Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)

[Pckts]

(02-10-2022, 02:39 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:

(02-10-2022, 02:08 AM)Pckts Wrote: don't get defensively and make backhanded remarks about "flat earthers" or some other personal attack

The personal attacks were not real personal attacks, more than anything else if I started to act in this way it is for two reasons, one in particular

1) I thought you were accusing me at random of having estimated the leopard to be 115 kg because you did not mention Imam in the first message so consequently I thought you were referring to me. And so you understand that after I think I was accused of saying the exact opposite of what I have been repeating for two days I got a little nervous? Never mind it was a misunderstanding. 
It all ended when you made it clear to me that you were referring to Imam, but you should have mentioned it earlier because it seemed like an accusation, at least from my point of view.

2) the fact that you said that I think those leopards are undoubtedly 90-100 kg. This was that other thing that made me nervous, because as I showed you in the Screenshots I said at least 5 times that it was my opinion.
These are the only reasons why i got salty. Nothing more. The way I judged your method of estimating the animals to be nothing special wasn't based on personal attacks. As I said, different opinions. For how much I can disagree I have to respect them and give the reasons why I don't buy such estimate. Now my estimate is based on the build of the cat, which is absolutely massive and chocky, too chonky for me to consider the cat of an average size.
What do I think of your estimate? That you would be totally right if the cat was weighed at 70 kg. Thing it wasn't. They captured males and weighed some of them, which I think the 75 kg one was among them. They didn't weigh this animal, they compared probably to the others they have weighed and as you said they claimed it to be the biggest they captured, and estimating it to be "at least" 70 kg. Now as a lowest estimate, it's already almost as large as the 75 kg one. But they considered it to be the largest captured, hence why they said "at least 70 kg", meaning it could have gone far from that weight.
The reason I also got a bit salty is because you changed the "at least" to "around". That changes completely the sense of the phrase.

If they estimated it to be around 70 kg, which means like 65-69 kg (as around 100 kg means 95-97 kg), it wouldn't make sense for them to consider it to be the largest male. "at least" because it does consider the possibility that this male could have weighed well over 70 kg, who knows perhaps even more than 80 kg that's why they said "at least".
Not to note, you keep mentioning that they estimate the at least 70 kg male to be more impressive than mine but yet you show no proof of them claiming that. 
Also to note, you have been a bit contradictory to what you said because. 

1. The original statement you wrote is that they stated the leopard to be the largest they have captured. Not the largest in the whole Tandoureh Park range, as I'm aware they never captured the monster male I was talking about so that comparison is just made to captured males. 
2. In the same sample of the captured males where the "at least 70 kg male" sits there there's also a 75 kg male. So now you see that if they consider this male to be the heaviest and largest they captured it would be automatically be larger in weight than the 75 kg male, hence why stating that they claimed it to be "just 70 kg" whereas 70 kg is the minimum weight given is a completely wrong way to interpretate such claim. 
   

And even if they don't consider him as the largest male captured, "at least" means that's still the lowest estimate. What you did was take that post and use it as if it had simply estimated the feline at 70kg or even slightly less (because around 70 kg doesn't mean necessarily 70 kg, might be a little lower) and that was it, when in reality it estimated that at least it weighs 70kg and that it could weigh a lot more. 
You understand my intent now.? I don't attack and never unusual any random, that had been a misunderstanding.

And also I just didn't tollerate how you used a claim and twisted its words by changing the sense of it to make a point. And I'm not even the first one who tells you such about this "at least 70 kg male". 
I'm sure even Mojave in a jaguar-leopard thread in CF told you that "at least 70 kg" means it can weigh much more, hence it wouldn't make sense for the researchers to consider it as the largest male captured if they stated it to be just 70 kg whereas there's a 75 kg male in the sample.
Don't you think? 
But overall I'm glad you got that it was a misunderstanding, as I wrongly thought you were accusing me of estimating the 95 kg Persian to be 115 kg.

Quote:because you changed the "at least" to "around". That changes completely the sense of the phrase.

What's the difference?
At least or around 70kg's, neither is saying 90-100kg's and if they are using a specific weight of 70kg's as a gauging #, it doesn't matter IMO. Mind you,  I'm the one that posted that Leopard with the exact quotation.  

Quote:

1. The original statement you wrote is that they stated the leopard to be the largest they have captured. Not the largest in the whole Tandoureh Park range, as I'm aware they never captured the monster male I was talking about so that comparison is just made to captured males. 
2. In the same sample of the captured males where the "at least 70 kg male" sits there there's also a 75 kg male. So now you see that if they consider this male to be the heaviest and largest they captured it would be automatically be larger in weight than the 75 kg male, hence why stating that they claimed it to be "just 70 kg" whereas 70 kg is the minimum weight given is a completely wrong way to interpretate such claim. 
   

You have males captured in multiple studies, the largest ever produced was 91kg. Next is the fact that we don't even know if it's full bellied or not, cattle killer or not, etc. So claiming that two other Cats from the exact same location as being record holders without any real data to go off of other than a fleeting glimpse from 100s of meters away strikes me more as a fanatical claim than anything else. Would be like me seeing one video of Tiger from 100s of meters away then stating that the Tiger is no doubt larger than any Tiger that's every been captured in history from that region. 

Quote:You said that well in mentioning that you think they don't compare as even Balam said they do compare. I'm fact, she also buys that weight. But oh well it's just your own opinion and I respect it. I'll let you stick to it despite there's evidence saying the opposite 

I promise you that Balam doesn't buy anything about that Leopard, we have pages on top of pages going back and forth with Luipaard. 
And what evidence are you talking about? Since I already presented the actual vet claiming it to be 115kg.

Quote:Umm now i think i would be too invasive in doing that.. Maybe I will think about it. Well I do dream of a leopard of being of that size as a leopard enthusiast, and we all do agree that leopards reaching or exceeding 100 kgs in a similar way to cougars historically or even now is possible.

We just don't buy that leopard to ve of that size. And I do agree. That leopard is nothing close to a 115 kg jaguar on an empty stomach

It's up to you, he's a friendly guy and likes to make time to respond. Regardless, I doubt there's much he's going to say since he already claims it at 115kg. But nothing is going to change the fact that the Leopard looks nothing close to that weight. 
I like to use this image of a 280lb Malayan Tiger in the same positions.
This Tiger would only be (13.6kg) or 30lbs heavier than the alleged 115kg Leopard
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/13/73/53/3128...22x350.jpg
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/13/73/53/3128...22x350.jpg
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-persian...lor?page=3
Post #3 Reply