Big Cat Sighting

[ryaldinhio 4,502]

1 hour ago, EDDIE B said:

Sure is. Here's one I found

 

That's quality, all the teeth intact aswel! Was it purring when you found it??!!!

[EDDIE B 3,162]

1 hour ago, foxdropper said:

That' mint mate ,did you boil it out then peroxide .

It was weathered lad. Been there a fair while I'd say. Just peroxide and glue.

[EDDIE B 3,162]

18 minutes ago, ryaldinhio said:

That's quality, all the teeth intact aswel! Was it purring when you found it??!!!

Lol Truth be told my two stepson's brought it home in a plastic bag, along with about six loose teeth. Couldn't believe it that they brought the teeth. Not one left behind. These two are renowned feather heads. It was a miracle! lol

[TOMO 26,052]

8 hours ago, ryaldinhio said:

I know it' not a big cat but my little girl found this earlier this week. I know this is a cats skull and considering how many cats are around here...lots , shouldn't we find more????? Considering this is a normal cat and I have seen 1 in 34 yrs? How many 'normal' cats skull has anyone found ? Versus everyone expectin to fall over a dead big cat?

most domesticated cats are owned....so when they die the owner burrys them....and road casuality deaths of domestic pets are generly found..and so are burryd the ones that arnt found will end up as food for any number of scavangers.....so its no supprise that we arnt all tripping over moggy sculls littering the countryside......

[mackem 26,260]

6 minutes ago, TOMO said:

.and road casuality deaths of domestic pets are generly found..

My local council come out and remove dead cat,fox,even a dead swan,you just have to give them a bell,they are pretty good like that,Jonathan McGowan says the army or police come out and remove the cadavers of big cats and sterilise the area.

[TOMO 26,052]

army or police.....police yeh.....but army....lol

[scothunter 12,609]

Dead roe deer down by the shore last week.day later it was removed by council. 

Big stag dropped dead on the shinty park few year ago. Think it had been shot up the hill and came down. 

The shinty boys just dragged it to the side and started their match lol 

[sandymere 8,263]

17 hours ago, Greyman said:

I just wrote you a really long answer and my iPad crashed sorry, so in short the snow leapard is as rare as shit, it's leg snared and gps tracked for a year before the film crew even arrive, before we can run round flushing them with hounds trapping or snaring them we have to be accepted as legitimate, this is why the paper is so important, if it's accepted we can then apply for the appropriate licences we would need to trap and track them, it's frustrating as feck especially for someone who has spent a lot of time outside the law doing things how I saw fit on my own terms, but this has to be done right as we will probably only get one stab at it and I don't want to be the one to cock it all up,  all this is happening now so it's a shit or bust year for us all really 

Its not illegal to set snares in the UK so why not snare one as you state they do with Snow leopards, and Bobs your uncle! you have all the proof you need. 

As to the research, lots of rubbish research is undertaken so the fact that someone is involved in research isn't evidence of either the need or the value of said research.  Plus I very much doubt they have any  any solid evidence that is not a matter of subjective interpretation such as teeth marks, foot prints etc. Subjective interpretation of evidence has limitations, "expert" claims  in these areas are unreliable. As an example; a dog makes thousands of foot prints a year, it may be one in a thousand chance that circumstances will present that that print may look like a cat's or even a deer. If that one print gets spotted it does not mean there is a deer or cat just that random chance brings variety to interpretation but the print is still that of a dog. The same with tooth marks etc, random chance brings variety. if these random chances are collated over time it may look like evidence of cats or deer but it's still just a dog. Research based on invalid date never going to be valid.

So back to prior plausability............................... there is none.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

31 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Its not illegal to set snares in the UK so why not snare one as you state they do with Snow leopards, and Bobs your uncle! you have all the proof you need. 

As to the research, lots of rubbish research is undertaken so the fact that someone is involved in research isn't evidence of either the need or the value of said research. That's the point in peer review and publication. Plus I very much doubt they have any  any solid evidence that is not a matter of subjective interpretation such as teeth marks, foot prints etc. 'Solid evidence'? How often is any single piece of evidence conclusive? Their research will be examined and tested. It's perfectly acceptable to present a selection of circumstantial evidence to build on a research area. The analysis used should be no different to any other form of analysis, there will be measurements printed with errors and prior studies referenced on the errors of the different analytical processes used. Subjective interpretation of evidence has limitations, "expert" claims 'expert' is irrelevant with peer review and publication, academia are the experts  in these areas are unreliable. As an example; a dog makes thousands of foot prints a year, it may be one in a thousand chance that circumstances will present that that print may look like a cat's or even a deer. If that one print gets spotted it does not mean there is a deer or cat just that random chance brings variety to interpretation but the print is still that of a dog. The same with tooth marks etc, random chance brings variety. if these random chances are collated over time it may look like evidence of cats or deer but it's still just a dog. Research based on invalid date never going to be valid. I think you are being unfair. Do you doubt the scientific process and academia so much that you think that they'll allow poor research of such a ground breaking topic to pass off as conclusive? You are right to point out that just because research is being carried out doesn't mean shit right now. But I for one am open to any and all scientific research and importantly the discussion. We all ask for evidence, well whats being done here gives me the greatest hope yet of it being done with proper due diligence. If the subject was less controversial there'd be nothing eyebrow raising about it and everyone with an interest would simply be waiting for publication and presentation at the conference so the scientific community can do their job of interrogating it.

So back to prior plausability............................... there is none. I agree, but the first rule of modern science is that anything we believe we know as fact could in fact be proven wrong. I await the publication and interrogation of the research. Otherwise it remains without credibility.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Born Hunter

[Greyman 28,185]

Regarding snaring, I,ve snared hundreds of fox,s when we had a fur industry, but that's not really what we are after, it will be humane leg snare, a vet to administer tranquillisers and the tracking equipment fixed, to reply to your points on research is a waste of time as I,ve explained I collect things and pass them on, the people dealing with it all seem to be very compitant and I,m happy to continue like this until the conclusion,  if we can't rely on expert research backed up with field evidence how do we ever prove anything, ??? 

[peterhunter86 8,627]

4 hours ago, TOMO said:

most domesticated cats are owned....so when they die the owner burrys them....and road casuality deaths of domestic pets are generly found..and so are burryd the ones that arnt found will end up as food for any number of scavangers.....so its no supprise that we arnt all tripping over moggy sculls littering the countryside......

I've found plenty of dead cats the last few years in a place that's full of fox buzzards,magpies etc and and not one thing scavenged them.

[sandymere 8,263]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

 

“So back to prior plausability............................... there is none”. “I agree,” stop there the rest is irrelevant.  

“That's the point in peer review and publication.” I don’t believe I say otherwise do I? Mind whilst on the subject there is peer review and peer review as there is Publish and publish. My point is bad science is bad science and the believers will believe bad science because they are believers.

“Solid evidence'? How often is any single piece of evidence conclusive?” I did not refer to a single piece of solid evidence rather to evidence in the plural.

“I think you are being unfair. Do you doubt the scientific process and academia so much that you think that they'll allow poor research of such a ground breaking topic to pass off as conclusive?”

No and I didn’t say it would, rather I was discussing a particular case. But whilst on the subject of bad research/science unfortunately it pollutes the good work being done bringing the public to distrust the whole. So I feel it is common and harmful.

“I for one am open to any and all scientific research”

Having seen and seeing good money thrown after bad in pointless research, I would rather the very limited budget etc would be used in the most productive way. What next research into alien abduction or homeopathy?? “By all means let’s be open–minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out” Richard Dawkins.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

9 minutes ago, sandymere said:

“So back to prior plausability............................... there is none”. “I agree,” stop there the rest is irrelevant.  

“That's the point in peer review and publication.” I don’t believe I say otherwise do I? Mind whilst on the subject there is peer review and peer review as there is Publish and publish. My point is bad science is bad science and the believers will believe bad science because they are believers.

“Solid evidence'? How often is any single piece of evidence conclusive?” I did not refer to a single piece of solid evidence rather to evidence in the plural.

I know, I wasn't challenging the truth of your statements so much as offering a balanced opinion to a generally very derogatory post. The tone of your post was akin to "well evolution is just a theory". Pointing out how the freedoms the scientific process offers can be used badly without pointing out it's inherent virtue in dealing with 'bad science'.

13 minutes ago, sandymere said:

“I think you are being unfair. Do you doubt the scientific process and academia so much that you think that they'll allow poor research of such a ground breaking topic to pass off as conclusive?”

No and I didn’t say it would, rather I was discussing a particular case. But whilst on the subject of bad research/science unfortunately it pollutes the good work being done bringing the public to distrust the whole. So I feel it is common and harmful.

A particular case that was pointless for the reasons I state. Again chucking mud at the scientific process because you don't like the research. It's important people understand how science deals with that, they'll have more faith in it that way.

If the layman can't follow the workings of science THAT is the problem, not that their is a lack of supreme authority in science to rule over who does what research. Science MUST remain the bastion of free thinking. No one should be allowed to directly decide who researches what.

23 minutes ago, sandymere said:

“I for one am open to any and all scientific research”

Having seen and seeing good money thrown after bad in pointless research, I would rather the very limited budget etc would be used in the most productive way. What next research into alien abduction or homeopathy?? “By all means let’s be open–minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out” Richard Dawkins.

It's not your budget so what right do you have to any meaningful opinion on how it's spent? People like you are always snapping at the heels of the scientific community. If folks like you got your way the only advances in science would be in applied fields. The freedom of scientific research has to be maintained as much as possible. Basic science, wildly speculative science, science for the sake of knowledge should all be allowed and supported by whoever wants to support it.

 

I can't believe someone claiming to support science would have a problem with this. It's brilliant, the hypothesis being properly interrogated by the scientific community! It'll all be presented and ready to be ripped apart if of poor quality. That's much closer to conclusive dubunking than the place we're at with it now. Right now frankly I struggle to accept it as even being plausible or implausible because really it's unstudied! It's unstudied because it seems wildly improbable, the fact that some folks are willing to chance it anyway is great, they'll collate, analyse and present and IF there is any plausibility then suddenly the field will attract more resource.

That's how science works , that's how it should always work. No matter what Dawkins reckons.

[bird 9,868]

talking about big cats , just watching   the program  that was on BBC2  about the black jaguar  cub , that been raised by   keeper  in  a cat sanctuary in kent , it was brought in as the mother rejected  it. it not looking to good for the little thing, got prob with brain i think  , it on to night again  i watch it and take it from, shame if it dies, but maybe we should leave nature alone at times .  but the  big cats are under massive pressure  to survive  now with poaching, and loosing there   natural surroundings  etc

[staffs riffraff 1,068]

Maybe thats why its mother abandoned it bird?