Want to Subscribe?
Sign In or Sign Up now!

Ok everybody with me. Ok so I'm researching debate, I find Rome to be a complete wash, and the recordings from Roman collesium fights, every source, Modern Scientists, the readings on the walls of Rome, everything shows the tiger to have always beaten the lion in a fight. Nothing is in favor of the lion In Rome, it's so one sided that every historian, even Mel Sunquist and Pbs repeat it, Tiger always in Rome. I've researched over 10,000 different sources, the readings on the wall show the tiger killing the lion in Rome, it's a one sided joke Rome. The tiger used were Siberian/Caspian tigers, the largest of the cat family for the majority. But experts along with readings of the Roman literature suggest there were some bengals as well, but the main tiger used was the largest of the tigers the Siberian/Caspian tiger.
Ok People the tiger dominated Rome, maybe this is just a time period, Amurs are giants, outsize lions, and overpower and kill the lion easily.
But I research some more, and gets even more one sided. So I'm thinking to myself, how is this even a debate, I can't find one time period. NOT ONE TIME PERIOD WHERE THE LION IS CONSIDERED A MATCH TO A TIGER.
So I go on.
1400's 1500's, 1600's
Christ everyone in the worlds opinion in these 300 years, is "the lion is no match to deadly striped cat". "It is rare for a lion to beat a tiger, and in a fair fight between two large males, the lion has no shot"
300 years of complete total domination by the tiger, no historians, no nothing is in favor the lion.
So what I'm beginning to see here?
That the more I read do some offline research, ask experts, and google book search and become members of newspaper archive sites, is that this fight is a one sided joke. It's anything but 50/50. It's a complete mistmatch, was from all the way to the 1600's the "lion is never a match to a male tiger".
So I go on 1700's 1800's it gets even more one sided, infact so one sided, that the lion isn't even considered a worthy contender for the tiger.
By the 1900's there calling the tiger the true king of beasts. There starting staged fights in movies like Prisoner of the harem, and showing the lion isn't a match. Well the 1930's comes along and it's get even more one sided, to the point were like I said earlier it's a common fact in newspaper crossword puzzles a tiger supposed to beat a lion. Fights are staged, debate is settled.
So It can possibly get more one sided then this right?? Wrong.
1950's rolls along, Mark of the Gorilla, Captive wild Woman 1950 are made, sparking an OUTRAGE OF LION VS TIGER, THE BIGGEST THE DEBATE HAS EVEN BEEN. LION TIGER FIGHTS ARE STAGED BY THE DOZENS. PETAS INVOLVED SO YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL. ALL OF THE SUDDEN LION VS TIGER FIGHTS ARE STAGED IN EARLY NATURE DOCUMENTARYS, THE DEBATE IS SETTLED, HUNDREDS OF TIGER VS LION FIGHTS ARE STAGED, AND LIKE ALWAYS "THE TIGER ALWAYS WON". NATURE DOCUMENTARY AFTER NATURE DOCUMENTARY SHOWS A FIGHT TO THE DEATH BETWEEN A TIGER AND A LION, AND ALWAYS IN THESE FAIR FIGHTS, THE TIGERS ALWAYS WIN, The American Public vouches for the tiger superiorty into the 60's, the debate is dead and over. "A tiger is supposed to beat lion in a fight.

Wow researching this debate I realize just how one sided it is.

So what are Lionfans left with, editing videos from fixed 1930's movies of tigress fighting against a large male lion. Making up lies and spreading them around the web, making false sites full of untrue information, and spreading western propaganda of lions, and spreading the belief of favortism that the lion is the winner. When all evidence is against them, so they lie.

You people know that the biggest lionfan video editor RoyalPanthera the one who edited all the fights, and was caught. He favors the tiger, he said "he was running on fumes, and only supporting the lion because it was his favorite animal". Even the video editor RoyalPanthera favors the tiger, because me and him both researched this debate, and we both found the tiger to be the undisputed winner. He argued with me for a little awhile that a fight in the wild would be different then in captivity, But soon conceded to me that I was right, and the tiger was indeed the greatest of the big cats and would defeat a lion. I was a little joyous. Here we have the video editor and tiger hater, admitting to me the tiger was the winner, he concedes to me. I took it in, and from that moment on I said theres no doubt, the tiger is the winner. An theres noway in hell I'm gonna support a cat that has never been considered a match to a tiger. That when evidence is looked at about this debate the most biased video editing lionfan FELL TO HIS KNEES AND ADMITTED TO ME THE TIGER IS THE BETTER FIGHTER, AND THEN SLOWLY DISAPPEARED AND LEFT THE DEBATE.
All the lionfans are left with is editing 1930's propaganda fixed videos, editing crap, made up untrue statements with no facts, and part of clyde beattys opinion.