Chanel 9 puts it's "bigfoot" right into it's own mouth

[paulmcleod67]

Despite modern up to date work carried out by hundreds of researchers from around the world the Australian media
(being chanel 9 in this instance) has managed to put it's proverbial foot into its mouth once again on the topic of "Bigfoot".

https://www.9now.com.au/today/2017/clip ... o47aecse9v

Here is a downloadable version and link to the story on my YT page.

https://youtu.be/_8qJWGU_5B4

Once again the topic has been pushed back into the irreverent file.

Massively annoying and uninformed in my opinion

Cheers

[paulmcleod67]

Dr Carl gets his "facts" from Tom Biscardi of SHOOTING BIGFOOT fame...says it all really.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 62926.html

"Finally putting the nearly 50-year hoax to rest, renowned Bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi presents testimony from those involved in staging the film, providing decisive evidence that the footage was not of some unexplained and mysterious natural being, but of a man in a suit. This landmark radio program will irrefutably prove that the Patterson/Gimlin film was perpetrated upon the public as a hoax for monetary benefit".

IMAGE

Phil Morris (left) with Bob Heironimus (right) on set of the 2005 National Geographic documentary Behind the Mysteries.

[paulmcleod67]

Here is the whole lame story that Dr Carl got his "facts' from.....YAAAWN

https://youtu.be/8bZnHqVsf4I

Cheers

[Tuckeroo]

Here is the whole lame story that Dr Carl got his "facts' from.....YAAAWN

https://youtu.be/8bZnHqVsf4I

Cheers

Yeah Paul, doctor Karl always comes across a bit too smug for me.
The statement about sightings coinciding with people drinking is just so stupid
and is so out of character for someone like doctor Karl.

Seems like he now really has tabloid blood coursing through his veins.
The two hosts sitting there couldn’t even muster up some kind of intelligent response or questioning.



T.

[Tuckeroo]

Here is the whole lame story that Dr Carl got his "facts' from.....YAAAWN

https://youtu.be/8bZnHqVsf4I

Cheers

Yeah Paul, doctor Karl always comes across a bit too smug for me.
The statement about sightings coinciding with people drinking is just so stupid
and is so out of character for someone like doctor Karl.

Seems like he now really has tabloid blood coursing through his veins.
The two hosts sitting there couldn’t even muster up some kind of intelligent response or questioning.



T.

I've got no idea why I spelt Carl with a K.


T.

[paulmcleod67]

Here is a simulated debate on the matter.

https://youtu.be/sOWYp78NKDs


IN THIS CORNER...
CHANEL NINE'S SCIENCE COMMENTATOR Dr Carl Kruszelnicki attended Edmund Rice Christian Brothers College in Wollongong, New South Wales, between 1960 and 1964
On completion he attended the University of Wollongong, completing a Bachelor of Science majoring in physics in 1968.
In 1980 Kruszelnicki was awarded a Master of Biomedical Engineering at the University of New South Wales. He completed a Bachelor of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery at Sydney University in 1986.

AND IN THIS CORNER...

Dr Jeff Meldrum whom received his Bachelor of Science in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from Stony Brook University in 1989 (then referred to as State University of New York at Stony Brook). He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches.
Meldrum has published numerous academic papers ranging from vertebrate evolutionary morphology, the emergence of bipedal locomotion in modern humans and Sasquatch (Bigfoot) and is a co-editor of a series of books on paleontology. Meldrum also coedited From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking with Charles E. Hilton. He edited the textbook From Biped to Strider (Springer, 2004)
Meldrum has attracted media attention due to his interest in Bigfoot. Skeptic Brian Dunning writes that "The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it."

[sensesonfire]

Here is a simulated debate on the matter.

https://youtu.be/sOWYp78NKDs


IN THIS CORNER...
CHANEL NINE'S SCIENCE COMMENTATOR Dr Carl Kruszelnicki attended Edmund Rice Christian Brothers College in Wollongong, New South Wales, between 1960 and 1964
On completion he attended the University of Wollongong, completing a Bachelor of Science majoring in physics in 1968.
In 1980 Kruszelnicki was awarded a Master of Biomedical Engineering at the University of New South Wales. He completed a Bachelor of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery at Sydney University in 1986.

AND IN THIS CORNER...

Dr Jeff Meldrum whom received his Bachelor of Science in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from Stony Brook University in 1989 (then referred to as State University of New York at Stony Brook). He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches.
Meldrum has published numerous academic papers ranging from vertebrate evolutionary morphology, the emergence of bipedal locomotion in modern humans and Sasquatch (Bigfoot) and is a co-editor of a series of books on paleontology. Meldrum also coedited From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking with Charles E. Hilton. He edited the textbook From Biped to Strider (Springer, 2004)
Meldrum has attracted media attention due to his interest in Bigfoot. Skeptic Brian Dunning writes that "The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it."

One scientific view versus another.......hmm.
In the red corner Dr. Carl. In the short interview he commented about the blurry, poor quality film of the videoed Bigfoot. He is right, on every piece of film that has been presented this is the case but I would suggest it has nothing to do with cameras, or the video equipment but Bigfoot itself. I believe they have the ability to interfere with the quality of the film. Second point: he stated we have no Bigfoot hair or bone samples, no scat samples nothing at all.....wrong. We do have samples but when analyzed all come back inconclusive. Dr Carls assertions dismissed.

I didn't listen to Dr. Jeff Meldrum because I know about his theories. Both, however, present anything different of what we don't already know, we are still getting mired down in whether Bigfoot/Yowie exist. I conclude we need to delve deeper into the subject but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers.

Best comment made on the above video:
bry3500
3 hours ago
Science is way behind the 8 ball on this - not surprised Karl can't get his head around it.

















\

[TrevorPeters]

One scientific view versus another.......hmm.
In the red corner Dr. Carl. In the short interview he commented about the blurry, poor quality film of the videoed Bigfoot. He is right, on every piece of film that has been presented this is the case but I would suggest it has nothing to do with cameras, or the video equipment but Bigfoot itself. I believe they have the ability to interfere with the quality of the film. Second point: he stated we have no Bigfoot hair or bone samples, no scat samples nothing at all.....wrong. We do have samples but when analyzed all come back inconclusive. Dr Carls assertions dismissed.

I didn't listen to Dr. Jeff Meldrum because I know about his theories. Both, however, present anything different of what we don't already know, we are still getting mired down in whether Bigfoot/Yowie exist. I conclude we need to delve deeper into the subject but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers.

Sorry but I don't agree with a two points here.

1. Blurry footage. Please try and be honest with evidence and facts. Jumping right from the footage is blurry to electromagnetically-induced visual obfuscation (pick your catchy technical term) is just as bad as the unsubstantiated comments for which Dr. Carl has been lambasted in previous posts. You are neglecting every available contributing factor, such as film quality, technology of the era, movement, lens selection, skill of the photographer and the list goes on, with nothing but your own unsubstantiated comment. I am not speculating. This is an issue that bothered me so I researched it. I suggest you do the same. A good place to start might be with papers regarding analysis of the PGF such as those found on this site The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. After that look into how professional wild life photographers conduct their business and the challenges they face - it can be eye opening. Perhaps you might even find the comments I found from professional photographers about this exact issue of photographing bigfoot. People have unrealistic expectations.

2. "but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers" - And how would you expect them to provide answers in an interview when they get brief air-time in a non-technical format to somehow facilitate a definitive statement on a very complex issue. Please be realistic. The format does not negate their worth as researchers. I am not a Meldrum fan-boy by any means but unless you have read his research papers, books and those papers of other professionals in the field and then have a cogent argument (that you are willing to substantiate with sources) for stating they have no answers you hardly do them or yourself justice.

I agree with Paul's initial comments (thanks for posting this by the way) - this was a typical media hatchet piece to trivialise the topic of Relict Hominids. Dr Carl should give himself an uppercut. His arguments could be dismantled piece by piece but it takes a lot of energy and time disproportionate to the damage his little opinion piece will do to public opinion. But that's what the media does, no matter the topic.

You may not have noticed, however, the similarity between this episode and a lot of posts on this forum should be noted. Unwillingness to take the time to substantiate your argument with sources that people can check for themselves is a serious issue. It's one of the reasons I don't post much anymore - I felt like I was wasting my time. I have seen others say it as well ( Rusty, et al.) - it is just not helpful getting caught in this merry-go-round of opinion vs opinion and it can be downright embarrassing to witness. Oh but we still want people to treat us seriously and reserve the right to criticise Dr Carl and his unsubstantiated opinions right? Mmmm.

[Simon M]

Dr. Carl has about as much credibility as those two blokes from the old 'Curiosity Show', though (or maybe they have more credibility). Would anyone actually listen to him? He and Dr. Cindy Pan are essentially who the TV stations wheel out when they want to do a 'report' on anything they deem 'sciency'.

Anyone who Googles the topic will soon find it goes back more than fifty years, and the 'Patty' film is only the tip of a large iceberg, etc. I don't even find their arguments annoying or silly, just laughable.

It makes me wonder why there's such a deep-seated desire for the media to portray this topic in such a condescending manner. They protest too much, I think.

[yowiedan]

[quote="Simon M"]Dr. Carl has about as much credibility as those two blokes from the old 'Curiosity Show', though (or maybe they have more credibility). Would anyone actually listen to him? He and Dr. Cindy Pan are essentially who the TV stations wheel out when they want to do a 'report' on anything they deem 'sciency'.

Anyone who Googles the topic will soon find it goes back more than fifty years, and the 'Patty' film is only the tip of a large iceberg, etc. I don't even find their arguments annoying or silly, just laughable.

It makes me wonder why there's such a deep-seated desire for the media to portray this topic in such a condescending manner. They protest too much, I think.[/quote

Cmon I loved the Curiosity Show with Dr Deane & Dr Rob.

[Wolf]

Dr. Carl has about as much credibility as those two blokes from the old 'Curiosity Show', though (or maybe they have more credibility). Would anyone actually listen to him? He and Dr. Cindy Pan are essentially who the TV stations wheel out when they want to do a 'report' on anything they deem 'sciency'.

Anyone who Googles the topic will soon find it goes back more than fifty years, and the 'Patty' film is only the tip of a large iceberg, etc. I don't even find their arguments annoying or silly, just laughable.

The linked story is yet another example for why I don't watch TV. It either saddens me to see how materilaistic, nihilistic, and psychopathic humans can be... or it maddens me with the blatant lies from the s0-called 'news' AND the corporations trying to sell you you don't need and they want you to believe.

It makes me wonder why there's such a deep-seated desire for the media to portray this topic in such a condescending manner. They protest too much, I think.

Because media 'personalities' are so into themselves they nervously laugh and make bad jokes about any topic outside their tiny mental perspective on the world.
Their massive egos hide the truth that they are afraid of how others see them.

[Simon M]

Cmon I loved the Curiosity Show with Dr Deane & Dr Rob.

So did I! I still wouldn't necessarily trust their opinions on Yowies...although if they did a show with those two blokes investigating cryptids I'd watch it for sure.

"We'll catch the Yowie by using this infra-red device powered by a lemon connected to it via a piece of copper wire..."

I think they must have both had a hand in the design of the NBN.

[sensesonfire]

I hate to get my facts wrong but I believe it's Dr.Karl according to his TV shows.

[Lozza62]

The media personalities try not to give personal opinions on subjects they call in the business (puff pieces) or they will be branded as loonies by the public and sometimes their co-hosts.

[Lozza62]

Not surprised Dr Karl spoke out about against yowies....he said exactly what he was told and paid to say and they never show the other side of coin....the debate will always be one sided as long as the media is controlled by a hand full of people and that goes right across the board.Everything you see on news is heavily edited and scripted.

[sensesonfire]

One scientific view versus another.......hmm.
In the red corner Dr. Carl. In the short interview he commented about the blurry, poor quality film of the videoed Bigfoot. He is right, on every piece of film that has been presented this is the case but I would suggest it has nothing to do with cameras, or the video equipment but Bigfoot itself. I believe they have the ability to interfere with the quality of the film. Second point: he stated we have no Bigfoot hair or bone samples, no scat samples nothing at all.....wrong. We do have samples but when analyzed all come back inconclusive. Dr Carls assertions dismissed.

I didn't listen to Dr. Jeff Meldrum because I know about his theories. Both, however, present anything different of what we don't already know, we are still getting mired down in whether Bigfoot/Yowie exist. I conclude we need to delve deeper into the subject but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers.

Sorry but I don't agree with a two points here.

1. Blurry footage. Please try and be honest with evidence and facts. Jumping right from the footage is blurry to electromagnetically-induced visual obfuscation (pick your catchy technical term) is just as bad as the unsubstantiated comments for which Dr. Carl has been lambasted in previous posts. You are neglecting every available contributing factor, such as film quality, technology of the era, movement, lens selection, skill of the photographer and the list goes on, with nothing but your own unsubstantiated comment. I am not speculating. This is an issue that bothered me so I researched it. I suggest you do the same. A good place to start might be with papers regarding analysis of the PGF such as those found on this site The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. After that look into how professional wild life photographers conduct their business and the challenges they face - it can be eye opening. Perhaps you might even find the comments I found from professional photographers about this exact issue of photographing bigfoot. People have unrealistic expectations.

2. "but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers" - And how would you expect them to provide answers in an interview when they get brief air-time in a non-technical format to somehow facilitate a definitive statement on a very complex issue. Please be realistic. The format does not negate their worth as researchers. I am not a Meldrum fan-boy by any means but unless you have read his research papers, books and those papers of other professionals in the field and then have a cogent argument (that you are willing to substantiate with sources) for stating they have no answers you hardly do them or yourself justice.

I agree with Paul's initial comments (thanks for posting this by the way) - this was a typical media hatchet piece to trivialise the topic of Relict Hominids. Dr Carl should give himself an uppercut. His arguments could be dismantled piece by piece but it takes a lot of energy and time disproportionate to the damage his little opinion piece will do to public opinion. But that's what the media does, no matter the topic.

You may not have noticed, however, the similarity between this episode and a lot of posts on this forum should be noted. Unwillingness to take the time to substantiate your argument with sources that people can check for themselves is a serious issue. It's one of the reasons I don't post much anymore - I felt like I was wasting my time. I have seen others say it as well ( Rusty, et al.) - it is just not helpful getting caught in this merry-go-round of opinion vs opinion and it can be downright embarrassing to witness. Oh but we still want people to treat us seriously and reserve the right to criticise Dr Carl and his unsubstantiated opinions right? Mmmm.

I'll try to be less protracted than you.

point1. I am not really interested in any catchy technical term the short answer is when you can come up with a clear, defined image let me know.

2. It would not matter if their interview time was brief or went on for hours they are not going to provide answers that I haven't heard many times before. just because they have a number of doctorates doesn't make them any more qualified on this topic than anybody else in fact because of the science background it can be more confining than enlightening.

3.

'' It's one of the reasons I don't post much anymore - I felt like I was wasting my time.'' [Unquote]. Sorry, I didn't notice, you weren't one of the four that came to mind they had a more defining interest in the paranormal obviously not your forte.

4. I corrected myself so I'll do it for you too Dr.Karl not Dr.Carl.

5. And the word is Hmm not Mmmm ("Expression of pleasure or contentment")

6. Have a nice day.

[sensesonfire]

One scientific view versus another.......hmm.
In the red corner Dr. Carl. In the short interview he commented about the blurry, poor quality film of the videoed Bigfoot. He is right, on every piece of film that has been presented this is the case but I would suggest it has nothing to do with cameras, or the video equipment but Bigfoot itself. I believe they have the ability to interfere with the quality of the film. Second point: he stated we have no Bigfoot hair or bone samples, no scat samples nothing at all.....wrong. We do have samples but when analyzed all come back inconclusive. Dr Carls assertions dismissed.

I didn't listen to Dr. Jeff Meldrum because I know about his theories. Both, however, present anything different of what we don't already know, we are still getting mired down in whether Bigfoot/Yowie exist. I conclude we need to delve deeper into the subject but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers.

Sorry but I don't agree with a two points here.

1. Blurry footage. Please try and be honest with evidence and facts. Jumping right from the footage is blurry to electromagnetically-induced visual obfuscation (pick your catchy technical term) is just as bad as the unsubstantiated comments for which Dr. Carl has been lambasted in previous posts. You are neglecting every available contributing factor, such as film quality, technology of the era, movement, lens selection, skill of the photographer and the list goes on, with nothing but your own unsubstantiated comment. I am not speculating. This is an issue that bothered me so I researched it. I suggest you do the same. A good place to start might be with papers regarding analysis of the PGF such as those found on this site The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. After that look into how professional wild life photographers conduct their business and the challenges they face - it can be eye opening. Perhaps you might even find the comments I found from professional photographers about this exact issue of photographing bigfoot. People have unrealistic expectations.

2. "but I don't expect that either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Carl can provide the answers" - And how would you expect them to provide answers in an interview when they get brief air-time in a non-technical format to somehow facilitate a definitive statement on a very complex issue. Please be realistic. The format does not negate their worth as researchers. I am not a Meldrum fan-boy by any means but unless you have read his research papers, books and those papers of other professionals in the field and then have a cogent argument (that you are willing to substantiate with sources) for stating they have no answers you hardly do them or yourself justice.

I agree with Paul's initial comments (thanks for posting this by the way) - this was a typical media hatchet piece to trivialise the topic of Relict Hominids. Dr Carl should give himself an uppercut. His arguments could be dismantled piece by piece but it takes a lot of energy and time disproportionate to the damage his little opinion piece will do to public opinion. But that's what the media does, no matter the topic.

You may not have noticed, however, the similarity between this episode and a lot of posts on this forum should be noted. Unwillingness to take the time to substantiate your argument with sources that people can check for themselves is a serious issue. It's one of the reasons I don't post much anymore - I felt like I was wasting my time. I have seen others say it as well ( Rusty, et al.) - it is just not helpful getting caught in this merry-go-round of opinion vs opinion and it can be downright embarrassing to witness. Oh but we still want people to treat us seriously and reserve the right to criticise Dr Carl and his unsubstantiated opinions right? Mmmm.

Some people are very easily pleased.

[sensesonfire]

Wolf wrote:

Because media 'personalities' are so into themselves they nervously laugh and make bad jokes about any topic outside their tiny mental perspective on the world.
Their massive egos hide the truth that they are afraid of how others see them.


So very true. It's the main reason I do not watch free- to-air TV anymore, haven't done so for five years. Especially can't stand those conceited TV comedians.

[Yowie bait]

Isn't one of those tv hosts the voice of the talking dog on the Bob Morrison show? Lol!!

No point getting upset about rubbish like this. Just the typical mainstream school yard bully mentality c**p youd expect from a bunch of z grade aussie celebs.

Morning shows are banned in our place.
They angry up the blood and set a negative tone for the day.

Strangely the last time I saw that carl/ karl he was on the abc crapping on about project haarp.

[sensesonfire]

TrevorPeters wrote: it is just not helpful getting caught in this merry-go-round of opinion vs opinion and it can be downright embarrassing to witness.



This is one aspect of your post that I wholeheartedly agree with. Opinion vs opinion does nothing to enhance the discussion whatsoever. Here we have two conflicting views. Firstly the vague scientific belief??? in an evolved hominid creature that may be related to a distant simian species and those who believe in a physical creature with additional paranormal abilities. Neither is going to convince the other that they are correct so both are futile arguments. Pointless in continuing the discussion? probably so.

Just remember there are 2089 Yowiehunter forum members of which 818 have made contributing comments although many have discontinued long ago. It is now basically the same members posting and if that number contracted it would indeed be a diminished discussion board. Controversy draws in viewers whether they agree or not.

I believe my paranormal theories on Bigfoot/Yowies have far more support with hundreds of people having witnessed such incidences than the opinionated dronings of Dr.Karl and Co. Yes, I do feel at times like I am lecturing to the uneducated because trying to get people to illuminate and expand their minds to the possibilities of the unknown universe is like beating your head up against a brick wall.

[paulmcleod67]

There is a possible fundamental (no pun intended) problem with any of Dr karl's interpretations concerning the deep evolutionary age of humans and pre Sapiens, and it may have to do with his indoctrinated higher education. He studied at Edmund Rice Christian Brothers College in Wollongong, New South Wales, between 1960 and 1964.
Perhaps during those impressionable years Karl may have developed a bit of a mental drain block concerning human evolution and parallel
evolutionary theory re-Darwinism.

The earlier in life that we are tutored on a given subject and learn a "known", the harder it is in later life and academic career to accept that
a core truth (as it was known in 1960) is being threatened or over turned by new or indicative data.

Here I will cite Dr Zawi Hawas as exhibit A.

The expert in ancient Egyptian history and also the self-entitled "Greatest archeologist in the world" knew nothing of Gobekli Tepe, an ancient monolithic complex in neighboring Turkey which has been dated to over 12,000 years conservatively. Years ago he refuted Dr Robert Schoch's (an geologists) re-dating of the Sphinx via water erosion on its enclosure wall which pushed the Sphinx's construction date back from 4,500 years ago to current estimations of 10,000 years .

To paraphrase Dr Hawas and his close group of "under studies" and advisors "How can dah sphinx be 10,000 years a old? Nobody woz had dah civlisation to built it?" This was stated by Hawas et al, prior to Gobekli Tepe's excavation in the 90's and also after its excavation by Hawas once again.

Why? Because he was oblivious to any archeological excavations outside of Egypt
How can that be "The Greatest Archeologist in the world." one must ask?

It seems that Dr Karl Kruszelnick is the "Hawas" of tv scientist commentators on this topic?

Fun with Zawi Hawas…in "Stoned Cutters"

Chhttps://youtu.be/q2myuc-qZNMeers

[ChrisV]

Problem with these tv segments about crypto related topics is that its easy to make fun of things that are considered fringe. Its no different to kids at school who laugh at the kid that's different or who doesn't fit the template of 'normal'.

Even as adults...you see the same thing. Its group mentality.
These shows are already laughing when you mention UFO's, Yowie, Loch Ness etc. You can thank those idiots who hoax these things that add to the joke.

Underneath it all is a truth that people just don't see until someone verifies it that has conviction - whoever that is!?

Again - I stipulate! Why do billions of people believe in invisible Gods but have such a hard time accepting crypto science!! There is more evidence that a Yowie exists then there is of many spiritual figures of religion ever existing.....

The mind boggles.

[Simon M]

Good post, Chris. Couldn't agree more.

[Yowie bait]

Problem with these tv segments about crypto related topics is that its easy to make fun of things that are considered fringe. Its no different to kids at school who laugh at the kid that's different or who doesn't fit the template of 'normal'.

Even as adults...you see the same thing. Its group mentality.
These shows are already laughing when you mention UFO's, Yowie, Loch Ness etc. You can thank those idiots who hoax these things that add to the joke.

Underneath it all is a truth that people just don't see until someone verifies it that has conviction - whoever that is!?

Again - I stipulate! Why do billions of people believe in invisible Gods but have such a hard time accepting crypto science!! There is more evidence that a Yowie exists then there is of many spiritual figures of religion ever existing.....

The mind boggles.

Chris the reporters are just following our Australian tradition of bullying and hazing. How else are the kids to know how to single out weirdos or any one different for bullying without their parents, celebs, sports stars and social media showing the way?

[ChrisV]

Problem with these tv segments about crypto related topics is that its easy to make fun of things that are considered fringe. Its no different to kids at school who laugh at the kid that's different or who doesn't fit the template of 'normal'.

Even as adults...you see the same thing. Its group mentality.
These shows are already laughing when you mention UFO's, Yowie, Loch Ness etc. You can thank those idiots who hoax these things that add to the joke.

Underneath it all is a truth that people just don't see until someone verifies it that has conviction - whoever that is!?

Again - I stipulate! Why do billions of people believe in invisible Gods but have such a hard time accepting crypto science!! There is more evidence that a Yowie exists then there is of many spiritual figures of religion ever existing.....

The mind boggles.

Chris the reporters are just following our Australian tradition of bullying and hazing. How else are the kids to know how to single out weirdos or any one different for bullying without their parents, celebs, sports stars and social media showing the way?

Yeah its a shame that its left to independent reporters to cover such topics with a fair approach.
I'd love to see the egg on face on some of these stations when something does come to light...

Then it will turn into a over the top, drama filled hysterical 24/7 coverage that everyone will get sick of after the initial surge.

So either way - we are better off not getting onto their bandwagon and continue on our merry way.

[Yowie bait]

Problem with these tv segments about crypto related topics is that its easy to make fun of things that are considered fringe. Its no different to kids at school who laugh at the kid that's different or who doesn't fit the template of 'normal'.

Even as adults...you see the same thing. Its group mentality.
These shows are already laughing when you mention UFO's, Yowie, Loch Ness etc. You can thank those idiots who hoax these things that add to the joke.

Underneath it all is a truth that people just don't see until someone verifies it that has conviction - whoever that is!?

Again - I stipulate! Why do billions of people believe in invisible Gods but have such a hard time accepting crypto science!! There is more evidence that a Yowie exists then there is of many spiritual figures of religion ever existing.....

The mind boggles.

Chris the reporters are just following our Australian tradition of bullying and hazing. How else are the kids to know how to single out weirdos or any one different for bullying without their parents, celebs, sports stars and social media showing the way?

Yeah its a shame that its left to independent reporters to cover such topics with a fair approach.
I'd love to see the egg on face on some of these stations when something does come to light...

Then it will turn into a over the top, drama filled hysterical 24/7 coverage that everyone will get sick of after the initial surge.

So either way - we are better off not getting onto their bandwagon and continue on our merry way.

I agree. Screw em! People wont believe anything unless an authority tells them and by authority i mean celeb or newscaster, pollutitions etc.

In our area at the moment we have a cryptid in our midst. Theyre called " deer" and if you say youve seen them your crazy or full of it, just like yowies. Whats funny is there are deer signs on the roads around here and still these idiots say theres no such thing.

In jindalee 10 minutes away some residents have been there 20 years, find droppings and tree damage etc but have never once seen the deer. It really is so much like the bigfoot phenomenon with sightings and encounters and its just escaped deer criss crossing creeks and travelling at night. Perhaps theyre paranormal??

[Shazzoir]

Yowiebait, just over a year ago, almost at this same time of the year, while crawling along the car park that is the Centenary Highway any time after 6am, I (and many other crawling motorists) had plenty of time to take in the unusual sight of the carcass of a very freshly struck large deer, which was lying on the very last bit of grass verge just before the Mt Ommaney feeder road joins the Centenary Hwy.

I was surprised, but not too surprised, as there have been deer sightings in the area for decades.

Shazz

[Yowie bait]

Yes Shazz ttheres a lot of time to look around while " travelling" on some of brissys glorified carparks. Amazing what u can see. Moggil rd is quite scenic.

The centenary highway was roadkill central for awhile there when they developed the sugar glider forests at darra and 17 miles rocks. Seems they missed a few of those special Wallabys they "relocated"!

Now its the deer .Definetely wouldnt want to run into a deer on that road..or any for that matter!

Ive never seen one but am going to have a look at oxley common where someone saw one last week. I was working across the creek there a few weeks ago and a resident told me theyd been sighted across the creek from there. Not hard for them to swim across apparently.

One bloke nearly 6 years ago ( just after flood) said hed seen a stag run in front of him on the oxley rd roundabout from the floodplains, early one morning. Everyone was saying the poor bugger was full of it or on the piss!

[ChrisV]

Yes Shazz ttheres a lot of time to look around while " travelling" on some of brissys glorified carparks. Amazing what u can see. Moggil rd is quite scenic.

The centenary highway was roadkill central for awhile there when they developed the sugar glider forests at darra and 17 miles rocks. Seems they missed a few of those special Wallabys they "relocated"!

Now its the deer .Definetely wouldnt want to run into a deer on that road..or any for that matter!

Ive never seen one but am going to have a look at oxley common where someone saw one last week. I was working across the creek there a few weeks ago and a resident told me theyd been sighted across the creek from there. Not hard for them to swim across apparently.

One bloke nearly 6 years ago ( just after flood) said hed seen a stag run in front of him on the oxley rd roundabout from the floodplains, early one morning. Everyone was saying the poor bugger was full of it or on the piss!

Yes there are deer in the Royal National Park south of Sydney. Lots of reports of them in that area but many people state that its not the case!!
I think there is even one AYR report that talks of a Yowie stalking a herd of deer on a suburban street!!!

[Yowie bait]

Yes Shazz ttheres a lot of time to look around while " travelling" on some of brissys glorified carparks. Amazing what u can see. Moggil rd is quite scenic.

The centenary highway was roadkill central for awhile there when they developed the sugar glider forests at darra and 17 miles rocks. Seems they missed a few of those special Wallabys they "relocated"!

Now its the deer .Definetely wouldnt want to run into a deer on that road..or any for that matter!

Ive never seen one but am going to have a look at oxley common where someone saw one last week. I was working across the creek there a few weeks ago and a resident told me theyd been sighted across the creek from there. Not hard for them to swim across apparently.

One bloke nearly 6 years ago ( just after flood) said hed seen a stag run in front of him on the oxley rd roundabout from the floodplains, early one morning. Everyone was saying the poor bugger was full of it or on the piss!

Yes there are deer in the Royal National Park south of Sydney. Lots of reports of them in that area but many people state that its not the case!!
I think there is even one AYR report that talks of a Yowie stalking a herd of deer on a suburban street!!!

The one that lays next to the car and roars at the guy!!
Hilarious. Deer and a yowie in the one encounter and what a great one it was! People will argue anything. One lady tried to tell me king parrots are extinct which is a load of rot. I still see them in the burbs every now and then.