yowie/ the ultimate bushman

[Scarts]

FMBO, absolute hogwash is your conclusion jumps. I never said I adhere to a paranormal viewpoint. I said I refute the flesh and blood angle that everyone loves. I can have it both ways. There is no denying Neil's experiences were real, but they could not have been with a real flesh and blood creature like a local wallaby or Mr. Smith living next door (unless ofcourse Mr Smith was seven feet tall and had a great pair of gorilla pajamas perhaps). There are a number of alternatives. Remember how I said I was putting that list together? You're going to love it, FM stereo! Ok, the positives were a bit more than my exagerated figure of zero, but I'm struggling to keep the negatives down to 100. Don't shoot the messager!

[googe]

Are you doing just the negatives for f&b or negative/positive?. Would be good if you as a paranormal believer to do a positive list on paranormal and someone that's a f&b believer do a list on positives for f&b. I see negatives as a easy route, just assumptions from one individual. A list of positives on both beliefs from known sources would be great. I wish I had the knowledge to do one, any one keen?.

[Brindabella Ranger]

Hi Dion,

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.

I think the "lack of evidence" argument pro para supporters continue to counter-argue is, to be honest, shirking responsibility and support for your own argument. Please give me something better.

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.

I know, I just wanted them to be compiled in once concise form for the sake of this discussion.

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.

Absolutely FM80. But Dion, F&B supports HAVE been outlining the wealth of reasons that underpin our argument. I STILL have not seen any explanations from the pro para side yet (with the exception of Sapere Aude hastily outlining one or two in his last post). Time to give a little back and stop shirking accountability. Do the pro para supporters lack the confidence to post on their beliefs? Or are they hesitant they might appear to converge with the extreme views of others (Manfromglad etc) [with respect]?

I think this discussion/debate is worthwhile.

Agreed. Its all healthy.

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

Me too. But I feel I might be disappointed if his list is nothing more than a list of F&B claims debunked. If you read this Scarts, try to provide a list of para points that stand on their own.

[Brindabella Ranger]

Scarts, I've only just seen your previous post.

I never said I adhere to a paranormal viewpoint. I said I refute the flesh and blood angle that everyone loves. I can have it both ways.

Sorry, I was wanting to hear from someone who believes in the para theory!

[Dion]

Hey All,

Again, there is no evidence ANYWHERE, IN ANY FIELD of the paranormal, it is bunkum.

The same goes, there is no evidence ANYWHERE, IN ANY FIELD for the purely F&B argument. Sure we might find a footprint now and then, hear a howl, find a broken branch, have rocks thrown at you. Can you honestly say from that evidence that they are purely F&B, a paranormal entity can do the same, we still have no bones nor a body, so a F&B argument is way off, with all the technology at our disposal no one is yet still to have managed to find one when they go looking.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so lets see some.

Yep I agree.

I think the "lack of evidence" argument pro para supporters continue to counter-argue is, to be honest, shirking responsibility and support for your own argument. Please give me something better.

Alright, I have gathered a few Quotes from posts made from myself where I have put forward some arguments in the past to them being more than F&B and one by Ruby Lang into the subject just by doing a little searching. There is plenty more I could probably gather. Seeing as the section of the Forum is full of the Para side of things I could be here all day putting up quotes.

I would suggest anyone re-read or read if you can get your hands on it “The Yowie In Search of Australia’s Bigfoot” by Paul Cropper and Tony Healy. Namely page 181 which starts with ‘Category X: They are paranormal creatures’, and read to page 195. This comes under the Chapter of ‘Who or What is the Yowie’ the chapter files into four main categories A. The Creatures never existed, B. They are real Flesh and Blood animals, C. They existed once, but no longer do, and they above category X. It may help with why some people believe them to have Spiritual or Paranormal qualities to them by Definition.

The above book is of importance as its the only book in Australia that has an open mind to the Fringe subject, detailing paranormal accounts. I recommend getting your hands on it if you havent read it before.

It’s of no surprise to see that people will always lean to one or the other Flesh and Blood or Paranormal.

And as Neil has alluded to Paranormal just means “Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation”.

There are plenty of things in this world that are “beyond the range of normal experience” and or “have no scientific explanation” and I put Yowies, Bigfoot, Sasquatch and Yeti and many others in the same boat.

In fact these critters worldwide act more like Ghost, Poltergeist and UFO activity that anything else, (I say that because we have no physical proof that they exist)

The ability to disappear to in front of people’s eyes into seemingly thin air after being pursued or shot at is real? And yes, there are cases where this has happened, there was a case that came in not too long ago where two guys saw a Yowie cross the rd in front of them in the car, both came to the conclusion that the Yowie seemed to disappear before it got to the tree line? Did they both hallucinate at the same time? Was it their eyes playing tricks on them? Maybe?

The ability to know your every move, Telepathy encounters? Which is another phenomenon that gets overlooked; the list of strangeness goes on and on.

I do not believe that these strange encounters are just people’s imaginations getting away with them or playing tricks on them. There are many people who come forward with the same stories. After a while you have to look at them or you can either become set in your ways and dismiss it.

Some people I believe are cherry picking selecting material and cases which support their belief system (such as Seemingly Flesh and Blood sightings or encounters) and ignoring any material that doesn`t. We all have different encounters and or opinions there is nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely no positive proof that they are “purely” Flesh and Blood. It’s my belief that they are a bit of both, Flesh and Blood and Paranormal.

I mean really who can say they have a body of one, How do we get thousands upon thousands of sightings and encounters world-wide, yet still no Physical body has ever been found, with all the man power of the world exploring each and every corner of the earth nothing has ever been discovered, only a few fleeting glimpses of the creatures which get reported as a sighting or encounter and so the stories build up, to think that a huge “animal” (as people in the states like to call it) sometimes up to 12 ft high can evade man for so long is ridiculous.

Tell me why we get 2,3,4,5,6 and even 7 toed prints, none of which look categorically ever the same? Some Prints I have seen that people claim to have come from a Yowie look so deformed I wonder how they come to the conclusion that they are Yowie, who saw the Yowie make them?

Tell me why they evade the camera like the plague yet they can run right up to a recorder sitting in the bush and make a racket of a noise? , for an animal they are highly intelligent to be able to discern the difference between the two.

I quite often hear people in the United States talk about Sasquatch and where do they go when its winter and snowing, some say they go underground into caves, the fact of the matter is why has no one ever found these caves? in some areas where sasquatch is found they don’t even have caves so where do they go? They don’t make igloos.

There are many 4’s and against for both parties of Flesh and Blood and Paranormal, I think they are a bit of both, an ability to shift in and out of Dimensions.

It’s only an opinion, after all we are dealing with a mythical creature that doesn’t exist, right……….?

Hi Guys,

Well, I have believed for some time that there is a paranormal aspect to the yowie mystery.

The native custodians of this land, the Aborigines, have referred to them as spirit beings as well as flesh and blood...and then there are those 'backward pointing feet'. Hardly the physical attribute of a flesh and blood creature - and a characteristic of faerie creatures in mythology worldwide.

Let me direct some of the more well-read members of the forum to the Myths and Monsters 2001 talk given by researcher Tony Healy (co-author of Out of the Shadows and the soon-to-be-released The Yowie File), who has also explored the paranormal dimension to the yowie in his talk "High Strangeness in Yowie Reports": Are the hairy giants flesh and blood - or are they psychic phenomena? Yowies appear to be part of a world-wide phenomenon of strikingly similar traditions of uncatchable ape-men occur in many other parts of the world.

I reproduce it here in full because I know 99.9% of people won't bother to look it up or consider any of the arguments

Ruby

"The vast majority of people who report yowie sightings sincerely believe they haveencountered living, breathing animals - some kind of extremely elusive ape or giant,primitive hominid. Their eyewitness testimony is supported by footprints, tree bites and otherphysical evidence which proves the creatures are much more than mere hallucinations. Thereare, however, many other elements of the mystery which suggest it may not be ananthropological or zoological problem at all - but perhaps something a great deal weirder:some kind of psychic phenomenon.

Many yowie researchers dislike any mention of the supernatural and feel that proponents ofthe paranormal are attempting to solve one problem by creating another. They are concernedthat people who raise the spectre - so to speak - of the paranormal will strengthen the hand ofthe sceptics, confuse the media and scare off those few scientists who have been courageousenough to express an interest in cryptozoology.I can understand their reactions - I had the same attitude myself for several years.

But if wereject everything about the yowie which smacks of the paranormal we will have to sweep approximately 20% of the accumulated data under the carpet. To do that would be not onlyunscientific - but also plain dishonest. Nothing would thrill me more than for someone to prove conclusively that yowies arephysically real - but I now suspect that will never happen. After 25 years on their trail I am strongly inclined to believe the creatures are shape-shifting phantoms which may alwaysremain beyond human comprehension.I may be wrong ( and in fact I hope I am ) but as Fred Beck, one of the miners who wasinvolved in the famous 1924 bigfoot encounter, known as the Ape Canyon Incident, oncesaid, ?It is no sin to be wrong, just as it does not make a person a saint to be right.?

(1)There are many reasons why I suspect there is something quite uncanny about the yowie. Idon't have space here to discuss them all, so I will focus instead on just three majorconsiderations:1. Elusive hairy giants are a world-wide phenomenon.Uncatchable hairy ape-men have been reported in every state and territory of Australia, invirtually every state and province of the USA and Canada, in Guatemala, Panama, Colombia,Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Nepal, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, NewGuinea, New Zealand, Kenya, India and even Japan.For centuries tens of thousands of armed men - aboriginies, explorers, trappers, hunters,prospectors, soldiers - have roamed most of the areas concerned, wiping out whole species oflarge animals - and races of people - yet no museum has so much as a finger bone of a yeti toexamine.

I just cannot see how giant apes could have avoided being captured, killed or clearlyphotographed in one or other of those areas - unless they have an avoidance technique whichis way beyond our ken.Yowie and bigfoot - the terrible twinsI now believe that the elusive ape-men of Australia and North America are not just verysimilar but are, in fact, exactly the same creature. There is not space here to list all thesupporting evidence but it boils down, essentially, to this:In virtually all aspects of their appearance, their behaviour and the reactions they engender inother animals, in tribal people, modern witnesses, believers and sceptics, the animals areidentical. (2)There is reason to suspect the Himalayan yeti and several other types of elusive ape-men arealso part of the same phenomenon.

2. Hot Spots: The yowie/black panther/lake monster/UFO connectionThe second major consideration is this: localities which produce hairy man reports alsofrequently produce reports of other strange phenomena.In the year I spent on the trail of the sasquatch I concentrated, naturally, on areas whereNative Americans had always believed in the hairy giants and where white people hadreported sightings since the frontier days. To my surprise I found that in virtually all of thoselocations people had also reported a variety of other strange, uncatchable animals. The mostcommon of these were ?black panthers? and Loch Ness style lake and river monsters. Severalof these "hot spots" also produced a large number of UFO reports.To give just one example:?O Canada - you're so weird?Many sasquatch sightings have occurred near the village of Easterville, Manitoba, which issituated on a thin isthmus surrounded by Lake Winnipeg, Lake Winnipegosis and Cedar Lake,all of which have produced many lake monster reports.The lake monsters have been seen out of the water, on beaches or in swamps, on at least threeoccasions. On one occasion a sasquatch was seen wading out of Lake Winnipeg. Although mountain lions are believed not to exist at all in Manitoba, four ?black panther?sightings also occurred in the immediate area. The three different types of mystery animalswere all reported within a radius of 10 miles. In North Carolina and Florida I interviewed people whose properties had been visited by boththe bigfoot and black panthers. One witness had been fortunate enough to sight both types ofanimal. Here in Australia the same pattern has emerged: many yowie ?hot spots? such as the BlueMountains and the Batemans Bay to Bega area also produce reports of several other types ofstrange, elusive animals. As in America the most common of these is the ?black panther?,and, as in America, some lucky individuals have actually seen both types of creatures.

Yowies and bunyips
The unlikely link between giant ape-men and lake and river monsters is less evident inAustralia than in America, but I believe it does exist.One area which has produced a plethora of yowie, black panther and bunyip reports since the1820s is the ACT and immediate environs.

(3)The UFO/Yowie LinkIn North America an apparent link between bigfoot and UFOs has been noted on manyoccasions. Between June 1973 and February 1974 in western Pennsylvania there was aphenomenal outbreak of weirdness which yielded 118 bigfoot and not less than 600 UFOreports. On a dozen occasions low flying UFOs were reported immediately before or after abigfoot sighting.

(4)Definite yowie/UFO connections are much rarer but they have been reported.In January 1975 people near Goolma NSW observed a UFO descend and possibly land. Overthe following two weeks there was an intense wave of yowie reports - which suddenly ceasedafter a second UFO was seen.

(5)Some yowie and bigfoot enthusiasts simply ignore the apparent UFO connection and others,like the irascible Rene Dahinden, love to ridicule the idea. Sometimes, however, the link is soobvious it simply can't be swept aside.Consider these two cases:(a) On 27 September 1973 two witnesses in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, told of seeing awhite, hair-covered creature with red eyes ?carrying a luminescent sphere in its hand?. Otherpeople saw a strange craft hovering over the woods into which the creature disappeared.

(6)(b) In June 1975 at Tailem Bend, SA, two groups of people saw a giant hairy ape-man withwhat looked like a lantern in his hand. A third group saw a huge illuminated dome-shape inthe same field.

(7)Significantly, local Aborigines say the Murray River at Tailem Bend is inhabited by a bunyipknown as the Moolgewanke which resembles an ape-like man ?more than ten feet tall ... longblack hair, dark red eyes, large teeth and webbed hands and feet.?

(8)So at Tailem bend we have a yowie/bunyip / UFO link. 3. High Strangeness in Yowie reportsThe third major consideration is simply the sheer, out- and- out weirdness of some details insome reports. Some of the weirdest details have cropped up time and again, in both Australiaand overseas.

?Nameless dread?
No doubt an unexpected encounter with an 8 foot tall ape would give anyone a bit of a jolt,but some yowie witnesses - and their horses and dogs as well - become much more frightenedthan you would reasonably expect.In 1912 a surveyor, Charles Harper, said that when he and two assistants were approached by"a huge man-like animal" in the Currickbilly Range of south-east NSW his fierce huntingdogs retreated whining and one of his assistants fainted and ?remained unconscious forseveral hours.?

(9)Exactly the same thing happened near Easterville, Manitoba, in the early 1970s: a witnessfainted dead away, later suffered recurring nightmares and could not sleep without a loadedgun beside his bed.

(10)In 1998, at a village on the NSW south coast, a friend of mine noticed a huge hairy hominidobserving her from the treeline and immediately experienced almost unbearable fearcombined with the feeling that her spine was literally in the icy grip of something quitesinister.Later, on a nearby fire trail the horse she was riding stopped dead, trembled, almost crouched,and stared fixedly into the bush. Seconds later, as the woman again felt the icy fear, the horseturned and, unprompted, galloped three miles home.That story illustrates one of the strangest things about the ?nameless dread?: you don?t have toactually see, hear, or smell the hairy giants to be poleaxed by overwhelming fear.Many such reports have been noticed by North American researchers. As early as 1970 LeeTrippett of Oregon stated ?He [the bigfoot] can terrorise you from the far side of a mountain.?Feeling Abominable It seems the elusive hairy giants of the Himalayas also possess the handy ability to zap othercreatures telepathically.In 1983 a Scottish scientist, Bill Grant, was approaching a tiny lake on the Nepal/Tibet borderwhen he was suddenly immobilised by overwhelming fear and a voice- that-was -not-a -voicecommanding him to go no further. Much as he struggled to do so the veteran expeditionerfound that he simply could not take another step forward. He retreated and hours laterreturned to find the psychic barrier had lifted. Cautiously proceeding, he discovered a line ofhuge five toed tracks along the muddy shore.

(11)There is no space to go into it here, but a number of lake monster and alien big cat witnesseshave also experienced the dreaded "nameless dread."

The scent of a yowieIn about 10% of yowie cases the creatures have exuded a mind-bogglingly foul stench. It canbe bad enough to make a person vomit and the pongy pongids seem to be able to release thechoking miasma at will. Usually the smell is compared to that of rotting meat, bat droppings or a ?badly kept countrydunny? but occasionally witnesses say the creatures left a distinct electrical smell ?like burntelectrical wiring?, ?burnt bakelite?, ?a sulphury stink?.
(12)Interestingly, in a very dramatic bigfoot/UFO case in Pennsylvania in 1973, witnessesdescribed a strong smell of sulphur and burning rubber.

(13)Jeepers creepersA weird detail which has cropped up repeatedly in America but also here is that the hairygiants' eyes are said not only to just reflect light but to glow in the dark as if lit from within.

(14)Knock knock, who's there? The polt connection As if the yowie/black panther/bunyip/UFO connection was not weird enough, three cases inour files suggest our Furry Friends might also have something in common with poltergeists.For example, in 1946, when George Nott and his family moved into a long-abandonedproperty near Wilcannia, they heard thumping sounds in the ceiling. Doors swung open,objects flew, and so many pebbles fell on the roof that they ?sounded like a heavy shower ofrain.? At the same time as this classic poltergeist phenomena , huge human-like tracksappeared in the yard and a large, very irate hairy ape-man began to invade the house, oncetrying to drag Mrs Nott outside.Not surprisingly, the family soon moved to an out-station.

(15)What's afoot? Thanks to the work of many investigators and eye-witnesses we now have a pretty goodcomposite description of the average yowie, from the top of his head down to ankle level.After that, however, things become a lot more confusing.Over the past 150 years or so people who have observed the yowies' feet or examined trackshave often disagreed not only on the general shape of the foot but even on the number of toes.Five-toed tracks may be the most common, but three, four and even six-toed tracks have beenreported by apparently reputable people, sometimes immediately after yowie sightings.

(16)The same problem arises in North America - and probably the Himalayas as well.Obviously, something is seriously amiss. Either an army of extremely ham-fisted hoaxers hasbeen at work on two continents for 150 years or the yowie, the sasquatch and company are, asI suspect, shape - shifters.

There is a great deal more extreme weirdness in our files but we do not have space to discussit all here. Instead I will conclude with one particular "high strangeness" case which is takingplace right now.Out of the Blue LabyrinthJerry and Sue O?Connor, the principal witnesses in this case, are happy to have their namesused, but asked me not to reveal the exact location of their property. Suffice to say they live inthe Blue Mountains to the south of the Great Western Highway, where the land immediatlybehind their house falls away into a vast maze of twisting, scrub-covered ravines known asthe Blue Labyrinth.Since moving into the area in September 1997 the O'Connors have been regularly visited byyowies, have seen them on numerous occasions, have fed them and have communicated withthem, both telepathically and by more conventional means.Many people will find the O'Connors' story difficult to accept, so I would like to emphasisehere that everything they have reported - even the apparent telepathic communication - hasbeen reported elsewhere in Australia or overseas.I find their testimony convincing not only because it has been, in effect, corroborated bysimilar testimony, but because I know Sue and Jerry and I trust them.For some time after the yowie activity began, Jerry, a down to earth ex-serviceman, couldhardly believe it himself. "My whole life was spun on its axis", he says. "It changed my wholebelief system."Sue, however, has always been interested in spiritual matters and it is just possible her openspirituality actually triggered the yowie visitations.Shortly after they moved into their house she conducted a quiet ceremony to invite the localnature spirits into their garden. Soon she and Jerry experienced strong feelings of dread and ofbeing watched. Their screen door rattled, the power box slammed, they heard crashing soundsin the scrub and, in November 1999, heard at seemingly point-blank range, a tremendous,terrifying roar as loud as that of a lion, yet indefinably alien - "other worldly".They then found about 30 huge bite marks up to 7 feet above the ground on young bloodwoodtrees, identical to those found by Neil Frost whose house, only a couple of kilometres away, isalso the focus of yowie activity.Deep grooves left by upper canines which were consistently 80 mm apart and by lowercanines which were always 55 mm apart seemed to prove the bites were all made by the sameindividual. It was clearly hunting for grubs. At about 2 o'clock one morning in August 2000 Sue woke from a disturbing dream which wasaccompanied by a weird "electric" feeling, looked up at the window behind their bed and sawa huge animal staring back at her. The creature had a human-sized head which lookeddisproportionatly small as it was set low into a pair of absolutely huge shoulders.As it was illuminated by a streetlight and a full moon, Sue could see the animal had a slimnose, a very wide mouth and a rounded clump of tan-coloured hair on top of its head.

Sue and Jerry have now experienced six similar sightings, always preceded by the strange"electric" dreams, cold chills and fear. To look through the bedroom window the creaturemust be over eight feet tall.It seems highly significant that the visits always occur just before or during Sue's monthlyperiods.For weeks they hid four infra red video surveillance cameras - loaned to them by yowiehunter Dean Harrison - at various key points around the yard. During those weeks the yowieapproached only once. Choosing the only night when a narrow quadrant was not covered bythe cameras, it reached the house and looked in as before.Like Neil Frost, Dean Harrison and others who have tried yowie hunting with infra redcameras, the O'Connors concluded the creatures can either detect IR light .... or read peoples'minds.On 25 October 2000 they hid a sound-activated tape recorder in a hollow stump next to a cliffover which they suspended a feed pot. They selected that particular spot because that sameafternoon, in the same area, Sue had seen a hunched, hairy, tan-coloured ape-like figurerunning through the undergrowth at phenomenal speed. A local man, Brad Croft, had alsorecently seen a huge yowie in the vicinity.In the morning they found the tape had registered heavy bipedal footsteps, the sound ofcamouflage being pulled away, and what sounded like dextrous fingers lifting the recorderand ripping its protective plastic. The final sound was a hollow thump to the feedpot, whichlay empty and shattered 35 feet away.Tracks found by the O'Connors reflect the confusing pattern elsewhere: some are three-toed,some five-toed.Communication {a} Thumping. Basic communication began one night when Jerry impulsively pounded onthe bedroom wall and yelled "how are ya goin' mate?" Two nights later a tattoo of knockscame by way of reply.{b} Crossed Sticks. More recently he has interacted with the creature{s} via patterns hemakes with sticks. He creates a pattern or structure and returns after a night or two to find thepattern has been thoughtfully rearranged. He feels the yowie{s} enjoy this game.{c} Psychic Communication. Not surprisingly, the O'Connors eventually decided the hairygiants had more in common with spirits than they did with normal animals, so Sue triedcontacting the creatures mentally.Eventually, on 31 October 2000, she established a telepathic link with what purported to betheir regular visitor - a female yowie.The creature conveyed that it resided in the "Black Dimension" but was a benign "being oflight" which was drawn to her and her garden.It conveyed its disapproval of the word ?yowie? and seemed to say it was ?of the bunyiprace?. Among other things it informed Sue it was immensely old -essentially immortal.

Recently Jerry, whose family nick-name is "Jock", left food outside the bedroomwindow for the yowie. Shortly thereafter he felt the "electro" sensation followed by a voice inhis head which said quite clearly, "thanks, Jock!"By any standards the O'Connors' story is petty weird, so it is worth repeating that everystrange detail Sue and Jerry mentioned has been reported elsewhere - right up to andincluding the telepathic communication - which has been mentioned frequently in Americaand once, memorably, by a Russian cryptozoologist. His close encounter with an almastigave rise to one of the weirdest headlines I've ever seen: " I HAD MY MIND READ BY THEABOMINABLE SNOW WOMAN OF THE PAMIRS" !----------------I think most open-minded readers will acknowledge that the "high strangeness" aspects of theyowie do suggest rather strongly that Australia's hairy giants are in some way paranormal.I cheerfully admit that, as Paul Cropper sometimes says, the paranormal "explanation" is not areal explanation at all. It is certainly not a complete explanation because it doesn't tell us whatthe yowies actually are. I believe, however, that by indicating what the yowies are not ( i.e.ordinary flesh and blood animals) and by identifying other phenomena to which they areapparently linked (UFOs, "black panthers", poltergeists) the "high strangeness" data may atleast bring us part of the way towards understanding the true nature of these bafflingcreatures.I'm far from the first yowie or bigfoot investigator to speculate about the paranormal. SeveralAmericans, notably John Keel and Jon Beckjord, have been writing about it for years. As farback as the 1930s a pioneer Australian cryptozoologist, RW McKay, noticed the apparentyowie-big cat connection and referred to them as "something supernatural". "Whatever theseanimals are ", he wrote, "they seem to have something protecting them ..." 18Fred Beck, last survivor of the 1924 Ape Canyon Incident, wrote in 1967 that "... wegenuinely fought (the sasquatches) and were quite fearful ... but I was always conscious thatwe were dealing with supernatural beings, and ... the other ( men) felt the same."Something else Fred Beck said is very interesting in light of what the yowie told SueO'Connor about the "Black Dimension": the sasquatches, he said, "... are from a lower plane.When the condition and vibration is at a certain frequency, they can easily, for a time, appearin a very solid body." 19In conclucion I'd like to mention something I heard in the Florida Everglades from a memberof the Miccosukee tribe. Their term for the bigfoot is yati wasagi , meaning "seperated" or"different man"; they, too, believe the creatures can "phase in" from another dimension.One man, Bobby Tiger, said something, which, when I reflect on it now, in the troubled yearof 2001, makes me a little uneasy: 'All these things are part real and part not. We're going tosee more and more of them in different places. Then eventually the world will 'turn over onitself ' - and they'll phase in, while we phase out."Freaky.

Notes:1. Fred Beck, I Fought The Apemen of Mt St Helens, self published, 1967, p. 16.2. For a detailed comparison, see Tony Healy and Paul Cropper, Out of the Shadows, Ironbark/ Macmillen 1994, pp. 153-55.3. Ibid, p.1894. John Green, Sasquatch - The Apes Among Us, Hancock House, 1978, pp.260-61.5. Anderson, F., "The Yowie Mystery", Bigfoot, Tales of Unexplained Creatures. No further bibliographical information available.6. Janet and Colin Bord, The Bigfoot Casebook, Stackpole Books, 1982, p.112.7. Anderson, op. cit. 8. The Advertiser, Adelaide, 5 July 1973.9. Sydney Sun, 10 November 1912.10. Tony Healy, Monster Safari, unpublished MS , 1982, P.229.11. Tony Healy, notes of interview with Bill Grant, Scotland, 1999.!2. Healy and Cropper, op. cit. , pp. 127 and 129.13. Janet and Colin Bord, op. cit., p.115.14. Paul Cropper, notes of interview with Richard McDonald, April 2001.15. Martin McAdoo, If Only I'd Listened To Grandpa, Landsdown Press, 1980, chapter 4.16. Healy and Cropper, op. cit. , pp.141-43.17. McKay, RW, letters to Rod Estoppey, 13 Nov 1934 and 22 April 1940.18. Fred Beck, op. cit. , pp.7 and 10.

[FM80]

The same goes, there is no evidence ANYWHERE, IN ANY FIELD for the purely F&B argument. Sure we might find a footprint now and then, hear a howl, find a broken branch, have rocks thrown at you. Can you honestly say from that evidence that they are purely F&B, a paranormal entity can do the same, we still have no bones nor a body, so a F&B argument is way off, with all the technology at our disposal no one is yet still to have managed to find one when they go looking.

No I mean no evidence ANYWHERE, IN ANY FIELD of the paranormal - full stop. This is what I mean about the paranormal theory being presented as an alternative to the flesh & blood theory (cringeworthy to call it that). The 'paranormal' is a vague notion that has never been proven in any way therefore it carries no weight. I guess pro para (thanks brindabella ranger) people are convinced of the paranormal and see it as viable explanation but I want to go back a few steps - provide a precedent or some evidence of the paranormal from anywhere and you can then table the paranormal as an appropriate alternative.

I'm not saying that the paranormal view of yowies is wrong, I'm saying the paranormal in general is wrong. I can prove animals exist, you can't even prove the paranormal (whatever it is) and that needs to be done before you apply it to yowies.

Being open minded means you consider opinions or concepts but you assess their validity and throw out the chaff. Open mindedness doesn't mean you accept all views.

[Dion]

Hey FM80

Let’s start with the basics Paranormal being in the Dictionary must mean it has valid use of wording.

Definition:

par•a•nor•mal (pr-nôrml)
adj.
Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation: such paranormal phenomena as telepathy; a medium's paranormal powers.

Seeing a scientific explanation can’t come up with an F&B Yowie, nor is it a normal experience for some that have sightings or encounters, also the fact that some have had a telepathy experience with them, do we just over look that and say they are delusional yet in the same sentence state they are F&B without one iota of evidence for it being F&B. Again where is the evidence for them being F&B.

Now let’s look at Supernatural by definition:

su•per•nat•u•ral (ˌsu pərˈnætʃ ər əl, -ˈnætʃ rəl)

adj.
1. pertaining to or being above or beyond what is natural or explainable by natural law.
2. pertaining to or attributed to God or a deity.
3. preternatural.
4. pertaining to or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
n.
5. a being, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin.
6. the supernatural,
a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence.

Now considering some reports have them disappearing into thin air, they act more like ghosts or spirits more than they do anything. At this point in time they are beyond what is natural or explainable by natural law, we still have no bones or a body after years of being on this planet and of people searching for countless hours and years, yet their somehow F&B.

Sorry doesn’t add up.

So having the basics of Definition of Paranormal and Supernatural on our hands shall we continue?

[FM80]

A definition of what the word means doesn't mean it's true. A dictionary describes what the word means!!!

English definition of “unicorn”
unicorn
noun [C] /ˈjuː.nɪ.kɔːn/ US /-kɔːrn/
› an imaginary white creature like a horse with a single horn growing from the front of its head
(Definition of unicorn noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)

San·ta Claus noun \ˈsan-tə-ˌklȯz also ˈsan-tē-\
: an imaginary fat man with a white beard and a red suit who gives toys to children at Christmas

Full Definition of SANTA CLAUS

: a plump white-bearded and red-suited old man in modern folklore who delivers presents to good children at Christmastime —called also Santa
See Santa Claus defined for English-language learners »
See Santa Claus defined for kids

So having the basics of Definition of Paranormal and Supernatural on our hands shall we continue?

No, we shall not. Where is ANY precedent or evidence for the paranormal (saying it's outside of science doesn't count - you could say that unicorns and santa claus are outside of science too).

[wellymon]

Going round in f'n circles, OMG

I'm gonna prove you disbelievers something great one day and hopefully soon .

Keep writing your great literature disbelievers, because I'm only reading the ones who give me input.

I know I'm a little bit harsh but, what you read is what you get .

My apologies .

[Dion]

Where is ANY precedent or evidence for the paranormal (saying it's outside of science doesn't count - you could say that unicorns and santa claus are outside of science too).

Yes we could, but both of your examples state the obvious IMAGINARY, being outside of science does count, science I am afraid will never have all the answers. Many have been proven wrong before.

i·mag·i·nar·y (-mj-nr)
adj.
1. Having existence only in the imagination; unreal.
2. Mathematics
a. Of or being the coefficient of the imaginary unit in a complex number.
b. Of, involving, or being an imaginary number.
c. Involving only a complex number of which the real part is zero.

Imaginary is just that, Paranormal or supernatural isnt Imaginary.

Going round in f'n circles, OMG

I'm gonna prove you disbelievers something great one day and hopefully soon .

Keep writing your great literature disbelievers, because I'm only reading the ones who give me input.

I know I'm a little bit harsh but, what you read is what you get .

My apologies .

Keep at it Welly, maybe one day you will prove us all wrong but many have tried and I hate to say it Failed.

[wellymon]

Going round in f'n circles, OMG

I'm gonna prove you disbelievers something great one day and hopefully soon .

Keep writing your great literature disbelievers, because I'm only reading the ones who give me input.

I know I'm a little bit harsh but, what you read is what you get .

My apologies .

Keep at it Welly, maybe one day you will prove us all wrong but many have tried and I hate to say it Failed.

Thanks Dion,
Much respect, I know now

[Neil Frost]

G’day Dion and Tony,

Over the years we have had many long and enjoyable talks on our verandah with Tony, about “High Strangeness” and I have absolutely no doubt that he clearly understands my position on this! I think that his estimate of a twenty percent para component is very optimistic indeed. Sure, he has spoken to a number of witnesses who attest to this, however, I have regularly interviewed witnesses, shared the information for more than twenty years and only one has voluntarily mentioned this paranormal element. In that case, I do not feel at liberty to discuss it any further.

Perhaps I am not asking the right questions? To be sure, the number of witnesses who believe that they were dealing with a corporeal animal, greatly exceed the alternative. In my opinion, I cannot understand the need for this debate!

On the other hand, a much more worthwhile debate would be my Marsupial Hominoid Theory. As it’s only supporter, I am more than happy to torpedo it myself, since I am most probably wrong, unlike the above!

G’day Scarts,

Thanks for your support, again. You know very well that we have been and I hope, always will be good mates, even though you have this unfortunate, weird, paranormal affliction .

Neil

[Neil Frost]

.

Neil

G'day Scarts,

I typed in lol (for the first time) at the end of my post and the above animated icon appeared instead. Sorry.

Neil

[vinderliker65]

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?

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

Too true, reassessment of museum collections are 're-discovering" new species everyday. With primate morphology, slight variations could be a discovery of a new species.

[vinderliker65]

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.

Good to see that someone knows the right stuff, especially when it comes to primates.

[Dion]

G’day Dion and Tony,

Over the years we have had many long and enjoyable talks on our verandah with Tony, about “High Strangeness” and I have absolutely no doubt that he clearly understands my position on this! I think that his estimate of a twenty percent para component is very optimistic indeed. Sure, he has spoken to a number of witnesses who attest to this, however, I have regularly interviewed witnesses, shared the information for more than twenty years and only one has voluntarily mentioned this paranormal element. In that case, I do not feel at liberty to discuss it any further.

Hey Neil

That’s all well and good, but there are people who experience the para component, who do have legitimate experiences and that goes for a number of people who have come forward who wish to remain anonymous for various reasons, not to be ridiculed would be at the forefront of why they do not, I would expect a great number of people don’t come forward for this very reason, as you would know.

I remember a former member of this site who really didn’t want his story told (and many don’t) who had an encounter in the middle of the night somewhere around North Eastern NSW, South east QLD area, I won’t say the exact location as he didn’t want Shooters/Yahoo’s traipsing around looking for them, he was camping by himself in the National Park and decided to light a type of mosquito repellent such as an incense before he went to bed to keep the bugs at bay, he was awoken in the middle of the night with around 5 Yowies looking over him, he suspected the incense drew them in, an adult which he thought was Male and 4 juveniles, the adult Male telepathically said to him once the witness awoke and saw the 5 yowies hovering over him “go back to sleep” which he did promptly,. The witness didn’t feel threatened.

This is just one of many encounters which have come my way which don’t see the light of day because of ridicule.

There are many accounts of witnesses having a para element to them (myself included) Indigenous cultures are at the forefront for having them and have been around a lot longer than us, and seeing as some Indigenous peoples believe them to be Para and just as many believe them to be F&B I guess after all these years we are still at the same point as the Indigenous peoples were many, many years ago.

And I don’t think it will change.

Regards

[Dion]

Forgot to add,

I like your new avatar Neil is that image still going to be used for you know what?

[andrew]

The whole paranormal/normal debate devolves ultimately to what evidence exists. Science has never been about “scientific proof” per se but an accumulation of evidence that supports a hypothesis. Scientific proof is a colloquial term used by those who do not understand scientific methodology and it’s use seems to imply some undeserved gravitas in a debate. The point is that scientific discoveries or classification of new species is dependent on evidence, independently verified. Paranormal is a recent term (from around 1920) which is variously described as “beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding” (Oxford) or “very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world.” (Webster). Once it is explained by science it ceases to be paranormal and that is determined by evidence. Using the term to describe an animal is not usual. An animal whose existence is unsubstantiated is normally referred to as a cryptid. Either way, the substantiation of its existence still depends on evidence.

Contrary to other opinions here, one of those cryptids has had its existence substantiated by evidence. Let’s look at that evidence.

A large hair covered female bipedal animal is observed and captured on video. It opens a plastic container with a lid and removes a plate which has some sand paper glued to it which is covered in peanut paste. It licks the peanut butter off fully and leaves saliva (which normally contain buccal and epithelial cells) behind. That establishes the provenance. The plate and container are retrieved and secured using standard forensic procedures and the chain of custody to the DNA laboratory is maintained. The saliva with the cells is then processed under forensic protocols and has the DNA extracted. That DNA is then sequenced for both forms of DNA. The mtDNA shows that the observed source animal has a human ancestry and it is also established that the animal tested was itself female.

This process is identical to that used routinely all over the world to obtain and sequence DNA from crime scenes. The chain of custody links the animal to the final DNA. In legal cases this would classified as prima facie evidence and sufficient to prove the source of the DNA was a living animal.

This is exactly what happened with the live Sasquatch shown on video at the Ketchum press conference.

This was no paranormal event, nor is the animal now a cryptid primate.

[Brindabella Ranger]

Thanks Dion for gathering those accounts. Yep I’ve got “The Yowie In Search of Australia’s Bigfoot” by Paul Cropper and Tony Healy and know the chapter but I wanted to hear a contemporary view on the subject from you guys.

I think I've got the idea. So setting the microscope closer if I may, there could be two schools of thought when it comes to proponents of paranormal spelt out:

The first is the Yowie are creatures from another realm, dimension or world of existence currently unknown to us. They have the ability to ‘phase’ or travel between their realm and our world via a means unknown to us. Despite this, they are flesh and blood creatures, i.e. when they enter into our world they are subject to the laws of our prime material world and become solid/real beings, able to make footprints, bite trees, etc. It is unknown whether this is the case when they traverse back to the other dimension. Their ability to travel between worlds can be used at their will and is purposeful. They also have the ability to communicate with humans via telepathy, and through this communication can additionally imbue feelings such as kindness, empathy and compassion.

The second is the Yowie are creatures from the spirit world. They are specters, shadows and spirits that are able to travel between the spirit world and our physical world. They are the spiritual essences of creatures long forgotten, or shadows of spiritual beings that may have only existed in the spirit world since time immemorial. Since by definition they are spirits, they are not flesh and blood creatures; when in our world they are unable to effect material objects (cannot create footprints, bite trees, snap branches) however they might be able to sway leaves or cause slight disturbances their spiritual energy. Their ability to traverse through worlds seems random, fleeting and they seem less concerned with human interaction.

Is there another?

The first school of thought is the hardest to fathom IMO. The ‘many-worlds’ or multiverse where quantum mechanics define ‘universes that are separated from each other by a single quantum event’ are in themselves unsubstantiated but to add that the Yowie are masters of quantum travel (the thought of a Yowie in a Tardis comes to mind) falls into the realms of extreme science fiction, but I digress. I really wanted to point out I think proponents of this might ultimately have their cake and eat it too, for example, should a Yowie ever be found deceased (not caught, because they could simply dematerialize out of custody) they can proudly state, ‘see, they’re flesh and blood like we said’ and murmur, ‘poor bugger didn’t have time to beam up’. Bases all covered. Its fanciful and convenient.

The second school of thought rings truer to me, only because I have a strong belief in spirits and such entities (coming from my native side having a long connection to the spirit world). However spirits cannot take physical, solid form IMO. I've seen spirits in the past as clear as day, but the Yowies I saw were NOT the same. They were real, physical, present beings. No doubt in my mind. IMO the evidence that Yowies cause physical damage to their environment, leave physical evidence such as footprints, excrement, hair etc. really throws this theory out, provided you agree spirits can't perform those physical feats.

Personal experiences aside, we’re talking about an unknown creature here, and in the vein of FM80’s arguments it’s only logical to analyze what little proposed evidence there is, based on what we currently have an understanding of. You have to admit the concept that it is a F&B creature, master of stealth, ambush and concealment, existing in very small numbers, with plenty of food and water, in a country with enough space to fit the whole of Europe, would be more acceptable to the layman because all those factors are tangible, measurable and reasonable. The same simply can’t be said for the para argument; its belief is based on forces and energies that haven’t been conclusively proven and exist outside the realm of reality as we know it. That not obvious?

Ultimately, I can understand how believers can clutch to those ideals when there is no conclusive evidence for either side of the argument (sorry Andrew, I’m still waiting for the second round of testing), and perhaps I would be more respectful to those first-hand para witnesses, rather than the lazy advocate who believes the para theory cause it just doesn’t make sense.

I will continue to state there is an F&B explanation to any paranormal belief. Each to his/her own. Its been interesting to debate this, although exhausting in finality, proponents of the F&B and Para can at least agree on one thing. There is something out there (cue X-Files theme).

[Dion]

Hey Brindabella Ranger

Very well written out post, it’s good you have thought about the proponents involved in the F&B vs Para argument.

The two options you provided even though you don’t believe in either of the two are well thought out, but I would lean to your first option of something that is not entirely of this realm.

I will give an example of something which I believe to be of similar paranormal substance, and that is the area of UFO’s, nothing to do with Yowies I know so I will try not to get too off track but it has relevance in what I am going to try to convey. It should be noted most people today have either seen something themselves that is inexplicable in the sky’s or know someone who has seen something they can’t explain away as just being of an earthly aircraft, satellite, shooting star etc. I am sure everyone has had a discussion about the topic once before. Having researched UFO’s early in my life not so much these days, quite often people explain seeing something that was there and then disappeared into thin air, as if something just slipped into another dimension, depending on reports that is as the subject is so varied. UFO’s and Yowies have similar traits, again it’s only an opinion, both are seen but can’t be proven. Having said that there is probably more video footage of UFO’s out there on YouTube than there is any decent footage of a Bigfoot or Yowie etc., etc. There is more likely to be proven some form of ET disclosure than there ever will finding or proving an 8-9ft hominid roams the earth and that’s saying something.

There is absolutely no F&B evidence for it.

Anyway without getting too off topic my point is, more and more people today are being increasingly subjected to Paranormal Phenomena and in doing so society is coming to a realisation that “what we think we know about the universe may not entirely be correct” Science as much as we rely on it, will always grow and develop. I have an open mind, and know science has been wrong before.

A lot of things are not always what they seem, I can’t stress that enough.

Regards

[Searcher]

Dion wrote:

There is absolutely no F&B evidence for it.

Hey Dion…. Why do you choose to ignore the content of Andrew’s last post?

He clearly states there IS valid scientific DNA evidence that we are dealing with a living animal… What further proof is needed?

Bet I’m not the only one wondering that!

[Dion]

Hey Dion…. Why do you choose to ignore the content of Andrew’s last post?

He clearly states there IS valid scientific DNA evidence that we are dealing with a living animal… What further proof is needed?

What Andrew wrote is all well and good its an opinion at this stage, were there any links to support this I didnt see any, why hasnt this news made front page headlines around the world?

[andrew]

The semantic challenge in the modern education era.

If we are provided with a body of objectively verifiable facts which can be determined to be true or not, then that would be called EVIDENCE.

On the other hand, if someone were to call another an ass hat, then that would be a subjective judgment which is less than absolutely certain because it is not based on fact or knowledge and would be called an OPINION.

The one must not be conflated nor confused with the other, because they have distinct meanings.

For those inclined to acquaint themselves with the paper and all the additional information then this will help. http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/. The interviews she gave recently on radio (now streamed ) are at http://www.stevebradshawshow.com/ plus there are other radio interviews via Youtube. In case anyone wrongly assumes that I blindly agree with everything in the paper; I don’t. There is much I would have liked to have seen added or better explained but I investigated everything thoroughly and talked to many genetic experts to confirm my understanding.

For other information you will have to start writing to people, which can be an excitingly novel experience.

[Scarts]

"A large hair covered female bipedal animal is observed and captured on video. It opens a plastic container with a lid and removes a plate which has some sand paper glued to it which is covered in peanut paste. It licks the peanut butter off fully and leaves saliva (which normally contain buccal and epithelial cells) behind. That establishes the provenance. The plate and container are retrieved and secured using standard forensic procedures and the chain of custody to the DNA laboratory is maintained. The saliva with the cells is then processed under forensic protocols and has the DNA extracted. That DNA is then sequenced for both forms of DNA. The mtDNA shows that the observed source animal has a human ancestry and it is also established that the animal tested was itself female."

Andrew, this video you mention. Where did you view it? Please don't tell me it's that c**p looking video shown in the video of the press conference? Please tell me the video shows the lick and the securing of the plate and container? Melba Ketchum doesn't seem very convincing, sure of herself, or even overly excited and confident regarding what she proposes. I see tell tale signs she is on medication and I smell a rat. If such an event did happen, I doubt there would be sufficient buccal cells in the saliva from the lick as described. In a normal buccal swab from a human mouth, the DNA isn't from the saliva, the swab is from the cells lining the insides of the cheeks.

Dion, this list I'm creating has proven more time consuning than I first thought. I should have it finalised in the coming days, but I'm not sure how you want it presented? I imagine it will be something that will be highly criticised, with view to having points added and others removed by moderator/s. Points will need to be highly referenced with back-up examples. There's no avenue for me to create a table in a post, without doing it as a word document which is then set in stone. I may have to liaise with you in a PM on this.

[andrew]

Scarts,

With your training and experience, I know you have the ability to investigate the evidence and talk directly to those who were involved in acquiring it. You of all people understand forensic procedures and the importance of not relying on hearsay. You also understand the rule of best evidence.

You were not a very good judge when it came to Mr. Green close up, so please excuse me if I have some doubts about your judgement of Ketchum at distance. Is it your intention to do the same damage to the AYR site that you did over certain photos back then when you rode roughshod over commonsense. I, and others, got fed up with the stupidity, and worse, back then and here we are again, same c**p, different date, same person.

[Brindabella Ranger]

Hey Brindabella Ranger

Very well written out post, it’s good you have thought about the proponents involved in the F&B vs Para argument.

The two options you provided even though you don’t believe in either of the two are well thought out, but I would lean to your first option of something that is not entirely of this realm.

I will give an example of something which I believe to be of similar paranormal substance, and that is the area of UFO’s, nothing to do with Yowies I know so I will try not to get too off track but it has relevance in what I am going to try to convey. It should be noted most people today have either seen something themselves that is inexplicable in the sky’s or know someone who has seen something they can’t explain away as just being of an earthly aircraft, satellite, shooting star etc. I am sure everyone has had a discussion about the topic once before. Having researched UFO’s early in my life not so much these days, quite often people explain seeing something that was there and then disappeared into thin air, as if something just slipped into another dimension, depending on reports that is as the subject is so varied. UFO’s and Yowies have similar traits, again it’s only an opinion, both are seen but can’t be proven. Having said that there is probably more video footage of UFO’s out there on YouTube than there is any decent footage of a Bigfoot or Yowie etc., etc. There is more likely to be proven some form of ET disclosure than there ever will finding or proving an 8-9ft hominid roams the earth and that’s saying something.

There is absolutely no F&B evidence for it.

Anyway without getting too off topic my point is, more and more people today are being increasingly subjected to Paranormal Phenomena and in doing so society is coming to a realisation that “what we think we know about the universe may not entirely be correct” Science as much as we rely on it, will always grow and develop. I have an open mind, and know science has been wrong before.

A lot of things are not always what they seem, I can’t stress that enough.

Regards

Cheers Dion. My position on F&B can only be defined if I'm fully aware of the other beliefs in this arena.

Funny you should mention the UFO phenomena, I was actually going to mention that in my last post. I am open to this topic also and I see your point. However, IMO if there were beings in this universe that could manipulate space/time and make use of other dimensions, it would be ETs with a technology base that is light years ahead of us and beyond our understanding - not a crypid hominid lurking around in the worlds wilderness with zero technology.

My position: the Yowie exist in our prime material world as incredibly evasive and mysterious F&B creatures, and spirits exist in the spirit world and occasionally grace us with their presence (but aren't physical). If people have seen Yowies disappear or dematerialize it's either because they've seen a spirit in the shape of a Yowie, or going back to the origins of this thread, they are wizards of the bush and can 'melt' into the background using nothing more than the highest skill and optical illusion. There is no in-between with the exception of advanced ETs through the use of unexplained technology (through which in only one situation am I open to the paranormal, specifically dimensional travel/dematerializing, no F&B evidence).

Just my final thoughts & opinions.

Andrew, this video you mention. Where did you view it? Please don't tell me it's that c**p looking video shown in the video of the press conference? Please tell me the video shows the lick and the securing of the plate and container? Melba Ketchum doesn't seem very convincing, sure of herself, or even overly excited and confident regarding what she proposes. I see tell tale signs she is on medication and I smell a rat. If such an event did happen, I doubt there would be sufficient buccal cells in the saliva from the lick as described. In a normal buccal swab from a human mouth, the DNA isn't from the saliva, the swab is from the cells lining the insides of the cheeks.

I tend to agree with you Scarts (with the exception that yes you can gather enough DNA from saliva to substantiate a claim. But if the Sasquatch's tongue scraped along the lid it would have left a similar amount of DNA to a buccal swab). As much as I want Dr Ketchum to be successful, it hasn't gone to plan so far (just going off what i've read on through a few different sources). I'm keeping a close eye for her to get it right the next time, and as Dion said, eventually proclaimed around the world's headlines.

Dion, this list I'm creating has proven more time consuning than I first thought. I should have it finalised in the coming days, but I'm not sure how you want it presented? I imagine it will be something that will be highly criticised, with view to having points added and others removed by moderator/s. Points will need to be highly referenced with back-up examples. There's no avenue for me to create a table in a post, without doing it as a word document which is then set in stone. I may have to liaise with you in a PM on this.

Looking forward to it.

[Dion]

Dion, this list I'm creating has proven more time consuning than I first thought. I should have it finalised in the coming days, but I'm not sure how you want it presented? I imagine it will be something that will be highly criticised, with view to having points added and others removed by moderator/s. Points will need to be highly referenced with back-up examples. There's no avenue for me to create a table in a post, without doing it as a word document which is then set in stone. I may have to liaise with you in a PM on this.

No worries Scarts PM is fine or if its going to be large send an email.

[Scarts]

Andrew states, "You were not a very good judge when it came to Mr. Green close up, so please excuse me if I have some doubts about your judgement of Ketchum at distance. Is it your intention to do the same damage to the AYR site that you did over certain photos back then when you rode roughshod over commonsense. I, and others, got fed up with the stupidity, and worse, back then and here we are again, same c**p, different date, same person."

Ironically, Andrew, the shoes are now on the opposite feet! I gave the Green photos a lot of lattitude due to two things. The first is this site's founder and owner publicly declared physical contact with a creature by being knocked over by it at the exact same spot those photos were deemed to have been taken. The second is myself and this site's founder both saw an upright creature at the exact same location in broad daylight making the possibility of those photos being authentic, seem highly plausible. This site actually endorsed that book for a short time. The entire way through, I did what you are doing with this Ketchum DNA study. I asked everyone to be patient and keep an open mind while we plod along with our enquiries and accept the book for what it is. I admit I suspended my commonsense and attempted to lessen damage as the gravity of that situation became increasingly obvious. Don't forget I was directly involved with locating and verifying where those photos were stolen from and was involved when they were finally inevitably declared a hoax.

You are doing exactly what I did. Just like those photos, there is no version of this where that DNA study once and for all confirms the flesh and blood existence of a Sasquatch.

As for getting fed up with the stupidity, this forum discuses Yowies, Bigfoot and Sasquatches, for pete sake. We are already being asked to suspend our disbelief everytime each of us logs on! For your quip of same c**p, different date, same person, you and I have switched sides of the table and now you're wearing the T-shirt. I quote that press conference where Melba was asked how many Sasquatches there are getting around, and her reply is, "Thousands." Thousands, Andrew.

[Scarts]

Here's the positive list I've put together thus far. We'd might as well begin with the short side of the table.

THE CASE FOR FLESH & BLOOD

1. Eyewitness testimony and sworn statements of a flesh and blood creature interacting with the environment.

2. Inordinately large inhuman shaped footprints strongly suggest inordinately real large inhuman shaped feet created them .

3. Stick tee pees, stick structures, yowie beds, suggest the work of an animal with hands and opposable thumbs, an unlikely activity of a human due to no clear motive, and appearing to be made by a physical animal engaged in physical activity in it's physical home area.

4. Eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot and Yowie eating, drinking, foraging for food, and carrying fresh animal kills, consistent with a flesh and blood physical animal.

5. Reported red eyeshine consistent with physical eyes suited to nocturnal or low light conditions, consistent with known nocturnal physical animals.

6. Consistently reported behavioural traits – territorial, aggressive, shy, inquisitive, disappear from view into the bush, as common to any known physical animal.

7. Reported in small groups occasionally, consistent with travelling with mates or family members as expected with a physical hominid and evidenced with study of Gorillas, monkeys and bonobos.

8. Dogs consistently reportedly react by going ballistic prior to an encounter, consistent with a physical intruder.

9. Yowies reported to have a general physical consistency with saggital crests, heavy brows, exposed fangs, no necks, hairy all over, broad and muscular, long arms as expected with a physical species.

10. Tree bites suggest the use of canines to bite into a tree to extract grubs to eat, as expected from a physical animal that needs to eat to survive.

11. Rock tapping sounds in hotspot areas consistent with an animal with hands, and not human, tapping rocks together.

12. Reported consistency with giving off foul odors as expected from a hair covered animal that doesn't bathe, clean itself, or brush it's teeth

13. Reputable reliable Witnesses of all ages, sex, nationality, religion, and beliefs, with excellent eyesight and faculties that can all ordinarily distinguish and determine a physical animal when they see one.

14. Multiple Witness reports with witnesses corroborating the same details in the same event of a physical animal involved.

15. Hot spots with multiple encounters in same general area or region consistent with an animal that has a physical hunting area or area of gathering food and living.

16. Mentioned in indigenous legends as well as contemporary writings, consistent with a physical animal that has a long history of being observed by different people in the same areas and noteworthy enough to record.

17. Patterson Film, various videos, photographs, and audio recordings, consistent with expected gathered physical evidence for the existence of physical creatures frequently reported.

18. Most animals in the woods have horizontal spines. Yowies & bigfoot like men, have vertical spines, and by standing next to, squatting, standing with arms straight in the air, or moving behind upright trees, can blend in, becoming invisible and hiding in plain sight. This offers to explain how the physical creatures have remained undiscovered and eluded detection, for so long.

19. Extensive research and funding with DNA from collected hair specimens scientifically attempts to confirm the physical existence of the yowie & bigfoot as an undiscovered human/ primate hybrid.

20. Absence of physical bigfoot & yowie bones is consistent with the absence of bear bones, deer bones, and other known large wild animal bones in the wild due to the food chain with smaller animals and insects consuming the remains and scattering the bones. Also consistent with human characteristics of the reported bigfoot and yowie possibly burying their dead, offering to explain why no bones have yet been discovered.

[FM80]

On the other hand, if someone were to call another an ass hat,

That's hilarious, an 'ass hat', I'm using that in a sentence this week for sure.

On a more serious note, scarts, these lists you're doing are great but perhaps you should do a list of evidence for the paranormal before you do paranormal yowies. Seems like it's a given that the paranormal is a viable thing but I can't help but think "Hold on, paranormal (in general) is a load of c**p to start with - there's no evidence of it ANYWHERE, EVER, so why is it being bandied about as a serious possibility of explaining yowies?".

Talk about pushing an already fringe/baffling subject further towards the realm of tin foil hats. Nevertheless, obviously you have put time in to making the lists so kudos.