While the video is not conclusive of anything apart from what could possibly be strange figure/s and the strong probability of wombats, it was really the audio that caught my attention. I know nothing of how a yowie foot might be constructed, though I did a little experimenting (hope the neighbors weren't watching). I find it unlikely many people could make the same stomping type noises as this in the bush with bare feet and with the same force, to be picked up so clearly on a camcorder at 50 ft or so (even over the top of his own noises). At least I couldn't do this successfully on my lawn Though I understand yowies are purportedly quite large with large feet.

Then I realized something about some of these background footstep type noises. There were some definite, what I would describe as “clomping” type steps in amongst it all. To explain what I mean, two noises very close together ie. a heel quickly followed by the foot and made with some force. While I certainly couldn't reproduce this same type of sound or force in bare feet, with joggers or boots on I am more confident. It can make this effect, and footsteps in general, stand out. While not many stomping sounds had this effect, some clearly did. I can understand a large primate/humanoid making loud stomping noises, but not in the same way as some of these. Something about some of the steps gives an impression of being made by something wearing shoes or boots.

I will leave it at that with the video, as really I can't be sure of anything from this movie either way and anything I have posted only amounts to opinion. I might also be way off in that opinion. It might have happened the way it is portrayed, it might not have. I am beginning to feel like a movie critic panning a movie.

Though add to this a researcher who has what I would imagine to be like the holy grail of "paranormal researcher" experiences, yet seems completely uninterested in any sort of follow up. Also doesn't seem interested in any type of analysis. No checking either for footprints or something/anything that might add weight to the story or aid in understanding the experience. Simply wanders into the bush and gets caught unintentionally in the dark (yet luckily happens to have his half million candle power spotlight with him), surrounded by yowies, films it just in time to launch a you-tube site. Then simply moves on.

There are so many other things about this that don't add up so I will stop here. I know fact can be stranger than fiction so I will still keep an open (if also skeptical) mind on this one.

I notice on the latest expidition any type of noise or motion, or possible reflection/eyeshine (no matter how fleeting) in the bush is accredited to the "big guys". A light caught (reflected ?) on camera is simply accepted on the spot as being some paranormal new age "orb of pure energy" without the slightest hesitation or doubt. I applaud this type of feild work, though if research is the "systematic investigation into something, to establish facts' (dictionary quote) I can't help being a bit sceptical and simply don't regard this as genuine research.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

G'day all.

I have been conducting an independent review of the Yowie phenomenon, have done my own analysis of the this particular video and the circumstances around it, and have been following the discussion here on this Forum.

I am impressed by and agree with most of the analysis above (all but wombat part). I have no problem taking the next step and positively declaring: It is a hoax.

Tony decided to do some research in the bush which apparently involves searching for footprints and signs of torn bark. To do so he drives 3 and a half hour (approximately 200-300km not to mention the return journey) arriving at his chosen location at 5pm. Yet sunset for that particular day was at 5.41pm so how much "research" could reasonably be expected to be achieved in 40 minutes of fading light? He is obviously unprepared for any such "research".

Perhaps his plan was to do some night hiking as well. Yet again this does not seem to be the case as he only had a single spotlight with a low charge. Hiking in the Australian bush at night is a wonderful experience - one which Tony should be well acquainted with if he has truly been searching for Yowies for such a long time. To have taken only one torch with an unknown charge indicates that he was unprepared for that as well.

What was he prepared for? Well, he had a camera and it is likely he also had at least one accomplice...

I have done my own experiments and agree that the footfalls sound more like someone deliberately stomping in boots rather than that of a large animal. Statements like "I really hope this camera is picking this up" are mentioned a couple of times which seems to indicate that it had been rehearsed and that deliberate stomping in boots was required in order to make the footfalls audible. It is likely that one or more accomplice were present.

The accomplice theory is further strengthened by the use of the torch. Considering that the Yowie has never been previously photographed and to do so would be a world first and would possibly be one of the most important finds of all time yet Tony makes no real effort to aim the spotlight in the direction of the noises. Instead he briefly waves the light around in a random manner before switching it off all together which is what would be expected if he didn't want to spotlight his accomplice(s).

Still another indication that at least one accomplice was present is Tony's claim about rock throwing. There was no moon in the sky making for almost pitch darkness in a forested area yet Tony could see rocks being thrown. Conduct the experiment for yourself in similar conditions - it is impossible to see an airborne rock in the dark. All that can be noticed is the sound of something clattering nearby. The only way Tony could have known rocks were being thrown was if he knew beforehand that rocks were going to be thrown - ie by his accomplice(s).

That no plans are made to return during daylight (or any other time) to gather supporting evidence (footprints, etc) is more than suspicious.

In my experience, "yowie research" is largely a sham. Some dubious "experts" claim hundreds of sightings yet the only evidence they can gather are of a fabricated/falsified nature. It should come a no surprise that some lesser "researchers" are in on the act as well. Those who set out with the intention to mislead and deceive are somewhat less than honest and cannot be expected to simply 'fess up about their fakery. That is why it is essential to closely compare what is claimed against what is actually documented. In the vast majority of cases such claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Tony's video is just the latest example of hoaxing within "yowie research".

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Oz Night Walker]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Oz Night Walker]

Hi Oz.

I see some problems with this story too. Though personally, I stop short of calling hoax. Mostly because I simply can't be sure. I do find quite enough to be skeptical of. I have noticed a few errors in my very amateur appraisal, though minor at this stage(I thought the little wombat was a sure thing )

I am also growing increasingly skeptical of some of the researchers in this feild. Though each to their own I suppose. I now just see this account as a promising one, that ended up less so.

I tend put a lot more faith in accounts from ordinary people who claim chance encounters, though perhaps not always. Possibly because they seem to have no agenda, nothing to gain, but perhaps a lot to lose in ridicule.

Do you mind if I ask if you find that Yowies could be a possibility?


[edit on 28-5-2010 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

Many who call themselves "yowie researchers" are nothing more than con-artists (and credit to them - there is a degree of artistry to what they do). That’s why I have no hesitation calling this current example out as a hoax. It is very difficult to find credible information about the yowie because fakery is widespread.

I agree that members of the general public (non-yowie enthusiasts) are more likely to provide accurate yowie accounts but it is not as simple as that. Historically, there has always been a great storytelling and pranking tradition around the Australian bush - it’s simply good fun to scare your mates in the bush at night - and the Yowie in the forest (like the Bunyip in the waterholes) has always played a prominent role in perpetuating the folklore of fear.

The Australian media reported 6 alleged Yowie sightings in 2009 - 2 were the result of practical jokes, 2 were the result outrageous claims from “yowie researchers”, and 1 was most likely a misidentification. The remaining case (Mt George sighting) is interesting yet also suspect and there is little information available about subsequent investigations.

Similarly, there are a handful of interesting reports but very little information about them and what is available is from suspect sources.

I’m not prepared to give up on the biological reality of the Yowie but neither am I able to ignore the sensationalism and fakery.

The best thing the Yowie has got going for it: WLH 50. Look it up and let me know what you think.

Not a bad yowie report heffo. Another one on these very boards by fooffstarr was very interesting. From the same part of the world from memory, though could be wrong about that.

Oz, not an unreasonable theory, though it seems what has been turned up offers more questions than it answers regarding the habitation of this continent. It still seems like a long bow to draw at this stage.

There is still the problem of nothing to show physically, in any modern sense, that these creatures exist. They are completely anecdotal. I'm not sure living in isolated areas and trying to avoid human contact accounts for this, though it could be plausible. Platypus do similar and seem very shy, yet I have been able to observe them in the wild. Perhaps a poor comparison, though many reports are from areas that are reasonably urbanised anyway.

I can't help wondering of various claims, such as one claiming hundreds of separate interactions with yowies from the comfort of their own residence basically, yet can only come up with photos of what looks like a possum as proof. In some instances I have difficulty passing every claim off as simple hoax though, because I simply don't fathom why someone would do this. Perhaps misidentification or imagination plays a part? Next to impossible for this to happen literally hundreds of times. Seems to leave only two other options, true/hoax. Though I haven't studied the exact claims of these “experts” in depth, they sound at times incredible. Or a goup who seem able to find yowies, with all sorts of tech gadgets and even claiming a member with physical contact, yet never have a camera handy at the right time. Or another expert who appears to claim a completely different anthropological world history to support his views, amongst other things such as ancient pyramids built in Australia etc. These things lessen credibility somehow and cloud the already mysterious puzzle. It verges at times from cryptids to the bizarre.

It seems the only way to be sure of a yowie not showing itself is to have a camera ready. Yet seemingly credible reports continue, so my mind is still open...

Personally the possibility of a separate race of hairy man living alongside the aborigines, without being known and studied by now, might be possible though in my opinion unlikely in the extreme. There must be more to the puzzle IMO, if they exist, still a complete mystery.


[edit on 30-5-2010 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

I agree that the likelihood of Yowie existence is unlikely in the extreme. WLH 50 is a mystery. Perhaps it is drawing a long bow to link it to the Yowie but that's about it as far as evidence goes. Hoaxes, pranks, misidentification, and tall stories cannot account for all Yowie reports but they do account for the vast majority after a bit of independent investigation (I estimate that 95% +/- 5% are bogus). Finding accurate (non-sensationalised) information about these potentially authentic cases is very difficult because the people who have investigated (yowie-enthusiasts and "researchers") are not the most reliable sources and are often actively involved in the propagation of the mystery (ie hoaxing and sensationalism).

I'm putting together a loosely aligned group (and website) with a sceptical interest in the Yowie to investigate sightings in their local areas as they are reported via the media (none reported thus far in 2010). I like the way you think and take the time to test things with experiments, "Cognito Ergo Sum", and would like to know if this project would be something that interests you (especially if you live in Australia). If any other forum members here similarly have a sceptical interest in Yowies (as opposed to a blind faith in their existence) and would like to assist feel free to contact me.

I would send you a PM but cannot do so until I have done more than 20 posts.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Oz Night Walker]

I do not know who "thenakedyowie" is - I could only take a take a guess. I am aware that I am not a popular figure among local self-proclaimed "cryptozoologists" but I stand by my statement that sensationalism, fabrication, and storytelling are widespread particularly among "yowie researchers" and their followers. This video by Tony is the latest example but there are many more examples of fakery from more prominent "researchers".

Yet another example is the blog referenced above which uses my identity (both online and actual) to misrepresent my position (Does that constitute fraud? I'd be interested to hear from people with any legal knowledge).

There definitely is a need for more independent (ie non-sensationalist and non-hoaxing) voices to be heard about the Yowie phenomenon and I do need interested and well-grounded participants to assist. I suggest that this particular project (to provide honest and accurate information) is not for those who have difficulty separating reality from fiction or who unquestioningly believe the "yowie experts".

I'd be interested to learn what those actively involved with "yowie research" have to say about the authenticity or otherwise of Tony's alleged experience. It is my experience that birds of a feather really do stick together meaning that those similarly involved with falsified claims and the fabrication of evidence (hoaxing) would be quite supportive. Although I suspect that the smarter ones would prefer to skilfully avoid the issue altogether - happy to perpetuate the Yowie-mystery rather than attempt to solve it.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Oz Night Walker]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Oz Night Walker]

Hi nakedyowie. I see that you feel quite strongly on the subject of yowies, or perhaps more toward a certain poster. Your blog seems pretty full on and personal .

I also feel that Tony's vid is iffy. Though I haven't posted all reasons for this. I am also open to the suggestion that my thoughts on the vid are flawed.

Oz, I have thought about your proposal. Though it seems a good idea, I don't think I would bother. In the end all I would really like is to know for myself if this creature exists. I think my time would be better spent towards this. Though if I personally experience anything I would be glad to share. I have spent plenty of time in the bush, in what are supposed to be yowie “hotspots” with nothing that could be yowie related. Which means little I suppose, as like most people, I haven't exactly set out looking for yowies either. The other thing is that I realise from this thread that analysing others experiences is probably not the way to go. I can see where the possibility of logically explaining a supposed encounter could also lead to wrong conclusions, the same as those who, possibly due to theier belief, appear eager to accept and promote encounters and stories as being true. Proving the "non" existence of something might be difficult if not impossible, yet all attempts to prove the existence of this creature also seem to have failed. The best I could do is come to my own conclusions from what I find. I have experienced enough in certain ways that seems to defy any type of logic. Somehow I feel the yowie phenomenon, if there is any truth to it, could fit in the same basket.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

That's fair enough.

I'd love for the Yowie to have some biological basis in reality (and there are a handful of cases which defy standard explanation and need to be examined in greater detail) but there is little to no evidence to support that notion and a great deal of fiction and fakery which obscures the entire phenomenon.

If any future media-reported yowie sightings are potentially authentic then accurate detailed information (other than the usual sensationalism and speculation) needs to be made available. That's what I intend to do. If any objective evidence turns up then the local scientific community (universities, zoos, forestry, etc) should be consulted rather than relying on dubious U.S. scientists involved in the Bigfoot search for validation.

I appreciate independent opinion and analysis and, if you here on this Forum are okay with it, would like to post further yowie reports and evidence as they arise in future for your consideration (I do this on a couple of Forums that encourage debate and reason).

He doesn't come out prepared very well does he? If I was going out, in the night specifically, to find things. I would at least bring the right stuff.

Like perhaps a better night vision camera, or a few more flashlights. Or a large lantern that you could set down on the ground and move away from but it would still provide you with an area of light.

Just a thought, but it sounds more like he has some big friend stomping around the bushes.

Originally posted by Oz Night Walker

I appreciate independent opinion and analysis and, if you here on this Forum are okay with it, would like to post further yowie reports and evidence as they arise in future for your consideration (I do this on a couple of Forums that encourage debate and reason).

I'd love it if you could bring any new developments and reports to this thread. I'm totally fascinated by this subject and have read a great deal on the topic.

Not being a first-hand experiencer though I remain open to the possibility of yowies and bigfoot's existence. I hope that this categorises me as hopeful, rather than the "blind faithful". As I can't see why you can't be optimistic rather than being either a believer or non-believer.

As I said earlier in this thread I personally know of several people who have had first-hand encounters, and three out of four of them have never sought publicity - quite the contrary. This leads me to believe that most encounters are never reported, so the one's that are might just be the tip of the iceberg regarding this phenomenon.

Anyway, I'm rambling.... bring on the evidence, both for and against. Evidence though, not just opinion.

There's nothing wrong with optimism - the possibility of contributing to what would be one of the most profound discoveries of all time drew me in initially. As long as optimism doesn't override reality there is no problem.

Yowie evidence is a problem, however. Much of what is presented as "evidence" - broken foliage, stick formations, tree bites, rock cairns, etc - is both highly speculative and over-optimistic (wishful thinking). I won't be presenting or discussing those, that is for sure, but I do have other things for your consideration which I will post under a new topic in the near future.

heffo7 - you use the term "experiencer" when referring to those who have claimed alleged Yowie sightings. I've heard that term before and am puzzled over it - what is it's full meaning and where did it come from? Do you have any insights?