Yowiehunters Forum

The Yowie. Is it real, imagined, a ghost or an Alien. Lets examine these possibilities.
An alien.
Short answer; No.
Long answer; Assuming that this beast is an extraterrestrial, then how did it get here? Lets assume by some sort of spacecraft.
Did it come from any planet within our solar system?
Well, apparently it is able to live on our own planet with little difficulty. it walks like we do, and I see no reports of any form of pressure suit or breathing apparatus. That would suggest it evolved on a world very similar to ours in both mass and chemistry.
There are no other worlds like this one in this solar system. So, perhaps it came from beyond this solar system. The second closest star to the Earth is Proxima Centauri. (the first closest being the sun). This is 4.2 light years away.
Physics tells us through repeated, tried and tested methods, that superluminal (faster than light travel) would be so difficult as to be nigh on impossible. Assuming that they could, it would take at least 4.2 years to arrive. Again not impossible, but there would be many hurdles a technological civilization would need to leap. If Yowie.bigfoot is very like us in physiology and had a similar evolution on a similar planet, and had reached this vastly superior level technology, wouldn't it be likely that they might have invented pants before the spacecraft that brought them here? Wouldnt they want to communicate after all that investment and effort, and not just run back into the undergrowth?
Proxima Centari is just the closest possibility amidst the millions of stars in our local group, never mind the trillions of stars in billions of galaxies.

Yowies are ghosts;
Or some other supernatural entity.
Short answer; No.
Long answer; What does "supernatural" mean?
"Supernatural: beyond or above nature; that which is not from the observable, tangible or measurable universe, especially regarding divine things /beings /actions /realms. Related words are mystical and metaphysical. On the one hand, many think 'supernatural' simply means there's no known explanation for it -- yet. They use 'supernatural' the way some people speak of "the God of the Gaps", as a stopgap measure until somebody finds a reasonably-reasonable 'answer'. Others use 'supernatural' to describe just about anything that happens a little strangely. Those people are prone to superstition, syncretism, and lifestyle fictions, or need to have a handy place to fix the blame; send in the supernatural, so they don't have to admit they don't know."

Prove that there is such a thing as the "paranormal" before you suggest that it is such. So far, the valid evidence is zero.

If there was sufficient evidence of the existence of Yowies, like there is for mountain gorillas or hyraxes, there would be not need for a paranormal explanation. It would become like the mountain gorilla, normal.

The Yowie is real
This is the second most likely explanation of this phenomena.
Short answer; Possibly.
Long answer:
When the evidence is in, and it withstands the harsh light of the scientific method, ( like every other animal specie) and isn't found wanting, then yes, they exist. We will rewrite the relevant texts to include this new hominid.
The burden of proof is with the claimant. When you produce that proof, we will welcome you to the world of science.
Till then, the answer is Yowies are a possibility, but a very, very, remote one.

Are Yowies imaginary?
Short answer: Most probably.
Long answer: See long answer for Yowies are real


Wouldn't a more likely scenario be that Yowies etc are
1) Misidentification?
2) Fabrication?
3) Imagination?
4) A combination of two or more of the above?


All these factors exist and are clearly demonstratable.
Though I am ready to be corrected by new valid information, something a little more substantial than anecdote, lumps of plaster and blurry photos.

Hi All
I just had to make a comment on this one . The question of whether the yowie is flesh and blood, paranormal or alien?
We are probably alien, I say this because when they did the mapping of the human G-nome, they found that humans have 223 genes that have no evolutionary predecessors, that means that they are not from this planet. Ever stopped and had a good think about why it is that you can't run or jump as well as most common animals, why you need a weapon to defend your self, we have no sharp claws or teeth, we don't climb that well, we see a large part of the colour spectrum but we have very poor hearing and no sense of smell. Compared with your average pet we have very few natural attributes to help us survive in this world.
The point I am making is that there is a good chance we are not realy a natural part of this world, so what if the yowie or big foot is also some experiment . Their population seems to be growing, each year more and more reports come in. How often have these creatures been associated with UFO activity?

As many of you have already tossed your figurative hats into the ring, here's my thoughts.

Initially, I believed the Yowie and his other related overseas equals (Yeti, Sasquatch, Yeran etc) were purely physical creatures. After all, we have reports of visual sightings, physical evidence of their presence (hair, scat, footprints) and aural recordings of tree-banging, howls etc. I thought it was pretty cut and dried, and thought it would only be a matter of time before decent photographs and video would be obtained, given the massive popularity of easily carried mobile phones with suitable recording technology.

There are a number of reasons why I believe good clear photos/video recordings have not yet eventuated...
1. People who spend a lot of time in the bush do not always have an intrusive mobile phone switched on all the time. It's there as a backup if help is required, not as an electronic link to the outside world's happenings as they occur minute by minute (anyone with teenagers who just panic when they have no phone will understand this addiction to the diversions mobile phones have to offer modern teens).

2. Time lag of device startup. Having a camera on your person doesn't guarantee that it will be ready to use at any given time immediately. There is a time lag of several seconds in getting your digital camera switched on, or from standby mode. If you are using a manual camera (yes, there are still some of us that do have them), you still have to find the subject in the viewfinder, focus and shoot, then wind on for the next pic.

3. Human reaction of disbelief/fear. The mind seems to want to make sense of things our eyes see and our ears hear, among other senses. A lot of experiences with Yowies/Cryptids are unexpected, and often of only a few seconds duration, during which time, I am sure the witness/es are trying to 'comprehend' what it is they are seeing/hearing. By the time they have remembered they have a camera/phone, it could be too late - nothing to see/hear. This reaction of disbelief would probably be strengthened if the witness can hear something, but see nothing, as seems to be one outcome of Yowie contact events.

4. Yowies are not entirely physical. I have read more than a few reports of witnesses saying they could clearly hear something approaching or very near them, and when they looked up/shone their light, there was nothing there to see. This is the main thing that blows my theory of Yowies being flesh and blood right out of the water.

In short, I just don't KNOW, but perhaps these creatures have skills that we no longer posess, or which we never had in the first place. They might be shape shifters, they may have a means of reflecting light back at the viewer, so we cannot see them at all, maybe their appearance to many just shuts down the rational side of the brain, and the mind refuses to accept what the eyes are seeing. A human version of the "Peril Sensitive Sunglasses", perhaps to prevent us from losing our minds in terror? Maybe only certain Yowies have this ability - it could be an age-related/'wise old yowie' skill, something that is perfected over many years of contact with humans. Not all yowies can 'disappear', otherwise, we'd have never received a single sighting over the decades.

Whatever they are, they are the dominant species once we go into THEIR territory, and they know their strengths and our weaknesses. If they weren't able to project the feeling of dread, they may have been 'discovered' and wiped out years ago. Think of it as protective colouration to the nth degree. Mind power is not a new concept. I think it's time we consider the Yowies have it to a more pronounced degree that we do - after all, their life could depend on it.

Shazz

Another consideration. Yowies are ninjas. How often do you see them?

TWMcCallum wrote:Hi All
I just had to make a comment on this one . The question of whether the yowie is flesh and blood, paranormal or alien?
We are probably alien, I say this because when they did the mapping of the human G-nome, they found that humans have 223 genes that have no evolutionary predecessors, that means that they are not from this planet.

What might the source of this 'no evolutionary predecessors' be, and could you explain that if it is alien DNA, how did it get there? Did the aliens in question not evolve themselves? Is life on other planets not governed by evolution by natural selection? Were thy created by some godlike entity from the dust of the ground like certain organizations here on earth would have us believe?

Ever stopped and had a good think about why it is that you can't run or jump as well as most common animals, why you need a weapon to defend your self, we have no sharp claws or teeth, we don't climb that well, we see a large part of the colour spectrum but we have very poor hearing and no sense of smell. Compared with your average pet we have very few natural attributes to help us survive in this world.

That is like asking why a dolphin cannot turn the page of a newspaper to do the crossword.
Humans have intelligence, which is a product of evolution, as are the lions claws and the turtles shell. All three of these are adaptations that have allowed these organism to thrive. Organisms that do not evolve become extinct. That humanity exists today is no less remarkable than the existence of the tapeworm, the hagfish or the peregrine falcon. Why don't you suggest that these have alien DNA?

What then, is your opinion of the extinction of the Neanderthals, or what percentage of chimp DNA is alien?

The point I am making is that there is a good chance we are not realy a natural part of this world, so what if the yowie or big foot is also some experiment . Their population seems to be growing, each year more and more reports come in. How often have these creatures been associated with UFO activity?

There is no doubt that humanity IS part of the natural world. Even the most rabid creationist will tell you the same thing.
I refer you back to my second to last lengthy post on this subject

Only new to the board by a few days but I certainly feel qualified to add my two cents worth here. Despite being new to the board, I did grow up in Kempsey during the 'heyday' of yowie activity in that area as well as personally knowing one of the people who had an 'encounter' (Robert Winkler).

Anyway, before you ask whether F&B or Para, you must first be convinced that the yowie is in fact real. You will no doubt notice that I have taken the position of skeptic, which in my case equates to 'the jury is out!'

Despite being new to the board, I have lurked it over the years and I have read many other sources of information. To this day I have not seen, read or heard anything that positively confirms the existence of the yowie. That doesn't mean that I deny it's existence; it simply means that, in my opinion, there is too much supposition, inference and license taken with what amounts to lots (and I mean huge amounts) of circumstantial and ambiguous evidence.

I should also say that every time I dive into yowie reports, etc. I generally tend to scare the bejezus out of myself. The audio files on this site absolutely set my hackles on end because of the simple and matter-of-fact (normality) of the way these people describe their encounters.

That said, you may have read my earlier post of my 'corner of the eye experience'. It was enough, at the age of 16/17, for me to immediately think 'yowie' but in hindsight not enough to convince me. The mind can play powerful games with itself.

Anyway, to wind up a long post, I'll state my position on the original question posed:

IF yowies exist then they are definitely FLESH & BLOOD. I don't understand why people want to try and find connections between mysteries that are at best dubious or wishful. Also, to be respectful of indigenous Australians I say that people who fall on the 'paranormal' side are confusing 'spirituality' with 'paranormality'. IF yowies exist, I believe that the Aboriginal people have a spiritual, 'dreaming' if you like, connection with the yowie not a paranormal one.

Just because something is strange does not mean that it has to be related to something else that is strange.

I'll post another personal story shortly, no yowie connection, other than the fact that it was a camping trip with my school mate, who is Robert Winkler's eldest son. Gives a small insight into the Winkler's given that his Dad had a well reported encounter with 'something'.

Cheers

Marius wrote:

TWMcCallum wrote:...We are probably alien, I say this because when they did the mapping of the human G-nome, they found that humans have 223 genes that have no evolutionary predecessors, that means that they are not from this planet.

What might the source of this 'no evolutionary predecessors' be, and could you explain that if it is alien DNA, how did it get there? Did the aliens in question not evolve themselves? Is life on other planets not governed by evolution by natural selection? Were thy created by some godlike entity from the dust of the ground like certain organizations here on earth would have us believe?

There have been some rather well-known books written on this very topic, probably the best known being Erik von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" where he postulated that mankind was 'helped along' in its evolutionary process by alien races not of this earth. He goes on to show a number of cave drawings and such from different countries which he believed showed 'spacemen' and craft.

http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

He also used instances of what we might consider 'advanced technology' found in ancient times (e.g. the Baghdad Battery) as proof of this, along with interpretations of writings on the subject of aliens breeding with humans.

Not really my bag, but the info is out there - maybe that is what TWMcC was referring to.

Kind regards,
Shazz

Hi all im only new to this site also. I think the yowie could be multi dimensional they seem to apper and fanish just as quick. If it was straight flesh and blood i dont think even the great yowie would have the speed to fanish within a second ( Deans Encounter) It would explain a lot if this was the case.

Shazzoir wrote:

Marius wrote:

TWMcCallum wrote:...We are probably alien, I say this because when they did the mapping of the human G-nome, they found that humans have 223 genes that have no evolutionary predecessors, that means that they are not from this planet.

What might the source of this 'no evolutionary predecessors' be, and could you explain that if it is alien DNA, how did it get there? Did the aliens in question not evolve themselves? Is life on other planets not governed by evolution by natural selection? Were thy created by some godlike entity from the dust of the ground like certain organizations here on earth would have us believe?

There have been some rather well-known books written on this very topic, probably the best known being Erik von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" where he postulated that mankind was 'helped along' in its evolutionary process by alien races not of this earth. He goes on to show a number of cave drawings and such from different countries which he believed showed 'spacemen' and craft.

http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

He also used instances of what we might consider 'advanced technology' found in ancient times (e.g. the Baghdad Battery) as proof of this, along with interpretations of writings on the subject of aliens breeding with humans.

Not really my bag, but the info is out there - maybe that is what TWMcC was referring to.

Kind regards,
Shazz

If you look here;
http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human ... /home.html
or here;
http://www.genome.gov/
or here;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5507/1304
And they are just 3 sources of good information.
I very much doubt you will see reference to alien DNA, or Von Daniken.
Please allow me to clarify the general consensus, (not just the scientific, logically critical or skeptic) point of view on Erick Von D.

Von Daniken is about as far removed from genetics, in fact any science, as you can get. It has never been given any credibility by the scientific community (this includes archaeologists and historians), right from the day it was first published. Those that do give his frankly bizarre hypothisis any credence are simply outside the scientific arena by some miles.
His work is pseudoscience of the first order.
Almost in L. Ron Hubbard's league, except where L. Ron was an intentional fraud, Von D was likely unintentional, and genuinely believed he was on to something.
His hypothesis is well past it's sell by date, I'm afraid

I

Marius wrote:I very much doubt you will see reference to alien DNA, or Von Daniken.
Please allow me to clarify the general consensus, (not just the scientific, logically critical or skeptic) point of view on Erick Von D.

Von Daniken is about as far removed from genetics, in fact any science, as you can get. It has never been given any credibility by the scientific community (this includes archaeologists and historians), right from the day it was first published. Those that do give his frankly bizarre hypothisis any credence are simply outside the scientific arena by some miles.
His work is pseudoscience of the first order.
Almost in L. Ron Hubbard's league, except where L. Ron was an intentional fraud, Von D was likely unintentional, and genuinely believed he was on to something.
His hypothesis is well past it's sell by date, I'm afraid.

Well put Marius...

I'm afraid that Von Daniken has been well and truly shown to be the scam artist that he was. He was the leading light of the up-swelling UFO movement in the 70's. Very entertaining and slick but nonetheless completely un-scientific in his approach.

If you watch a lot of the 'mystery' documentaries you should always immediately discard any show that shows a piece of 'evidence', say a cave painting, and follows it with some commentary like "but what if this were actually an alien?" and then leaves the point hanging. Charles Berlitz was another master of the sham hypothesis with no answers, just questions. There was a general rush of 'mystery' books hitting the shelves after Von Daniken wrote his. The same thing happened more recently with Whitley Strieber and Communion. If you want a good chuckle then go to his website www.unknowncountry.com and see how low he has sunk from his original Communion fame. Communion was a very plausible read. Unfortunately each subsequent book became less and less plausible to the point where he now has the same level of credibility as a 'cult leader' like the Little Pebble.

I still don't understand why people want to attribute yowies with mystical or paranormal properties. Most tend to think that, IF they exist, they are a lost member of gigantopithecus or some similar branch of ape-men. I don't remember any of the other branches of the species having inter-dimensional capabilities and I can't figure them as operating UFO-like devices unless they were the 'Predators' pets that got loose.

Until a genuine specimen is examined first-hand, either dead or alive, it is nothing more than fanciful to grant these hairy blokes anything more than animal cunning within the bounds of known research.

Well that's my opinion anyway...

This is a little off topic in that it is an article from the UK, but fits in with the original question posed by Dean.

http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midla ... -22256955/

There are some similar thoughts here to what I've read in this thread.

Shazz

Okay, this is my two cents worth...

Before my encounter I never would of believed in such things. I heard a few stories about them but to me they where just that, stories... I don't expect anybody to believe in what I saw that night, because if the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't believe it either. I have been very reluctant in telling people about it over the years for the obvious reasons and I know another person that had the same sort of encounter as me and would never come forward for the same reasons.

I'm no expert on the subject but I know one thing for sure. The creature I encountered was physical and had a hell of alot of presence about it. It was the most fearful moment in my life. But in saying that I have no idear weather it was Paranormal or not, to me it was every bit real and at no stage did I think this creature was anything but....

Shazzoir wrote:This is a little off topic in that it is an article from the UK, but fits in with the original question posed by Dean.

http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midla ... -22256955/

There are some similar thoughts here to what I've read in this thread.

Shazz

A nice piece but ultimately does not offer anything concrete. In other words (and my opinion) just another yarn to fill up some print space.

As per my post on this thread, I still don't understand why people want to attribute or link an alleged creature with the paranormal or UFO activities (as in my post about the Kempsey UFO encounter). The wollemi pine was extinct for millenia until it mysteriously popped into existence in the Blue Mountains. I don't think it crossed over the inter-dimensional void to get here yet it stayed hidden for an extreeeeemely long time (and it was rooted to the ground and not trying to hide).

My opinion remains that IF the yowie exists, it is a real creature, just like the other apes, and possesses a good measure of raw animal cunning.

The only thing that doesn't gel in my mind is that none of the other ape species are particularly concerned about being discovered. Even the gorillas, though shy, have no problem in showing themselves. The yowie, if an ape descendant, seems to be the only one that is reluctant to be outed.

Of course, if the indigenous Australians are to be believed (read that I admire their culture and legends) then I guess the hairy blokes would have around 100,000 years of trying to avoid the newcomer black fellas and would instinctively hide from the even newer white fellas that continue to rip into their former habitat.

Hi All

Woops ! My opinions seem to have inflamed some people's passions.
I first heard of this anomily in the human genome on the Kevin Smith Show ( kevinsmithshow.com). Call me gullible, but I love to listen to such shows on the internet, but also a search on Google will turn up more information on anomilies in the human genome.
I have personally visited Kevin Smith and found him to be a perfectly up front guy despite being a Seppo, so don't even make that comment about him. He has a book out called Gods In The Garden, it is an apraisal of the book of Genises. Now I am not some Creationalist nut, but as Kevin says words have definition and say what they say, so have a read of Genises 1 and just interpet every refrence to God as Gods, for the original Hebrew text refers to elohiym, eem or im at the end of the word means plural. Now we have Gods created the world.
A further reading of this much accepted text will reveal that we are Human Mark 2.
Now just look at the mess of this planet we are making. By our own predictions we will make the planet uninhabitable in the next few hundred years.
Let me introduce your replacement " Yowie, Bigfoot" call him what you will. Thats the big picture in my opinion.
Just ask Dean about them, they have unearthly powers. Or maybe I should not pay too much attention to what Dean says. May be he was imaginining getting bowled over by a yowie recently. mmmm it's just so hard to go with ones gut feelings about some people on the internet. Let me just say I have personally had an encounter with a UFO and finally realised that my perceptions of what happened were not necessarly a true recolection of what happened.
The truth is that we humans have normally not much of a clue what is happening around us because we rely on information fed to us from the media

TWMcCallum wrote: Hi All

Woops ! My opinions seem to have inflamed some people's passions.

I dont really understand what you mean about "inflaming passions". All I have done on this thread (since you joined it) was ask some entirely relevant questions, which is entirely reasonable, given the nature of what you are claiming.
Was wondering, TWMcCallum if you had had the chance to address the issues I raised about your Alien DNA concept?
I certainly would like to hear your answers, as I'm sure would others.

[quote]What might the source of this 'no evolutionary predecessors' be, and could you explain that if it is alien DNA, how did it get there? Did the aliens in question not evolve themselves? Is life on other planets not governed by evolution by natural selection? Were thy created by some godlike entity from the dust of the ground like certain organizations here on earth would have us believe?[/quote]

The term 'No Evalutionary Predecessor' means that the paticular gene did not evolve on this planet, it had to evolve elsewhere. The discovery that our genome has these 223 anomolis genes nails the coffin lid closed on Darwin's theory of evolution.
As far as the Creation story taught by Christian organizations, that also falls down under scientific scrutiny.
I'm of the opinion that we humans are the product of genetic modification by some external entities in the past, and that is what the anomollis genes in our genome point to.
I'm also of the opinion that the yowie, bigfoot, yeti are, if not the same creature , then all close relatives of one another. They must be flesh and blood, but also exhibit some traits that are unknown in any other land mammal and that is the ability to produce eye shine when there is no apparent light source and to project a presence that causes fear in all creatures in their vicinity. These abilities are not known to any other land species, nor are they under stood by us, so we tend to put these creatures in to the paranormal catagory.
The question remains though as to how this creature could get it's self to so many different parts of this world, they are not known to make water craft, so how could they have got to Australia? Current opinion is that human habitation of Australia happened in waves, and was most likely the result of small groups being accidentally marooned here whilst using small water craft. It is said that Australia has been an island for more than 80 million years, and back then the only mammals roaming the Earth were small shrew like creatures.

Much of human prehistory and evolution is unknown. Many anomalous findings have been ignored or swept under the carpet. It could well be that we (humans) are the introduced species and Yowies/Yeti/Bigfoot are the native species of hominid.

Indeed, Healy and Cropper ("The Yowie: In Search of Australia's Bigfoot") quote aboriginal legends stating that the hairy men (large and small) were already here when the aboriginals arrived.

Reports of yowie eyeshine without an external light source may indicate some sort of bioluminescence, perhaps infrared. Although unprecedented in mammals, infrared bioluminescence would be an extremely useful adaptation in deep forests at night or underground.

The underground hypothesis is interesting as it would help to explain their extreme elusiveness. Caves and fissures are often naturally occurring features in mountainous territory and intelligent hominids who traverse this inhospitable terrain would almost certainly make use of and have intimate knowledge of these locations.

How far do these caverns/fissures extend? Could some extend under the sea to nearby continents? If so, then perhaps the diverse population of these creatures (Yowie/Yeti/Yeren/Bigfoot/etc) are still connected.

These are just some ponderings from left-field. By the way, hello to all - I am a long time reader, first time contributor.

...hey Night Walker my friend... thanks for posting at long long long last! ... welcome to the writing part of the forums!! ... yeh some good points there... especially about the caverns and fissures... as you say... how far do they go???... again... welcome ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

Nice to see some answers to my questions, TW. Its a good start.
Let us address these answers.

TWMcCallum wrote:
The term 'No Evalutionary Predecessor' means that the paticular gene did not evolve on this planet, it had to evolve elsewhere.

Where? Another Planet with conditions identical to here? How far away is this planet, and by what means did they get here? Again, should this scenario be actuality, how did these incredibly similar to us creatures get to where they are. Is it a case of parallel evolution? ie the shark and the dolphin. Did they have a supernatural origin instead? How would you go about finding evidence of all this?

The discovery that our genome has these 223 anomalous genes nails the coffin lid closed on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Unless you can provide sources, no it doesn't. Plus, what kind of anomalies exactly.
That isnt an answer. Thats just restating your initial premise. HOW does it affect the theory of evolution?
Do you understand how evolution by natural selection works? How species are selected by their environments?
Do you understand the implications of a mutation free genome?

Perhaps you might like to re visit some of the other questions I previously posed to you.

What then, is your opinion of the extinction of the Neanderthals, or what percentage of chimp DNA is alien?
Particularly the chimps, as we share so much genetic makeup. Do they have alien DNA?

Night Walker wrote:Much of human prehistory and evolution is unknown.

Indeed. Thus 'pre' history. The fossil record of human evolution is linear. New finds are slotted into their respective positions as they are...well, found. The science of Human evolution is well understood, yet it is not complete, as it builds as the new evidence comes in. That is how science works.

Many anomalous findings have been ignored or swept under the carpet.

Examples?

Indeed, Healy and Cropper ("The Yowie: In Search of Australia's Bigfoot") quote aboriginal legends stating that the hairy men (large and small) were already here when the aboriginals arrived.

Thus by the same logic, enormous multi coloured snakes should be as common as yowies.
Aboriginal myths is a better description.

Reports of yowie eyeshine without an external light source may indicate some sort of bioluminescence, perhaps infrared. Although unprecedented in mammals, infrared bioluminescence would be an extremely useful adaptation in deep forests at night or underground.

Infrared is not in the visible spectrum. It is invisible to the naked eye. That simple fact of physics eliminates that as a cause of yowie eye bioluminescence.

1. I believe the process of evolution is actually poorly understood. Anatomically modern Homo sapiens entered the fossil record 100,000 years ago supposedly evolved from Homo erectus despite coexisting with them for 88,000 years (and with several other species of hominid). In science circles there is continuing debate on how this is so and even if erectus should be considered a different species from sapiens. One’s understanding of evolution is dependent upon to which particular model you subscribe or which is currently “in favour”. Overall, science presents evolution as a model of what has come to be but, like the Bible, should not be taken as gospel.

2. Anomalous archaeological finds include: fossilised sandal prints (complete with heel and embedded trilobite) from the Cambrian era, a metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator found in a Precambrian mineral deposit said to be 2.8 billion years old, a coin from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface in deposits dating between 200,000 and 400,000 years old, geological reports dating the Sphinx to 9000BC, artefacts from Mexico dated at 250,000+ years ago (using 4 different dating methods), evidence of a Celtic pre-Maori civilisation in New Zealand, etc. The amount of data that exists outside the mainstream is vast. The problem seems to be they raise more questions than answers.

3. The Rainbow serpent is considered a spiritual being from the Dreamtime. Yowies are considered both real AND spiritual.

4. There are several reported cases of Yowies being aware of infrared light - hence the difficulty of setting up an infrared camera trap. The speed at which Yowies can move through heavily forested undergrowth in the dark of night gives also rise to the possibility Yowies can see infrared light.

Night Walker wrote:1. I believe the process of evolution is actually poorly understood. Anatomically modern Homo sapiens entered the fossil record 100,000 years ago supposedly evolved from Homo erectus despite coexisting with them for 88,000 years (and with several other species of hominid). In science circles there is continuing debate on how this is so and even if erectus should be considered a different species from sapiens. One’s understanding of evolution is dependent upon to which particular model you subscribe or which is currently “in favour”. Overall, science presents evolution as a model of what has come to be but, like the Bible, should not be taken as gospel.

I am not going to debate you further on our understanding of human evolution. You have your opinions, different to mine and many, many others, and fair enough. I will provide you with some source material. Perhaps you might like to have a look at it and see if it is the work of people with a poor understanding of their field. You might like to debate them.
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://www.ecotao.com/holism/huevo/
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
http://www.austmus.gov.au/human_evolution/
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/

2. Anomalous archaeological finds include: fossilised sandal prints (complete with heel and embedded trilobite) from the Cambrian era, a metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator found in a Precambrian mineral deposit said to be 2.8 billion years old, a coin from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface in deposits dating between 200,000 and 400,000 years old, geological reports dating the Sphinx to 9000BC, artefacts from Mexico dated at 250,000+ years ago (using 4 different dating methods), evidence of a Celtic pre-Maori civilisation in New Zealand, etc. The amount of data that exists outside the mainstream is vast. The problem seems to be they raise more questions than answers.

Sources?
What you mean is anachronism, not anomalous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism
A "vast amount of data" does not equate automatic truth.

3. The Rainbow serpent is considered a spiritual being from the Dreamtime. Yowies are considered both real AND spiritual.

I might beg to differ. I'm sure many aboriginals would consider the Rainbow serpent myth "real".
Tales and rock art, however, are still insufficient to prove anything.

4. There are several reported cases of Yowies being aware of infrared light - hence the difficulty of setting up an infrared camera trap. The speed at which Yowies can move through heavily forested undergrowth in the dark of night gives also rise to the possibility Yowies can see infrared light.[/quote]

The speculated abilities of a speculative animal. No known mammal has infrared vision. Some insects, with their entirely different eye structure can, and some snakes have sensor pits, not part of the eyes, that can detect thermal radiation.
I guess we can call this another non falsifiable yowie ability.
Same as I cant prove there isn't a fully functional replica of Disneyland on Titan, run by gold plated robots.

1. I’m sure archaeologists studying evolution have a good understanding of their field, however I’m not convinced that the current knowledge on the subject is anywhere near definitive. An open mind and the capacity for independent thought are important here.

2. “Anomalous” is not an incorrect word for what I was stating. As for ‘"vast amount of data" does not equate automatic truth’ I believe that truth is a journey not a destination. And besides -- What is Truth? If you follow me. (Lionel Hutz)

3. What is considered real in the time of Dreaming is different to what is considered real in day to day life. The aboriginals (particularly along the east coast) had knowledge (and fear) of something that was tangible in the here and now.

4. To speculate is to try to make sense of something with limited data and that is what we are all doing about the Yowie phenomenon. If Yowies are reported to avoid areas of infrared light then it is logical to assume they can sense it in some way --most likely visually.

I am not a big fan of the supernatural hypothesis and believe it only alienates legitimate Yowie research to the loony fringe. Between all the recognised Yowie researchers there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of reported sightings dating back to colonial times. Some will be hoaxes, some will be hallucinations or misidentification. Most are sincere encounters with an extremely rare and elusive hairy hominid that has coexisted with humanity since time immemorial.

Humankind does not know all there is to know. Far from it, actually. That the Yowie exists beyond our backyards largely unseen and dismissed is testimony to that fact.

I salute them.

Night Walker wrote:1. I’m sure archaeologists studying evolution have a good understanding of their field, however I’m not convinced that the current knowledge on the subject is anywhere near definitive. An open mind and the capacity for independent thought are important here.

This is a common accusation that science is a "closed mind" discipline. Far from it. Science will turn 180 degrees on any given subject, when new and contradictory evidence is found. Evidence that stands scrutiny.
What would it take for you to accept that yowies etc are mythical, and dont exist? The moment the data comes in, I and everyother critical thinker will be right there with you. Is that the actions of a closed mind?

2. “Anomalous” is not an incorrect word for what I was stating. As for ‘"vast amount of data" does not equate automatic truth’ I believe that truth is a journey not a destination. And besides -- What is Truth? If you follow me. (Lionel Hutz)

Well, here's a definition of anomaly. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anomaly

a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: "Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy" David Pauly.
3. Astronomy The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.

And heres a definition of anachronism. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anachronism
a·nach·ro·nism (-nkr-nzm)
n.
1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time:

Seems very apparent.
I hope that clears that one up.

Truth? We shall stick with the empirical definition, and avoid philosophical ones, as they are not relevant to this debate.
Truth is what is most likely the correct explanation for a given event, based on the best available evidence.

3. What is considered real in the time of Dreaming is different to what is considered real in day to day life. The aboriginals (particularly along the east coast) had knowledge (and fear) of something that was tangible in the here and now.

Anecdotes are anecdotes, and make for very poor evidence, regardless of origin. That is my point here.

4. To speculate is to try to make sense of something with limited data and that is what we are all doing about the Yowie phenomenon. If Yowies are reported to avoid areas of infrared light then it is logical to assume they can sense it in some way --most likely visually.

Logic requires that you eliminate the simplest, thus most likely possibilities first. Can you honestly say that you have done that? To perscribe such a remarkable and complex explanation may seem simple, but it brings in immense complications.
Before you leap to such unprecedented and unlikely conclusions, there are many
mundane possible explanations that are orders of magnitude more likely.

[I am not a big fan of the supernatural hypothesis and believe it only alienates legitimate Yowie research to the loony fringe. Between all the recognised Yowie researchers there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of reported sightings dating back to colonial times. Some will be hoaxes, some will be hallucinations or misidentification. Most are sincere encounters with an extremely rare and elusive hairy hominid that has coexisted with humanity since time immemorial.

Humankind does not know all there is to know. Far from it, actually. That the Yowie exists beyond our backyards largely unseen and dismissed is testimony to that fact.

I am not trying to rain on your parade here. I would love to see these creatures existence proven. The only way this will occur is through ruthless application of scientific rigour. I dont see much evidence of this.
The scientific rigour needed will certainly weed out many of your lunatic fringe.

1. I did not state that those involved with science have a closed mind. My point is that all that is known about a subject (in this instance: evolution) is miniscule in comparison to what is not known.

What would it take for me to believe that Yowies don’t exist? Far few sightings from more dubious sources, next to zero physical evidence (footprints, scat, bedding sites, etc), confusion and laughter from indigenous quarters over the matter, some level of insincerity or profit-motif from those who have genuinely expressed an encounter.

2. The 2nd definition of “anachronism” implies something outdated in modern times (less so the other way around), hence I feel more than comfortable using the term “anomalous” when referring to forbidden archaeology.

What is most likely the correct explanation for a given event, based on the best available evidence is still speculation. Truth is what it is no matter how you look at it.

3. Empirically, indigenous knowledge counts for little but when dealing with something so elusive I am reluctant to dismiss it out of hand.

4. I am merely speculating hypotheses based on what has been observed. On a practical level, researchers need to set camera traps on systems other than infrared of which, one way or another, Yowies seem to be aware.

Conclusion: On the issue of Yowies I stand in the camp that believes that the hard empirical evidence will one day catch up with their existence. This does not mean I accept all evidence without critical analysis.

This is all that I will say about this for now. I shall leave the final comment to Marius who seems to suffer from the common forum affliction: havetogetthelastwordinitis.

Respect.

Well excuse me for debating and not just believing.

Night Walker wrote:1. I did not state that those involved with science have a closed mind. My point is that all that is known about a subject (in this instance: evolution) is miniscule in comparison to what is not known.

The body of knowledge on human evolution is far from miniscule. It isn't even hard to find. I really dont know where you get this impression from.
Sure, it is incomplete, but it is a valid science none the less. Do you need every peice of the jigsaw to see the picture? The missing peices are there, they just need to be found.

What would it take for me to believe that Yowies don’t exist? Far few sightings from more dubious sources, next to zero physical evidence (footprints, scat, bedding sites, etc), confusion and laughter from indigenous quarters over the matter, some level of insincerity or profit-motif from those who have genuinely expressed an encounter.

I once was a firm believer in yowies et al. Then I had a road to damascus moment when I realised that the evidence just didnt cut it. You have given the very reasons why.

2. The 2nd definition of “anachronism” implies something outdated in modern times (less so the other way around), hence I feel more than comfortable using the term “anomalous” when referring to forbidden archaeology.

What is most likely the correct explanation for a given event, based on the best available evidence is still speculation. Truth is what it is no matter how you look at it.

In postmodernism, perhaps. Not in science.

3. Empirically, indigenous knowledge counts for little but when dealing with something so elusive I am reluctant to dismiss it out of hand.

Fair 'nuf

4. I am merely speculating hypotheses based on what has been observed. On a practical level, researchers need to set camera traps on systems other than infrared of which, one way or another, Yowies seem to be aware.

That is, like the very existance of the beasts, yet to be established. Have you not been reading my posts?

Conclusion: On the issue of Yowies I stand in the camp that believes that the hard empirical evidence will one day catch up with their existence. This does not mean I accept all evidence without critical analysis.

Now we are getting somewhere.

This is all that I will say about this for now. I shall leave the final comment to Marius who seems to suffer from the common forum affliction: havetogetthelastwordinitis.

Respect.

Your "havetogetthelastwordinitis" jibe is hardly respect. You have to earn that. I dont appologise for asking questions.

... Reegs... you never fail to crack me up... funny as mate... funny as... ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

Ahh, Reegs, you are so right...

Citizens of the more affluent countries are dependent on their cars, electricity, hot 'n' cold running water, air conditioning, cheap consumables, to say nothing of the television, computer and other assorted diversions our lives have to offer.

I say this because here I am, sitting in the office, on the computer, with the light on, sipping a Coke! My car is parked outside, and I could have the air con running, but a fan will suffice.

I think back to the stories my grandparents and great aunts and uncles would tell us, and I am sometimes ashamed of how soft and useless we have become in many aspects of our lives. We pay for labour saving devices so we don't have to lift a finger, then pay to go to the gym to keep fit!

I have had cause to read items written by the next generation of teenagers/young adults, and was frankly shocked at the hopeless grammar and spelling. When I find a well-spoken, literate young adult, it sadly often comes as a surprise (but a nice one). Mobile phone 'text language' is horrendous. I wouldn't mind if it stayed on the cell phone where it originated, but the idiotic stuff is leaking out into other aspects of their lives to the extent that I wonder how they are going to manage in their working lives.

You want to see angst? Take a teenager away from their toys (if you can get them kicking and screaming out of the house), and put them in the bush at a camp. They are LOST. No idea.

The culture of acceptance for binge drinking is also a worry. Can you pick the generation gap widening at this point?

I don't think all Survivalists are total crackpots - some of them just don't want to be helpless if out civilised amenities come crashing down around our ears. I find myself thinking that maybe it might be a good idea to get out of the city and head out where there are fewer conveniences, but where the people help each other if a hand is needed.

Sorry, way off the track.

Devolving? Not so much as just becoming soft, dependent and useless. Not good.

Kind regards,
Shazz

The term 'No Evalutionary Predecessor' means that the paticular gene did not evolve on this planet, it had to evolve elsewhere. [/quote]
[color=#BF0000]Where? Another Planet with conditions identical to here? How far away is this planet, and by what means did they get here? Again, should this scenario be actuality, how did these incredibly similar to us creatures get to where they are. Is it a case of parallel evolution? ie the shark and the dolphin. Did they have a supernatural origin instead? How would you go about finding evidence of all this?[/color]

Why should one need to know which planet, how far away , who exactly were these entities etc? The fact is that we have these anomolis genes, and the people who profess to be experts say they have no evolutionary predicessors, and that means that they never evolved on this planet. I am not a genetitist nor do I have the sophisticated equipment to do genetic research, no I just surf the internet picking up thses little gems of information, the people that post them out there seem to be what they say they are so I find it quite easy to accept their finding. I'm not going to compile a list of sites to back up this claim, if you can't accept the things I say then go and Google the subject up yourself and draw your own conclusions.

[quote]The discovery that our genome has these 223 anomalous genes nails the coffin lid closed on Darwin's theory of evolution.[/quote]

[color=#BF0000]
Unless you can provide sources, no it doesn't. Plus, what kind of anomalies exactly.
That isnt an answer. Thats just restating your initial premise. [b]HOW [/b]does it affect the theory of evolution?
Do you understand how evolution by natural selection works? How species are selected by their environments?
Do you understand the implications of a mutation free genome?

Every body has heard Darwins theory of evolution, it was taught in school when I was there, if he was right then our genome would only contain genes that were common to other creatures in this world, in other words we would not have the 223 anomolis genes. Once again this information is out there on the net. Here is an internet site that I think pretty well sums up the downfalls of Darwinisim [color=#BF0000]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ape1.htm[/color] , David Pratt covers off on most of the common pros and cons about Darwins theory. I am not into Theosophy nor do I like his reference to Rex Gilroy's findings, but he does cover the subject well.

Perhaps you might like to re visit some of the other questions I previously posed to you.

What then, is your opinion of the extinction of the Neanderthals, or what percentage of chimp DNA is alien?
Particularly the chimps, as we share so much genetic makeup. Do they have alien DNA?[/color][/quote]

My opinion of the extinction of Neanderthals is this; It is a great pity they didn't make it to modern times.

As far as chimp DNA is concerned, my understanding is that the genome of the chimp has not been extensively mapped as it has been in humans. There are claims that chimps and humans have 98% similar genes however a mouse has about 75% and a dog has about 85% of the same genes so this comparison would seem to be of little real value.
It is my understanding that humans are unique in having 223 genes not shared by any other organisim on this planet.

To get back to the original question of whether I think the Yowie/Bigfoot/ Yetti is flesh and blood or paranormal? In my opinion it is flesh and blood, it has some unique characteristics not shared by any other animals on this planet just like we humans do. The point I have been trying to make through out my postings on this subject is that the yowie may be unique for the same reason we are unique among the creatures of this world. Just because we don't understand the yowies uniqueness doesn't make it paranormal, after all we don't really understand our own uniqueness.

That does not automatically mean that the genes are from another species from a different planet. It simply means that the answer has not been found conclusively.

The alien gene 'theory' is one possiblity of a number of possibilities. DNA and gene research is still relatively new and has a long way yet to go.

The alien/paranormal/cryptozoic line of research all too often jumps on a simple yet unproven 'idea' that is practically unprovable and claims that as proof.

Also, beware the 'google evidence'. For every factual piece of information on the web I believe that it is fairly plausible (but not proven) that there is at least:
- 10 gambling sites;
- 100 scams;
- 1000 pieces of porn;
- 10000 faulty or incorrect pieces of information.

You are however free to believe what you wish to believe, except of course for the forced indoctrinations we all receive in soluble form from government controlled water supplies. Thank Klaatu I'm on tank water so my thinking is right!!!