Ah classic forum misunderstanding, I don't dislike you at all, I am a bit miffed by your inability to see why all the evidence must be checked but thats really your problem. I even sent you a friend request earlier today. I never take anything said on a forum, that personally,
Well, I meant "get on" as "advance the discussion", but I never spurn an olive branch.
my zeal is to check all the possible evidence before making a firm decision, I have learned this by past experience and some huge mistakes I could have avoided with just a little more zeal. To me research is like making sure all the sockets are turned off when I go to bed, it may take a little effort but I sleep better knowing that my chances of waking up burned to death are considerably decreased
OCD? If you extend that to checking up on everything you randomly encounter on the internet, no matter how implausible, it may take you some time.
You have already proved that most of the big cats found escaped a short while earlier, I have no complaint with that, but the fact that those cats were at large isn't changed by their source, I'm one of lifes methodical thinkers. I lose respect for myself when I am investigating something if I don't investigate everything properly.
Say just hypothetically lets say that the forestry commission report is backed by solid evidence that wasn't released, that something in it proves that there were two big cats on the loose for a short period, wouldn't you want to know that, it would be quite easy to find the source wouldn't it, I wouldn't imagine that many facilities in that immediate area have a pair of big cats that are inclined to elope together, when really this forestry commisson report seems to be the best evidence for unreported big cats, whats wrong with being thorough ?
Say hypothetically that there's something absolutely eye-popping that wasn't released the last time they had an FoI request for that, is there any real reason they'd release it on a second request? "I refer the honourable gentlemann to my previous answer" is your likely fate.
And take another look at that abortion of a table DEFRA released about big cat escapes. That's the likely quality of the response that's going to be produced if a government department is asked for something they don't have.
It seems to me that you just pulled in the horns of your claims (or suggestions or whatever) even further. You agree then that the assertion that there's a breeding colony of pumas in a small patch of woodland in a very intensively-farmed county is implausible to the point of impossible? But you still think there might have been two there for a short period?
Why? Because a couple of park rangers joined the "I thot I thaw a puddy tat" brigade? That's all it is, you know. Something similar to the Helensburgh sighting, but at night with infra-red sights. There doesn't even seem to be anything in writing.
I'm especially curious about how the forest rangers concluded that is was Big Cats (Panthera or Puma) that they were seeing with thermal night-vision (non camera type).
I think that estimating size may be challenging with infrared (IR) vision. Warm objects glow and cool surroundings don't. Non-living objects around the living subject may not appear clearly. It could prevent a proper frame-of-reference to determine size of the glowing thing. I'm hoping that the ranger reports give objective explanations that were cause for concluding - Big Cats. Can you screw up an IR moggie sighting and think you are seeing a leopard?
Basically, yes, I would say. Essentially, all the press reports indicate that this entire stramash is being exclusively manufactured by "Big cat expert Frank Tunbridge, 60, who has 25 years experience", maybe with a few friends, going round spreading rumous. In that climate, people start to report sightings, it's a well-known phenomenon.
It's easy to see why. I remember being misled myself about the size of an ordinary black cat. If the circumstances had been very slightly different (i.e. I hadn't got a second, better look at it) and the local papers had been carrying the sort of stories Tunbridge is feeding to the Gloucestershire rags, there could well have been another one.
So Frank anoints these as "credible sightings", a big dog pawprint is exhibited as a cat's, and the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating.
Rather than asking whether maybe this is all about a single escapee that was in the forest for short time, or maybe it happened twice, why not ask whether there's even any grounds for that speculation?
The nearest real zoos are in Bristol, and the only zoo near the forest only keeps butterflies! And if there were cats there for a few days or weeks, and they're not there any more, what happened to them?
I havent at any point asked you for any of your time, you seem to be giving it freely, I just wish you were a little more cooperative
this isn't really a big deal for me, I have a highly paid job which allows me a great deal of free time and I'm a speed typist, if I have spent more than 2 hours on this subject in the last three days I would be very surprised
and finally, whatever subject is being discussed here I am always learning something, though it may not be very clear to anyone what exactly that is.
Fairy nuff.
Rolfe.
ETA: You forgot this bit.
Marduk said:
Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.
I'm just curious. Why did you say this? Who determined these remains "showed clear evidence of a big cat attack"? Who made the request, what did they ask for, and where is the report they were given? Who determined that DEFRA were "caught" in a cover-up?
Enquiring minds still want to know.
