My own thoughts

[Glenn39]

Hi all, new here.

It was Leonard Nimoy on the old US TV series ‘In Search of..’ that got me started on unknown mysteries and cryptozoology when I was much younger. I have been a long time enthusiast of all manner of related subjects ever since, but the Bigfoot mystery would have to be my favourite, and I found the new Yowie book by Tony Healy and Paul Cropper a most compelling and convincing read.

I have often thought long and hard about that these creatures could be, and after many years of reading and research have an amateur opinion of my own. Most of you have probably heard similar things before or perhaps even share similar thoughts but I wanted to express mine.

The evidence that has been gathered to date would seem to indicate that they are indeed a primate species and not something directly related to the homo genus from which humans have descended. This evidence includes things like the obvious full coat of thick hair the creature maintains, primate-type behaviour including wood-knocking and stone or rock throwing, and its general physical appearance, especially that of the head appearing to be resting directly on the shoulders leaving no discernable neck.

If it is a primate species, then why does it appear to walk upright and in much the same way we do?

I think this is obviously how it has evolved. If it did indeed start out as a relative of that ancient giant ape Gigantopethicus, then it may have started off on the ground and been forced to reach for its food source by the environment it found itself in. That same environment may have forced this creature to move some distances or become semi-nomadic in search of food or shelter as well. These and other evolutionary traits including a more intuitive intelligence have developed over a long time and has allowed it survive until today while the giant apes like Gigantopethicus have long since died out.

Why do these creatures like Bigfoot, the Yowie, etc, appear to be so similar when described by witnesses?

The physical similarities from our own Yowie up through to the Yeti and China’s Wildman or Yeren, and on to Bigfoot and the Sasquatch of North America simply can not be denied by eye witness accounts. And it doesn’t stop there. Smell, behaviour, and other physical evidence such as tracks also have a lot in common across several continents where these creatures are believed to exist. Indeed, it would appear that if this creature has migrated to other parts of the world via land bridges maybe during an ice age, or maybe even earlier, then perhaps they have originated from one area to start with, and from one species. It certainly would explain the similarities that seem to exist with these creatures. There is no evidence of primate evolution in North America and I doubt any here in Australia, and so this would definitely suggest migration at some stage in the past. If this creature was able to evolve a more economic bipedal walk like we did when we left the trees, then it’s a very reasonable assumption that lengthy migration in search of better pastures might have happened.

Anyway, it is only a short summary but that’s where I stand as far as a scientific explanation goes. Feel free to pull it apart or discuss it, I am all ears.

[mbwmbwmbw]

welcome to the forum.
If you scroll through a few of the posts you will see some of your ideas/topics discussed.
Here is a cut and paste of a previous post..

1. Do you have a general opinion about the legitimacy of the many ‘yowie’ sightings which have been reported in Australia, and, if so, what is that opinion?

Witnesses appear to be telling the truth..sometimes with secondary evidence...like prints and plant damage.

2. What, in your opinion, is the likelihood of a previously undiscovered species of anthropoid ape, relict hominid, or other cryptid corresponding to a ‘yowie’ actually existing in Australia?

Nil...Same odds as an new anthropoid ape form being discovered in the UK(where ape like forms are now being reported) or the US...or Canada..
Or...what ape/monkey species are found in countries like Canada/USA/Australia/Russia(UK now) which all have a oral history of sasquatch/yeti/yowie etc reports.???

3. Do you have an opinion on what such a postulated life-form might be, if it does exist? Is there any possibility that, as has been suggested, an indigenous marsupial species might have evolved to parallel a hominid form? If not, why not?

What species"lines" would "explain" the "hominid" forms appearing here and everywhere else in the "civilised" world ....that cannot be caught.
Convergent evolution is an ad hoc postulate.
The lack of fossils/skeletons in general is correct..bu the extension of that argument leads to lack of evidence for a fossil line...by implications means...'there is a fossil line waiting to be discovered".
Which may be true.
But... its back to the old "the evidence for flesh and blood is in the future.."
As it always will be.

4. claim that it is extremely rare to discover a carcass of any of the known apes in the wild. Comment?

Due to natural attrition..sure.but I am sure it happens..
Weakness in that analogy is the ape carcasses can be "discovered" when they are shot/trapped etc.
But lets continue in that context since it is often used "argument" by flesh and blood advocates.
They have often use the analogy of the discovery of the mountain gorilla in 1902 and point out how this animal stayed "hidden" from science for that long.
Fair point.
But...the problem with the rest of the narrative that they leave out..and for good reason...is this..
Within a few minutes of Beringe and co spotting the mountain gorilla...they had killed 2 of these animals.
Yet hundreds of millions of hunter man hours in the US/Canada alone has yielded how many bodies of sasquatches...??

5. Have you personally examined any of the sighting reports or other evidence? If so, do you regard any of it as credible and/or worth further research?

Yes. and yes.

6. Do you regard ‘dermal ridges’ as valid evidence in this field?

Yes...evidence of what is the question though..

7. What part do you believe that hoaxes, misidentifications and supposition play in this matter? Given a general lack in Australia of occasionally bipedal animals, such as bears, which are invoked elsewhere to explain away ‘Bigfoot’ and ‘Yeti’ sightings, how do you account for the consistent reports of bipedalism if a large proportion of the reports are misindentifications? What is it that people are seeing and hearing, or think that they are seeing and hearing?

A small % are hoaxes/liars/nuts.
I dont know what they are seeing..but it is not "just an undiscovered ape like form".
Being "really good at not being caught" is not the sign of great intelligence.
The ability to create "things"/language/ etc are signs of great intelligence.
A few sticks pushed into the ground/a few flimsy stick structures(which all may just be kids anway) proves that these animals are highly intelligent does it.??

8. Is there anything “that needs explaining” in Australia?

Yes...how an apelike form..appears here...and nearly every country on earth...and yet cannot be caught/shot/found/proved..
The "Nearly every country" minor problem(cough cough) is the spear(paranormal spear ?) through the flesh and blood theories and ideas.
If the whole "biological" problem...ie great ape like animals that cannot be caught was "just" in one country...then you might be in with a chance.
BUT...
The number of countries with the same problem reduces this chance by a major factor to somewhere around zero.
The more countries..the less chance...not the reverse...
Some of the American sasquatch hunters, f/b advocates realise this obvious problem.
Huston..we have a problem.
And lets ignore the UK as well to keep everyone happy.
http://www.paraview.com/redfern/index2.htm
Unless there are monsterous ape like creatures who are really good at hiding there as well.. geez

9. The 2004 discovery of ‘Homo floresiensis’ led Henry Gee, then-editor of Nature, to comment that “The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as Yetis are founded on grains of truth ...

That "grain" may "germinate" into a form...that causes major cognitive dissonance problems to sceptics and believers alike.
And actually point to something even more profound/weirder than "just" an uncatchable ape like form that cannot be found...that is secretly living in "advanced" countries of the world.

10. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Regarding sasquatch reports..Guttilla stated "do not occur at random relative to global geomagnetic activity, as would be expected if he were merely a hard-to-find Earth dweller."
http://www.yowiehunters.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=69

Mike Williams

[Lasso]

Welcome Glenn39....thank you for sharing some of your thoughts. We look forward to hearing more of them.

Lasso

[Glenn39]

Thanks for the welcome. And yes there are a few holes in the scientific theories behind many unknown animals and not just the Yowie/Bigfoot clan. As a pragmatic observer I certainly don't discount things like the lack of serious physical evidence like bones, bodies, and such as a frivolous point. If these creatures really do exist, then they have seriously redefined the meaning of elusive!

Things that come to mind that still need explaining are:

Why haven't we found bones or even a fossil skeleton of this creature that has presumably been around for quite some time?

One possible answer could be that the terrain and areas they inhabit which are predominately thick wooded mountainous regions remain largely unexplored or unseen by man. If they are generally restricted to these areas then its not unreasonable to assume their skeletal remains are also only there, and no where else. And, because we don't seriously venture into these areas much if ever, we don't, or simply haven't found that evidence - yet. In the present, the dead body of an animal in the wild especially in a temperate climate will decompose and breakdown very quickly, and the remains will quickly become scattered by scavengers or buried by the effects of weather and or the local flora. Again, this would be taking place far from where we are, as we simply don't take a Sunday stroll through the depths of the Blue Mountains or the American North-West every other week to find them.

How do these creatures remain so elusive?

Add thick and large relatively uncharted regions of mountains and forest, an intelligent and highly mobile primate probably used to people by now, and possibly only a small population of them too and one can see how they could probably do it. Science today is till discovering new animals, plants, and even new tribes of people from deep within the thickest unexplored parts of the world. So its not beyond the realms of possibility that the Yowie still remains to be truly discovered. I have heard that primates in general are inherently very good at hiding and will only venture out when threatened or in search of food. An apparently more developed intellect and mobility of the bipedal Yowie/Bigfoot would make it harder to find one would think. And, if the creature is semi-nomadic, its not sticking to one area all of the time, which again would make it hard to find. Of course this doesn't mean its not curious. A lot of sightings have occurred when these creatures have simply found us! Or, they have come over to look at our habitats and investigate what they may deem as an intrusion on their territory.

Could the sightings be some sort of mass hysteria or perhaps pareidolia?

Its not impossible, but hard to prove. I think about the bulk of the UFO abductions that have been reported by those who claim to be have been taken by aliens and how they seem to describe the aliens in exactly the same way, regardless of whether they were in Australia or Russia. And then there is the descriptions of the Yowie/Bigfoot creatures from many countries now, and again, all are virtually mirrors of each other, even down to the finest details sometimes.
One of the greatest unexplained and unexplored regions of the world is the human mind and what it may be capable of. Could we be seeing something that our subconscious mind is projecting on us in the visual and making us think we are seeing or experiencing something that is not really what we think it to be? I am not an expert in that matter but one wonders about what the mind is really capable of. For more on pareidolia: http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html