Yowiehunters Forum

I don't mind skeptics having an opinion, but I don't understand why someone who 'demands proof' of existence of the Yowie and who admits to being a skeptic, even bothers to come to this forum, and not expect members to defend their own opinions. The aspersions that have been cast on members intelligence in particular have been a bit hard to take.

Nice one Shazzoir...hit the nail on the head..and its done by them with such patronising "let us tell you how to think properly" attitude that you have to laugh..
The "glitch" was me...I banned him....I will explain why.
Its just another game bored "sceptics" are playing and have played before on other boards...they are doing to just cause problems...
Here is the bleeding obvious clue.

By the way, as I am in regular communication with Marius on another board

WOW...What an amazing coincidence...
"They" have zero interest in "objective" analysis of anything outside their own philosophical belief system...how do I know..I use to be a member of the Sydney sceptics..I have been on the radio as a rep from the Sydney sceptics..(arguing against a melbourne sceptic) but thats another story.
I have been watching how they work/"think" for years....I had too since I have been researching unusual claims/phenomena for over 18 years....
Thats why I gave the example of "starbaby" by Dennis Rawlins as an example/test.
Rawlins was the astronomer the american sceptics sacked for trying to stop them covering up data they didnt like.
Anyone truly interested in hard data/facts as our fallen sceptic claimed.. would have been on to that link in a flash..was Marius...no..not even a sniff..
Hard science..yeah right..
If some forum moderators dont have a problem with sceptics/constrained philosophers asking ad nauseum the same variation of questions..over and over...and over..and over ..or dont know how sceptics "work"...or dont realise the sceptics have zero interest in "balanced" little chats...or if some mods are "always too busy" to spend any time answering the sceptics games..sorry.."legitimate" questions..then thats not my problem either..
I noticed the thread has been hijacked 100% as well..another amazing coincidence.!

Mike Williams wrote: Its just another game bored "sceptics" are playing and have played before on other boards...they are doing to just cause problems...
Here is the bleeding obvious clue.[/b]

By the way, as I am in regular communication with Marius on another board

WOW...What an amazing coincidence...

No coincidence at all Mr. Williams. He told me about this site. I make no secret about knowing Marius.

"They" have zero interest in "objective" analysis of anything outside their own philosophical belief system...how do I know..I use to be a member of the Sydney sceptics..I have been on the radio as a rep from the Sydney sceptics..(arguing against a melbourne sceptic) but thats another story.
I have been watching how they work/"think" for years....I had too since I have been researching unusual claims/phenomena for over 18 years....
Thats why I gave the example of "starbaby" by Dennis Rawlins as an example/test.
Rawlins was the astronomer the american sceptics sacked for trying to stop them covering up data they didnt like.
Anyone truly interested in hard data/facts as our fallen sceptic claimed.. would have been on to that link in a flash..was Marius...no..not even a sniff..
Hard science..yeah right..

Marius, like myself, undoubtedly had no interest in commenting on this issue. For those who are unsure, it was all about The Mars Effect, ( Astrological concept. A quick google will help) and entirely irrelevant to any point being raised here. Mr. Williams may disagree, and that is excellent for the spirit of debate, but perhaps in another thread.

If some forum moderators dont have a problem with sceptics/constrained philosophers asking ad nauseum the same variation of questions..over and over...and over..and over ..or dont know how sceptics "work"...or dont realise the sceptics have zero interest in "balanced" little chats...or if some mods are "always too busy" to spend any time answering the sceptics games..sorry.."legitimate" questions..then thats not my problem either..
I noticed the thread has been hijacked 100% as well..another amazing coincidence.!

Might I suggest you do what I am considering doing, and ignore the posts that seem flawed and illogical?
I hope we can look forward to a more constructive relationship in the future.

anonimust wrote: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ir+the+pot

Hey strange2,
sorry to have to use links to get a point across

A Google counter-attack....I love your work anonimust

Mike Williams wrote: The "glitch" was me...I banned him.

Was that really necessary?

I mean, let's face it - this site isn't exactly conventional and it's to be expected that sceptics are bound to pop up and challenge what we do.

Is it tedious and repetitive? Yes.

Is it harmful? No.

AYR wouldn't be the first site to attract sceptics and it won't be the last.

Will critics ever sway the opinions of believers? No.

Are we trying to convert them or even really care about their way of thinking? No.

Like them or not, critics do serve a purpose in presenting a point of view that we simply won't be exposed to if we are cocooned exclusively by believers. If nothing else there have been some constructive thoughts put forward about how information is gathered and reported and what this site is really trying to achieve.

Instead of banning someone who has been generally polite and concise with their postings maybe it would be better to allow the members of this site to decide if they want to arbitrarily remove an alternative point of view.

I hope Opus doesn't suffer the same fate.

Mike Williams wrote:

Its just another game bored "sceptics" are playing and have played before on other boards...they are doing to just cause problems...

Not a truer word spoken Michael, it's basically trolling and it's pathetic...

Hi All

My first posting on the subject of Dean’s confrontation with the Yowie may have sounded a bit skeptical, but that was not the intention of the post that I made. The intention was to separate the parts of the report that were verified by more than one person. Those things that more than one member of the group experienced did not add up to definitive proof that a yowie was involved or even that the creature exists. This does not mean however that what Dean claims happened is untrue; all it means is that he has no proof. How many reports of yowie encounters do the people involved have definitive evidence? I might venture the answer to that question is nobody has ever came up with definitive proof that they had an encounter with a yowie. The value of Dean’s experience is not that it is definitive proof, but that it happened to somebody who has a lot of experience with the yowie and its habits. So if Dean expresses that in his opinion that he got knocked down by a yowie, that he seen eye shine, or that he smelled one, then I still want to hear about it. In all fairness to Dean and his team I have not read in any of the reports the claim that he is presenting definitive proof, just that they are relating an experience, for what it is worth, and that experience is of interest to all of us who frequent this forum. I think we are all getting bogged down in the matter of collaborative evidence, and that would be nice if everyone involved had experienced the same events, but that is not the case, so lets just make the most of what we have got. I would still like to hear Deans answers to such questions as to what was the nuts and bolts of what happened to him, especially details of when the beast was upon him, his description of that part of the event was a bit sketchy, and I don’t care if I just have to take his word for it. Bring it on Dean.

>The "glitch" was me...I banned him.

Was that really necessary?

1/Troll 2/Offensive language.which Sticky mentioned above gets you kicked out.
It was after he posted the photo of a shirt with "f.... on it for some odd reason in the thread.
Joe black removed it.

Like them or not, critics do serve a purpose in presenting a point of view that we simply won't be exposed to if we are cocooned exclusively by believers.

fair point..sort of...but how can their viewpoints like..
1/its all a crock...
2/there is no evidence we accept...
3/witnesses can and will lie and be mistaken...
Repeated over and over serve any purpose other than prove they are often are just bored trolls as anonimust pointed out...
Notice the profound difference between someone like TWMcCallum being sceptical and even handed...and the way the trolls present themselves.l..
Thats my point...death to trolls..
And when they start up next time..I look forward to you spending quality time answering each and every query/question/assertion ..over and over..
And secondly..when I stuck my head up a few months ago and criticised aspects of the phenomena I was met with a few replies which consisted of irrelevent comments...no answers...and silence...how did that serve any purpose.

Analysis of “Dean v. Yowie” Incident:

Undisclosed location in north Queensland.
2.40am 2nd of January, 2009.
Unspecified duration.

While separated from the remaining AYR group, Dean Harrison claimed to have a physical encounter with an unidentified assailant which knocked him backwards off his feet, followed possibly by a brief tussle which ceased on the approach of assisting AYR members. The encounter left Dean with bruising to various body parts.

Evidence:

The only person in a position to give a description of the assailant is Dean. Due to the dark conditions, Dean’s highly anxious state, and a seemingly brief encounter the only description offered is of “it” and “It was just so fast and so direct”. No description given of size, texture, or any other physical details. No sound was noted during “it’s” quick approach and subsequent confrontation. Dean noted a “pungent smell of sulphur” and “heard someone walking along the ridge line heading down to base”.

Details of the resulting scuffle are scant with Dean stating that “it all happened too quick” and that he
“could not think clearly during, nor after the event”. After taking “some wild and woolly swipes with my right” and “kicking his “legs up high into the air” it is unclear whether or not the assailant was still on top of Dean after knocking him down. Further questioning needed here.

By the time assisting AYR members reached Dean the assailant had departed. A torchlight search of the immediate area yielded no visual identification of the assailant other than “white eye shine blinking in the bush, about fifteen metres in front of us” claimed by 3 of the 4 members. Dean further stated that the eyes “glowed grey/white…(illuminated) without moon light, nor torch light.”

A short time after the incident several AYR members returned to the site of the incident and found Dean’s torch and water bottle, presumably dislodged during the encounter, both in an upright position 12 feet from where they had found Dean. Not tested for fingerprints.

The next day a plaster cast was taken of 28cm “hominid shaped right footprint” from a muddy embankment leading to the road.

A similar footprint 18cm in length was found in a dry creek bed on the previous day. No cast or photo were taken.

Bruising was noted on Dean’s upper right thigh, left thigh above the knee, underside around right elbow, and left side of back.

Other considerations - “a modest serving of alcohol” was consumed by the AYR team on the night of the incident. No details as to the exact amount.

Conclusion:

Something happened that night. Dean had a brief physical encounter with something but with no description of size, shape, or texture and the only sounds of something walking towards camp the assailant remains unidentified. Native or feral fauna cannot be ruled out.

The eye shine witnessed by 3 of the 4 AYR members is inconclusive although the claim that the eyes seemingly shined or glowed independent of any light source is consistent with several other documented Yowie encounters as is the strong smell of sulphur.

The footprints noted are both well within the normal human range of size and shape.

There is simply not enough evidence to conclude that a Yowie was encountered on that night. Considering that this was an AYR field trip specifically designed to gather evidence the distinct lack of anything conclusive is a major concern.

IF the encounter was indeed with a Yowie then it seems that alcohol consumption and poor planning/organisation has allowed a golden opportunity to slip by. AYR has dropped the ball on this occasion and it is not the simple reporting of a Yowie encounter that could damage credibility (reporting potential encounters is part of AYR’s function, after all) but rather the shoddy and unprepared manner in which this nearly entire incident was handled (including the banning of a forum member for asking legitimate questions).

Other people also knew the group’s plan and location and, as a result, a hoax or “set up” cannot be ruled out. When a prominent member of Australia’s crypto-researching community makes sensational claims with very little supporting evidence then it is not unreasonable to wonder whether perhaps this was intended as a promotional play for an upcoming book and/or television deal. Suspicions of ulterior motives come with the territory of being “high profile”.

Take this as constructive criticism aimed to help AYR raise it’s game lest I be banned as well.

anonimust wrote:

Mike Williams wrote:

Its just another game bored "sceptics" are playing and have played before on other boards...they are doing to just cause problems...

Not a truer word spoken Michael, it's basically trolling and it's pathetic...

No, its something you don't agree with.
If you find points contentious, debate them.
like it or not, this is a public forum. Perhaps if you want to exclude critical analysis, whom ever makes those sort of decisions should make it an invite only affair.

Good points. I concur, Nightwalker.

Hey Night Walker

Yes all very good valid points raised

Firstly I am with Iwanna and I am also a little disappointed that some members where banned for raising some very valid points, which they had a right to. AYR prides itself on having a very open minded forum where people can share and collaborate on ideas and theories. Sceptics should be welcome here to do so.

I also agree that things could have been planned, organised, a little better on this expedition. However, having said that and in defending those that where involved, the members of AYR are not perfect nor are average members of society that I am aware of including sceptics. We have all made mistakes we will all continue to make them, I am sure we have all said to ourselves at one stage “if only I had done this” or “said this” or “taken this course of action” things would be different. To plan something to run perfectly such as a yowie expedition is harder than it sounds. And I am sure that those that where there can attest that things will be learnt from, for a next time.

I have spoken to Dean personally about his encounter and he swears on a few things which are very personal to him that this incident happened, which I believe and know to be true as his a man of his word. He also says that he has no recollection of the encounter during the incident, which I believe also and here’s why.

Imagine this {your in the forest its pitch black or there abouts, you hear some footsteps, you radio back to base “is this any of you guys” a response is “No” you radio back needing some back up, before you have time to shine your flashlight in search of who or what it is, your bold over by a something a struggle ensues, you cant see a thing, so you just kick and punch as best as you can, help soon arrives you then hear a something leave}.

Now describe to me what you saw? (In the pitch black) Heard or felt? (In a stage of shock and high anxiety) I believe I would be in the same boat as Dean and say I don’t know I just know I was bold over and hit by something.

What should be noted from the encounter is that 3-4 people saw eye shine after the event which says something in my book. Those people that where there to see the eye shine I have met and I would consider them to be sane and credible people and would not make up events to satisfy a media or publicity stunt like has been suggested.

A story was told to satisfy the members of this board and for nothing else.

I believe that the details Dean and the team have given are more than what I would probably be able to give in the same circumstances.

Maybe when the time arises and the memory comes flooding back more details will emerge.

Chewy wrote:
I don’t know I just know I was bold over and hit by something.

Hey Chewy.

Not too sure about this one.

Dean reckons he saw this thing clear enough to state "it’s diaphragm did not bounce" so it makes you wonder why more details haven't come forward.

If you can see and recall that sort of detail then it stands to reason that other basic details should also be recalled.

Size? Smell? Sounds?

I can only assume these details have been omitted for reasons that are beyond us.

Cheers.

Mike Williams wrote:
And when they start up next time..I look forward to you spending quality time answering each and every query/question/assertion ..over and over..

Hi Mike.

Don't look too hard.

You don't have to respond to sceptics and I can assure you I won't either.

Like any discussion thread you can choose what you read, what you reply to and what you agree with.

Obviously some members of the forum are drawn to these debates easier than others and that's their choice.

At least, it was their choice.

iwanttobelieve wrote:

Chewy wrote:
I don’t know I just know I was bold over and hit by something.

Hey Chewy.

Not too sure about this one.

Dean reckons he saw this thing clear enough to state "it’s diaphragm did not bounce" so it makes you wonder why more details haven't come forward.

If you can see and recall that sort of detail then it stands to reason that other basic details should also be recalled.

That wasnt about sight but sound

Nice post, Nightwalker!

I'll have to correct your analysis on a few points though:

1) No other person knew ‘exactly’ where we were going or planning, and we had no mobile phone reception and no satelite phones. You can rule a hoax out.

2) The water bottle was not tested for fingerprints as it had only been handled by Dean and then other AYR team members.

3) Plaster casts were taken of both located footprints. Check out the photos I inserted in my account post.

4) Exact levels of alcohol consumption could only be tested using a breath analysis device to indicate the blood alcohol concentration in each member’s blood. We didn’t have one on this excursion, at our disposal to use. (As I stated in my account, the first night was decided to be an ice breaker with serious research strategies to be employed the following night after a detailed, daylight canvas of the area.)

5) Your major concerns are duly noted, Nightwalker, however, this AYR trip was not specifically designed to gather evidence. It was designed to bring together for the first time a number of yowie researchers and facilitate a likely yowie encounter. Any evidence to support such an encounter would be a bonus. (Here's the bonus: Bruising and plaster footprint casts are physical evidence, and testimonies on viewing white eyeshine and Dean being traumatized, is direct evidence.) Sure, some of the group were intent on bringing home the bacon with never before seen proof with state of the art technology, others, including myself, have long since accepted the fact such proof is extremely elusive. Besides, the more ‘proof’ you put on the table, the more ‘proof’ there is to be scrutinized.

6) Alcohol and poor planning allowing a golden opportunity to slip by? - Golden opportunity to do what, exactly? Are you suggesting Dean should have been carrying a flashy camera about his neck, and had the good composure to turn it on and take some pictures of his attacker during the attack? Certainly some pictures of the white eye shine would have strengthened the case immensely, but at the time, there were other priorities. The catch is, if two or three members had ventured up into the area Dean had, even without a drop of alcohol being consumed, statistically, the chance of an encounter is greatly diminished due to human numbers. If the same trek had been made by just one member in broad daylight with high visibility, again statistically, the chance of encounter is greatly diminished.

As sensational as the claims are: the simple truth is these encounters tend to happen when people least expect them -to seasoned yowie researchers and novices alike. After much deliberation, this story was submitted on this site as it's in the interest of this site for the story to be told as it was with no embellishments. This story lacks the required supporting evidence to catch the serious interest of the media in any form.

...as a Moderator within these forums I do not wish to get into a slanging match with an Admin in an open forum... but I find it extremeley difficult to just sit by and say nothing whatsoever regarding the banishment of both "Marius" and "Opus" from these forums just because of their line of questioning being considered to be a tad bit uncomfortable for certain members within the forums...

...as far as I'm concerned... banishing people from this website and these discussions is a form of censorship that just goes towards validating the questions that the skeptics have posted... to say that I am bitterly disappointed in this action is an understatement!... I have read and re-read all of Marius's and Opus's posts from beginning to end a few times and to be quite honest cannot see where they have overstepped the line enough to incur the penalty of a total ban from these forums!...

...sure Marius posted a cartoon of the pot calling the kettle black (with an offensive swear word included in the text) in the original... "Dean V Yowie thread" ...but Joe gave him a caution about that when he said...

joe wrote:

Regarding people being banned from sites - post any more offensive language Marius, and you will be from this one.

...Marius responded with and acknowledged his indescretion with this response...

Sure. Though a polite request would have been nicer than a threat. Would have got the same result.
Is harsh language a worst offense than the patronizing, personal attacks (not against me) that other members seem to employ with impunity?

...that should have been the end of it... the matter was dealt with... but to ban him (over 7days later) for that and "trolling" ???... (which I have yet to come to grips with as being associated with causing untold upheaval and disruption of a website)... I honestly cannot see why he should've been banned for that???... I have seen nothing but politeness from both Marius and Opus throughout the time that they have posted!... sure Marius may have said a couple of innuendo's regarding the event...

If you inhale deep enough, you can just catch the faint scent of rodent.

Perhaps Dean is tied up by the legal people at A Current Affair, or Today Tonight.

...but he was pulled into check for that too by somebody under the name of... "Sad" (hmmm...I wonder who that is?)... and Marius replied with...

Example 1) well perhaps a tad snippy. I will have to watch myself in future.
Example 2) Perhaps my suggestion i is correct. It is a long bow to call this patronizing or personal attack. perhaps your sensibilities are more refined than mine. That wasnt personal attack either. It was a guess based on your astute observations.
If he has sold his story, he may well be under contractual obligation to maintain media silence till the story breaks. Perhaps this is a reasonable assumption? I havent heard anything that absolutly refutes it.
Thankyou for your input, however. I will consider it in the future.

...again... he acknowledged his indescretions and took them on board... in passionate debates regarding amazing topics such as Dean's encounter for instance... people are going to write things that with hindsight maybe shouldn't have been written but that is what conflicting views of controversial subjects invokes at times!...

...Stainmaster posted this to Marius acknowledeging his response...

thanks marius for understanding and taking it on the chin thats what being an adult is all about. Cant wait for the sound file

...I haven't read anywhere either where at any stage within his posts that Opus has sworn at all... let alone intentionally degrade anyone to warrant a ban!... as far as I can see... he has been equally as polite as anybody else within the forums while debating this subject matter... again... him being accused of "trolling" too has me shaking my head and wondering where we are heading as a forum area in regards to censorship...

...I'm pretty sure that a lot of people do not realise that "Marius" is in fact... "James Randi" ... a well known and yet very controversial skeptic that has gone onto TV shows and websites all around the world and has voiced his opinion on many occasions before on many ... many subjects before and will no doubt continue to do so... AYR being no exception!... this is his website below... does the face look familiar???...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/abo ... randi.html

...myself... I feel that having the opinion of somebody that has been around the traps for such a long period of time would do nothing but benefit any website!!!...

...I even remember when James Randi was literally thrown off of the "Don Lane Show" by Don Lane himself for questioning a woman by the name of "Doris Stokes" on her ability of being able to talk to the dead relatives of audience members by simply asking polite and yet simple questions on how she does it... when she was unable to give any inkling on how and felt uncomfortable about it... Don Lane stepped in and promptly to James Randi to... "P off" !!!... just because the questions were continued being asked and seeking an answer... and all these years later... it seems like history repeating itself to me...

...sure... "skeptics" annoy the hell out of people... but they are a vitally needed part of any forum whatsoever to keep them fresh and alive... having an entire website of "believers" only leads to a suffocated enviroment where nobody dares to question what a lot of people are thinking in the back of their minds... but are not game enough to say... skeptics are the people that ARE game to say what people are secretly thinking at times... that's why they are needed otherwise we may as well become a cult and blindly obey peoples statements as the final word and dare not question them!...

...Dean himself didn't seem to have any problem at all with either Marius or Opus when he came on and posted this...

Please everyone be polite and reasonable. Absolutely no reason to become heated.

Joe is doing the first report - Mikka second, and then I will do a large one with pictures. Joe has a great print of it, the one that got me.

If we wanted to make money out of this or have personal gain, we would have ran to the media for publicity. We're no longer in that mind space and have no need for it. Purely want to tell the facts and inform on this site now. That’s all.

My current and past crew members over more than a decade are more than happy to step up to the plate to vouch our integrity.

Truth will be told........ Soon.......

...if Dean or any of the others involved in the incident had a problem with what was being said by Marius and Opus... none have posted angry responses...(as a matter of fact... Seeker... we haven't heard tickety-boo from you yet mate...you are strangely quiet up until now... are you on holidays or something mate...I'd like to hear what you have to say on this matter my friend???) ... it seems to me that Dean... being the head of reason.. has seen it for what it is... people asking uncomfortable probing questions and that's it!!!!!... no paranoia... no hysterics... no "they're-out-to-get-me" type of behaviour pattern setting in there eh???... maybe others should take a leaf out of Dean's book and use their "head of reason" and re-instate both Marius and Opus now that the anger has subsided and many have now cooled off???... doing that would lift the profile of these forums to an even higher state than it has ever managed to achieve before???...

...when this was posted in one of the more heated moments within these forums...

If some forum moderators dont have a problem with sceptics/constrained philosophers asking ad nauseum the same variation of questions..over and over...and over..and over ..or dont know how sceptics "work"...or dont realise the sceptics have zero interest in "balanced" little chats...or if some mods are "always too busy" to spend any time answering the sceptics games..sorry.."legitimate" questions..then thats not my problem either..

...from my own personal point of view I find that statement to be more insulting than anything that has been written so far!... I will not answer that within this post as I think that it is inappropriate... I will post my response to that within the "Adminstration and VIP Area" section not open to public viewing... that's where it should be discussed I believe... (if I am not posting anymore within the near future... that is not of my own doing I can assure you)...

...I am certainly not the only person that is making a statement regarding Marius and Opus's ban... a few regular well established posters are of the same opinion... I beleive that somebody needs to review what has happened with this and perhaps lift the ban and give these two people a second chance to put worthwhile lines of questioning back into the forums... if they misbehave... nothing short of a permanent life ban would suffice... as I said... Dean and the others involved have had no problem with them... so what is the problem???... cheers... Stickyfingers.

Muppets wrote: No, its something you don't agree with.

No, he's a troll. Only a troll would visit a site such as this and start a threat titled "yowie vs high powered ordnance" lol

Muppets wrote: Perhaps if you want to exclude critical analysis

I encourage it.

Muppets wrote: like it or not, this is a public forum

Yes it is, and i do like it. But it is not an anarchy and freedom of speech does not exist. The reason we have mods is to ummm... moderate. If people don't like to follow rules they do not have to come here...

Muppets wrote:whom ever makes those sort of decisions should make it an invite only affair.

I hope not... mine would likey be lost in the mail...

Thanks for your input,
Anonimust.

I'd like to add my voice to those who think banning some members may not be a good thing (despite the heated arguments that have resulted). I don't mind people having differences of opinion, and it's inevitable that people who are passionate about what they believe will speak up passionately when they feel their beliefs are being challenged, skeptics or believers.

I know I personally responded to several posts in this and the original Dean vs Yowie thread, lending my support to Dean and the team for speaking out, counselling patience etc, and I was surprised when Muppets advised us that Marius had been banned from posting. Although I perceived that the thread had changed tack from being a great opportunity to discuss the event to being one where the team who were actually out there were questioned quite a lot, and in some cases, the comments I read seemed to belittle and to me seemed like a goad to respond (e.g. 'the whole story is just a beat up to bring people to the forums', 'Dean isn't saying anything - has he made a media deal' etc). That was my perception, anyway.

However, I also mentioned that there were some good points made by Marius et al, and to be honest, some of their questions made me think more deeply about the situation.

I will admit, I did find some posts were starting to sound like a stuck record, but then I'm sure others could feel the same way about mine.

For what it's worth, the self-confessed 'skeptics' may have inflamed debate, and derailed the original intent of this thread, but can we afford to ban them? Joe and Mike have explained why it happened, and there may have been more here than some of us are aware of. I just don't want AYR to be seen as a totalitarian forum - but where do you draw the line? is the question.

I'm not bagging the Admins or Moderators by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd hate us to have made a mistake, and excluded some people who think differently from the majority of us on that basis. I have no intention of attempting to undermine the authority of the Admins/Mods, and it may seem I'm just jumping on the bandwagon, but maybe a time-out could be instated, rather than a total ban?

Besides, I'd offered to buy Marius a beer for his excellent poetry in the original Dean vs Yowie thread.

Please consider?

Kind regards,
Shazz

Okie dokies.... where do I start???
I really enjoy the active subjects that have debate written all over them.
I was getting as involved in this topic as Sherlock Holmes would a murder mystery.
Who said what? What did they see? Where did they go? ...You know ..... that kind of feeling.
I keep running through my head what would have or could have happened on that night. It seems to me that something did happen and that there were witnesses to certain parts of the story that match up with everyone elses reports of what happened.
From what I gather, there was definitely a group of people in the bush..... Dean was away from the campsite (basecamp sounds cooler) when something unusual happened and that there were witnesses to an apparent white eyeshine that was near to where the incident occured. Just about everything else I cannot confirm from where I am sitting.

Now, when I first read the 'Dean vs Yowie' thread, I instantly thought it was just an exciting anecdote to 'fire' everyone up about the year to come and all it entails.

Some of you would have received pics from my phone of the injuries.

I was attacked and thrown threw the air 12ft, and according to Joe, my Maglite was yet another 12ft behind where I landed. There was a fight to try and keep this thing off me, however, the crew got to me just in time. Thanks for that guys...

This didn't seem to phase me at all...... I didn't think anything of it until a couple of days later when I saw everybody elses replies to it. I kinda thought it was just a joke or something.
There wasn't a whole lot of info to go off until Joe put up his report. That helped me in my own visualisations of what possibly occurred that night. Mikka later put up his accounts of what he recalled happened in the ' Dean/Yowie confrontation 02/01/09' thread. I hope that in time Dean will put up a full report to the best of his memory, as I know that in traumatic experiences, not everything comes back to you straight away. Sometimes not at all.

Now, about the bannings that took place..... I believe that it was a bit rough for Marius and Opus to have been banned. I would have thought that the picture of the shirt with the 'F' word on it was dealt with already??? ....... but to be given the boot for asking questions which I would like to know as well was a bit harsh. I know that they repeated a couple of questions, but they are also important questions that I'm sure everybody would like to hear.
Personally, I would like to know if there was any definate descriptions of whatever bowled over Dean. I am aware that only Dean can answer that question and I'm sure he will when he gets time as he has stated.
I myself have enough patience to wait until that time comes without needing to ask the same question that has already been asked by either myself or anybody else on these forums. The skeptics don't seem to have that ability it seems...... but is that really a good enough reason to get rid of them??? I am not even sure of what Opus did yet?....... unless he has done something that I am not aware of???
I hope that all of this will be reviewed and resolved in the correct manner in which it should have been dealt with in the first instance. I don't believe that anybody should have been banned for what I have read so far..... but that is just my opinion. Trev

Hi Sticky and all,

This is Seeker under another soon to be deleted or unable to log in guise......

I for one support your view 100%.

If we are not here to question, then what are we here for????

I know I have been silent but that was caused by my own inablitity to post and also my unwillingness to post at this time.

I hope I have the opportunity to post my view of the incident in the future with sound files to support my views.

If not, then lets just believe the views put forward so far and let it go at that.

It is good to have faith, but when that faith is derived from the belief in others then it just becomes belief and not knowing. When one knows, then that faith is the cause for action that is justified, not action that is only justified by belief....When belief becomes knowing.... it becomes actions, not words.

All the best to all.

Gday Seeker, I agree with you here when you said.....

It is good to have faith, but when that faith is derived from the belief in others then it just becomes belief and not knowing. When one knows, then that faith is the cause for action that is justified, not action that is only justified by belief....When belief becomes knowing.... it becomes actions, not words.

..... that is quite right.

I personally am a 'need to see it, to believe it' kind of person. There are some things in this world that I would like to see... and some things that I need to see with my own eyes.

I also agree with you on this point.....

If we are not here to question, then what are we here for????

That is the only reason I am here!!! ....... well except for the 'Avatars' thread and a few of the other off topic sections. You have to come back for those!
Trev

...since I posted my thread earlier... I have had some PM's from some rather good friends within the forums discussing this part of my post...

...I'm pretty sure that a lot of people do not realise that "Marius" is in fact... "James Randi" ... a well known and yet very controversial skeptic that has gone onto TV shows and websites all around the world and has voiced his opinion on many occasions before on many ... many subjects before and will no doubt continue to do so... AYR being no exception!... this is his website below... does the face look familiar???...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/abo ... randi.html

...myself... I feel that having the opinion of somebody that has been around the traps for such a long period of time would do nothing but benefit any website!!!...

...after their advice and guidance upon that part of my statement and after putting some thought into it I have decided to change the wording... but instead of editing my post so it looks like it was never written as it is... I've decided to add this footnote instead...

...I have written that based on who I believe it could be... I won't bother going into the reasons that leads me to think that...they are my own business... but I've decided to change the wording to what I should have perhaps written as...

..."I have reasons to believe that "Marius" could possibly be in fact "James Randi" ... a well known... etc etc etc...

...as I have read on many occasions... hindsight is a wonderful thing!... and thanks for the PM's and your concerns my friends... cheers... Stickyfingers.

As someone who describes myself as a fully blown skeptic, I must say that the voices of support are appreciated. Good to see sensible, adult sentiments.

Some one mentioned the Yowie vs high powered ordnance thread.
Questionable taste? Yes
Tongue in cheek? Yes, I suspect. But highlights certain issues.

has anyone bagged one of the beasts?

He is asking has this ever happened.
This topic seems to be there to provoke reaction, sure, but its subject matter is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Trolling? No.

..well... it just gets better ...it appears that my initial statement and later footnote correction regarding my belief in the Marius and James Randi connection is in fact ...wrong... a good friend of mine in a PM has pointed something out to me... this is what was said...

Quote:
Randi is a US based skeptic not from Australia do an IP lookup of Marius and you can clearly see he is posting from Aus.

...my response was...

Quote:
...that pretty much makes me think that you are right... even though I still "feel" that I'm on the right track... but hey!... sometimes old farts can be wrong eh???... but still...as I have mentioned elsewhere within the forums... wouldn't it have been good if it WAS him and we took him on a Yowie hunt and he actually SAW one... it would soon turn his world upside down eh???...

...I am intrigued though... how do you do an IP check on somebody???... you have me fascinated!!!...

...well they say that we're never too old to learn eh??...

...well... there you have it... I was wrong to state the connection between them... but hey!!!... the rest of my original post is the main point... the James Randi part was the "added extra bonus plan" that you normally get for free... so sorry... you'll have to make do with the basic plan I'm afraid!!!... and my god!!!... I've just noticed something else even more dramatic!!!!... in my original post... for the first time ever... I didn't even use a single SMILIE!!!!!! ...oh dear... how embarassing!!!!... oh well... as I said before... you live and learn eh???... cheers... Stickyfingers.

Shazzoir wrote:
Although I perceived that the thread had changed tack from being a great opportunity to discuss the event to being one where the team who were actually out there were questioned quite a lot

Hi Shazz.

Not surprising this happened.

Apart from Joe's detailed account and a few token responses by the team there was very little input to this thread by the (7?) members who were there that night.

It's to be expected that the topic might get hijacked by some nasty trolls when the group that initiated the thread have been relatively quiet about the ongoing discussion of the event.

Hi all! WOW! WOW! WOW! This thread has really stirred the pot hasn`t it! ha ha ha.

I haven`t commented on the forum for a while now (since discussing my own encounter at Tapin Tops) due to various commitments and once again I had problems logging in! I`ve had to re-register AGAIN (last time I was SAB #1)! Anyways, I`ve noticed a bit of negativity (maybe thats the wrong word - how about constructive criticism) directed at AYR and Dean over this encounter. I would like to go the other way - I would just like to give those involved in this encounter and other AYR expeditions a huge thumbs up. I believe that the commitment and dedication of AYR associated researchers (and independent researchers) has dramatically improved our understanding of this creature/being and the whole phenomenon in general. Through their work and other avenues (such as this forum) they pave the way for other researchers by sharing their experiences, theories and conclusions. All in all, hopefully, this collective participation in a subject we are all clearly passionate about will lead to us finding the truth in whatever form that takes. I hope alll involved in this encounter maintain their enthusiasm, regardless of negative views and/or critical opinion (deserved or not)!

I, like many others, am slightly concerned with the banning of people willy nilly (eg. skeptics) from the forum. It implies a fit in or go away mentality. Maybe a better approach would be to divide this encounter into a couple of threads. Eg. One where the skeptics can go and vent their concerns and another revolving around the dynamics of the encounter and theories etc. Dunno? just an idea. Banning seems a little harsh - and although I largely get annoyed with skeptics in general (I have come to this view as I`ve found most skeptics do little to no genuine research in the area eg. going out into the field, witness interviews, historical research, etc, etc, plus they are usually so incredibly inflexible in their point of view!!!) - they do, however, occasionally bring up a worthy question or opinion - or an alternate way of viewing the subject!

Dean was alone when this incident took place; no other members of the team were witness to what happened. Does Dean make a habit of wondering off into the bush alone during these expeditions? You mention that Dean wondered off by himself into the bush several times during the course of the evening. Unless he was just going to relieve himself after having a few beverages then I would think that this is strange behavior for somebody who is a seasoned researcher. The reason that I say this is because the obvious result is precisely what happened, an encounter with no independent witnesses to verify it. What was he thinking? The safety issues alone concerning this sort of thing bring discredit to Dean.

I propose that there are several reasons why Dean and other researchers go into the field themselves - I have done the same thing myself - although I will admit that it can be a very, very, hair raising experience and definitely not for the faint hearted. I do however go out with a positive (almost spiritual) mindset as I believe that some of the creatures involved may be able to pick up on intent (emotion). At times thoough it can be incredibly hard not to let fear creep in when you are surrounded by darkness and the unknown.

Why go out alone? Several reasons - and it is not always by choice!

1) It can be hard to get genuinely interested and committed people involved. A couple of times now - I have asked on these forums if people are interested in going out - both times I got positive replies on the forum - but when it came down to people actually committing to planning a trip they would mysterious disappear. I have now been able to con my old man into coming on a few trips.
2) When people do come along - they may be just to scared, tired, indifferent etc. to go out.
3) In my opinion (and many others) - the less people that go out the more likely an encounter. I am of the opinion that the creatures are more confident (less intimidated - yes - they may fear us) when there are fewer numbers involved, or if an individual goes out alone - such as Dean did.

And finally - Yes - it can be very dangerous moving about at night. But with some common sense and preparation eg. thorough recon of the area in daylight - it is possible. It is not altogether an uncommon pursuit - eg. Take the Army for example, much of their activity is conducted at night (depending on the situation) in dense bushland and often without the aid of night vision. Eg. Setting up harbours, picket duty, patrolling when warranted, eating, cleaning, setting up hoochies etc etc - when in the field - activity is often conducted in 100% darkness to simulate what is to be expected in a wartime environment.

Anyways - keep up the good work AYR!

Thank you for your reply, Joe.

1. Dean Harrison: “I walked to a sacred area of a granite cascade which I was warned by Brett Green not to go, about 150m from Base Camp”.

Someone seemed to know approximately where the group would be. What was the warning about? Safety reasons? Such a warning would seem like a waving a red rag at a bull to a determined Yowie researcher. Cultural/spiritual reasons? If the site is regarded as sacred then it could well have been monitored by an angry but all-to- human caretaker.

2. It is possible that the water bottle landed in an upright position after the “scuffle” but is it likely? Same question for Dean’s torch. If they were placed in an upright position (possibly by the assailant) then is fingerprinting unreasonable? Fingerprints and a palm print from a Yowie could yield a tremendous amount of information about their physiology and manual dexterity.

3. I stand corrected on the plaster casts.

4. Surely a reasonable indicator of intoxication would be to actually disclose the amount of alcohol consumed over the given period of time.

5. Bruising, footprint casts, eye shine, and trauma are indications that something happened but do not given a clear indication of exactly what that something may have been. There should be nothing wrong with alleged proof being scrutinised.

6. Clear and direct photographic evidence would be a major breakthrough in the field of Yowie research and must surely be a high priority for AYR. An expensive camera would be nice but even relatively cheap flash cameras could do the job. Does AYR funding not extend to digicams? Video footage, rather than merely an audio recording, from members who came to Dean’s aide would certainly give a clearer indication of what was happening at the time and may have even yielded additional information.

It is perfectly understandable that when something traumatic happens rather suddenly in the pitch black and is over quickly that few or no details would be noted. It is commendable that the team discussed the incident and issues and decided to post what happened without embellishments… yet the initial titling of the original post “Dean Vs Yowie” followed by “Yowie 1 - Dean 0” was an embellishment of the facts. Something happened that night - I think those present at the event and those reading the posts can agree upon - but exactly what is by all accounts unknown. Sure, the title may have been intended as being tongue-in-cheek yet it clearly set expectations high while delivering very little.

It could even be construed that by using “Yowie” in the title that subsequent references to “it” or “this thing” evokes in the reader the impression that “it” was, indeed, a Yowie when that is clearly not established. The titling of this post, then, may have been an “oversight” to the factual reporting of events which followed and in effect may be responsible for much of the subsequent confusion and debate.

“This story lacks the required supporting evidence to catch the serious interest of the media in any form” - I must be more jaded and distrustful of the media’s role in our society because I believe this is precisely the kind of story current affairs and tabloid magazines clamber for - sensational with little attention to detail.

It is my point of view that Yowies do exist in the real flesh-and-blood type of manner. Due to their nature and habitat the acquisition of data is extremely difficult to obtain. Patience, diligence, preparedness and persistence are essential in field research and I offer my critique, not to ridicule or mock, but to educate about the shortcomings of this particular incident and, hopefully, improve the prospects of future AYR field trips.

Finally, belief in Yowies is outside the mainstream accepted view and to be a researcher is akin to being a fruit-loop. Therefore, it is vital that we ourselves are extremely thorough about how we collect and present evidence. Questioning the statements and evidence is part and parcel of that process:

FREE THE IDEOLOGICAL FORUM PRISONERS - MARIUS & OPUS!!!

Nightwalker, that post was a thing of beauty.

Now there's an Idea. The "Free Marius and Opus" thread.

Hate to point out the obvious again, but the very last thing the yowies need are clear photographic (or video) proof of their existence & their whereabouts.

Enjoyed the accounts, thanks AYR field squad.