yowie/ the ultimate bushman

[Sasgirl]

How often do we find bones of any ace predator in the bush? Decomposition occurs very fast in the bush. It's not that surprising to have no bones. Gorillas emit an odor when then they feel threatened. This may be a similar scent trait. And I agree on the ultimate bushmen idea. I've taken reports on bigfoot where witnesses described military type stealth. I'm compared them to the highest skilled military snipers. Military guys admit they'd have a very hard time finding snipers and that's precisely the reason we may not be able to find Yowie or Bigfoot very easily.

[Scarts]

Wollemi Pines aren't flesh and blood either. They're a plant drawing their nutriment from sunlight, soil, and water. There's a massive difference. Fossilisation is an important tool used to establish where certain animals once lived. No sasquatch fossils in canada, no bigfoot fossils in america, and no yowie fossils in Australia, although Rex Gilroy armed with his white sticks of chalk, would strenuously disagree.

If they were flesh and blood, a percentage would have to be born with birth defects, rendering those ones either candidates for euthanasia with a swift bump on the head and burial, or a burden for the tribe. They can't all have able bodies, super eyesight all the time, or super hearing. Environmental factors as well as genetic weaknesses would have to lead some to be crippled, blind, and others deaf, as happens to every other flesh and blood species on our planet. Again, no one has ever come across such a disadvantaged one and taken advantage of the stuation. There's not even any reports of disabled yowies or yowies of suffering through advanced age they are decrepit, slow, or clumsy.

The data does not support them being flesh and blood. If they are not flesh and blood, then they can't be the ultimate bushmen / bushwomen / bushchildren / bushbabies / bushgrandmas and bushgrandpas.

Sorry.

[Searcher]

Once again poor old Scarts, the lad who lives in la la land, fails dismally to explain himself. He claims there is no such thing as a Bigfoot nest because that suits his left field, paranormal point of view. Surely spirits don’t need to curl up in nests! I strongly suggest some open-minded research. Interestingly, they appear to be quite similar to Gorilla nests.

Scarts also says he has no idea what bear DNA has to do with this argument. Well, let me explain… He clearly stated the Yowie/Sasquatch/Yeti enigma is the same. So it follows if Yeti DNA shows lineage to a real animal, then it must apply to the others as well. Out the window again goes the wild and untenable theory that the Yowie and his cousins are all spirit entities endlessly roaming the woods of this world.

If I may quote Friedman again, “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up”. Scarts…are you listening? Probably not.

[Sasgirl]

I have taken numerous bigfoot reports and interviews. Not all describe a smell. But I'm a purveyor of this being a flesh and blood creature with some "paranormal" aspects. Meaning beyond human or scientific understanding of normal. Does a paranormal entity leave foot prints or finger prints? Does a paranormal entity leave blood DNA and hair behind? It does if it's a flesh and blood creature. We here in North America have lots of physical evidence to suggest this is a flesh and blood creature, though perhaps capable of some amazing and seemingly "paranormal" feats. Meaning feats we don't understand as a normal animal. There is too much physical evidence here extracted and identified as an "unknown primate," to dismiss Bigfoot or Yowie as paranormal. And I'm submitting this video to support my claim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9oJxVZPhBs

Blood DNA and hair was extracted for the Ketchum study in this particular investigation. And the theory presented is a sound case for a flesh and blood creature. The creature in this video chased down a skunk and pursued it into a drain pipe and removed its scent glands cleanly, leaving the rest of the animal to rot. Whatever did this had hands and bled all over the pipe. This is not the work of humans or four-legged predators. And truly paranormal entities don't bleed, I'm assuming. And this is only one case of blood being extracted and tested. There are others.

[sapere aude]

[quote="Sasgirl"][/quote]

With respect Sasgirl, but what rules are you playing by? If you are claiming genuine science, can you show any genuine peer reviewed literature on any of these things? Where might we find this scientific consensus? Without verification, this is simply a claim. Every bigfoot claim seems to end up at best ambiguous, though more usually, bogus. Prof. Sykes?.....If you listen to scientists reviews, it only requires a very basic knowledge of evolutionary biology to understand why the Ketchum study was considered ridiculous.

If you are talking pseudo science, fair enough. It is one peculiarity of pseudo science that bogus claims live on in perpetuity. Even the most academic bigfoot research (Dr. Meldrum) is rightly considered belief based pseudo science. Why would he choose to publish in "fringe journals" alongside papers on "crop circles" and "telekinesis"? Why continually avoid genuine scientific scrutiny in favour of making unrealistic claims on "Monster Quest"? It seems obvious why.

There appears to be something going on here that might not be wholly relevant to the physical sciences alone.

[sapere aude]

As soon as someone hypothesises that they're paranormal - welcome to pseudoscienceville.

Not necessarily. The beginning of our universe itself needs a paranormal explanation by definition. We're still looking.

Paranormal doesn't have to mean dimension hopping yowies. It can also mean ??? (as in our universe). It can also entail a study of the cognitive science/ sociological aspects. This is the only area of science that could offer a viable explanation at the moment.

scientific approach is to happily say "we don't know, it's baffling why we haven't found a body or bones but we're working on solving the problem".

That is a very scientific view and easy to respect, yet it isn't always what happens. Often we end up simply with more urban myth.

, unjustified and ludicrous pseudoscientific approach is to say " we know why, they're spirits - case closed. We base our conclusion on no evidence or prior examples whatsoever of paranormal beings."

According to the research of Tony Healy, "we would have to disregard 20% of what we know about Yowies if we ignore the paranormal". What of these experiences? Glowing eyes? We just say they'e nonsense, but all of the rest that have also never been verified aren't? What would you tell Frank? Yes, paranormal/apparitional Yowies do seem to leave footprints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQsE7l50FI

[Scarts]

Your penny is jammed in the machine and it's just not going to drop, is it searcher? Content to forever search for that which cannot be found?

Those nests are an example of confirmation bias. The finders have a pre-conceived idea bigfoot is flesh and blood, must sleep somewhere, and they look for anything that may support this conclusion. Bear DNA still has no place in this argument, sorry champ. The fact remains that they cannot be flesh and blood. I don't know if you're paying attention, searcher, but I am bothering with the facts.

I'm going to post that list of pros and cons for the bigfoot / yowie being flesh and blood. In all honesty, I don't know why it hasn't been done earlier. This is bread and butter stuff. The negatives will outweigh the positives at roughly 100 to zero.

Searcher, your search for the flesh and blood yowie is almost over if you want it to be. Your search for the truth behind yowie reports is just about to begin if you want it to.

[Searcher]

Scarts wrote:

The fact remains that they cannot be flesh and blood.

What fact is that? It would be nice to have something factual in lieu of the esoteric ramblings we’ve seen to date! Over to you, Scarts.

[googe]

All I've seen so far is, flesh and blood believers backing up there beliefs with suggestions why they believe what they do, and being open to paranormal. with the paranormal believers, all I see is suggestions to back up there beliefs focused on it's not flesh and blood, it must be paranormal. I've asked.many times for suggestions to why the members that believe there paranormal to give some.insight, nothing?. it's like.a.merry go round, he said she said, give us some suggestions and stop waisting time!.

[sapere aude]

All I've seen so far is, flesh and blood believers backing up there beliefs with suggestions why they believe what they do, and being open to paranormal.

Hi googe.....I must have missed that part where they are open to the paranormal.

the paranormal believers, all I see is suggestions to back up there beliefs focused on it's not flesh and blood, it must be paranormal.I've asked.many times for suggestions to why the members that believe there paranormal to give some.insight, nothing?. it's like.a.merry go round, he said she said, give us some suggestions and stop waisting time!.

Some people have definite paranormal beliefs. Nothing wrong with that if the are obviously put forward as personal beliefs.

For others, they simply weigh up the subject and conclude that there is no such biological creature as a Yowie. Why people would see something that otherwise doesn't exist is then an open question. If anything at all were brought forward physically, or if 20% of Yowie claims were not paranormal to begin with, the "wasting time" remark would carry more weight.

[FM80]

Wollemi Pines aren't flesh and blood either. They're a plant drawing their nutriment from sunlight, soil, and water. There's a massive difference. Fossilisation is an important tool used to establish where certain animals once lived. No sasquatch fossils in canada, no bigfoot fossils in america, and no yowie fossils in Australia, although Rex Gilroy armed with his white sticks of chalk, would strenuously disagree.

If they were flesh and blood, a percentage would have to be born with birth defects, rendering those ones either candidates for euthanasia with a swift bump on the head and burial, or a burden for the tribe. They can't all have able bodies, super eyesight all the time, or super hearing. Environmental factors as well as genetic weaknesses would have to lead some to be crippled, blind, and others deaf, as happens to every other flesh and blood species on our planet. Again, no one has ever come across such a disadvantaged one and taken advantage of the stuation. There's not even any reports of disabled yowies or yowies of suffering through advanced age they are decrepit, slow, or clumsy.

The data does not support them being flesh and blood. If they are not flesh and blood, then they can't be the ultimate bushmen / bushwomen / bushchildren / bushbabies / bushgrandmas and bushgrandpas.

Sorry.

Never replied to you scarts, never agreed with you before but this post is laughable.

Wollemi Pines aren't flesh and blood either.

How does one reply to this? So by your reasoning (using the term loosely) anything not flesh and blood is or could be paranormal?

Fossilisation is an important tool used to establish where certain animals once lived

No joke, but as I said it's a rare process and we haven't found all the fossils that exist.

The data does not support them being flesh and blood

WHAT DATA??? At least you aplogised at the end of your message, obviously you knew you were scraping the bottom of the barrel too.

[andrew]

I need to correct two misconceptions here.

1. Sykes extracted DNA from an artifact purported to be from a yeti and it showed the artifact to belong to a bear. It does not mean that the yeti is a bear.

2. Contrary to the prevailing rubbish floated about by many who have not studied the Ketchum results, over 100 hairs from all over North America whose morphology did NOT match any other known non human mammal ALL returned human mtDNA. The three additional flesh, blood and saliva samples collected had full mtDNA genomes extracted and sequenced and also showed human mtDNA. All of the above were extracted and sequenced by labs independent of Ketchum's own lab as blind studies. The blood sample had (independently of Ketchum's study) also had part of the mtDNA sequenced by Disotel and showed as 100% human. This clearly shows that the Sasquatch has a human maternal line. I have seen the full genomes and confirmed the BLAST results myself and her paper is absolutely correct. These mtDNA results could of themselves stand alone as absolute proof that the species is human as confirmed by solid DNA analysis. I also have written confirmation from Australia's top forensic author and expert that the hair morpholgy and histology pictures she presents in the paper are NOT typical of humans despite the fact that the DNA from that sample shows they are indeed human.

The nuclear DNA was also extracted as part of a blind study for three samples and the short read sequence data was very comprehensive but the bioinformatic analysis carried out by the independent Texas University, and on which she relied because that is not her area of specialisation, did not use the latest bioinformatic pipeline workflows as used by other current world experts. As she says herself that situation is being remedied and those results will be known when it is finished.

Anyone who disputes these results needs to reread her paper and comments in full and also learn a lot more about DNA analysis and also what a blind study means. I will also say here very clearly so that everyone understands - amongst her vocal critics, who are actually qualified to carry out genetic work, NONE have actually carried out full sequencing of the sample material nor done any validating bioinformatic analysis on the sequence data despite her offering sample material and short read data for that. Disotel never did extract the full mtDNA genome nor the nuDNA and states himself that he is not an expert on much of what she had done. She has had her sequence data partially analysed by one highly qualified geneticist and he publicly supports her results as far as what he did.

I could not care less about grossly misinformed and uneducated hearsay comments about her study and results. This is about hard core science and the proper validation studies that are expected with such a contentious subject.

I will also point out the blindingly obvious that hairs require flesh and blood to grow and over 100 hairs samples is alone more than sufficient proof in any scientific study to demonstrate that. The Ketchum results show clearly that the Sasquatch is a flesh and blood relative of humans. The same result seems to be the case from the limited mtDNA data we have on the Orang Pendek. Whether the Yowie has similar DNA is yet to be determined.

Taken together, the DNA, the hair morphology, the physical footprints and some limited imagery show that the Sasquatch is a real animal. A similar collective of evidence was more than sufficient to have the Bili Ape and other recently discovered primates recognised as new species.

The only dissociation occurring in this thread is that of a refusal to accept the physical reality of something which is testable and provable. What is happening here is a clear confusion between possibility and probability with an unhealthy dose of abnegation thrown in.

[sapere aude]

Hi Andrew. I hope you don't mind some contrary opinion. After al viva la difference.

What might have been more convincing is if Ketchum met the concerns of her reviewers and actually had her paper published as opposed to running off and "self publishing" (some would say getting the phylogenic tree correct in a scientific paper could also help credibility). As such, she has only unverified "claims" that don't stack up at all to most mainstream biologists who have looked at it and therefore any review will already be informal.

It seems the hairs of which a percentage were "unknown", were obviously only "unknown" to the people looking at them. To scientists this means little anyway as you could pick one from a mundane animal and it could still be "unknown" on analysis (depending on exactly where on the creature it was taken) and is unconvincing in itself re a novel species of anything. It could be helpful to listen to one of the reviewers (Darin Naish) where he lists some of his concerns, or David Winter and a group of young scientists who discuss the paper online. Also the work of Anna Nekaris and the problems she encountered with an "unknown" (presumed Sasqautch hair) that defied attribution, but in the end was mundane.

Your welcome to your opinion, but it isn't one shared by most real biologists who have looked at it and your appraisal here seems very biased. Ketchum can resubmit her paper, but clinging to these results in the meantime will only further see the field drift into pseudo science.

Your Bili Ape comparison is also simply incorrect. We had skulls from the region over 100 years ago with scientists wondering if they were a new species of "Gorilla". What lead to the "new species" discovery were more Bili Apes skulls, scat and even parts of them being sold as bushmeat. Not to mention real physical Bili Apes that could be observed and studied etc.

The "footprints" and limited imagery are not very convincing. Dr. Meldrum has only to publish his works in reputable journals, yet this won't happen. Great doubt has been cast on all of it (quite legitimately) by both scientists and amateurs. Not to mention the 3, 4, 6 toed ones of all different varieties.

None of this means there is no physical Sasquatch/Yowie/Whatever. How do you personally view the (claimed) 20% of Yowie reports that seem to be "paranormal"? Even if something showed them to be real biological creatures, wouldn't they still require an explanation?

[andrew]

I have read and watched all those opinions. They are based on ignorance, hearsay or the opinions of those who have not made any attempt to actually prove their case by repeating the full analysis Ketchum did. The latter is the norm for good science but not one critic has done it - NONE. In fact I will go so far as to say that all the criticism I have read is a perfect example of intellectual laziness. However, you can believe whatever makes you happy. That is how abnegation works. I am only interested in verifiable scientific fact.

Nor am I interested in paranormal waffle. Attempting to prove the unprovable is nearly always a case of reductio ad absurdum.

If people do not understand the science of genetics and if they have not studied the paper thoroughly so they can understand all the data then I have little interest in trying to educate them. My "bias", as you assert, comes from long conversations with highly qualified geneticists around the world who are well respected authors themselves and understand the paper and the inherent experimental design and methodology. I stand by what I previously wrote.

Your understanding of the circumstances in the recognition of the Bili is not correct in fact or timing. You completely missed the point anyway.

Some proper verification of her work is underway and we will see what we will see. That it is being done should tell you something.

[googe]

Yes sapere, there's nothing wrong with having paranormal beliefs, I was talking more about having them beliefs and asking why they believe that side of it. You can't believe it just because the flesh and blood theory doesn't sit well in your mind, surely there are reasons people believe there paranormal apart from, they just are because they can't believe the flesh, am I making sense?.

[googe]

I tried to edit last post!, can't edit here?.
Anyway, was going to add, I see videos, pictures, read stories and thats how I've got my view on the subject. I've processed things that stood out to me and feel/sound right in my own mind. The feeling I get deep down when I read or see reports tells me there's something real in this, no fiction book can ever do!. I to get feelings of a paranormal nature because my mind can't explain some things I read on the subject, I'm open minded to anything my own mind can process.

[sapere aude]

Thanks Andrew, I appreciate your opinion.

There seems no need to "replicate results" in this instance because the data presented itself was not indicative of hybridisation to begin with, to people who are specialists in hybridisation and genetics. Therefore her conclusions are inconsistent with the data and the fact that no measures were taken (which are available) to rule out other more obvious possibilities is problematic. Her results were indicative of something else entirely. Among many other problems.

There is a similarity here so far with creationists who also try to prove the existence of god in absentia, yet are reduced to "self publishing" also because their data does not support their conclusions.

Though it would be good if she resubmitted it and if it has merit, no doubt there will be all measures taken. Quite a contrast so far with the Sykes study (though we await the paper).

IMO bigfoot is the least likely of the "hairy men" to really exist. Other (claimed) creatures such as Orang Pendek, Ngoi Rung, Yowies etc. at least show a realistic possible habitat distribution and a correspondingly genuine history from indigenous peoples (Sasquatch needs a lot of reinterpretation). It isn't really possible for breeding populations of massive Apes to exist the length and breadth of the US and avoid classification. It seems more likely paranormal or sociological.

As Napier noted long ago, if they do exist they aren't what they are cracked up to be and as Krantz noted, the wider a claimed distribution and the more and longer sightings go on, it actually makes it less likely to be a biological creature.

Seems a bit rough to call the many experiences with a paranormal aspect "waffle" and if you have not researched this, the reductio ad absurdum claim itself would be a fallacy. It isn't necessarily so.

Not sure what you mean re the Bili Apes. Never heard of a proposed Gorilla Gorilla Uellensis based on skulls found over 100 years ago? Could you point in which museum the collection of bigfoot skulls might be? The documented scientific interactions (including clear pics)? Or the clear game cam images?

[quote]A Belgian Army officer by the name of Le Marinel, in 1898 had brought back four gorilla skulls from the area. These skulls were in the Tervuren Museum in Bruxelles. In 1927 the curator at the museum, Henri Schoutenden, based on the anatomical differences and the unique origin, some 400 miles from the edge of the nearest western or eastern gorilla range, classified them as a new subspecies: gorilla gorilla uellensis. Two years later this was rejected by the American primatologist Harold J. Cooling who decided that these skulls could not have possibly come from the Bondo part of Northern Congo since it was known that there were no gorillas there and as such he concluded that the skulls had most likely been brought in from somewhere else. /quote]

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100 ... 47461-1_26
http://www.karlammann.com/uellensis.php#.U5z-1haSOlI

Could you point out something similar to the following link for bigfoot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG77LO9PmxU

[sapere aude]

Yes sapere, there's nothing wrong with having paranormal beliefs, I was talking more about having them beliefs and asking why they believe that side of it. You can't believe it just because the flesh and blood theory doesn't sit well in your mind, surely there are reasons people believe there paranormal apart from, they just are because they can't believe the flesh, am I making sense?.

Thanks googe. Yes, it's because so many reports have a paranormal aspect (glowing eyes etc), coupled with the fact that nothing in any genuine physical sense has ever been found to indicate a physical creature. I understand the most logical way to proceed is to assume an uncatalogued species and not trying to say people should abandon the idea.

There does seem enough to make this aspect relevant. Again, look at this vid. It has (claimed) auditory, sighting and impact on it's environment (footprints). All from a creature who vanished into thin air. Such occurrences account for much of this subject (20%). IMO these experiences should not be overlooked and until something (in a physical sense) is found, a further understanding (whatever that might entail) could explain a lot about this subject. Though as always, what shouldn't be overlooked, is that that opinion could in the end also be entirely wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQsE7l50FI

[FM80]

I to get feelings of a paranormal nature because my mind can't explain some things I read on the subject

Well done googe - this is exactly what's going on. People can't explain something and as humans we think we should be able to explain it so the things we can't explain we categorise as 'paranormal'. This is why humans invented 'gods' and deities to explain that which we can't explain. I don't know why in the age we live in - full of information and brilliant science - people still have two categories:

1. Things we know
2. Things that god does/paranormal

Category 2 is shrinking fast so let's cut to the chase and make category 2 'things we don't know' or 'things we don't know yet'.

Reminds me of a quote:

"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is
queerer than we can suppose."

J. B. S. Haldane

So if our little brains can't comprehend reality, don't insult the universe by putting it down to some basic human construct such as paranormalism.

[googe]

Thanks sapere, yeah we have to have a place to go to when things can't be explained, whether it's in the to hard basket, paranormal, we need to still keep an open.mind, even if your brains saying, no way this isn't right. That's pretty much all.I'm talking about. Thanks for the vid, havnt seen that in ages!. Is an unusual one!.
Thanks fm80, I guess people have gods, paranormal beliefs because they need to "name" it something. I don't think everything can be discovered with science or studies or technology, some things will remain UN discovered. I still don't believe things until I see them.with my own eyes, no.matter how.many brilliant minds are telling me other wise. I'm my own person as we all are and see things differently than someone else will, so beliefs differ. me seeing that vid sapere posted make me think the vid author is of a questionable character, just by my view of how I see him in the video, so don't fully believe what he's telling me. Were as other videos I'm totally convinced there telling the true just by seeing how they are in the said video. I'm rambling now!.

[wellymon]

The "Yowie" is the ultimate Australian bushman with out a doubt .

I hope the people here who think F&B is not tangible start to realise that there are so many longtime contributors staring away from this site...?
All regards to your own waffle, what a shame .

Pull ya head in and go for walk in the bush, or even so live in the bush and not behind a f'n computer sitting in your armchair, enough said...!

Shame on your babbling thoughts.

[andrew]

Sapere, despite the earlier evidence of its existence, it was not until 2007 that the Bili (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) was confirmed as a distinct sub species of the troglodytes after the DNA, physical evidence such as large footprints etc and imagery was produced to make the case. That is my point. It requires a collection of evidence to establish the phylogeny. No single piece of evidence does that well. Hence the debate over what issues like the Dmanisi skulls actually mean.

You say that "her conclusions are inconsistent with the data and the fact that no measures were taken (which are available) to rule out other more obvious possibilities is problematic. Her results were indicative of something else entirely."

She obtained mitochondrial DNA which matched none of the hair collectors, none of her immediate staff nor those who carried out the blind DNA extraction and sequencing. She anticipated such problems and designed the study to avoid that using strict forensic protocols. The same was done with the three mtDNA genomes. All results showed human maternal lines. Her nuDNA analysis produced unusual results but in no way invalidates the mtDNA results which, as I have already said, could stand on their own to demonstrate the human nature of the source of the hairs and other samples. Because she could not determine the nature of the male DNA she used the term hybrid.

This is exactly the same term used to describe the Denisovan result which has some DNA from an unknown hominin. It also applies to the latest DNA data from Spain which shows a hybrid with Denisovan. It applies to PNG and Australian aborigines which are a hybrid of Denisovan and H. sapiens as their DNA shows. It also applies to us as we carry Neandertal genes. So, contrary to your assertion, her conclusions are in fact absolutely consistent with the Sasquatch being a hybrid between a H. sapiens and something as yet undetermined. What it is, we have yet to discover. The majority of your other points are simply conjecture or are about putting the cart before the horse. Notwithstanding that we need an assembly of physical evidence and imagery, I am focussed on the DNA and hence identifying what the hairyman is. The other marginal issues may be good for an armchair debate but they really get us nowhere. They just seem to get recycled like a bad penny.

The only thing that matters is verifiable data. It does not require consensus because science has NEVER EVER been about consensus (shock horror)!. Do I have to remind you that a hundred scientists signed a paper decrying Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That worked out well for them - not. I can recall at least one other Nobel Prize winner who had to wait decades against strong condemnation before someone actually verified his data.

Last point. You seem to place a lot of credence on traditional peer review. I don't, because an awful lot of papers get through that process but are full of nonsense. It is estimated that nearly 30% of the data published in Genbank alone is rubbish which was never detected in peer review. I much prefer the open source approach by the likes of PLOS ONE where any of their thousands of members can tear shreds off a paper before it gets published. If you had actually read all the information on the Ketchum paper you will see that she did indeed pass the traditional review process before she bought the Journal. Personally, I could not care less about an imperfect review process because it does not change the independently produced data, particularly that for the mtDNA.

[Neil Frost]

G’day everyone,

Believe me, I can totally understand the perspective of the paranormal advocates. To the uninitiated, armchair or occasional witness, (sorry for playing this card), the apparent behaviours and characteristics of these hominoids do seem to be abnormal or paranormal. However, you are mistaken to believe this! You are suffering from dissociation.

Having had a family group of these hominiods visit our house, most nights and some days since 1983 and particularly from 1993, our perspective was significantly different. Mainly from the experiences of our family, but also from: Ian; Cheryl; Robert; Iain; Gordon; Evan; Phil; Helen; Reari; Wilhelmina; Anthony; Megan; Murdock; Peter; Basim and many other local community members, there was no question regarding what we were all dealing with! We weren’t just casual observers, we were regular participants involved in a long term case study! We were having encounters, working together, collectively reporting incidents, providing feedback and improvising circumstances to test our current hypothesis. This would then be tested the following night! We were a team and certainly not sub-clinical or in no way could it be suggested that we were psychologically drawn together, apart from the coincidence of us all living together in the same valley, within a local community.

There is nothing mystical about these hominoids! They are simply as cunning as s#@t house rats! I can rabbit on about specific examples, but I have done this at length before.

In conclusion, in desperation and as an act of seemingly supreme arrogance, I defy any one on this forum to suggest otherwise, drawing from their collective knowledge! They are indeed the ultimate bushman.


Neil

[Brindabella Ranger]

Good point Neil. A collective knowledge based on collective interaction and experiences is, by logical design, a tough stance to crack.

Clearly this discussion is continuing in the vein of the two beliefs, and I've been waiting for someone to start a new subject afresh to continue it (thought Scarts was going to make a list of for and against). It was mentioned on page 2 that although F&B believers like myself can provide viable theories to support our conclusions, believers of the paranormal only refute what is being proposed. Therefore I ask, could a proponent of the paranormal please explain to me the viable theories to support their conclusions?

I'm not having a go, or stirring things up, cause I'm not like that - everyone has a right to their own opinion. Truth is I want to understand to what ends do advocates of the paranormal theory base their beliefs. I haven't seen it explained before. Anyone. As much detail as you can.

[Gavin]

Hear, hear.

[Scarts]

Brindabella Ranger, you're right, I have made that list for the F&B case for bigfoot and the Yowie. I'm just tweaking it.

Neil,

I still have your original manuscript for the book you were going to publish of your experiences. It's a great read and highly detailed as to your accounts. I spent a lot of time in your neck of the woods as you know and had my own experiences that paled in comparison to yours, and spent a lot of time in my neck of the woods and also had some fairly novel experiences.

I have nothing but respect for you and fond memories. You displayed enormous courage having your story told in the media knowing the backlash you would face at work and in your community. Your brave story prompted plenty of others to come forward with their stories. Your story is remarkable and fairly unique even in this field.

Please don't be defensive, take offence to my posts, or think I am undervaluing your work. I dearly want the yowie/s that interacted with you and your family to be an uncatalogued normal flesh and blood animal like any other catalogued Australian bush animal. Everything about your case suggests it was a flesh and blood creature with multiple witnesses coroborating your accounts.

As much as I hate to say it and wish it were not so, the physical evidence, despite different camera set-ups, stake-outs, and other high tech equipment as it has become available, has not yielded satisfying proof for a flesh & blood creature getting around. It sucks. It sucks, but it's the same perplexing situation everywhere, right across our planet.

My argument isn't that you, your family, and your neighbours didn't have a real experience with a real creature. My argument is whatever that real creature was, does not conform to the laws of nature that every other animal does, for a large number of reasons. As real and flesh and blood as it may have appeared, and as rational as a flesh and blood approach to proving it may be, that approach has failed to work. If it were normal flesh and blood, Neil, I think it fair to say you should have struck gold by now or one of us should have struck gold by now. I mean time waits for no man and the grass is still growing under our feet! It's been 15 years for me and 25 years for you. Is the ultimate bushman also the ultimate camera evader, ultimate hide and seek expert, ultimate predator with no evidence of it's kills, ultimate stalker, ultimate peeping tom, ultimate trespasser, ultimate technology eluder, and then the ultimate vanishing act?

I think it's time to ask the tough questions. The ultimate bushman is a flesh and blood construct assumption which is why this thread has become so interesting.

[Dion]

... believers of the paranormal only refute what is being proposed.

Hey Brindabella

I dont think those that believe them to be Para are refuting whats being proposed (as those that are F&B arent proposing much) its more the lack of evidence to support such a creature.

Therefore I ask, could a proponent of the paranormal please explain to me the viable theories to support their conclusions?

There are many posts within the AYR - Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion board which deal with viable theories to support the Para one just needs to do a bit of reading.

In regards to the above quote by you, I have also asked previously those that have a Flesh and Blood leaning to write up some pro's for them being so, and got little reponse other than WHY should the Flesh and Blooder's have to write up anything, which is a bit of a cop out.

If we want to get to the bottom of this Phenonemon I think it would be worthwhile for someone who deeply believes them to be F&B to state WHY?

I think this discussion/debate is worthwhile.

I am looking forward to seeing Scarts 2's and 4's.

Regards

[Sasgirl]

Sapere, you seem to be dismissing vital information simply because the Ketchum study has been dismissed by the community. But that doesn't mean the DNA samples involved in the study were not valid. They can't even be added to a study unless they are determined to be "unknown animal," or "unknown primate," in this case.

If you watched the video I submitted, you need to ask yourself what exactly was it that punched a hole in a fiberglass pipe in order to extract a skunk from it. Whatever it was wasn't human. But it had hands and incredible strength. No human can do what this creature did. And it bled and that blood was submitted to the Ketchum study. And it's important to add that there have been numerous bigfoot sightings in the area this video was taken.

And, incidentally, what are the rules exactly when we're talking about an unknown animal?

And DNA evidence is perfectly admissible. You can run the Sykes study down if you want, but it proved the existence of an ancient bear we never knew existed before. No skeleton or other remains required. It doesn't matter what your opinion was of these studies. The DNA submissions were valid. I personally know the researchers involved in most of them.

Are you a researcher? Have you done any research in the field?

[FM80]

My argument isn't that you, your family, and your neighbours didn't have a real experience with a real creature. My argument is whatever that real creature was, does not conform to the laws of nature that every other animal does, for a large number of reasons. As real and flesh and blood as it may have appeared, and as rational as a flesh and blood approach to proving it may be, that approach has failed to work.

Absolute hogwash. One minute you're espousing the paranormal, then in one sentence you tell Neil his experiences were with a real animal that "does not conform to the laws of nature". What is it scarts? Tell Neil he was wrong and was seeing some paranormal entity for 20 odd years or you change your mind and accept they are real animals, you can't have it both ways.

By the way your logic is a bit of a non sequitur. Can't find yowie therefore it does NOT logically follow that they are paranormal.

[FM80]

I have also asked previously those that have a Flesh and Blood leaning to write up some pro's for them being so, and got little reponse other than WHY should the Flesh and Blooder's have to write up anything, which is a bit of a cop out.

If we want to get to the bottom of this Phenonemon I think it would be worthwhile for someone who deeply believes them to be F&B to state WHY?

Regards

Cop out? The burden of proof is not upon those who think rationally and understand that animals exist in this world. Again, there is no evidence ANYWHERE, IN ANY FIELD of the paranormal, it is bunkum. Animals I'm sure you agree, have been proven to exist, even those once thought to be 'myths' or 'legends'.

The burden of proof lies with those who cling to this far fetched idea of paranormal ghost things (still don't even know exactly what you paranormal people actually think they are) just because they can't understand something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so lets see some.

By the way, footprints, howls caught on tape, blobsquatches, throwing rocks, preference for a particular habitat and evidence of foliage damage are evidence of an animal. How do any of these support paranormal? All you have is people seeing stuff they can't explain.