Yowiehunters Forum

I collected these earlier in the year.
The first picture is a lightened version showing the nosrils and wrinkles around the face, the second is the original

Yowielover1 wrote:Will be a good day when we see a detailed picture of a yowie. What type of trailcam is that? How many MP's is the camera? About how many feet from the camera was the yowie to activate it? What type of IR trigger is on it?

Your not wrong there, the camera is a Wildview 2mp. The animal was about 5-6 meters away, the object to the right of the eyes is a sweet potato I had hanging from a tree, it was 5'6'' from the ground.
Shame I didn't use one of my better cameras in that area, the flas isn't all that good on thi particular model.
Trigger is heat and motion

Cant help but notice your avatar Yowielover vs the eyeshine photo...........is it a coincidence??

Any thoughts on why the eye shine appears to be square in shape?

Would this be due to a reflection of the flash unit?

iwanttobelieve wrote:Any thoughts on why the eye shine appears to be square in shape?

Would this be due to a reflection of the flash unit?

That all I could come up or something to do with the Pixelation

HOLY c**p!

Just looking at that picture gave me the creeps.
Whatever it is, it must be pretty big, and man sized.

Yeti, thanks for reposting this - now I know where the Avatar came from!

Is this the only picture/frame from your trailcam?

Cripes, I shouldn't have looked at this pic before bedtime... it's extremely eerie.

Kind regards,
Shazz

That is the only picture that was on the camera.

Just thought I'd throw this in, see these picture they are legitimate picture of Yowie eyeshine, what response did I get, bugger all 8 posts about something none of you haver ever seenand yet alone will ever see. All of as sudden you get a post Yowie V Dean and he gets lot of hits about BS, either you want the truth or whats the go.

Yeti wrote:Just thought I'd throw this in, see these picture they are legitimate picture of Yowie eyeshine, what response did I get, bugger all 8 posts about something none of you haver ever seen and yet alone will ever see. All of as sudden you get a post Yowie V Dean and he gets lot of hits about BS, either you want the truth or whats the go.

Each case must stand or fallon its own merits.
The Dean incident is pure anecdote, and pretty sensational.
Evidence value at this point? On a scale of 1 through 10 barely 1.5.
Your picture? 3. Still a hella lot better than Dean's.
Two points of light are likely to be a lot more things before they are they reflective retinas of a fabulous beast. Car headlights, human retinas, owl retinas. But they could be yowie retinas. I cannot say definitively they are not, same as I cannot say they definitively belong to anything else.
What you have definitely presented is solid evidence of a camera that was operating beyond its design.

This is not a personal shot at you. I wasn't there. I am only working with the evidence you have presented.

Marius wrote:

Yeti wrote:Just thought I'd throw this in, see these picture they are legitimate picture of Yowie eyeshine, what response did I get, bugger all 8 posts about something none of you haver ever seen and yet alone will ever see. All of as sudden you get a post Yowie V Dean and he gets lot of hits about BS, either you want the truth or whats the go.

Each case must stand or fallon its own merits.
The Dean incident is pure anecdote, and pretty sensational.
Evidence value at this point? On a scale of 1 through 10 barely 1.5.
Your picture? 3. Still a hella lot better than Dean's.
Two points of light are likely to be a lot more things before they are they reflective retinas of a fabulous beast. Car headlights, human retinas, owl retinas. But they could be yowie retinas. I cannot say definitively they are not, same as I cannot say they definitively belong to anything else.
What you have definitely presented is solid evidence of a camera that was operating beyond its design.

This is not a personal shot at you. I wasn't there. I am only working with the evidence you have presented.

What would you like me to say, they aren't car head ligts and they aren;t owl eyes let alone human. I don't post anything on here that isn't legit, I wouldn't waste my time.
You give me arating of 3 over 1.5 thats pretty ordinary when what I have are genuine

Yeti wrote:

Marius wrote:

Yeti wrote:Just thought I'd throw this in, see these picture they are legitimate picture of Yowie eyeshine, what response did I get, bugger all 8 posts about something none of you haver ever seen and yet alone will ever see. All of as sudden you get a post Yowie V Dean and he gets lot of hits about BS, either you want the truth or whats the go.

Each case must stand or fallon its own merits.
The Dean incident is pure anecdote, and pretty sensational.
Evidence value at this point? On a scale of 1 through 10 barely 1.5.
Your picture? 3. Still a hella lot better than Dean's.
Two points of light are likely to be a lot more things before they are they reflective retinas of a fabulous beast. Car headlights, human retinas, owl retinas. But they could be yowie retinas. I cannot say definitively they are not, same as I cannot say they definitively belong to anything else.
What you have definitely presented is solid evidence of a camera that was operating beyond its design.

This is not a personal shot at you. I wasn't there. I am only working with the evidence you have presented.

What would you like me to say, they aren't car head ligts and they aren;t owl eyes let alone human. I don't post anything on here that isn't legit, I wouldn't waste my time.
You give me a rating of 3 over 1.5 thats pretty ordinary when what I have are genuine

Easy now. Your pictures are of a tree and two points of light.
What you say they are, unfortunately, is not going to convince the world, let alone me, of anything. As proof positive of a new to science hominid, they are fairly uninspiring.
I dont make the rules of quality evidence,and if you believe it to be a yowi, thats fine. I am not questioning your integrity.
As I said, I am reacting to what you have presented. I wasn't there, and if i took the photo, I wouldn't expect you of anyone else to agree that it was the eyes of a yowie they were looking at, and even if it was as clear as a bell yowie standing there, it would still require a lot more independent confirmation.

I have to agree with Marius on this one.

If you indeed saw a Yowie then nobody will convince you they don’t exist. However, this photo by itself does nothing to convince others of their existence.

You say that wrinkles around the eyes and nostrils are visible in the enhanced version. Most likely a coincidental result of pixilation - same as the tree branches which then appear to have an aura.

Hint: a daytime photo taken in the same spot of the same tree would at least give an indication of size.

Don’t give up… but more is needed.

And you are? Someone who has joined with 5 posts without any reseraech experience, maybe an arm chair researcher or a mate of Deans, it has to be 1 of the two.

Incorrect.

I am an independent.

Just trying to help…

Yeti wrote:And you are? Someone who has joined with 5 posts without any reseraech experience, maybe an arm chair researcher or a mate of Deans, it has to be 1 of the two.

Ease up, Yeti, everyone is entitled to their opinion... being snotty to newcomers isn't nice either.

We love getting new info and pics of our big hairy neighbours, and anything that you present to the forums is of interest. As I've said before, look at the number of people who have checked out this thread.
If you've got something cool to show or tell us about Yowies, we're all eye/ears.

Kind regards,
Shazz

Your eye shine pics are very similar to those that Neil Frost took in his backyard in Hazelbrook NSW. Neil had his photos analyzed by some expert ( maybe from NSW Police ) and they could not refute the authenticity of the pictures he took.

To quote Neil’s posting on this shot “Unfortunately I only have two photographs of the Yowie, probably two more than most people. This one is a photograph of the "red eye" that I took with a hand held camera at a distance of about 16 metres (48 feet). The height to the eyes is 6 feet 1 inch (plus forehead), a height confirmed by the New South Wales Police who were investigating our "problem" as part of their extended investigation over 3 months plus 3 day stakeout. The eye separation was estimated at 66 mm (2.6 inches) by professional photographer and confirmed by actual comparative measurements of thickness of branches in immediate foreground."

Yeti wrote:And you are? Someone who has joined with 5 posts without any reseraech experience, maybe an arm chair researcher or a mate of Deans, it has to be 1 of the two.

As an "armchair" researcher i can say you lost me with that post, you're just as bad as the people you bag out.

The pic shows two lights/eyeshines that could be from anything. I commend you on going to the effort to place the trail cams but you didnt really need to attack someone for showing that they can think for themselves and question things.

the_sleepwalker wrote:As an "armchair" researcher i can say you lost me with that post, you're just as bad as the people you bag out.

The pic shows two lights/eyeshines that could be from anything. I commend you on going to the effort to place the trail cams but you didnt really need to attack someone for showing that they can think for themselves and question things.

Totally agree