in Kanha during 2004-2009 period.
I contacted a couple but none replied [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]
Yes, but from those 11 specimens, only 4 (2 male and 2 female) were full adults, all the others are subadults, but still, it will be interesting to know about them. I write to Joseph Vattakaven, but he only told me that the figures are not yet published and that he will send me a email when they would be available.
As far as I know 10 tigers were radio collared in Kanha
3 Adult females
1 Subadult female
2 Adult males
4 Subadult males
(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?
(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.
(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.
07-31-2014, 10:28 AM( This post was last modified: 07-31-2014, 10:29 AM by GuateGojira )
(07-30-2014, 09:24 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: I think this thread need to be closed now. There is no fruitful thing left here to continue
I am agree, this topic was irrelevant since the beginning and its have been deformed by an even more irrelevant point. I will close this thing right now, we have many important work to do in other parts of the forum.
Male tiger konda's true death reason?
