Yowiehunters Forum

David Brenton wrote:Brain volume isn't necessarily the be all and end all of intelligence. The brain/body weight ratio is also an important factor.
This is called the Encephalization Quotient.

But EQ isn't the be all and end all either - a case in point would be H. Floresiensis, where the EQ is pretty much incompatible with the other evidence, particularly stone tool use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20834049

I think Glenmore was probably referring to the first field studies of the Gorilla, by Akerly in the late 1920's.

However if you're now open to descriptions and classifications as equivalence of proof like you said with the Gorilla:
- hairy hominids have also been 'described' to at least 480BC (by indigenous cultures, in many countries);
- Heuvelmans 'taxonomised' the Minnesota Iceman (Homo Pongoides);
- and Meldrum has written several journal articles on Sasquatch - including in the North American Journal of Physical Anthropology, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and in "Cenozoic Vertebrate Tracks and Traces" for the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... eldrum.pdf
http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/u ... merica.pdf

That's one you'll like, because he actually refers to "the holotype of a novel ichnogenus and
ichnospecies describing these plantigrade pentadactyl bipedal primate footprints – Anthropoidipes ameriborealis."

Cheers,
FG

PS - Dave, didn't you used to post under a different name here? A while ago now.

Pandabear wrote:Now for the big question. Are we physical or spiritual? Or both?

Precisely, I would say both without a doubt,

glenmore79 wrote:

sapere aude wrote:
Silverback Gorillas weren't officially recognised until 193X
No trace, no foot print, no tools, no fire, as intelligent as us

Dolphins, no tools, no fire, as intelligent as us.

/thread

Gorillas were known to exist in the mid 1800's when a native gave a skull to a missionary. On the strength of this some more intrepid types simply travelled to the largely uncharted wilds of equatorial Africa, shot specimens and brought them back. The mountain Gorillas were discovered by accident in 1902. The group that discovered them simply shot a couple of specimens before they could dematerialise, I mean escape.

Unlike the Yowie, their biggest threat is from poachers who have no trouble finding them because they do leave all sorts of traces.

Dolphins have been observed using tools. A lack of things like arms and hands does make this possibility a bit limited though, when comparing to Humans. I too have always been puzzled why they don't use fire.....

http://www.onekind.org/be_inspired/anim ... _dolphins/

David Brenton wrote: I am particularly interested in any botanical connections.

Not read it myself but the standard reference is apparently the 2005 book by the Moldenkes' husband and wife team of Botanists "Plants of the Bible", which attempts to identify all the plants mentioned in the Bible. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DjF ... CE0Q6AEwBQ

There is also much interest in the "commercial" plants that the Semitic people took to the Nile delta, presumably pre the exodus story, whenever the latest theory dates that but say 1000BC give or take.

sapere aude wrote:

glenmore79 wrote:

sapere aude wrote:
Silverback Gorillas weren't officially recognised until 193X
No trace, no foot print, no tools, no fire, as intelligent as us

Dolphins, no tools, no fire, as intelligent as us.

/thread

Gorillas were known to exist in the mid 1800's when a native gave a skull to a missionary. On the strength of this some more intrepid types simply travelled to the largely uncharted wilds of equatorial Africa, shot specimens and brought them back. The mountain Gorillas were discovered by accident in 1902. The group that discovered them simply shot a couple of specimens before they could dematerialise, I mean escape.

Unlike the Yowie, their biggest threat is from poachers who have no trouble finding them because they do leave all sorts of traces.

Dolphins have been observed using tools. A lack of things like arms and hands does make this possibility a bit limited though, when comparing to Humans. I too have always been puzzled why they don't use fire.....

http://www.onekind.org/be_inspired/anim ... _dolphins/

lol, I tend to use cut and paste too much methinks

but would also like to draw attention to the thread : Deer Skin Wearing Yowie; in relation to intelligence, tools, flesh and blood/dimension hopping etc

andrew wrote:

David Brenton wrote: I am particularly interested in any botanical connections.

Not read it myself but the standard reference is apparently the 2005 book by the Moldenkes' husband and wife team of Botanists "Plants of the Bible", which attempts to identify all the plants mentioned in the Bible. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DjF ... CE0Q6AEwBQ

There is also much interest in the "commercial" plants that the Semitic people took to the Nile delta, presumably pre the exodus story, whenever the latest theory dates that but say 1000BC give or take.

I see. Forgive me.I was under the impression you mean that the bible was a useful text for the science of botany. Obviously this just a pair of botanists with a Bible.
Quite unrelated to yowies, however.

David Brenton wrote:Brain volume isn't necessarily the be all and end all of intelligence. The brain/body weight ratio is also an important factor.
This is called the Encephalization Quotient.

forestguy wrote: But EQ isn't the be all and end all either - a case in point would be H. Floresiensis, where the EQ is pretty much incompatible with the other evidence, particularly stone tool use.

I didn't say it was.

forestguy wrote:I think Glenmore was probably referring to the first field studies of the Gorilla, by Akerly in the late 1920's.

However if you're now open to descriptions and classifications as equivalence of proof like you said with the Gorilla:
- hairy hominids have also been 'described' to at least 480BC (by indigenous cultures, in many countries);
- Heuvelmans 'taxonomised' the Minnesota Iceman (Homo Pongoides);
- and Meldrum has written several journal articles on Sasquatch - including in the North American Journal of Physical Anthropology, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and in "Cenozoic Vertebrate Tracks and Traces" for the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science.

Yes, I am open to descriptions and classifications as equivalence of proof.
What also gives a lot of weight to the gorilla description and classification is that I and everyone else with access to a zoo can witness one of these organisms in the flesh. The descriptions and classifications are verifiable.
- There were many interesting creatures that appear to have vanished since 480 bc, as well as some that we recognise as alive today. Hydras, Cyclops, Harpies and Gorgons to name but a few of the ones given detailed descriptions, yet not witnessed lately.
- Homo Pongoides is more accurately classified as Homo Latex.
- Any other academics repeated Meldrum's work, and have they a specimen of the organism that made the prints?

I first joined as a member of this forum for just over two years ago, forest guy.

David Brenton wrote: Yes, I am open to descriptions and classifications as equivalence of proof.
What also gives a lot of weight to the gorilla description and classification is that I and everyone else with access to a zoo can witness one of these organisms in the flesh. The descriptions and classifications are verifiable.
- There were many interesting creatures that appear to have vanished since 480 bc, as well as some that we recognise as alive today. Hydras, Cyclops, Harpies and Gorgons to name but a few of the ones given detailed descriptions, yet not witnessed lately.
- Homo Pongoides is more accurately classified as Homo Latex.
- Any other academics repeated Meldrum's work, and have they a specimen of the organism that made the prints?

I first joined as a member of this forum for just over two years ago, forest guy.

Lol, gorgons - that's a nice straw man fallacy, we haven't had too many of them since Marius was posting here.

Homo Latex? Missed that in the literature - link?

As to other academics, well I haven't asked all of them, but there's a few working on associated projects:

http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP

Do you mean they should can the hair analysis until they can bag a whole specimen?

When people here say they are active field researchers, how many hours a year are they really stacking up? If you can count those hours on one of your hands, I think it may be time to reconsider the label "active field researcher."

The answer to what this phenomenon is, is to be found in the bush, not in any book or on any website or from the lips of any preacher, and it is a personal journey open to subjectivity.

On a personal level, I would argue it more beneficial for the individual to discover first hand in the bush whether the phenomenon is flesh and blood or spiritual or decide it is BS, than sitting in front of a computer monitor seeing who can pi$$ the highest and farthest in an online debate. At the very least, the fresh air would do some members here a world of good!

forestguy wrote:Lol, gorgons - that's a nice straw man fallacy, we haven't had too many of them since Marius was posting here.

No. It isn't a strawman. A strawman fallacy is when I exaggerate one of your arguments.
In this instance, to illustrate my point, I (not you) am observing out that many mythological beasts that were described in ancient history, like my list, are just that. Myth. This is entirely relevant to the discussion.

There is no concrete evidence they are real, or ever were.

forestguy wrote:Homo Latex? Missed that in the literature - link?

Even Lauren Coleman is on to that one.
http://www.r2mw.com/the-vault/almanack-12-may-2011/
Further reading
http://tinyurl.com/icemanhoax
It's not worth wasting further time on.

forestguy wrote:As to other academics, well I haven't asked all of them, but there's a few working on associated projects:

I look forward to reading their findings in the leading zoological journals.

forestguy wrote:Do you mean they should can the hair analysis until they can bag a whole specimen?

I am not particularly interested in getting bogged down in fallacies, but this is a far better example of a strawman.
That isn't what I said, yet it is easier to attack than what I did say, because it is an obviously poor argument.

What would whom ever does the analysis compare a hair sample to? The best result would be "unknown primate".
An interesting result, pending further investigation, but still not evidence of a new species of large hominid.

Jo Blose wrote:
On a personal level, I would argue it more beneficial for the individual to discover first hand in the bush whether the phenomenon is flesh and blood or spiritual or decide it is BS, than sitting in front of a computer monitor seeing who can pi$$ the highest and farthest in an online debate. At the very least, the fresh air would do some members here a world of good!

You don't consider discussions such as this one (are yowies flesh and blood) have any merit?
It isn't really hurting anyone, I would have though. We can profoundly disagree, but provided we remain polite about it, for me that can give either side some insight into the views and ideas of the other.
Admittedly the thread has strayed somewhat, but the discussions are interesting enough, regardless of the angle.
This is just my subjective opinion.

Dave,

The thread has strayed into the murky waters of religious territory. I think discussions like this that attempt to solve this mystery with the mysteries of the bible, history BC, unconfirmed CIA psychic studies, etc., is akin to a bogged car spinning it's rear tyres and sinking deeper into the mud, getting nowhere fast rather than moving forward.

I will admit that I am one of those people who spends a lot of time researching behind the computer these days, alas I have lost the spark for field research, but that’s not to say haven’t been out in the bush in the past looking, searching and delving into what I could. I also have had a sighting which had some form of oddities to it, which then leads me to the paranormal side and hence talking about it in a community based forum.

Having said that I agree with Jo the best way to come to your own conclusions is to get out bush and do the research yourself. However have to disagree on another point, a discussion or debate or whatever you would like to call it, is beneficial. To keep your thoughts, opinions, experiences to yourself actually would do more harm than good for research, just my opinion. Both should go hand in hand Field research and discussion.

And as I keep trying to drive this message home, we all have different opinions, experiences and theories and each should be respected, after all we are dealing with something that is not scientifically proven to exist.

David Brenton wrote:Even Lauren Coleman is on to that one.
http://www.r2mw.com/the-vault/almanack-12-may-2011/
Further reading
http://tinyurl.com/icemanhoax
It's not worth wasting further time on.

Well, I'm happy to disagree with you on that one. For anyone else interested, here's the link to what Loren actually said about the Iceman, in the wake of the Georgia incident in 2008:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-ne ... ct-iceman/

I'd also point out that he doesn't say that he thinks it was a hoax - what he said was that he no longer thinks it matters if it was a hoax or real. After nearly 40 years of being involved in the search I can understand him being a bit tired of it all.

For me, it does not matter if the Minnesota Iceman is a carnival gaff, a Hollywood model, or an actual body, at this point, for it never existed in any state of physical reality within hominology.

Jo - I'm not sure this thread is really that different to the one Horserider started where you made all those posts about yowies and the Jinn of the Koran?

Personally, at the moment I only get to put in 3-5 hours each week actually out in the field, plus more indoors - books/computers/journals etc.

Yes, it's a personal journey open to subjectivity - that book learnin' I personally find useful in helping objectify the subjection.

David Brenton wrote: What would whom ever does the analysis compare a hair sample to? The best result would be "unknown primate".
An interesting result, pending further investigation, but still not evidence of a new species of large hominid.

The analysis that can be gleaned from any source of dna will enable us to compare the result with other known species and it is entirely possible to classify the proximity of that dna to other hominoids, let alone hominids. We are talking about genetic sequences and that does leads us to clearly determine a lot more than "unknown primate". Mind you, I would be entirely happy with an "unknown primate" as a result because that clearly identifies a new species on this continent and elsewhere.

Just to clarify, if the results is "unknown species" then it IS evidence of a new species. The sequence comparison of the species markers, and other important sequences, with known hominoids enables that to be narrowed to hominid, if that is what the result turns out to be.

Your argument is non sequitur.

http://io9.com/5929245/does-the-african ... f-hominids

glenmore79 wrote:lol, I tend to use cut and paste too much methinks

but would also like to draw attention to the thread : Deer Skin Wearing Yowie; in relation to intelligence, tools, flesh and blood/dimension hopping etc

All fair enough Glenmore. I understand your point. I also understand that people have had experience with something that appears to be a physically real creature, therefore the only logical conclusion from this would be that they are there, but we just haven't "discovered" them yet (scientifically). So this is only an opinion, but I find it extremely unlikely that this will be so.

The Blue Mountains (as an example) certainly isn't Pitt St. Yet a lot of people visit every day, by air, by vehicle and on foot for many and varied reasons. A lot more than people might think. They have been for a very long time. For breeding populations of at least 2 separate species of Yowie to avoid mainstream detection in a place like this for centuries is not just unlikely, but IMO unreasonable. The way they are credited with great intelligence to avoid anything that we can put there which might help verify them, is not onlyt unreasonable but more closely resembles the plot from a B grade horror flick where the monster continually foils the good guys and lives to fight another day. The more reasonable explanation for this is because they are not physically there.

I usually hear reference to things such as the "Wollemi Pine", which don't cut it either IMO. A stand of unusual trees that many might pass and not realise the significance of, is very different to mobile breeding populations of large unknown Homonids. I also feel that Yowie researchers would be the least likely to discover them if they were there, because their numbers and resources would be so small compared to others who use the area (though I applaud all efforts), including scientists (geologists, botanists, ornithologists, herpetologists, anthropologists/palaeontologists various university studies, wildlife surveys etc) not to mention those who use it for training purposes, recreation and those who manage the place. Leaving alone that many sighting occur around suburbs anyway and that some also have an undeniably "paranormal" aspect (unless things like "dematerialising" can be considered normal).

This is why most scientists would say it is a mixture of misidentification, hoax and delusion. I would also disagree that this can adequately cover it (no doubt in some instances) and there is something going on. So far no explanation I have ever heard, either from researchers or those that dismiss the whole thing, holds water. I also have some doubts about the aboriginal view as put forward, as necessarily being their view rather than an honest white man's interpretation. At least from what I have found (which could always be wrong) and what little information has been genuinely documented, from what I see, seems to clearly indicate a spiritual type being.

I understand that research must presume Yowies to be physically real and proceed accordingly, yet nothing seems to have shown up in a couple of centuries that would really indicate a physical cause, apart from stories, which seems very telling. So while they could be real, this seems unlikely and as time passes even less likely, I doubt the purely physical sciences alone (biology) will get to the bottom of this. Perhaps the cultural and social sciences could help, if to give us another perspective, but perhaps considered irrelevant because it might infer something that no one wants to hear (although areas like psychology are still considered "philosophy" more than science by many). They could be helpful and I wonder why more researchers don't acquaint themselves with latest trends in these areas. It seems not only relevant, but at this stage perhaps the most relevant area of all of the sciences IMO.

I doubt this will alone will get to the bottom of it either, nothing about this subject appears logical. So, while I would normally be considered a sceptic, I am open to the possibility that something is going on here beyond what we can understand. I don't see "paranormal" as such a frightening word, as much as something not understood and always with the possibility to change this. This is scientific in principle IMO and requires a scientific method more so than a rigid insistence that one part of science alone should be considered, when nothing seems to genuinely indicate it is even relevant.

I am a fan of the Socratic principle that before we can know anything, we first have to realise we don't know. They could be real, but I don't see the insistence of a real normal life form, that actually seems counter to what has been found (nothing, basically), as necessarily being scientific or open minded. Just IMO of course.

andrew wrote:The analysis that can be gleaned from any source of dna will enable us to compare the result with other known species and it is entirely possible to classify the proximity of that dna to other hominoids, let alone hominids. We are talking about genetic sequences and that does leads us to clearly determine a lot more than "unknown primate". Mind you, I would be entirely happy with an "unknown primate" as a result because that clearly identifies a new species on this continent and elsewhere. Just to clarify, if the results is "unknown species" then it IS evidence of a new species. The sequence comparison of the species markers, and other important sequences, with known hominoids enables that to be narrowed to hominid, if that is what the result turns out to be.

Again, in the hypothetical event of Yowies actually existing, and someone collecting a hair/whatever with viable DNA, there is nothing in the data base to compare it with. The null hypothesis states that it is unknown. It doesn't I imply a new species, only one not on any data base. To suggest a new species is allowing bias to sway interpretation.

Should you get such a (hypothetical) result, that would go some way towards legitimising expenditure and attention from the zoological faculties and institutions of the world. Assuming that it was verified by multiple independent sources.

We actually agree on quite a lot, Andrew. I also would be very exited to see "unknown primate DNA". This indeed could mean a new species. (note I do not emphatically rule it out Nor do I emphatically rule it in)
It could be a yowie, or it could be a somewhat less enigmatic primate.

Hypothetically.

andrew wrote:Your argument is non sequitur.

That is your opinion.

Touche! Ahh, yes, the Jinn of the koran! Let's not forget nature spirits either, or archetypes!

For your consideration,

Where alien encounters tend to be encounters with beings exhibiting futuristic advanced technology, encounters with Yowies tend to be the opposite, as in encounters with what man may have been before we became human.

In our pop culture, gorilla type movies like King Kong, surfaced about the same time as fururistic movies like Metropolis did, leading into the science fiction genre. Even the 1933 Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde film, has the good doctor morphing into an apeish sub-human rather than a hideously evil looking individual.

Psychologically, as a race we have as equal fascination with our past as a race as we do with the future of our race. As thrilled as we all are with the advances in technology, we are all equally thrilled with new archaeological revelatfinds, each opening new windows to our past. Another example of this is the 60's with the popular animated cartoons of the Flintstones and it's polar opposite, the Jetsons, airing at the same time.

The Yowie taps into our unconscious desire to want to know where we come from in order to better understand where we are. The possibility of one of our racial ancestors existing into the present day or appearing to certain people in some form, is captivating. In my opinion, this flesh and blood scenario is more plausible than aliens landing, because archaological evidence confirms hominids HAVE walked the Earth in the past. As a non physical sighting of some form, it is still equally exciting because again it is a glimpse into our racial ancestry in the present.

*** That's my ramble for the night! By the way, I hope nobody minds a bit of nudity in my new avatar! That darn yowie just refused to keep the loincloth on!

Jo Blose wrote:The Yowie taps into our unconscious desire to want to know where we come from in order to better understand where we are.

Bingo - nicely put.

David Brenton wrote: Your opinion.

Not just mine.

DNA barcoding is a taxonomic method that uses a short genetic marker, such as the ubiquitous COI gene, in an organism's dna to identify it as belonging to a particular species. It differs from molecular phylogeny (the analysis of hereditary molecular differences, mainly in dna sequences, to gain information on an organism's evolutionary relationships), in that the main goal is not to determine classification but to identify an unknown sample “in terms of a known classification”. DNA barcoding is not only used for both assigning specimens to known species but for routinely discovering new and cryptic species. Studies carried out on the limitations of DNA barcodes, by analysing those from primates, showed that dna barcodes provide enough information to efficiently identify and delineate primate species, although they cannot reliably uncover many of the deeper phylogenetic relationships. While these short dna sequences do not contain enough information to build reliable molecular phylogenies or DEFINE a new species, they can provide efficient sequence tags for ASSIGNING UNKNOWN SPECIMENS TO KNOWN SPECIES. As such it is possible to use dna to classify yowies, bigfoots or other such cryptic specimen to primates, marsupials, or other animal taxa or group.

Therefore, your argument that there is nothing to compare the dna from a yowie hair to is incorrect. It is entirely possible to do so and the application is used routinely in wildlife crime investigation and zoology for genetic species identification based on DNA barcoding. Once the species assignment is done, then the search can turn to a closer comparison of other sequences to narrow the similarity to subgroups. I have no doubt that Ketchum and Sykes will be carrying out the same sort of process. The only question is how much money and time they are prepared to spend as they proceed down the complex comparison route. It is possible to compare the dna with hominids, like ourselves, but that takes time and presumes they discover an initial species match from the barcoding.

Its going to be a very brave geneticist that announces to the world they have discovered yowie/bigfoot DNA.

Well, lets wait and see, Andrew.

David Brenton wrote:Its going to be a very brave geneticist that announces to the world they have discovered yowie/bigfoot DNA.

Well, lets wait and see, Andrew.

Not long to wait now but I fail to see where bravery comes into good science that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's, except where it has to battle with entrenched views by dogmatic scientists that feel compelled to protect the status quo at all costs because otherwise their entire careers have been for nought. Luckily, moleular genetics is an infant science and the future holds many surprises. The truth will out one way or the other.

One Of my favourite paragraphs from "The HitchHikers Guide To The Galaxy"

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

andrew wrote:
Not long to wait now but I fail to see where bravery comes into good science that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's, except where it has to battle with entrenched views by dogmatic scientists that feel compelled to protect the status quo at all costs because otherwise their entire careers have been for nought. Luckily, moleular genetics is an infant science and the future holds many surprises. The truth will out one way or the other.

If the science is good, then you can expect to see these results in journals such as Nature, etc.
What would be nice would be to see the entre organism. That would lend some weight to the DNA case.
At last , you would be able to add it to the data base for comparisons.
I am not a molecular geneticist. That is a very specialised area.
I accept the judgements of those that are.
You mention often that you believe this an "infant science".
What qualifies this insight? Do you have a background in genetics?

David Brenton wrote:

andrew wrote:
What qualifies this insight? Do you have a background in genetics?

I am a mere physicist, my middle child is the graduate in genetics/now retired CSIRO research scientist.

andrew wrote:

David Brenton wrote:

andrew wrote:
What qualifies this insight? Do you have a background in genetics?

I am a mere physicist, my middle child is the graduate in genetics/now retired CSIRO research scientist.

That should give you an insight into the scientific method, and the pitfalls of confirmation bias and small sample size.

David Brenton wrote:
That should give you an insight into the scientific method, and the pitfalls of confirmation bias and small sample size.

And your area of specialty, other than teaching others how to suck eggs,lol!

We will certainly know if it's a bigfoot. The genetic information and the double helix itself will appear blurry, shaky and out of focus.

If from a Yowie, a good test would be to bring a camera near it, if it disappears it's genuine Yowie, if it can be photographed it isn't....

Though a good species marker for both, would be that whatever is found shows consistent, amazing ambiguity and inconclusiveness. This would match all other indications...


sorry, couldn't resist...

glenmore79 wrote:One Of my favourite paragraphs from "The HitchHikers Guide To The Galaxy"

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Agree with the sentiment. Trouble being we know dolphins are there, physically. I agree we do take ourselves as a species a bit too seriously at times. As Spock might have said, they appear to be very illogical creatures, Captain.

andrew wrote:

David Brenton wrote:
That should give you an insight into the scientific method, and the pitfalls of confirmation bias and small sample size.

And your area of specialty, other than teaching others how to suck eggs,lol!

Like yours, unverifiable, thus irrelevant.

David Brenton wrote: Like yours, unverifiable, thus irrelevant.

Were you born this disrespectful, or have you been working at developing the skill. Rhetorical question. Conversation terminated.

andrew wrote:

David Brenton wrote: Like yours, unverifiable, thus irrelevant.

Were you born this disrespectful, or have you been working at developing the skill. Rhetorical question. Conversation terminated.

Thanks for your time.