Yowies stalk bushwalker in Blue Mountains Australia

reply to post by Horza


Good stuff Horza - let's hope your conversation is a good one and you get some interesting information! At the very least you just made 2 new friends haha

I gotta say too - despite being a massive metalhead, i have always found that ANYTIME a didgeridoo is used in music in any style, i just love it! Didge and violin would be really interesting. There's a busker in the city (Sydney) who plays his didgeridoo to his own pre-mixed drum n bass type dance music, sounds amazing!

Anyway I have a feeling Rex will be somewhat difficult to get hold of - shame bout his contact details being dated. Would be so good to get his or Heather's input here! At least you're trying though!

Originally posted by srsen
So i think i'm getting a little Google Earth happy, but whatever, I have another map that's worth discussing.

The area in question is the Wentworth Falls sighting. I have highlighted a region with a yellow circle.

This area seems to be the only route to gain access to the 'gorge' region without having to scale the cliffs to get down there.

If this is the case, the area highlighted in yellow would a seemingly perfect way to reach the valley/'gorge' floor. Hence this area would be a great spot to look for Yowies and/or evidence of their existence.

(This is based on the assumption that the Yowie's main territory would be the area bordered by the high cliffs and plateaus. The valley or 'gorge' is fairly remote despite it's proximity to the highly 'touristy' areas up high on the plateau (Katoomba, Three Sisters, etc). Just throwing some ideas out)

I'm loving your ability with google maps, really provides a great visual reference. Shows that these sightings are quite close together and even though the Blue Mountains are popular with bush walkers how many are going to be walking around in rugged terrain after dark? I don't think it is a stretch that these animals (?) are living there relatively undetected.

Do we have anyone on the ground living near here, that is prepared to go in and check out this point of the gorge? It seems to me entirely plausible that this is the overland access.

Originally posted by Horza
Hi there gang,

I haven't heard back from Rex and Heather Gilroy yet.

Unfortunately, the contact details on their website isn't working so I only have an email to contact them on ... no reply on that as yet.

I did, however, meet some local Aboriginal buskers (violin and didjeridoo duet ... and it worked! ... sounded fantastic)

They will be playing just up the road from me next weekend and we are going to have a chat about Yowie then.

So it's a good new, bad news post from me ...

Hi Horza

Thanks for the update! I have also emailed Rex and Heather regarding purchasing a book. If I hear from them I'll u2u to let you know.

Can't wait the hear how you get along with your new friends next weekend too!!

Bigfoot's Descendants Live Among Humans for Over 100 Years
06.04.2010 | 13:06

35 year ago, the scull of the first Big-foot was excavated for the first time in history. People residing in the area for years still remember meeting it when it was still alive. Local residents who buried a mother and a son indicated location of their graves.

A rubber shoe branded 1888 was removed from the woman’s burial (a mirror at the head indicated it was a female). Approximately the same time Zana, a Bigfoot, died. The researcher’s heart was beating with anticipation of the unusual find, as never before scientists laid their hands on a Bigfoot, alive or dead.

The excavation was conducted by Igor Burtsev, at the time, a young scientist, and today a leading Russian cryptozoologist. He spent several years trying to obtain the right for graves excavation in the Abkhazian village Tkhina, where Zana used to live. As luck would have it, his old college friend, an Abkhazian, became a local official upon his return to the motherland from Moscow. “I could not have seen Zana myself, she passed away 50 years before I was born,” says Apollon Dumava, former chair of the local Council. “But my older relatives remembered her.

How could you forget her? She was 6.6 feet tall, had long strong arms covered with hair, curvy hips that inspired the desire of local men, large hanging breasts, flat forehead and huge red eyes. Zana was very strong and easily carried 110 pounds sacks with grain to the water mill with only one hand. Apollon said his father told him that Zana was caught in a gulch of the Adzyubzha River. She was hunted down by a local merchant.

Zana was incredibly smart and could disappear a second before she would be caught. Yet, the hunter outsmarted her. He left red male underwear at the meadow frequented by the hairy creature.

She was caught while trying to put the underwear on her head and hips. The captive was named Zana (zan means black in Georgian) and placed in a ditch enclosed with a fence made of sharpened logs. She was growling, throwing herself at kids who bothered her with sticks and dirt clods. Only a few years later, when Zana was slightly tamed, she was moved to a woven hut.

She slept on the ground in a cave she dug out. She never learned how to use a spoon and a plate so she ate with her hands. She was always naked. She never learned to speak, but recognized her name.

Zana could take boots off her owner’s feet. She was also great at imitating the sound of squeaking gate, and it made her very happy every time she did. Zana was not surrounded by angels. Locals made her drink wine, it did not take her long to get drunk and become sexually aggressive.

There were always those willing to entertain themselves with a monster. They say during drunk orgies her owner would establish a prize for the one who “mounts” Zana. The prizes would always find their winners. When Zana gave birth to her first child, she took it to a creek and washed it in ice cold water. The baby died.

The same happened to her second child. After that, the locals decided to take babies from the silly mother. Her next children survived.

There were four of them, two boys and two girls. People had no idea who their fathers were. Years later, before a census, children were assigned to a local resident Kamshish Sabekia, who acknowledged “playing” with Zana before he got married. Locals remember Khvit the most.

He was 6.6 feet tall, had grayish skin like his mother’s, thick curly hair and full lips. He had lived in Tkhina all his life and passed away in 1954 before he turned 70. Apollon remembers him well.

Like his mother, Khvin did not like children who used to get into his garden to steal grapes and pears. Once Khvit had a fight with his relative and jumped him. Defending himself, his opponent hit him with a mattock and cut his arm along the elbow. The arm had to be amputated. Apollon has a memory of this incredibly strong person plowing his lot with one left arm.

Khvit was a human being, he could speak, got married twice and had two daughters and a son. I was looking for his daughter in Abkhazia, but she was electrocuted a year earlier. I met with her son, Robert Kukubava, and asked him for permission to take pictures of his family album. Faces of Khvit and his sister bear resemblance to Zana’s. Khvit’s older daughter Tatyana does not look like her grandmother apart from her eyes.

Raisa and her brother Shuliko are undoubtedly Khvit’s children. They have similar lower jaws, protruding cheekbones, full lips and dark skin. Within the last 30 years Igor Burtsev found nearly all Zana’s descendants. His main goal, however, was to find Zana, or, her skeleton and skull, as well as Khvit’s remnants. Once, 35 years ago, a female skull was excavated at the Tkhin cemetery.

Yet, the anthropological analysis provided evidence that the skull belonged to a black woman who somehow got to the Caucuses. The skull of Khvit that Burtsev and I were looking at for a long time was only partly human. Arguments and Facts .

Source: www.entrynews.com...

[edit on 19-4-2010 by heffo7]

An interesting article in a UK newspaper regarding two backpackers encounter with a Yowie:

Backpackers Spot Australian Bigfoot
by Jason Clarke

Two European backpackers travelling across Australia got quite a shock last week when they were confronted by Australia’s Bigfoot, known as the Yowie.

23 year old Ingrid Schoen from Germany and her travelling companion 22 year old Adi Hassan from France were trekking across the bush during the night in Katoomba, New South Wales when they heard branches snap and heavy footsteps heading towards them. Ingrid shone her torch ahead of them to see where the sounds were coming from and both women claim they saw a large hairy beast run off into the night.

"Admittedly we did not get a close look but we think what we saw looked like the American Bigfoot, basically covered in fur and about two meters tall. It definitely had no clothes on and was not human.” Ingrid reported. “We were petrified and almost lost our way back in our nervous state” she continued.

Katoomba is the chief town of the Blue Mountains region of New South Wales and tales of the mysterious Yowie have been passed down for generations by the aboriginal people who inhabit the area. There have also been plenty of recent sightings, including a supposed video of the creature from 2006.

Source: www.themorningstarr.co.uk...

Srsen, another one for you to plot on google earth. Thanks mate!

[edit on 19-4-2010 by heffo7]

Found this really interesting article too. It's too big to paste in so I've just posted the link.

www.bigfootencounters.com...

Explains a lot of what's been discussed in this thread.

reply to post by heffo7


Fascinating subject. I have spent some time in places that have reports of yowies, not so much looking for yowies, but as a keen (but not very good) amateur photographer. Though I have no experience of any kind to report. The strangest I had was noticing a rather large head peering at me through the bush, just on dusk, from a clearing. I knew it wasn't a 'roo and it seemed to be crouching in the ferns and grass. Through the large lens I could make out that it was a rather large feral deer, with some very big antlers, apparently bedding down for the night.....

I am open minded on this subject. Simply due to the number of accounts, where there's smoke.........Though the you tube video wasn't really conclusive of anything. From my experience, I can understand the immense difficulty in getting a good photograph or video of something so elusive. It might require a lot of luck.


[edit on 20-4-2010 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

reply to post by heffo7


This one has probably already been seen by many. I know it has been mentioned on these boards before. Still, it seems a very creditable source, a National Party Senator. Mr O'Chee seems quite convinced. I have seen a video interview with him on this subject, will see if I can find the link.

www.yowiehunters.com...

It just seems more and more that Yowies aren't even that uncommon. Especially in the Blue Mountains region!

In fact, there is pretty much no need to add the Katoomba sighting to the sighting map from earlier - Katooma IS the general area these sightings are in. The location of The 3 Sisters is pretty much Katoomba.

It seems the 'gorge' just south of The 3 Sisters is the main territory.

In regards to making a visit the encircled region i highlighted in the map? I'm pretty close to the area, only 90 minute drive away, and am trying to get a car to maybe take a day trip out there.

Will keep the thread updated with whether i can get out there but i'm pretty keen

And another interesting little snippet:

As humans began fanning out from Africa, between 50 and 100,000 years ago, these markers changed, allowing researchers to determine the relationship between different populations and to estimate when they split from one another.

If humans bred only with other humans, all these markers would create a neat phylogenetic tree, showing that human genetic diversity can be traced to a single population that existed in Africa in the last 100,000 years.

Instead, a team led by Jeffrey Long, at the University of New Mexico, found evidence that some of the markers looked far too old to have come from humans. Inbreeding with other ancient species is the likeliest explanation. "It means Neanderthals didn't completely disappear," he told Nature.

True, Neanderthals are the likeliest contenders for our ancestors' sexual partners, but they aren't the only ones.

Last month, a team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig Germany recovered hominin DNA in Mongolia from a 30-50,000-year-old finger bone that appears to be neither Neanderthal nor human. Its ancestors, or another yet-to-be-discovered kind of archaic hominin, could have bred with humans.

Previous studies of small parts of the Neanderthal genome have found no evidence for interbreeding.

But with a complete Neanderthal genome due to be published any day now, and more DNA from the newly-discovered hominin in the works, scientists will have the best chance yet to determine whether our species shared a bed with any others.

Source and full article here: www.newscientist.com...


[edit on 25-4-2010 by heffo7]

reply to post by heffo7


Heffo7.....

Thank you for continuing to post this info.

I've not had time to keep up with it all.

I look forward to reading it all during the next couple of days.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


My pleasure!

I am glad that you are finding it of interest.

Originally posted by nevermindme

Yea.

Could likely be abbos.
They stink, bad, like a primate. They have the same vocabulary as most primative primates. They can through stones. They live all over Australia.

But, they also attack, 100% of the time, if they outnumber their prey. ONLY if they outnumber their prey.

But hey, could also be Bigfoot, a?

This guy sure is a waste of life huh?
I mean what a loser.
He was probably bullied by aboriginals or something or maybe he was mugged by a gang of them at one point which is probably why he doesnt like them very much.

Now im an aboriginal and i think i speak rather well and i never attack people anytime.

As for Yowies or Bunyips or Bigfoot i have not really seen anything like that yet.

I used to live in Perth a while back when i was younger and when we went walking in the hilly bushland i saw strange things darting around in the scrub behind trees and stuff and i always had the feeling of being watched.

Maybe ill ask some of my relatives if they have seen anything before.

[edit on 26/4/10 by SephirothX2004!]

reply to post by SephirothX2004!


Where exactly is Perth?

Id be very interested in hearing more about your experiences.

Cheers

Perth is located South West Australia.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3018703dd4dc.jpg[/atsimg]

As for my experiances im afraid i dont have much.
My friends and family have had far more strange experiances than i.
Ill try dig up some stories when i can.

[edit on 26/4/10 by SephirothX2004!]

Hey SephirothX2004,

I'd be interested to hear what you and your rellies have seen.

I have a little theory that Murris and Kooris see and notice "stuff" that we whitefellas don't. I think it's a sensitivity borne from 100,000 years on country. Maybe if those of us of Irish ancestry spent some time in Eire, we might be more attuned to that environment?

Back to the topic, my dad was in Vietnam as a rifleman with 9RAR in 1969-1970. He and his section were patrolling down a riverbed in a heavily forested area of the Long Hai hills when the forward scout saw a massive, hairy biped sunning itself on a big river rock. It saw them, looked at them for a few seconds, grunted and walked off into the scrub. Dad told me the way it walked was upright, but it stomped off like it was p*ssed off at being interrupted while sunbaking. Before it walked off, one of the blokes asked the section commander for permission to fire on it, but was refused. They were on an operational patrol looking for VC, not yetis. I'm glad they didn't shoot it. Maybe it even survived the war?

I remember back in about 1991-2 a Belgian professor came to visit our house to interview my dad about the "yeti". He'd been in touch with another member of the patrol who dropped dad's name. I wonder if it's in the 9RAR Vietnam unit diaries at the AWM?

I noticed that at the yowie hunters website they mention tree biting a lot. I live in a rural area south of Sydney and there are a lot of trees around here which look like photos I have seen of "bitten" trees. They are usually juvenile stringybark gums maybe 5-7 inches in diameter and the "bite" marks are usually about 1.5-2m off the ground. I always thought it was some sort of insect damage, but the bark is definitely torn off in little strips and the marks are not holes, but indentations. Yowie toothbrush perhaps? lol.

Yowies Ignored By Science!
By Dr. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa


A surprising reappraisal has been taking place in human biology during the past few years. The border between what is "human" and what is "animal" is being subtly shifted to include in the human category the Great Apes (gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan, with all the moral and ethical implications inherent in such a shift. More modestly, we may see ourselves as being part of the Great Apes (see Colin Groves' talk on Occam's Razor on 28 April) and perceive the Great Divide as being between us and the monkeys. There is also talk about the possibility of a new species of humans walking the land; their DNA artificially altered, straight into the rosy-fingered dawn of yet another Brave New World.

And yet, while all this dramatic rethinking is going on, we do not even know the exact situation within our own genus Homo. We blindly persist in believing that we, Homo sapiens, are the only extant species within this genus. We are convinced, in spite of steadily growing evidence to the contrary, that we hold the monopoly of human-ness proper (never mind our closeness to the great apes), not unlike the conviction some centuries ago that the earth was the center of the universe. And like Galileo, those who dare question this dogma find themselves in the impossible position of having to prove something that cannot be proved to those who do not want to know. In those times, such heretics were in danger of being burnt at the stake; at present the establishment, as being “unscientific”, brands them. It is idle to speculate what hurts more: at the stake it was over in an hour or so, but the "unscientific" label may stick to you for many years if not for life.

The question thus is whether the search for still unknown non-sapiens hominids, usually called "Wildmen", has anything to do with science. There are by now thousands of reports of such Wildmen throughout the world: Abominable Snowmen or Yetis in the Himalayas, Yeren in China, Sasquatch or Bigfoot in North America, "Forestmen" in Indochina, and Yahoos, Yowies or Hairy men in Australia. There are also reports of such beings, under different names, from Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Pakistan, Mongolia, the Caucasus, various parts of Africa and even South America.

To dismiss all this as collective hallucination, the primitive need for the mythological or simply as archetypal legends common to all humankind will not do any more. Even though some of these explanations are the results of recent profound thinking, they now appear like rear-guard attempts by some medieval Church authorities to explain away an irritating (because it does not fit into the orthodox world-view) natural phenomenon. That is precisely what the continuing existence of "Wildmen" is: there is no room for them.

The best way to solve the parking problem is to erect "no parking" signs everywhere, is it not? Same here: affirm that the Wildmen problem does not exist and it is ipso facto solved. To ridicule those who believe in their existence by saying that therefore they must also believe in UFOs does not help either, because these are two totally unrelated issues, separated by a huge gap on the probability scale and lumped together in the minds of some naive "skeptics" only because both are outside the rigid boundaries of conventional knowledge. No, we as academics owe it to our contemporaries to come to grips with this problem and solve it on a scientific basis. But how do we go about doing this? Having recently returned from "Wildman" research in Laos with what I thought were very good results, I was accused of not being scientific enough by some of my colleagues, and even by a journalist. I therefore wish to justify myself; but this is done more in sorrow than in anger.

There seems to be a general agreement that the essence of the scientific method is the "validation of hypotheses by observation or experiments" (The Heritage Dictionary), to which should be added that this must be verifiable by others. The formulation of a hypothesis is thus to be seen as the first and foremost criterion for something to be "scientific".

My own hypothesis, based on many years of research, is that there still exist higher primate forms distinct from both the Pongidae and Homo sapiens, ie. Either still unknown bipedal pongids or non-sapiens hominids, in certain inaccessible parts of the Indochinese Peninsula and in particular in a well-defined spot in Central Laos near the border with Vietnam, from which I had reports of the existence of "gorillas" in the late 1960s. These reports came from Vietnamese, Laotian, American and Australian sources, checked and double-checked with regard to their authenticity and trustworthiness.

My "experiment" consisted in going there (which is far from easy), interviewing old people in remote villages and eventually recording first-hand information about powerfully built hairy manlike creatures which/who used to live in precisely the area I expected them to have been until it was bombed, defoliated and napalmed (because the Ho Chi Minh Trail was going through it) which resulted in the destruction of the primary forest, their habitat. In order to pinpoint more closely their physical appearance, I had prepared a set of pictures to choose from: photographs and drawings of the Great Apes, reconstitution drawings or paintings of some prehistoric hominids such as "Java Man" and the reconstitution drawing, after the original photographs, of the famous "Minnesota Iceman", identified by one of the foremost zoologists of our time, Dr Bernard Heuvelmans of Paris, as being a relic Neanderthal originating very probably from Vietnam. It was to this latter picture (which is reproduced on this page), drawn by Heuvelmans' ex-wife Alika Lindbergh that everybody pointed without the slightest hesitation as being the best representation of the creatures they had seen.

My original hypothesis has been validated inasmuch as there are irrefutable indications for the existence at least into the recent past, if not into the present, of obviously non-sapiens hominids, almost certainly of the relic Neanderthal type, in the area I hypothesized them to be.

This can be verified by whoever is game enough to repeat my experiment! This research has been conducted strictly according to the rules and should therefore qualify for the coveted label "scientific".

More: www.bigfootencounters.com...

Continued from above:

Not so, say certain skeptics or "mainstream" anthropologists, paleontologists, human biologists or whatever: where is the proof? We want to be convinced! The counter-argument is "this cannot be: non-sapiens hominids cannot exist any more because they are extinct, as we all know"; end of conversation. There is thus either no initial hypothesis at all (ignore the problem and it ceases to exist), which is certainly not "scientific", or the hypothesis is that such creatures do not and cannot exist, which is impossible to prove by any experiment or observation, the less so if one keeps in mind the dictum that "the absence of evidence is no evidence for absence".

Back to the demand of proof by those who must be convinced. Unfortunately, "proof" and "evidence" are never a matter of simply yes or no; there are grades and shades. There is "no proof", "hardly any proof', "proof", "good proof' and "ironclad proof". As to evidence, it can be "not a skerrick of evidence", "some evidence", "evidence" and, if you are lucky, "hard evidence". But the degree of hardness is always determined by the receiver of the evidence, not the giver of it (perhaps we should call them now the "evidencer" versus the "evidencee"). If the evidencee just does not want to be convinced, there is little the evidencer can do except for breaking some crockery or hitting a punch-bag to relieve his/her frustration. The decision of what is "convincing" and what is not is entirely in the hands — or rather the minds — of the custodians of "science as we know it".

Obviously, these custodians know more of the theoretical framework of evolution and of paleontology than the illiterate peasant in the Lao-Vietnam border region. And yet, when it comes to observing the jungle around them, the latter, free from preconceived ideas, is by far the more reliable provider of evidence than the former. The jungle is the testing ground for theories, not the study of the armchair academic. However, as proof, the testimonial of the Laotian montagnard (or Nepalese sherpa or Chinese peasant), faithfully transmitted by the researcher, is usually considered insufficient, although all workers in the field know of the fundamental honesty of indigenous people towards strangers (Margaret Mead and her informants not withstanding!). I cannot help smelling the nauseating odor of racism here. What, then, would really convince these unscientific skeptics? The first answer to this question, usually accompanied by an arrogant smirk, is: I believe it when I see it! But if ever they were really to see the object of their disbelief, e.g. A Wildman in up-country Laos, they would in turn not be believed upon their return home! They would themselves see the smirk on the faces of their interlocutors and would have enormous and well-deserved trouble in trying to convince them. "Seeing is believing" only works for the individual and cannot be used as proof or evidence for those who do not want to be convinced.

The next step normally is "Wanted: one Wildman, dead or alive". Thus runs the revealing title of the rather negative review of Myra Shackley's book Wildmen by a well-known British human biologist in New Scientist, August 1983. Revealing, because it shows the unyielding attitude of the establishment in the face of over-whelming evidence gathered by an intrepid, although fallible, scholar by simply demanding the impossible. It is physically and materially impossible for any one scholar working in the field to produce a living, fierce, growling and biting six-foot Wildman from Outer Mongolia (or for that matter from Central Laos), or even its/his decomposing body, like a rabbit out of a hat, for the benefit of an incredulous armchair colleague in London. It is also ethically impossible. And here we come to the crux of the matter.

Unlike cryptozoological research for other animals like the Tasmanian Tiger, that for Wildmen is really anthropological research (i.e. the search for unknown human beings) and must therefore be conducted according to the ethical principles and scientific rules of anthropology rather than of zoology or paleontology. If there is now the tendency, among more enlightened primatologists and other scholars, to view the Great Apes as being entitled to the same protection as humans (right to life, protection of individual liberty and prohibition of torture), why should this not be so for still unknown hominoids and especially non-sapiens hominids. The latter are clearly man and should automatically enjoy the rights thereof, regardless of whether these rights will eventually also be accorded to the Great Apes.

In practical terms this means that in no circumstances (except in self-defense) is a researcher allowed to kill the object of his/her research in order to get possession of it as iron-clad proof of its existence. Even the hunting, subduing, stunning or capturing of a Wildman cannot be permissible because it would deprive this creature of its liberty and would probably even involve some form of torture. What if, for argument's sake, a hitherto unknown tribe was discovered tomorrow in a remote valley in Irian Jaya: could any western scholar, sitting in his armchair, say "get me one of those blokes dead or alive or else I am not convinced of their existence"? Certainly not; he would either have to go to the remote valley to see for himself or he would have to be content with the description provided by the anthropologist in the field without this being less scientific. Anthropological research has been done in this way ever since it began and it developed into a fully fledged science without there ever having been this arrogant demand for "proof" by those who stayed at home.

One last-ditch argument by the skeptics often is that even though you are not supposed to kill a Wildman, there must be lots of bodies or skeletons of them around there where you claim they live: why can you not bring home a skull or at least some bones to convince us? So: must there? How many bodies or skeletons of the Great Apes were found before their existence became known through eyewitness accounts?

At the very least, we want something tangible beyond mere hearsay, such as footprints, tufts of hair, faeces, sound recordings or photographs, as if any of these was in itself more trustworthy and unequivocal than the testimonial of honest, observant and unbiased — if uneducated — "natives".

continued...

Last part of that article (sorry didn't realise it was so big):

On the contrary: every single such item has again and again been dismissed by those who do not want to be convinced. Footprints must be those of a bear or are dilated by weathering, tufts of hair could be from any odd beast, same for faeces, sound recordings are probably fakes and photographs are vague, not in focus, too dark and probably fakes, too. To which the researcher could add that even the best photograph cannot answer better than a faithful eye-ear- or nose-witness account certain questions regarding the exact taxon of the observed creature, its gait, habits, movements, reactions, smell, etc., thus everything that transforms it from a theoretical into a real human being.

The more one deals with these matters, the more one is struck by the close similarities and yet paradoxical differences between what is going on in a court of justice and in the corridors of what masquerades as science. There are a number of expressions in the legal vocabulary which science, and in particular that dealing with human beings, could do better than ignore, such as "balance of probabilities", "onus of proof" "beyond reasonable doubt", and above all the admirable Anglo-Saxon maxim of "innocent until proven guilty" which is constantly contravened by skeptics for the sake of scientific objectivity. A person "claiming" to have seen a Wildman is automatically presumed to be guilty of lying (because Wildmen cannot exist!) unless he can "prove" the existence of Wildmen by some other means and thus his innocence to the satisfaction of the one whom accuses him of lying! What a charade! This kind of "science" clearly has reached its use-by date and should be taken off the shelves immediately. Time has come in Wildman research to shift the onus of proof squarely on to the skeptics and to realize that beyond a certain point doubt is not only not any more reasonable but also a positive (or should one say negative?) hindrance to the advancement of real science. This is the more urgent as all still insufficiently known relic hominoids are endangered species and they may disappear before they have been officially "discovered".

This would certainly not be to the greater glory of the scientific establishment at the turn of the millennium. At fault is not the scientific method as such, which has been adhered to scrupulously by most researchers in this field, what is at fault is the one-sided and short-sighted interpretation of what is thought by "main-stream" researchers to be the essence of this method: its thrust. The scientific method aims at finding out, not keeping out. Long live the scientific methods!

Dr Helmut Loofs-Wissowa, a trained anthropologist, is retired Reader in Asian History and now a Visiting Fellow at the Southeast Asia Centre, Faculty of Asian Studies, ANU. Source ANU Reporter 27(12): 4. Wednesday, 17 July 1996.

Source: www.bigfootencounters.com...

Go to Newspaper & Magazine Articles & scroll down to almost the bottom.
Article referenced is titled "Australia: Yowies Ignored by Science!"

reply to post by heffo7


Ok, had a chance to do a “amateur”study of the video.

I couldn't be sure from the audio whether the source was bipedal and there are many creatures that can make seeming loud noises. It would be easy to mistake for a Yowie, especially if you were looking for such. The problem here is that the source of the noise appeared to be actually following/stalking the researcher. The only creatures that might do this could be the feral dog/dingo hybrids, though they are usually known to be very stealthy. From what I have been told from those who have spent a lot of time in the more remote regions around here, when the 'roos start going crazy there will usually be dogs/dingoes around, though this is the only observable sign. It would be rare to hear or catch a glimpse unless they attack. They seem more a problem for wildlife/stock and aren't known for worrying humans anyway, they are generally seen as quite timid and cowardly. Also whatever was following this person seemed to be deliberately making a lot of noise and was probably much larger. There are no creatures (apart from us) that would throw stones.

There was also some interesting things in the visual. The most interesting was around the 22 second mark. It might be nothing, though a more “frame by frame” type of study shows what appears to be “eyeshine” ahead of the researcher slightly left and below the light beam. When the light is panned from left to right it is quite noticeable, yet when panned back again it is gone. It might have other explanations, possibly something else reflecting. Possums are also famous for this.

There is a lot more I would like to ask about this encounter. At the moment I can only think of three different scenarios.

1. A deliberate hoax.

Always a possibility. Though my gut feeling is that it was genuine and many of the concerns have been explained plausibly by the man himself. Such as why he wasn't running in terror, but filming the episode etc.

2. A prank.

Seems less likely but still possible. I wonder how many people knew what he was doing and where. Some mischievous locals?

3.Large unknown creatures were stalking him, throwing objects toward him to get him out of the area etc.

Common sense and logic says no, impossible. Though there have been so many seeming credible reports it is hard to dismiss out of hand. For this reason I still keep an open mind on this subject.

It might be worthy of a field trip of sorts.