NEW DNA STUDIES MAY EXPLAIN THE YOWIES ARRIVAL IN AUSTRALIA

[Yowie bait]

i mean "Maybe" they have....

Just maybe we may forgive you this time.

Thanks Gregvalentine. I wasn't really as upset as i made out with the imogee or whatever theyre called. Maybe the force be with you...

[VicYowieResearch]

researchers are either:

1. Have been following the scientific community for many years (have been brought up as kids to respect science and cant accept any Spiritual solution to anything).

2. Are afraid they wont be accepted by peers/friends etc to say they are something else, (stubborn).

3. Are lazy with their research (see what they want to see, accept what they want to accept).

What would you like to see researchers doing Dion ?

Dion,

That's a bit of a harsh call. Researchers who start out using the scientific method who are then dumbfounded when something inexplicable happens right in front of them should be allowed a bit of understanding.

[Dion]

Researchers who start out using the scientific method who are then dumbfounded when something inexplicable happens right in front of them should be allowed a bit of understanding.

Hi VYR

I agree, Its just an opinion and I expressed it,

I started out as Scientifically minded individual in all of this and soon came to the conclusion that they are not all whats made out to be.

I have spoken to Rusty through PM about this and it certainly wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

[Rusty2]

I think what Dion is trying to say is that when researchers have an inexplicable experience in the forest , we should be speaking out about it but this rarely happens .

I'm not pointing anyone out but I don't recall many on here over the last 6 years who have actually called a spade a spade because they might be riddiculed or offend other members .

It's a big deal to stick your neck on the chopping block for everyone to have a go at you and I don't blame anyone for keeping quiet .

The Australian forest is a VERY strange place , I'd love to know the whole story ...........

[Simon M]

I'm sure I don't even know the half of it (or even a tenth of it), I just find it difficult not to apply Occam's Razor in situations where so little is known.

As I say, I have no first-hand experience of this phenomenon I am just interested in it. I am sure there are many things about nature we just don't know.

[Rusty2]

I just find it difficult not to apply Occam's Razor

Hey Simon , I know what you mean and I suppose it's normal for us to find a "natural" explanation for things we can't explain . It's a good process to try and eliminate all possible explanations .
We get it mate , it's unbelievable .

Let me assure everyone reading this right now , apart from the fact (for me) that there is something resembling some sort of prehistoric relict hominoid alive and well in the forest , there is also something very odd happening in our forests regarding these beings . What they're doing is impossible .................for us .

No matter how smart we all think we are we need to start understanding that we are the new kids on the block . On a geological scale , we only just got here in the last minute .
How can we possibly know anything ?

[Wolf]

What they're doing is impossible .................for us .

The Europeans of the 18th and 19th centuries greatly feared the native populations of the areas they 'invaded' too.
The written records are full of stories of Indians and Origines 'doing the impossible'... tracking the untrackable, disappearing and reappearing in the bush seemingly at will, etc.

And those Europeans were on average more 'in tune' with the environment than us 'modern' men are too.

My pointl much of what seems impossible only seems such to us because we are products of our environment. I can pull my finger off and put it back on too... a feat which seems impossible to a child until I show them the trick behind it.

[VicYowieResearch]

Hi Dion,

We are on the same page it appears, my apologies for thinking otherwise.

Wolf, with regard to 'Aborigines doing the impossible'....

We have moved on considerably from the ignorance of the First Fleet. The impossible for me is a large hairy biped disappearing INTO NOT BEHIND a tree. Give some credit to those of us up in the bush/mountains in the middle of the night to not be complete imbeciles.

Occams Razor is all fine and dandy.....where is the evidence for your Occams Razor? What creature can pull the stunts some of us have seen?

The Australian Bush has been largely untouched from when South America, Asia and the Antarctic were all joined with us in the Super-continent, Pangea, which only started to break up 175million years ago. The potential for 'something' to have evolved is certainly there, but when that 'something' defies Physics.......

[VicYowieResearch]

The Australian Bush has been largely untouched from when South America, Asia and the Antarctic were all joined with us in the Super-continent, Pangea, which only started to break up 175million years ago. The potential for 'something' to have evolved is certainly there, but when that 'something' defies Physics.......

Did you really mean to say this, or am I misunderstanding you? You only have to look (backed up by Google Earth) how the natural environment has been ruthlessly cleared for grazing / agriculture / habitation since 1788, and some people still want it to continue unabated.

I was referring to the extant tracts of Gondwana rainforest which have remained untouched. Quite a sizeable amount infact.

[Yowie bait]

Great posts there by Rusty and Dion. It seems some researchers are conflicted or troubled by what they have discovered in "the field" ( thats the Australian bush for you newcomers) and have some reservations about publicly sharing their experiences, perhaps from fear of riducule or possibly finding it hard to believe what they saw themselves.


As Searcher mentioned there is a heap of witness reports from people not afraid of ridicule. Maybe we scrutinize them and label their encounters as superficial or anecdotal but good for them for coming forward i say!

As embarrassing as it may seem, it can be beneficial to share these accounts. I was disgusted at any talk of supernatural abilities concerning the yowie. It conflicted with my own experience and conclusions and seemed an easy way out to explain away the more stranger aspects of the phenomenon .

Thing is the more i thought about my encounter , the more stranger it got. One day i was reading a thread about the possible psychic and mind altering abilities of the yowie and was going to post a reply explaining some of my own suspicions on mind manipulation and memory loss. After reading it i decided to delete it as i doubted anyone would believe me and i had been negative about these things previously.

A short while later another forum member posted nearly word for word of what i had deleted about my experience. This was a huge relief to me and help to my understanding of my experience.

I for one are very grateful to the few members sharing some of the way out experiences theyve had.

Maybe its time these more "out there" encounters can be discussed honestly and possibly get a bit closer to understanding what were all searching for.And who knows? Some one may have seen the same thing and your not crazy after all...

[Simon M]

Occams Razor is all fine and dandy.....where is the evidence for your Occams Razor? What creature can pull the stunts some of us have seen?

I cannot dispute what anyone has seen - I haven't seen it, so I'm not the one to judge their experiences. I can only give my own honest opinion.

As for the evidence for Occam's razor it's not a scientific proof, just a way of approaching scientific hypotheses; it's a logical tool for bringing clarity when you find yourself swamped with a range of hypotheses. It's not something which requires proof as it's only a logical technique, not a matter of scientific fact. It's also quite easy for skeptics to overuse it, citing Occam's razor as evidence itself, rather than finding evidence to refute a hypothesis they disagree with. I'm not refuting anyone's version of events, just saying that I find it impossible to accept without having any first hand experience, and that I think Occam's Razor is a good way of trying to sift through things to distill the logical parts of each argument.

Logical proof is not the same as factual proof, and I'm not denying that. In formal logic, a valid argument is an argument that is structured so that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true - as in "all cats have four legs and are covered in hair, therefore all animals with four legs covered in hair are cats", which is plainly not true, so we know it isn't logically correct.

Similarly, we could say "People keep seeing Yowies, and there is some physical evidence, therefore we know they're there but we don't understand much about them". That's my hypothesis.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, just offer an honest opinion. As I have said, I haven't got any first hand experience at all, but although I'm willing to accept these creatures as fact, I'm not willing to accept a paranormal explanation for them. The lack of more physical evidence is strange, but the presence of some physical evidence still indicates the existence of these creatures (not to mention the eyewitness accounts). I have no reasonable explanation for that, but I accept that there's a whole lot I don't know.

[Wolf]

Wolf, with regard to 'Aborigines doing the impossible'....

We have moved on considerably from the ignorance of the First Fleet. The impossible for me is a large hairy biped disappearing INTO NOT BEHIND a tree. Give some credit to those of us up in the bush/mountains in the middle of the night to not be complete imbeciles.

Occams Razor is all fine and dandy.....where is the evidence for your Occams Razor? What creature can pull the stunts some of us have seen?

I don't mean to offend, I never said I disbelieved anyone. 'Each man's truth is his only'

The point is, if what 'natives' were able to do when it comes to bushcraft and stealth was unfathomable to eurpoeans, how can we expect to comprehend what a creature that has evolved into their environment for many multiples of human span, can do?

Especially if you add infrasound into the mix... you saw what you saw, but how do you know you were not under the influence of infrasound?

Re extra 'dimensions' or string theory... read 'The Long Earth' by Terry Pratchett. (The world's funniest writer IMHO)

In it, people learn to make a 'stepper', a device that enables them to 'step' into the next world... humans spread across the extra 'Earths' and find Bigfoots, who can 'step' naturally without a machine.

[VicYowieResearch]

Occams Razor is all fine and dandy.....where is the evidence for your Occams Razor? What creature can pull the stunts some of us have seen?

I cannot dispute what anyone has seen - I haven't seen it, so I'm not the one to judge their experiences. I can only give my own honest opinion.

As for the evidence for Occam's razor it's not a scientific proof, just a way of approaching scientific hypotheses; it's a logical tool for bringing clarity when you find yourself swamped with a range of hypotheses. It's not something which requires proof as it's only a logical technique, not a matter of scientific fact. It's also quite easy for skeptics to overuse it, citing Occam's razor as evidence itself, rather than finding evidence to refute a hypothesis they disagree with. I'm not refuting anyone's version of events, just saying that I find it impossible to accept without having any first hand experience, and that I think Occam's Razor is a good way of trying to sift through things to distill the logical parts of each argument.

Logical proof is not the same as factual proof, and I'm not denying that. In formal logic, a valid argument is an argument that is structured so that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true - as in "all cats have four legs and are covered in hair, therefore all animals with four legs covered in hair are cats", which is plainly not true, so we know it isn't logically correct.

Similarly, we could say "People keep seeing Yowies, and there is some physical evidence, therefore we know they're there but we don't understand much about them". That's my hypothesis.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, just offer an honest opinion. As I have said, I haven't got any first hand experience at all, but although I'm willing to accept these creatures as fact, I'm not willing to accept a paranormal explanation for them. The lack of more physical evidence is strange, but the presence of some physical evidence still indicates the existence of these creatures (not to mention the eyewitness accounts). I have no reasonable explanation for that, but I accept that there's a whole lot I don't know.

Simon,

I'm not having a go at you I am just trying to stimulate debate. But we are hitting on the embuggerance that is 'yowie-hunting'. The more you look into it, the less 'logic' you can apply. Sure, any of us can rationalize things away but that is NOT explaining it. Rusty, who probably spends more time in the Bush than 90% of us on AYR has noticed the conundrum. The Bush is odd, with odd things going on in it. People are seeing a large hairy bi-ped hereto unknown to science, without one recorded fossil on record indicating it's lineage....and it's not just here in the vast expanse of Australian Wilderness that they are seen. The mathematics don't work out. People could believe in Orang-Pendek because it lives in remote jungle, but Squatch,Yeti, Alma, Yowie? All still unknown to science?

Unlikely.

[paulmcleod67]

Australian Science Illistrated reports that footprints of homo erectus ,found in a dry clay bed and dated at 800,000 years ago,
(actualy it was 3.8 million years ago for the referenced tracks)
"had pretty big feet and would have worn a size 46.5 shoe"...
which extrapalates to a size 13 or a 12 inch print.
That caught my attention.
Now Im no palaeontologist but the Homo erectus range of hominin wasnt exactly known for massive body size or weight averaging around the 60kg weight range for a male and standing around 1.6m.
Checking the articles source brought up a few confusing points concerning weight and height estimates based on the ancient clay bed trackway the prints were found in.
Seeing as prints are pretty well understood in the bigfoot/yowie evidence world and same said for palaeontoloic circles, what to make of the following from a paper concerning the afore mentioned Homo erectus tracks...
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/ ... d-eritrea/
"Body mass estimates were calculated for well-defined footprints from 23 Ileret trackways, where the whole foot outline was visible and not distorted by depositional/taphonomic factors. Based on stratigraphic positions, depositional contexts and quantifications of footprint sizes and morphologies, we estimate that these 23 Ileret trackways from which we could estimate body mass were produced by as many as 23 or as few as 15 unique individuals (in some cases we can neither exclude nor confirm the possibility that the same individual may have produced multiple trackways within the same site). For now, we present here 23 distinct predictions. The mean predicted mass from these 23 Ileret hominin trackways was 48.9 kg (standard deviation: 9.6 kg), which is generally comparable to the body sizes of adult Daasanach individuals (mean = 52.6 kg, standard deviation = 5.9 kg for a sample of 29 adults including 15 males and 14 females). In some cases, estimates derived from the fossil tracks are on the largest end of the Daasanach range. It is also important to note that these predicted body masses from the Ileret tracks are similar to the estimates of 48–52 kg that were derived from presumed H. antecessor footprints at the European site of Happisburgh. One outlying Ileret track implies a small body mass, and could represent a child. The length of this track, measured from the end of the heel to the tip of the hallux, is 20.5 cm and this length, according to the data collected by Ashton and colleagues, is roughly equivalent to the foot size of a 9-year-old modern human."
Ok I get that but wait until you see the actual measurements taken from the trackway.
Now I would add that Im not too sure if they have allowed for creek and shrink in an originaly larger very wet trackway?

Now consider this...

SASQUATCH: SIZE, SCALING, AND STATISTICS
Wolf H. Fahrenbach
Beaverton, Oregon, U.S.A.
[email protected]
Abstract: Measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans.
The paper produces this chart....(concerning weight, height from track depth and size.)

So I did a few graphics derived from both papers...


Now heres a recent YH track for comparison....


So based on revision of both papers and using bigfoot morpholgy and scaling from prints we get a much bigger variation on Homo Erectus (dont know which sub branch however).


Oh and they make no mention of this whopper....

[paulmcleod67]

A few graphics I negleted to add...

[VicYowieResearch]

A few graphics I negleted to add...

Not sure where you are going with this but two points..

1, Homo Erectus stood around 5 foot 10 or about 170cm, not the massive 2.1 meters in your graphic.

2, We have fossilized remains of them which allow us to place them in our human lineage.

[Simon M]

The thing with the fossil record is that, although it proves where (and approximately when) certain living things were present, we're still largely hypothesising with regards to which particular creatures were part of the direct human lineage, as I understand it.

Some archaic hominids may share common skeletal/anatomical features with us but without DNA evidence it's still an educated guess as to how closely related any particular fossil hominid/hominin is to ourselves.

We know we're related to the great apes thanks to DNA evidence, and that's also how we also know about our links to Homo Neanderthalensis, the Denisovan Hominin and the as-yet unidentified Hominim whose DNA was found in Siberia, and which had apparently interbred with the Denisovans.

We still don't fully understand how modern day humans are related to the various creatures represented in the fossil record. Homo Floresiensis is a good example of this - it survived until comparatively recent times, but we don't know precisely where it fits in to the hominid family tree.

It's possible we've already found the fossil remains of the Yowie's ancestor(s) and don't know it. It's possible that we simply haven't uncovered fossils of the Yowie's ancestor(s) yet. Floresiensis was only discovered in 2003, so the lack of fossil evidence doesn't greatly concern me.

These articles were ones I found interesting -

http://australianmuseum.net.au/hominid- ... difference

http://planetsave.com/2013/11/22/deniso ... sis-shows/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

I'm not a scientist, but I've read enough about this topic to know that there are huge gaps in our understanding of how we actually came to be, and that there are numerous hominid fossils which have been deemed 'evolutionary dead ends' by science, any one of which may be the fossil ancestor of what we know as a Yowie.

[ChrisV]

I think its safe to say that the crossroads of science and the unknown is where are all meeting at.
Science is only telling us what we already know. Its the facts plane and simple. But at the same time its only telling us what we already know and have discovered. Its certainly not the complete picture.

The bush as we know holds so much content. The Yowie has reportedly been part of this content but we are missing the evidence to confirm its presence. We have the reports and sightings but science can not accept these as fact.

The supernatural connection is a really where the crossroads meet. Things are supernatural until science can prove they are fact. Do ghosts exists? Does God exist? Does the Yowie exist?
Remember that the Christian Church has a membership of how many million people who believe in an unseen unproven figure all based on faith! Thats pretty amazing when you think about it. Faith is what keeps this going.
So when you start looking at Yowie sightings - actual sightings by respected people like servicemen and women etc - something starts to look strange. It clashes .... it does not fit into what we have been taught to believe.

I've seen things that are supernatural. I've seen things that exist outside the realms of science. I can't explain them but it happened. And it was witnessed by other people at the same time. I can't convince anyone of that thru science - I've got not pics or graphs to prove it happened - but it did. My word only ( and my family and friends etc )

So I guess I am saying that we are standing on the bridge ( or crossroads ) that divide what we know and what we don't. The evidence is there - its just not being accepted by mainstream science because it clashes with what we know - and highlights that we are missing some major pieces of the puzzle.

I had an experience back in 1993. I challenged it - wrote it off as a roo that could chop down trees in the dead of night in bush so thick that its crazy!!. Yeah that makes sense....

[VicYowieResearch]

The thing with the fossil record is that, although it proves where (and approximately when) certain living things were present, we're still largely hypothesising with regards to which particular creatures were part of the direct human lineage, as I understand it.

Some archaic hominids may share common skeletal/anatomical features with us but without DNA evidence it's still an educated guess as to how closely related any particular fossil hominid/hominin is to ourselves.

We know we're related to the great apes thanks to DNA evidence, and that's also how we also know about our links to Homo Neanderthalensis, the Denisovan Hominin and the as-yet unidentified Hominim whose DNA was found in Siberia, and which had apparently interbred with the Denisovans.

We, as in Homo Sapiens, ARE Great Apes, I assume this is what you mean?

We still don't fully understand how modern day humans are related to the various creatures represented in the fossil record.

What? We do now, via mtDNA.

Homo Floresiensis is a good example of this - it survived until comparatively recent times, but we don't know precisely where it fits in to the hominid family tree.

Emmm, again yes we do, Homo Sapiens share the same ancestor (Homo Ergaster), Floresiensis is then preceeded by at least Homo Erectus.

It's possible we've already found the fossil remains of the Yowie's ancestor(s) and don't know it. It's possible that we simply haven't uncovered fossils of the Yowie's ancestor(s) yet. Floresiensis was only discovered in 2003, so the lack of fossil evidence doesn't greatly concern me.

Well, there is NOTHING found so far that could account for the sheer height and weight of the Yowies being observed. No skeletons up around the 2.1 meters mark. Believe me, every scientist would sit up and take notice if they found something like that!


These articles were ones I found interesting -

http://australianmuseum.net.au/hominid- ... difference

http://planetsave.com/2013/11/22/deniso ... sis-shows/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

I'm not a scientist, but I've read enough about this topic to know that there are huge (what gaps?) gaps in our understanding of how we actually came to be, and that there are numerous hominid fossils which have been deemed 'evolutionary dead ends' by science (because there fossils tend to be found in highly localised areas or displayed characteristics that would have allowed a 'niche' only method of survival), any one of which may be the fossil ancestor of what we know as a Yowie.....(see above, nothing comes close to the height/weight).

[VicYowieResearch]

I think its safe to say that the crossroads of science and the unknown is where are all meeting at.
Science is only telling us what we already know. Its the facts plane and simple. But at the same time its only telling us what we already know and have discovered. Its certainly not the complete picture.

The bush as we know holds so much content. The Yowie has reportedly been part of this content but we are missing the evidence to confirm its presence. We have the reports and sightings but science can not accept these as fact.

The supernatural connection is a really where the crossroads meet. Things are supernatural until science can prove they are fact. Do ghosts exists? Does God exist? Does the Yowie exist?
Remember that the Christian Church has a membership of how many million people who believe in an unseen unproven figure all based on faith! Thats pretty amazing when you think about it. Faith is what keeps this going.
So when you start looking at Yowie sightings - actual sightings by respected people like servicemen and women etc - something starts to look strange. It clashes .... it does not fit into what we have been taught to believe.

I've seen things that are supernatural. I've seen things that exist outside the realms of science. I can't explain them but it happened. And it was witnessed by other people at the same time. I can't convince anyone of that thru science - I've got not pics or graphs to prove it happened - but it did. My word only ( and my family and friends etc )

So I guess I am saying that we are standing on the bridge ( or crossroads ) that divide what we know and what we don't. The evidence is there - its just not being accepted by mainstream science because it clashes with what we know - and highlights that we are missing some major pieces of the puzzle.

I had an experience back in 1993. I challenged it - wrote it off as a roo that could chop down trees in the dead of night in bush so thick that its crazy!!. Yeah that makes sense....

Chris, I haven't seen anything weird myself but get the feeling there is defo something 'else' going on. Being in the bush in the dead of night you never feel like you are alone!!

[ChrisV]

I think its safe to say that the crossroads of science and the unknown is where are all meeting at.
Science is only telling us what we already know. Its the facts plane and simple. But at the same time its only telling us what we already know and have discovered. Its certainly not the complete picture.

The bush as we know holds so much content. The Yowie has reportedly been part of this content but we are missing the evidence to confirm its presence. We have the reports and sightings but science can not accept these as fact.

The supernatural connection is a really where the crossroads meet. Things are supernatural until science can prove they are fact. Do ghosts exists? Does God exist? Does the Yowie exist?
Remember that the Christian Church has a membership of how many million people who believe in an unseen unproven figure all based on faith! Thats pretty amazing when you think about it. Faith is what keeps this going.
So when you start looking at Yowie sightings - actual sightings by respected people like servicemen and women etc - something starts to look strange. It clashes .... it does not fit into what we have been taught to believe.

I've seen things that are supernatural. I've seen things that exist outside the realms of science. I can't explain them but it happened. And it was witnessed by other people at the same time. I can't convince anyone of that thru science - I've got not pics or graphs to prove it happened - but it did. My word only ( and my family and friends etc )

So I guess I am saying that we are standing on the bridge ( or crossroads ) that divide what we know and what we don't. The evidence is there - its just not being accepted by mainstream science because it clashes with what we know - and highlights that we are missing some major pieces of the puzzle.

I had an experience back in 1993. I challenged it - wrote it off as a roo that could chop down trees in the dead of night in bush so thick that its crazy!!. Yeah that makes sense....

Chris, I haven't seen anything weird myself but get the feeling there is defo something 'else' going on. Being in the bush in the dead of night you never feel like you are alone!!

Yes there seems to be a few folks who would agree with you on that!!!

[Simon M]

We, as in Homo Sapiens, ARE Great Apes, I assume this is what you mean?

What? We do now, via mtDNA.

Emmm, again yes we do, Homo Sapiens share the same ancestor (Homo Ergaster), Floresiensis is then preceeded by at least Homo Erectus.

Well, there is NOTHING found so far that could account for the sheer height and weight of the Yowies being observed. No skeletons up around the 2.1 meters mark. Believe me, every scientist would sit up and take notice if they found something like that!

(because there fossils tend to be found in highly localised areas or displayed characteristics that would have allowed a 'niche' only method of survival)....(see above, nothing comes close to the height/weight).

Well, we can only check something's mitochondrial DNA against our own if we have a sample of it. We also cannot be sure that we have examples in the fossil record of every hominid that ever existed. There's no way of knowing if there are things we haven't discovered yet, etc.

So we know about Ergaster with regard to Floresiensis...but what else happened? We may never know any more than the fact that, as you point out, it was preceded by at least Homo Erectus. There's potentially more to the story that we cannot be sure of.

As far as large apes, the only example of a huge one is Gigantopithecus (Blacki, Bilaspurensis & Giganteus) which are believed to have stood up to 3 m high and to have weighed 540 kg. Then again, some argue that they were only 1.8–1.9 metres in height, so there's no way of knowing which estimate is correct or whether both are incorrect. That may well be the ancestor of the Yowie, but we don't have any DNA from either creature to compare, so we'd just be guessing. Nobody is really sure if Gigantopithecus was bipedal or if it knuckle-walked like a gorilla. It's now classified as being part of the Ponginae subfamily, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be the Yowie's ancestor as we don't know what the Yowie actually is. It's thought to have become extinct 100,000 years ago, and was extant at the same time as both early modern humans and Homo Erectus.

There are still arguments about the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecines, which is one of the 'gaps' I was referring to (this article will explain the debate much better than I can) - https://anthropology.net/2008/02/08/sex ... afarensis/

But, as that article states...

"Much of the problem with the debate was that there just are not that many samples of australopithecines to reconstruct a good, statistically valid, understanding about the amount of variation in a population. That’s one of the biggest shortcomings in anthropology… the fact that we’re trying to extract as much information as possible from limited number samples. It is no fault of anthropology, that’s the nature of the research… When one finds a fossil, that’s basically all they find, a single fossil. We’d all like to find complete skeletons, but that’s rarely the case."

This is the central issue I'm articulating - we know we don't have every puzzle piece, but we've no way of knowing which bits are missing or where to look for them.

All they have of Gigantopithecus are some teeth and jawbones. No DNA as far as I'm aware. They guess based on anatomical details - they currently think that the similarity of Gigantopithecus teeth to those of Hominids is due to convergent evolution, but that may be incorrect. Even experts in this field don't know for sure.

There's a lot we simply don't know - and may never know - about human evolution. We may not be genetically related to the Yowie at all, and the physical similarities may be due to convergent evolution alone. Then again, we may be related to them....there are gaps in our knowledge.

So I'd stand by all my original assertions...and yes, I did mean we were also great apes. I should have written "other great apes".

This is a handy thing that I've read -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _evolution

[Simon M]

Sorry...Pongidae (typo).

[paulmcleod67]

A few graphics I negleted to add...

Not sure where you are going with this but two points..

1, Homo Erectus stood around 5 foot 10 or about 170cm, not the massive 2.1 meters in your graphic.

2, We have fossilized remains of them which allow us to place them in our human lineage.

Ah yes cheers am aware of the status quo. The edited graphic was meant to be humourous : )

How would you explain the track depth and size disparity. Pretty heavy and "big footed" (pun intended) for a little fellow?

And what of the much more massive track that is not explained...as far as I can find in the literature?
Cheers

[paulmcleod67]

A few graphics I negleted to add...

Not sure where you are going with this but two points..

1, Homo Erectus stood around 5 foot 10 or about 170cm, not the massive 2.1 meters in your graphic.

2, We have fossilized remains of them which allow us to place them in our human lineage.

[paulmcleod67]

The need for some hands on research has had me relocating from coastal Sydney into the Brisbane outer suburbs of Tipolli.
The reason? Well the chances of activly filming a Yowie are pretty remote and science dictates the establishment of the species with physical evidence, and whist the Blue mountains would be a prefered local, its geography can be limiting and quite dangerous in getting to the more remote locations that interest me.

However, over the boarder there are many opertunities for discovery that are not so exhausting of resources in order to make a potential physical remains discovery.Within two weeks that decision seems to have paid dividends.

YOWIE TOOTH FIND?

Anyone that claims there is no evidence for a relic hominid species (including the yowie) in australia clearly hasn't been looking in the right places.
Borrowing from methods used by old school gold miners, I decided to head into areas where yowies were reported back in the days when most of Australia was still wild.

Locating small streams that contained well weathered quartzite and river stone, sourced from nearby steep bluffs and hard weathering stone cliffs and hillsides, of which I spent a few minutes panning with my bear hands and sorting through pebbles of grannite and quartz until I finaly located a stream that contained what I was looking for....a fossilized tooth! although well rounded from water action and movement along the stream bed ,over eons, the tooth still has a nerve root chanel and even some fossilized tooth decayed matter imbedded in it.

I will, as time and money allows, have an expert look at it. Im reporting it here along with video of the object as a record, given the shady historical disaperances of such finds in the past.

I have the streams location well established and will be going back to look for aditional finds at a later date. Anyone wishing to come along is most welcome. Forgive me if I dont publish its location just yet, suffice to say its within a few dozen miles of Woodenbong.

Cheers
Paul John McLeod

[paulmcleod67]

More artifact finds from the Tiviat creek washout site. Flaked skinning tools and an engraved stone.

[paulmcleod67]

Thus far I've only concentrated on the Ogam like marks in the stone, which are incredible on their own, however I think its time I show the rest of the stone and open up a dialogue in an attempt to garner more information towards it's possible origin.

So far my research has turned up only one name, in terms of any other stones found in Australia that are remotely similar,the controversial Steven Strong.

http://forgottenorigin.com/

I'm not judging his work one way or another, I'm just saying he is it.....there is nothing else out there that I can reference on this rock so ,it's either an O.O.P.A (OUT OF PLACE ARTIFACT) or a relic relating to an area of research that I'm thus far unaware of.

I've spoken to some aboriginal friends of mine and they cant place the stone in a general frame of reference but had some knowledge on a few other stone artifacts I've located, however whilst flipping the stone around one of them looked at me and said " yuwi"I countered with "Yowie"? He said " That's what you fellas call them. In my language (Yuwaalaraay) it's "yuwi".I had never heard this name before and can't help but think of the origin of the name "Yowie" and the academic debate that attributes it to J. Swifts "YAHOO'S" from Gulliver's travels.

On close inspection of the raised surface on the stone and although quite worn, there is a figure cut in relief of what might be a stylized yowie face. I hadn't noticed because Ive been caught up researching other markings on the stone including an accurate representation of the coastline between N.S.W, Q.L.D on into the Gulf of Carpentaria in the N.T.

There are also speculative indications of the continental shelf of Australia connecting to Papua New Guinea. When compared to modern maps there are a few interesting notches carved in the stone which represent to my mind, two navigational gaps in the barrier reef known as "Trinity gap" and "The Grafton passage" both seem to correspond to markings on the stone. In fact there are many such speculative cartographic analogues cut into the relatively small stone.

Iv'e put together a few graphics to try and show all of the above, but let me just say that the stones texture, being shiny black with relief cuts appearing a light brown color, make it very hard to image with the usual household photographic equipment. I believe it should be looked at by a forensic geologist....Anyone?

[paulmcleod67]

Incidentally whilst poking around the coastline off Cairns on Google Earth I found a weird feature on an atoll (which looks like a caldera) showing current Volcanic activity
a few miles off the coast of Cairns?

[paulmcleod67]

Getting back to the stone itself here it is on the old Gregory's map of the area.