Yowiehunters Forum

themanfromglad wrote:
In conclusion, it would appear that now is a good time to call in the men in white suits who can place Scarts in a tight fitting straight jacket, before he does real harm to either himself or others via his repeated tendancy to hallucinate.

You are on to it TFG.....
After our first little flirt here, I have more respect with you than Scarts....
Like Scarts just said "I not live in the bush, so what"....?
End of story Scarts sorry mate but................
Ha hahah maybe Scarts is smoking DMT now...

wellymon wrote:So Dion are you saying here that Scarts is an armchair PHD skeptic.....?

No not at all.

Scarts wrote:Dion, you and I collected a series of about seven footprint casts one morning in the presence of a particular researcher. You still have those footprint casts, right? Has your interpretation of those footprints changed over the years, at all?

I do question them, but I also question the fact that it was a rather hard to get to area for someone walking their rather large Cat, Big Cat in fact, out of the way so to speak. The only person who would want to climb down or over would be some dedicated explorer.

I have been back to the area since that day and found another print, but I could question that also.

Wellymon, teem up with Rusty or Manfromglad and others, and launch a petition to have me banned! In your petition, be sure to specify your reasons. Two of your reasons could be that I don't live in the bush, and in your experience, I'm smoking Dimethyltryptamine. You'd know, right? Manfromglad, your argument could be that I am continuously hallucinating (or dissociating if you take the time to read the first article again), need to be fitted with a strait jacket so I can't type, and that I've repeatedly avoided one of your questions. Rusty, I've created threads here which insult all indigenous peoples on our planet, right? Good luck, Champs!!!! While you're all at it, demand this forum have the entire Yowie Controversial and Fringe Matter Discussion Section immediately disbanded because someone dared to suggest something at the opposite end of the Kooky spectrum which doesn't fit a Rainbow Lollipop view held by the majority!

Thank-you to those here who appreciate what I'm doing, and who have provided constructive input. This is perhaps an uncomfortable and confronting perspective on the subject, but one I think is worth exploring for it's worth and failings.

Dion, I raised that experience we had, as those footprint casts are compelling evidence of a physical being getting around. I was wondering if your views on it have remained the same or have shifted in the past six years?

HHmmmm........I dont think anyone should be banned either for raising a controversial subject in the Controversial section of the forum, as Scarts points out it is after all what the section is here for, as long as people remain in a polite manner and can discuss like mature people I dont see the problem and that includes your last post Scarts.

Scarts wrote:Dion, I raised that experience we had, as those footprint casts are compelling evidence of a physical being getting around. I was wondering if your views on it have remained the same or have shifted in the past six years?

As previously stated I question them, I probably didnt make myself clear on that, so I will rephrase, I question more than I did when we first cast them, so yes in a way my views have changed.

Having said that I also question the researcher that took us both to that particular spot. Much like J&J Yowies are everywhere for this person and I have different views in regards to this.

Wrong answer Scarts, I would never go down the road of trying to ban you...?
Why????, obviously you have negative mind thoughts toward that trauma..
Hey don't get me wrong here champ I enjoy reading your posts:) You do have a point, in some kind of way,,,, But..........
The difference here is that for the last 11 years living on my land deep in the QLD bush, with no obstructions as the crow flies toward Springbrook (5kms away) and on the same ridge that goes all the way.... I hear them in the wee hours, not all the time but for spasmodic weeks of the year at different times...
I have viewed various markings not far from my house where I believe they sit and watch me and my wife at night sitting on our deck...
I will put a thread up soon and you can debate the photos....
Cheers Scarts
Welly

Scarts , just come out and say it .

You have your new theory which your entitled to , so , if your new theory is correct (which you believe it is) then ALL Australian researchers are liers , hoaxers and frauds , this is what your saying right ?

Rusty2 wrote:Scarts , just come out and say it .

You have your new theory which your entitled to , so , if your new theory is correct (which you believe it is) then ALL Australian researchers are liers , hoaxers and frauds , this is what your saying right ?

This will be interesting....?

No, Wellymon, the thought of being banned is not an issue for me at all. I acknowledge no two persons approach this subject from exactly the same angle, and like you say, some of us live in the bush and have experiences and others don't live in the bush but have also had experiences, while others simply research the reports of others.

Regardless of my presence here, this site still cannot decide if it is a flesh and blood animal with extraordinary senses, a paranormal entity which can become solid flesh and blood, or something else.

As irritable as I'm sure I can be, I have introduced these threads to remind everybody of mainstream academic thoughts on the subject and for people to consider their worth. We can all become prey to group thinking at times.

No matter what the yowie really is, what we can all agree upon, is with people involved, there is going to be a psychological affect upon the person. However, the question is whether the psychology of a person before an experience is relevant, does it inform the experience and the interpretation, or does the experience itself then have a greater psychological affect upon the person? This is interesting.

Rusty, I am fence sitting here. I don't have any new theory. I could go out in the bush tomorrow and have an experience that totally blows this all out of the water. These are other people's theories from their own research. I strenuously refute the idea that all Australian researchers are frauds, liars, and hoaxers. I have always maintained that stance. I have been a researcher myself, and while I have never hoaxed anything, am not ruling out I didn't misinterpret a few things along the way.

Dion touched on the idea of people becoming frustrated and seeing things that aren't really there and a few resorting to hoaxing attempts. It happens in the States and happens here. While relevant, it is secondary to what this thread is about. While the other thread deals with inherent psychological forces that may drive people in participating in this research, this thread deals with psychological forces that may or may not shape an actual experience and the interpretation of that experience.

Dion, take out those footprints and have a look at them. Regarding your reply, you mention you have since reconsidered that actual researcher as a person. That's what I'm getting to here. That researcher showed us where to go, fully expected footprints, knew they would be there, and we weren't disappointed. Either a hominid made those prints the night before, or didn't. If one didn't, and a person made them - either an unwittingly big footed person who likes to get around bare-footed, or manufactured deliberately by someone. Those are the three options. Like you say, now that you know a bit more about the psychology of that researcher, there are questions raised...

Sorry Scarts, analysing multiple tracks from a trackway, has nothing to do with psychology. If every track cast is exactly the same as the others of the same left or right side, then it came from a hoaxed rigid cast.

On the other hand in comparing trackway casts of the same foot, if there is differences of toe splay, if the length and width are outside of human range, if there are dermal ridges showing of a different pattern than from a human foot, if toes are imprinting different relative to each other, if there is no arch and the toes do not look like they spent a lifetime in a shoe, then the probability of the trackway being a genuine Yowie, are quite high. It has nothing to do with psychology, imo.

Manfromglad, I am no novice when it comes to casting footprints in plaster, or using plaster for that matter to make moulds. I have replca casts of the Patterson footprint and another from the States, cast in buffstone. I have even successfully cast footprints in beautiful mud, in a stream with water flowing over the top. The difficulty with footprints, is unless they are made in fine textured mud, an enormous amount of information will be missing. Additionally, unless you cast them soon after they are made, environmental factors can alter the print. The footprints I am referring to, were not made in perfect mud.

This begs the question. If the physical evidence is what reinforces and propels the mystery, why does this site not have a specific footprint section in the forum and a separate specific photo and video section to the forum? This way we could more easily keep tabs on physical evidence as it's brought to the site's attention.

The psychology of the Researcher is highly relevant given the quality of the footprints. The psychology of Rick Dyer for instance (Who I have seen re-runs of an interview with Aussie interviewers about his killed bigfoot, over and over, on late night TV) is highly relevant (and also highly etertaining / embarassing).

Scarts wrote:The footprints I am referring to, were not made in perfect mud.

Fair enough, but even so, if they were felt to be worth casting then surely they are of sufficient quality to provide some of those morphological/diagnostic features that MfG listed - did they vary from print to print?

Forestgut said, "Fair enough, but even so, if they were felt to be worth casting then surely they are of sufficient quality to provide some of those morphological/diagnostic features that MfG listed - did they vary from print to print?"

Sure they varied! If there needs to be discussion about those prints, Dion actually took home a lot more than me (even though the travelling caused many of them to break), and would be in a better position to answer that question, Forestguy. Dion, I'm sure you glued those prints back together, are you able to post photos of them for Foretguy?

AS a sculptor, it really would not be too difficult to make a couple of silicone slippers shaped like big feet with dermal ridges and all, that would be good enough to fool most people. Peter Jackson had all his Hobbit actors wearing prosthetic rubber or silicone feet for his movies. Just putting it out there.

Scarts wrote:Dion, I'm sure you glued those prints back together, are you able to post photos of them for Foretguy?

Not going to post them up as I find them questionable.

Those footprints have a place in shaping your views, my views, and this entire forum's views. That is physical evidence we collected that day. The question is physical evidence of what? I'm sorry, but these footprints for example, get to the heart of what we are all doing here. You've since been appointed head moderator, if you now find those footprints we collected to be questionable, perhaps you have a duty to raise those questions? It's relevant because they're not the first footprints found in this research and they won't be the last. I trust you'd restrict your questions to the footprints and leave the researcher out of it.

There were psychological processes going on with you and myself just by being involved in that activity. That in itself would be worthy of exploration. The way in which physical tangible evidence can have a powerful psychological effect upon a person in the right circumstances.

Last time I checked, nobody gives a bush rats hind end about footprint casts collected by somebody else, in some distant forest. It has no impact on anything that I am aware of. Footprint casts are nothing but personal momentos and/or paper weights. They don't offer anything new to science because science is not particularly receptive to recognizing something that they can be fired for acknowledging that the subject that made those casts, exists.

Scarts wrote: It's relevant because they're not the first footprints found in this research and they won't be the last. I trust you'd restrict your questions to the footprints and leave the researcher out of it.

I don't agree, if Dion now finds the material 'questionable' then I don't think he's under any compulsion to release it. I'd only reconsider that if the material was released separately and was being examined under less than comprehensive circumstances (no history/background etc).

Further, it sounds like the researcher is key to the research in this case - I'm not sure arbitrarily dividing the 2 would answer any concerns satisfactorily...

Forestguy states, "Further, it sounds like the researcher is key to the research in this case - I'm not sure arbitrarily dividing the 2 would answer any concerns satisfactorily..."

I'm just wondering when a researcher isn't key to their research findings? Surely the footprint casts can be compared to other footprint casts, and measured and weighed on their own merit?

Are you suggesting then, Forestguy, the psychology of a researcher is relevant in evaluating any evidence obtained?

Pareidolia.

zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This thread is never ending

Keep slogging away fellas but I can't see an end, or a point, in sight.

No Scarts, you peanut.

You asked Dion to restrict himself to questions of the prints, not the researcher. In this particular instance Dion had already said that he had questions relating to the researcher.

You are the one, as Rusty has noted, has a new theory that we're all nutjobs, liars, and mentally ill.

I think that evidence should be able to be assessed on its own strengths - however, if it needs to be assessed through the filter of the individual researcher's "psychology" then its utility is limited.

Coming from you Forestguy, peanut is a compliment and also a popular food among the monkey population which is highly appropriate here! Yowies love peanuts, haven't you heard?

My argument is physical evidence shouldn't be assessed through the filter of an individual researcher's psychology. Yet, Dion in this case thinks it should for the very reasons examined in this thread.

"You are the one, as Rusty has noted, has a new theory that we're all nutjobs, liars, and mentally ill."

Rusty2 didn't note anything - he asked a question which was answered. Besides, that's not a new theory.

Time to wake up, Manfromglad, my next post is going to take your early morning breath away!

Scarts wrote:My argument is physical evidence shouldn't be assessed through the filter of an individual researcher's psychology. Yet, Dion in this case thinks it should for the very reasons examined in this thread.

I question the researcher as well as the prints nothing more, are you taking a stab at me or the researcher who took us both there?

While your at it why not state your own encounters with something unknown like hearing footsteps approach which dissapear into thing air or seeing a black blob which looked like a person only to dissapear into thin air?

Is this dissociation or hallucination?

Scarts has brought up an interesting viewpoint but I personally think (not believe) that it's incorrect. Funny though how Scarts is getting hammered on here, poor fella/lady.

The reason I personally don't buy into Scarts psychological reasons behind the yowie/bigfoot dilemma are:

1. Bill O'Chee
2. Neil Frost

We're not talking about shadow people out of the corner of our eye.

Very credible people, lots of them, are observing an animal that has (mostly) recurring behavioral/physical features.

I never wanted to reveal this but I will in the interest of illustrating the factors that enable me to keep entertaining the idea of yowies in the face of very little evidence.

I visited a researcher and decided to look around their territory (they knew I was there) and found something I could not explain. Just like they had described, they had run out 50 odd metres of cotton thread in an attempt to determine where the yowies were crossing from one valley to the other.

I always think back to that thread-line whenever I feel like it's all in our imaginations.

I find it amusing I am running a "what if?" thread on what if all bigfoot, sasquatch, and yowie encounters could be explained away with psychology, and one of two factors that says it can't, being physical evidence, and at least one contributor to this thread refuses to offer up physical evidence that could destroy this what if scenario for perceived psychology reasons. Am I the only one who finds that ironic? (The other feature of course is multiple witnesses.)

Since physical evidence is the greatest opponent to this "what if" exploration, what IS the best physical evidence Researchers on this site have collected for the physical existence of the yowie? Or do we have to look overseas to the US for our inspiration?

"While your at it why not state your own encounters with something unknown like hearing footsteps approach which dissapear into thing air or seeing a black blob which looked like a person only to dissapear into thin air?

Is this dissociation or hallucination?"

Dion, it's dissociation according to the theory. Yes, I did hear and see those things as you say. Everything I have experienced could be experience of an objective, external entity or force, or it could be as this theory dictates, dissociation. If it is an objective external creature which reflects it's colours and shapes for my eyes to see, and interacts with the environment by way of casting shadows and making blades of grass bend when walking on them, then why haven't I or anybody else been able to definitively photograph one? Is this not a pertinent question? If these things people are seeing cannot be properly photographed with an absence of misidentification or paredolia in the final analysis, then what does that mean for the future of this research?

FM80, the research findings at the beginning of this thread, indicate the dissociation of the Witness in the said theory involved is at a sub-clinical level, meaning High School Teachers, Scientists, Doctors, and Police Officers are as susceptible as the labourer, cleaner, busker or hitchhiker. It suggests the most credible people in our society could dissociate and see a yowie. The broken thread line could support a physical yowie scenario, or it could mean the thread broke for a different reason. I've experienced the broken thread scenario first-hand myself.

Of all the weird and whacky phenomena I could have invested time in, I chose this one because it seemed to offer the most promising physical evidence, and all I wanted was a lousy photo. Ghosts don't make footprints in mud and neither do little grey men from outer space on the rainiest of nights. Bigfoot and yowies seemed to. Besides, Archaeology tells us, Homo Sapiens lived among Homo Erectus and Neanderthals at the same time thousands of years ago, with possibly Australopithecines and Afarensis not far behind. This raises the possibility that perhaps we still do share the planet with one of them. The lack of physical evidence though, suggests we don't. So the question remains, why do people continue to report experiences with such creatures with the occassional piece of physical evidence offered up as validation of the encounter?

Hmmm, I never really finished this line of enquiry, did I? According to the controversial article that kicked off this thread, sub-clinical levels of dissociation is the key ingredient in someone seeing bigfoot or yowies.

So, what is dissociation?

Better Health Chanel states: Dissociation is a mental process where a person disconnects from their thoughts, feelings, memories or sense of identity. Dissociative disorders include dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue, depersonalisation disorder and dissociative identity disorder.

People who experience a traumatic event will often have some degree of dissociation during the event itself or in the following hours, days or weeks. For example, the event seems ‘unreal’ or the person feels detached from what’s going on around them as if watching the events on television. In most cases, the dissociation resolves without the need for treatment.

Some people, however, develop a dissociative disorder that requires treatment. Dissociative disorders are controversial and complex problems that need specific diagnosis, treatment and support. If you are concerned that you or a loved one may have a dissociative disorder, it is important to seek professional help.

Your sense of reality and who you are depend on your feelings, thoughts, sensations, perceptions and memories. If these become ‘disconnected’ from each other, or don’t register in your conscious mind, your sense of identity, your memories, and the way you see yourself and the world around you will change. This is what happens when you dissociate. It’s as if your mind is not in your body; as if you are looking at yourself from a distance; like looking at a stranger. Everyone has periods when we feel disconnected. Sometimes this happens naturally and unconsciously. For example, we often drive a familiar route, and arrive with no memory of the journey or of what we were thinking about. Some people even train themselves to use dissociation (i.e. to disconnect) to calm themselves, or for cultural or spiritual reasons. Sometimes we dissociate as a defence mechanism to help us deal with and survive traumatic experiences.

Dissociation can also be a side effect of some drugs, medication and alcohol.

Smoking is still a popular pass time among yowie witnesses and non-witnesses alike. Smoking - On Jul, 25, 2014: 5,654 people reported to have side effects when taking Nicotine. Among them, 18 people (0.32%) have Dissociation. They amount to 0.21% of all the 8,710 people who have Dissociation on eHealthMe. Interestingly, the study found only females reported dissociation as a side effect, and mild at that.

Dissociation is a common defense/reaction to stressful or traumatic situations.

Is it possible, Yowie report interviewers need to be asking extra quetions of the witnesses?

All very good points Scarts and a well written summary, However I dont think we should presume that those that have had a Yowie encounter somehow must have some form of Dissociation just for the sake of it.

Your below quote sums up Dissociation nicely, and I think everyone would suffer from some of these points made if not daily or hourly, even for the best of us.

Scarts wrote:Your sense of reality and who you are depend on your feelings, thoughts, sensations, perceptions and memories. If these become ‘disconnected’ from each other, or don’t register in your conscious mind, your sense of identity, your memories, and the way you see yourself and the world around you will change. This is what happens when you dissociate. It’s as if your mind is not in your body; as if you are looking at yourself from a distance; like looking at a stranger. Everyone has periods when we feel disconnected. Sometimes this happens naturally and unconsciously. For example, we often drive a familiar route, and arrive with no memory of the journey or of what we were thinking about. Some people even train themselves to use dissociation (i.e. to disconnect) to calm themselves, or for cultural or spiritual reasons. Sometimes we dissociate as a defence mechanism to help us deal with and survive traumatic experiences.

Dissociation can also be a side effect of some drugs, medication and alcohol.

Scarts wrote:Is it possible, Yowie report interviewers need to be asking extra quetions of the witnesses?

Maybe, but if they are in a state of Dissociation would it be right to question their mental state after such an experience, I know in some cases it may be right to do so but, coming here to a place like AYR or any other community where people can share their experience without ridicule is the basis of what this site and others provide.

To question them further.....would that not push anyone more into a state of Dissociation?

In the name of proper research, I think it dangerous to rule out a yowie witness hasn't had an episode of dissociation. Simple questions regarding the person's state of health, state of mind, pressing problems, or any traumas still impacting upon them, while personal, could provide invaluable insights. This is already evident in many of Paul Cropper's interviews where he always asks the interviewee if they experienced anything else unusual or strange.

For those who adhere to supernatural beings or extra sensory perception, the dissociation state of mind could be part of the key that enables a witness to perceive such a being.

While this is a place for witnesses to come without fear of ridicule and share their story, it is equally a place for inquisitive research minded people. While witnesses aren't always interested in research, researchers are always interested in becoming witnesses. Most witnesses remain anonymous anyway, which enables them to share their story without reprisals.