A visual digest of my research 2012- 2017

[Yowie bait]

Theres no good reason to report this stuff. It just makes you look like a fool or a liar which is not good. No offense meant to anyone but you would have to be a complete idiot to make up a yowie encounter.

I agree, which is why I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt - especially if they've put time & effort into locating evidence. Paul's obviously done this.

Having said that, it's also clear that some people - while not hoaxers - are prone to an extreme form of wishful thinking. They want so much to prove something to others that they'll manage to convince themselves they've done so.

I don't doubt that these creatures are terrifying and potentially deadly. I have no reason to think Paul is being dishonest about his encounter(s) but the minute your results are under scrutiny of this kind, any and all questions need to be addressed. At this point, the silence has becoming deafening.

Like Shaz said, Paul must be feeling pretty upset about all this, but the questions being asked aren't unreasonable.

I wasnt refering to Paul or anyone in particular with my "idiot" comment just that it makes you look silly when u claim to see a monster! There will always be a shadow of doubt surrounding the claim.

I think Simon you are talking about confirmation bias which is probably more likely to occur to those that have had an encounter.

[hillbilly]

....some people - while not hoaxers - are prone to an extreme form of wishful thinking....

" extreme form of wishful thinking"? Ahh, I call them bullshitt artists. I reckon most people do too.

The way you describe it, it sounds like its OK to do that to people.

[Simon M]

....some people - while not hoaxers - are prone to an extreme form of wishful thinking....

" extreme form of wishful thinking"? Ahh, I call them bullshitt artists. I reckon most people do too.

The way you describe it, it sounds like its OK to do that to people.

Please quote the post where I actually said what you claim I said.

I haven't had a go at anyone in this thread - nor have I said Paul's behaviour is "okay". Not once. You're the one making accusations and insulting comments. Anyone who can be bothered can read every post in this thread. Make whatever claims you want, but remember that everyone can read them.

I've asked for Paul to make the unaltered images public as well. I've also said his credibility will suffer the longer he refuses to do so - that's what I've actually written. Paul may well be so desperate to prove his claims he's seeing stuff that isn't really there. He wouldn't be the first and he won't be the last. That was my point, and that's clearly what I wrote. Yowie Bait described it better than I did - 'confirmation bias' is the proper name for what I'm talking about.

Hillbilly if you prefer making baseless accusations and posting little smiley faces instead of actual facts, that's your choice. Your passive aggressive acting-out is all well and good from the safety of your computer, maybe it makes you feel better or something, but I thought we were supposed to speak to each other respectfully here? I also thought you were smarter than this.

I guess you've proven me wrong.

[hillbilly]

Hey Simon, I am really sorry to have raised a concern with you. I am not making fun of you. It's your term "extreme form of wishful thinking" . It just gave me a chuckle. It still does.
I won't waste space explaining, but it is basically "lying" if it is applied to studying or presenting facts scientifically.
Anyway, sorry that you feel that it was a direct attack.

[inthedark]

I doubt they would live in suburban areas or in the edge of the bush but i am sure they would frequent there if there was something that interested them. I dont know of course but i tried to prove it to a few people...and failed! Lol!! They would be mighty pissed if their home was plowed for an estate too. I know i would be!

You are right to be skeptical about this stuff but i think you will find that the whole yowie phenomenon is even stranger than it seems and sightings and encounters are rare but not as rare as it is made out. Personally, except for a few encounters on the ayr audios, i think most are the real deal.

If that many have come forward then there would be a lot that either couldnt be bothered or are too embarrassed or dont believe it themselves. Theres no good reason to report this stuff. It just makes you look like a fool or a liar which is not good. No offense meant to anyone but you would have to be a complete idiot to make up a yowie encounter.

Thanks YB

I'm super curious to know which "few" of AYR audios you think are bogus. I like most of them, simply because they are so genuine (compared to many American encounters), but accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by. Few seem outright lies though, to my ears.

But agree, those we know about would have to be the tip of the iceberg. Most encounters are almost certainly kept quiet - for just the reasons you mention.

[gregvalentine]

Thanks YB

I'm super curious to know which "few" of AYR audios you think are bogus. I like most of them, simply because they are so genuine (compared to many American encounters), but accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by. Few seem outright lies though, to my ears.

But agree, those we know about would have to be the tip of the iceberg. Most encounters are almost certainly kept quiet - for just the reasons you mention.

Along the same lines, please provide cogent arguments as to why you appear to blindly "accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by." This is a genuine query, so please attempt to reply without being abusive.

[Yowie bait]

I doubt they would live in suburban areas or in the edge of the bush but i am sure they would frequent there if there was something that interested them. I dont know of course but i tried to prove it to a few people...and failed! Lol!! They would be mighty pissed if their home was plowed for an estate too. I know i would be!

You are right to be skeptical about this stuff but i think you will find that the whole yowie phenomenon is even stranger than it seems and sightings and encounters are rare but not as rare as it is made out. Personally, except for a few encounters on the ayr audios, i think most are the real deal.

If that many have come forward then there would be a lot that either couldnt be bothered or are too embarrassed or dont believe it themselves. Theres no good reason to report this stuff. It just makes you look like a fool or a liar which is not good. No offense meant to anyone but you would have to be a complete idiot to make up a yowie encounter.

Thanks YB

I'm super curious to know which "few" of AYR audios you think are bogus. I like most of them, simply because they are so genuine (compared to many American encounters), but accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by. Few seem outright lies though, to my ears.

But agree, those we know about would have to be the tip of the iceberg. Most encounters are almost certainly kept quiet - for just the reasons you mention.

ITD, I dont mean anyone is lying but may be a few that misinterpreted what they saw as you say.I know a couple of people that think they might have had encounters but theyre not sure as they didnt see it properly. One i am sure was a yowie encounter. I cant see what else it would be or could do what it did.

I do doubt the existence of hoaxers in suits. Maybe a few but seems like a lot of bother to hoax someone in this way unless you knew them or knew that they were out looking for yowies, that may be worth the prank to some.

[Wollemi Explorer]

Thanks YB

I'm super curious to know which "few" of AYR audios you think are bogus. I like most of them, simply because they are so genuine (compared to many American encounters), but accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by. Few seem outright lies though, to my ears.

But agree, those we know about would have to be the tip of the iceberg. Most encounters are almost certainly kept quiet - for just the reasons you mention.

Along the same lines, please provide cogent arguments as to why you appear to blindly "accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by." This is a genuine query, so please attempt to reply without being abusive.

Ok. I am confused. I am with GV here and need additional clarification too.
ITD mentions -I like most of them, simply because they are so genuine,
Then -but accept that almost all are either miss-identification, or pranks.
Then-Few seem outright lies though, to my ears.

My confusion , to me, feels obvious.
Why are they first called "genuine",
then called pranks,
then called not lies.
I am new so please bear with me, but, how is this so?
It's so FlipFloppy.

Also, I was reading this topic where a member HB, was amused by the term "extreme wishful thinking", and they were called out for accusations and insults- like they were in trouble
I have retread the post but I don't see the insults or accusations of anything.
I thought it was a funny thing too.
I mean, "extreme wishful thinking" . Is that a "thing"

It is also weird that the author of this topic has disappeared.
He did a lot of hard yards.
Has anyone had contact with him, them?
They might have become a missing person,s.

[Yowie bait]

I have seen Paul logged on a few times so im guessing hes not missing.

[Simon M]

Hey Simon, I am really sorry to have raised a concern with you. I am not making fun of you. It's your term "extreme form of wishful thinking" . It just gave me a chuckle. It still does.
I won't waste space explaining, but it is basically "lying" if it is applied to studying or presenting facts scientifically.
Anyway, sorry that you feel that it was a direct attack.

Fair enough, and thanks for responding. No worries and no hard feelings. Sorry if I over reacted. I do that sometimes.

We can both agree that Paul's credibility regarding his images is nonexistent at this point. He's left it too long and clearly has no intention of explaining anything about the questions raised or the 'battery drain' he mentioned. I did ask that people give him time, that's true, but I reckon he's had long enough by now.

I've even private messaged Paul about this, asking him to please provide the info everyone's asked about, and haven't gotten a response. I'm assuming that you're correct, Hillbilly, and that he's not being 100% straight with us all.

So yeah, it's a shame. I still think Paul's motivated by the whole 'confirmation bias' thing for the most part, but if he can't respond to the genuine concerns people have raised then I don't really think there's anything anyone can say in his defence when he's refused to speak in his own defence.

[yowiedan]

Looks like Paul has done a runner and won't answer the questions brought up by fellow LONG TIME MEMBERS on here. Atleast Barnaby Joyce did even though he got 150k.

[Simon M]

Also, I was reading this topic where a member HB, was amused by the term "extreme wishful thinking", and they were called out for accusations and insults- like they were in trouble
I have retread the post but I don't see the insults or accusations of anything.
I thought it was a funny thing too.
I mean, "extreme wishful thinking" . Is that a "thing"

Yep, and I apologised for my comments. No one was "in trouble" as I've got zero authority over anyone or anything. I was responding to what I felt was a misrepresentation of what I'd said. I'd never said Paul's refusal to answer questions was okay, just that he deserved time to respond given that he's done a lot of work and I felt he should get the benefit of the doubt. Paul's had two encounters that he's mentioned, and perhaps in his zeal to prove they happened he's begun seeing stuff that isn't there.

"Extreme wishful thinking" is also what people do when they believe in a footy team winning a finals match when they haven't won one for decades, or when they believe something a Politician says during an election campaign. You can call it confirmation bias, false hope, desperation, or whatever you like. I still don't think Paul deliberately set out to hoax anyone, I think he became so fixated on proving his point that he began seeing a Yowie behind every tree branch that blew in the wind, etc.

It's a funny term if people laugh at it, obviously, but they're words in the English language arranged in grammatical order to convey meaning...so yeah, it's a "thing". Even if you found it funny, you still knew what I meant, right? If you can read something and comprehend it then yes it's a concept (or "thing" if you prefer). You can laugh, disagree, whatever, as long as you understand it.

Paul's put his entire life into this Yowie caper, if any of his comments on this forum are accurate. Just look at the sheer volume of stuff he's posted. He wants results and he's put all of his resources into getting them. Maybe he's stressed, worn out, and having some issues in his everyday life that have led him to see stuff that isn't present in his images? I'm assuming a lot there, but that's the impression I have of Paul. He's become so single minded in his pursuit that his critical thinking skills may have been affected.

As others have pointed out, Paul's a writer and it may be that his imagination's got the better of him. So yes...extreme wishful thinking was how I phrased it so as not to be harsh.

Not that it matters what I say...people will draw their own conclusions about the situation which is perfectly understandable.

[hillbilly]

. Sorry if I over reacted. I do that sometimes.

All good Simon, We all get tempted to have a rant at times.
As I had already said about Extreme Wishfull Thinking .." it is basically "lying" if it is applied to studying or presenting facts scientifically."
So I feel there is no place for it in our quest for facts.
(smiley)

[inthedark]

Ok. I am confused. I am with GV here and need additional clarification too.
ITD mentions -I like most of them, simply because they are so genuine,
Then -but accept that almost all are either miss-identification, or pranks.
Then-Few seem outright lies though, to my ears.

My confusion , to me, feels obvious.
Why are they first called "genuine",
then called pranks,
then called not lies.
I am new so please bear with me, but, how is this so?
It's so FlipFloppy.

Fair enough, and good questions. I'll try another approach ..

I think 90+ percent of these audios are 'genuine'. What I mean by that is that the person is telling the truth. I don't mean the sightings themselves are genuine BF/Y sightings. Hope that makes more sense? And to break that down further, I think 90% of these truthful experiences are either mis-identifications, or pranks.

The upshot, I think almost all Australian sightings are genuine, but I think very very few are likely to be neither a prank, nor a mis-identification. Probably only those events which are in broad daylight, in clear sight, and way way too remote and random to be a prank. Pranks are only going to be worth doing when you can guarantee an audience - so a difficult to access remote location, where it's unlikely any people will be around to see your awesome monkey suit, AND when the witness is in that location unexpectedly (no 'habit' of being in the area, for example), means such sightings may well be the real deal.

[inthedark]

ITD, I dont mean anyone is lying but may be a few that misinterpreted what they saw as you say.I know a couple of people that think they might have had encounters but theyre not sure as they didnt see it properly. One i am sure was a yowie encounter. I cant see what else it would be or could do what it did.

I do doubt the existence of hoaxers in suits. Maybe a few but seems like a lot of bother to hoax someone in this way unless you knew them or knew that they were out looking for yowies, that may be worth the prank to some.

I think we'd all probably want to misinterpret what we saw, if we saw the real thing! Would be utterly terrifying

Meantime, regarding the pranksters .. unfortunately I know of people who it. They don't care whether you're a Bigfooter, they just want to get a reaction. Any reaction, from anyone. AND they'll even go to fairly quiet and ostensibly 'remote' places to do it. It's a thing, ya know. They only need one person to see them, to make it worth their while. If several see them, all the better. They work in teams, with lookouts giving them their cues, etc.

[inthedark]

Along the same lines, please provide cogent arguments as to why you appear to blindly "accept that almost all are either misidentifications, or pranksters pranking random passers by." This is a genuine query, so please attempt to reply without being abusive.

I don't blindly accept anything, that's the point. I've openly stated that I believe a small number of these encounters could be the real deal.

Abusive? You must have me confused with someone else. Afraid I have no idea what you're referring to, on that.

[AL Pitman]

Back about 12 strings ago I advised Paul to stick to his guns .
Well he must've run out of ammo as the gun has gone very silent .
His choice I guess ??

[Black]

There's two significant differences between what a prankster can achieve in a suit and the real deal.

Firstly, animals reactions. The Bush goes 'dead' quiet, the insects go silent, dogs and cats exhibit extreme terror, horses become nervous, and people can experience extreme fear. You dont get those reactions with a bloke in a 'patty' costume.

Secondly, invulnerable to gun fire. There are many documented cases of people shooting both bigfoot and yowies, and they just keep on going or disappear. (It's probably time I continued with that other thread I started) Over in the states, at least one costumed bigfoot prankster has been shot dead by someone who was armed and fell for the prank.

Here in Australia, I've met a number of pretend alpha male type weekend warriors, who would quite comfortably shoot you dead or slit your throat from ear to ear if they fell for such a prank, and guzzle down another coldie and as they watch the poor costumed fool bleed to death. Pranking in a bigfoot costume is such a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Speaking of pranking, has anyone heard from Paul, or is he still missing in action?

[Dion]

I would say Paul has got stage fright after being unmasked.

[Yowie bait]

ITD, I dont mean anyone is lying but may be a few that misinterpreted what they saw as you say.I know a couple of people that think they might have had encounters but theyre not sure as they didnt see it properly. One i am sure was a yowie encounter. I cant see what else it would be or could do what it did.

I do doubt the existence of hoaxers in suits. Maybe a few but seems like a lot of bother to hoax someone in this way unless you knew them or knew that they were out looking for yowies, that may be worth the prank to some.

I think we'd all probably want to misinterpret what we saw, if we saw the real thing! Would be utterly terrifying

Meantime, regarding the pranksters .. unfortunately I know of people who it. They don't care whether you're a Bigfooter, they just want to get a reaction. Any reaction, from anyone. AND they'll even go to fairly quiet and ostensibly 'remote' places to do it. It's a thing, ya know. They only need one person to see them, to make it worth their while. If several see them, all the better. They work in teams, with lookouts giving them their cues, etc.

Yes terrifying indeed but very interesting as well!
Geez they are game to prank in a suit like that. It would be funny to prank a mate who is a yowie hunter or has had an encounter and is traumatized by it!! . I can see the humour but yeah thats insane. Like Black says it could turn out bad! Lol!!

[Austral]

Paul could be the latest decapitation statistic. He might of actually gone missing.

[Ray Doherty]

Through my work and the reports I am getting is that we can no longer assume that just because an area is now residential or semi rural that they wont approach. Know that area well, there are a lot of green corridors and easy night time access to and fro......we CANNOT prejudge a location just because there are few houses. There are a mountain of reports to the contrary. When food is scare a hungry animal/ person/ critter will do and get anything to fill the holei n the belly........anywhere (except in downtown of a major metro area is unlikely) but outer suburbs? quite possibly

A life in and around the bush compel me to go with the likelihoods. While it's true that SOME species will migrate into human habitats during hard times, many many don't - ever. I live right on the edge of a vast wilderness, and the only critters which venture to the fringe are dazed and confused roos, and snakes. And in the case of the roos, these are not even particularly shy beasts. If we're talking about creatures said to be as shy as it gets, yet are 8' tall (and so very easily spotted were they to frequent human habitats), it just seems incredibly unlikely that they're on our turf.

I suspect that wishful thinking and ease of research is the motivation for the idea of 'fringe dwellers'. After all, the good habitats ARE good for the very reason we don't go there .. they're very difficult to access!

I agree......however all I am saying is that I have learnt nothing can be ruled out because some areas are having hard times and according to many witness reports I have heard in the last few years it happening. Sounds like you are in an awesome spot, you're very lucky

[Simon M]

Paul could be the latest decapitation statistic. He might of actually gone missing.

Others have noted that they've seen him logged into the forum within the last few days, so he isn't physically missing.

[inthedark]

Yes terrifying indeed but very interesting as well!
Geez they are game to prank in a suit like that. It would be funny to prank a mate who is a yowie hunter or has had an encounter and is traumatized by it!! . I can see the humour but yeah thats insane. Like Black says it could turn out bad! Lol!!

I suspect they're relying on the fact that Australians don't all walk/drive around with guns. A foolish error, perhaps .. especially in rural areas. Even then, Aussies with guns are nowhere near as trigger happy as our friends over the big pond. Mostly though, they stick to National Parks, and other areas where guns are unlikely. Probably reasonably safe. And yes, would be tremendous fun ... assuming you don't get too close to someone with a heart condition!

And that's just the pranksters. When you add in hoaxers and liars - those with an agenda - you account for a even more sightings.

[inthedark]

I agree......however all I am saying is that I have learnt nothing can be ruled out because some areas are having hard times and according to many witness reports I have heard in the last few years it happening. Sounds like you are in an awesome spot, you're very lucky

You could be right. This drought might even be playing a part.

Meantime, yes we are lucky - but not in bushfire season! We're actually about 150 metres from the edge of the forest (at our main house), and our other house backs directly onto the forest. It's both wonderful, and terrible. There is a lot to love in a wilderness, but also plenty to be properly afraid of.

I've spent the past 30 years on a rural acreage, and here in the forest - yet it's only been in the past 6 months that I've learned that BF is a thing in Australia. Never EVER imagined people were actually seeing them ... sometimes on my doorstep There are just so many incidents in those 30 years which I could potentially attribute to Yowie, but always found rational explanations at the time. A horse with it's throat ripped out, strange screaming sounds (neither fox nor dingo) in the middle of the night, heavy footsteps around tents (often!), dogs behaving weirdly, police behaving weirdly, helicopters behaving weirdly, more horses killed/injured in bizarre ways, etc etc etc.

[hillbilly]

I suspect they're relying on the fact that Australians don't all walk/drive around with guns. A foolish error, perhaps .. especially in rural areas. Even then, Aussies with guns are nowhere near as trigger happy as our friends over the big pond. Mostly though, they stick to National Parks, and other areas where guns are unlikely. Probably reasonably safe. And yes, would be tremendous fun ... assuming you don't get too close to someone with a heart condition!

And that's just the pranksters. When you add in hoaxers and liars - those with an agenda - you account for a even more sightings.

I don't see why you separate the pranks, hoaxes, and liars. I reckon they are all in the same group- bullshittters.

Where do your acquaintances do their pranking?
I wonder if its near our missing friend Pauls stomping ground?
Or it might be my next choice of hunting grounds

My favourite research area is through a cattle property on the western side of the Wollemi national park. I have always taken firearms as there is an obligation to the farm owner to assist with feral animal control. (now, just wondering,..a prankster is not a yowie, so I could assume they are a feral?) lol

[Simon M]

Okay, Paul has responded to my private message, and says he doesn't mind if I mention certain things he's said. So here goes.

He points out that he used paint.net software to adjust the contrast, increase the colour and frame stack the image using multiple versions of contrast and histogram and that lots of other organisations - including NASA - also do this.

He also mentions that if he were going to actually fake an image he would never have revealed the metadata the way he did. If he were going to perpetrate a hoax, why not also change the appearance of the metadata?

He's also reluctant to reveal the video the still is from due to what happened previously when the Queensland Times reported the location of his Ipswich sighting - without his knowledge or consent - and it was trashed by locals who all descended on the area after reading the article. He says he doesn't want to make the same mistake twice.

Paul also blames himself for being over-enthusiastic regarding his attitude towards his evidence, but swears he's told the truth about everything, also pointing out that the image where the background 'changed' is two images and that he mentioned himself that he'd transposed them.

He's also mentioned that he will be handing the raw footage he has to Gary Opit, but he won't be discussing it on the this forum.

[Shazzoir]

Thanks Simon. I'll take all that at face value, but do wonder why Paul didn't respond earlier, causing all this to blew up...

Shazz

[Black]

I must have missed where Paul stated he openly transposed two separate images. (Tell us something we don't already know! He transposed an ambiguous brown shape into the foregrounds of two of his camera images.)

If Paul was just playin around with images, he could be courteous enough to explain why, if he accidentally posted wrong images up, and why he can't just post 'raw' still images like he misleadingly alluded to be doing in the first place?

What, he can't just explain why he was "transposing" images?

Over enthusiastic is one thing, but it seems the Yowie caused Paul's typing fingers to drop off, along with his balls.

Gary is the last person to take footage to. He's no image expert, his forte is on bird calls and natural fauna!

[hillbilly]

When it comes to seeing members manipulate pictures and evidence, ignore questions, deflect from topic and outright avoid other seasoned researchers with their enquiries. I have heard enough excuses. And a "Sorry" doesn't fix it. FFS folks, we are trying to see "Scientific" proof, but we are being fed "Hollywood" examples. My "give a damn" is busted.