Yowiehunters Forum

G'day All,

I'm off for a couple of days so I thought I'd start a thread before I go and see what comes of it while I'm away. I noticed that Marius has asked a decent question regarding the evidence for opposable thumbs and cranial capacity. Useful questions (I thought) but I don't have anything to offer so I'll leave that one alone. I will watch with interest though to see what people can provide; after some have already taken some pot-shots at it.

I'd like to consider the question of what constitutes 'proof of existence' (of yowies) and the grades of evidence that can be considered. I'll offer my opinions and I'm hoping we can have some constructive input. Who knows, maybe we can actually develop something of use in the field.

Before I start, I have done a bit of research and haven't dug anything previous up. However, if I'm inadvertently going over old ground then feel free to point me to it.

I would consider that there are two things, which are 'evidence' and 'proof'. Proof is final and evidence comes in grades of quality.

With that said, here's my starting list:

Proof

• A live, captive specimen;
• A recently deceased corpse or significant portion(s) thereof;
• A recently dated skeleton or significant portion(s) thereof.

Evidence
High Quality (confirmed by independent laboratory analysis)

• Hair/fur samples;
• Body fluid samples (blood, urine, saliva, semen);
• Scat samples;
• Skin samples.

Medium Quality (confirmed by independent subject matter expert)

• Clear, in focus video footage;
• Clear, in focus still photograph(s);

Low Quality

• Footprint/handprint/bodyprint casts;
• Unedited audio recordings;
• Unfocussed video footage;
• Unfocussed still photograph(s);
• Tree bites;
• Broken branches;
• Nests;
• Tree'd kills.

No Value

• Edited audio recordings (excepting enhanced sounds in conjunction with original);
• Edited video footage (excepting enhanced video in conjunction with original);
• Edited still photograph(s) (excepting enhanced photos in conjunction with original);
• Stick arrangements and rock piles.

A couple of points:
This post is NOT about:

• Attempting to devalue Dean's encounter and the ensuing saga;
• Attempting to devalue YL1's audio evidence of Dean's encounter;
• The degree of difficulty of gathering said proof/evidence;
• The ethics or morality of capturing or killing yowies.

This post IS about:

• Trying to get a balanced view about proof and evidence that all parties can agree;
• Giving field researchers something with which to rate the value and outcomes of their expeditions;
• A scale by which researchers can assess where to devote their time and energies whilst on expedition.

I welcome any constructive suggestions to this post and hopefully at the end of it the AYR team might have something useful from the forum that could be published and put to use. I don't intend to arbitrate on the final list (assuming this post takes off). I think the post should be left open for a couple of weeks and then, perhaps someone from the AYR team might like to compile the results to their liking and organise another post to vote on the final result.

Any takers?

Thanks very much. I'm sure you're mulling it over and I'll look forward to anything you can add or suggest when I get back.

I agree Mike....we got a person here asking important questions.

Now all we have to do is come up with what constitutes proof. Personally I don't want someone to murder a Yowie to prove it. I would rather see one that has died of natural causes....or....

I do feel however that detailed lengthy high definition video would be useful to sway the argument of existence provided those involved in obtaining it were sound minded scientificly interested individuals, and it was corroborated by independent witnesses of the same creature with their own photos or videos provided at a different location conducive to its wandering behaviour around the same time.

Fleeting glimpses aren't worth much, but minutes of high quality video would in my mind prove the existence of something not yet noted by science. If we can get that, then all the stories (most of which are real) can have some vision to awaken those who don't have the open mind to even comprehend such a being.

Thats my 2 cents...if its worth more so be it. I would not want anyone to kill one of these creatures to prove them.



P.S. My intention here is not only to prove, but to provide grounds for protection of habitat. They need their land protected to survive. If not, in time we will be talking about something that might have existed when we had forests.

I agree with you Bill, anyone looking to get "proof or evidence" your pretty much on the ball


Few things I have to ask

High Quality (confirmed by independent laboratory analysis)

* Hair/fur samples;
* Body fluid samples (blood, urine, saliva, semen);
* Scat samples;
* Skin samples.

Without a Specimen to compare these too the above at best would be an unknown, while interesting doesn't automatically mean Yowie and would be argued as such. Not really High quality end of the day.

In saying that the only amendment I would make is putting a trackway into the medium quality. Trackways a line of footprints that show a difference from foot to foot over different terrain as a natural animal would, opposed too two wooden feet for example. Thats just from my unscientific personal point of view though

Hi All.

It pains me to say this but I think ultimate proof will always be a cold dead body laid out on a slab.

I guess there is the possibility that one might be captured but that seems to be extremely unlikely.

In either case, a body presented in its entirety would appear to be the only way to conclusively prove to everyone that these things exist.

Having said that, there are also degrees of proof depending on who you are trying to convince.

Anyone totally removed from the belief that Yowies walk the planet will need a body. Others may settle for detailed video or photographic evidence. Others may settle for the thousands of reported sightings. Others don't need proof as they already have knowledge based on their experiences.

In any case I think anyone from the most ardent believers to the harshest sceptics would find some resolution in the undeniable presentation of a body - alive or dead.

BilltheCat great question/idea!!!!

After reading through your list, I found myself nodding, going 'yep' here and there, so I find I have a similar aspect to yours in this matter. Any additional thoughts I'll add after your wording in a different colour.... here goes:



Proof

A live, captive specimen;
A recently deceased corpse or significant portion(s) thereof; This could feasibly occur - Yowies have been sighted on roads apparently interacting with roadkill, so it is possible one night, some poor roadtrain driver is going to come over a hill, see a Yowie on the road, and not be able to pull up his rig in time. I think this is the most likely way we are ever going to get hold of a Yowie, carcase. I'm not saying Yowies are so dumb or slow that they won't get collected by a passing vehicle, but one may linger a second or two too long, and then it's too late for it to react . The state of any driver unlucky enough to be put in this situation can only be speculated about!
A recently dated skeleton or significant portion(s) thereof. Perhaps a bushwalker may stumble on a carcase that has met it's demise through misadventure (fall off cliff etc). My main interest is in speculating if Yowies are likely to remove the bodies of their dead fellows in much the same way as humans do, rather than just let them lie where they fell. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to assume they have family bonds, and many animals have been recorded as showing behaviour that could be interpreted as 'loss' of their own kind (elephants, mothers who have lost young at birth, animals with strong pair bonds etc), so Yowies may indeed perform some kind of 'relocation' of the body of one of their own.

Evidence
High Quality (confirmed by independent laboratory analysis) Only problem with this is A) finding a Lab that is not afraid to report accurately on their findings, whether the samples are readily identifiable as being familiar or 'unfamiliar' with other recognized samples on file belonging to known creatures. B) Having that Lab RETAIN samples for future cross-checking

Hair/fur samples;
Body fluid samples (blood, urine, saliva, semen); I believe that it might be easier to rig something up to obtain two of these types of sample, though the ethics of doing so may be questionable. Blood may be able to be obtained by placing food items in a container of some sort with sharp edges, though Yowie skin may be a lot tougher than human, which seems logical, and you wouldn't want to have the beast cut off a finger or anything.

Saliva may be obtained using a method used at my place of work, when obtaining samples of cattle saliva to test for a certain microbe's presence in live animals: Hang a long, frayed. soft rope high up in a tree so it hangs down, free of the trunk (to prevent contamination). Innoculate the fibrous frayed rope end that is dangling free with a tasty substance that must be licked or chewed off the fibres, perhaps Vegemite (hey, it is Australian cryptids we are talking about here! or peanut paste, or even something like molasses, though this might attract too many insects - perhaps coat the rope in the early evening when there are no birds or bees etc about. If the rope is still there in the morning, and looks to be 'licked clean', I'm sure you'd get something you could DNA test as saliva. Unless there are starving lost bushwalkers about, it is also unlikely that a Lab might indicate humans could have sampled the chew rope!
Scat samples; There seem to have been a few of these sent to Labs, but no real conclusive 'proof' seems to have been promoted. I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that's the case here in Australia.
Skin samples. There's a lot of hair on the outside of that skin, so again, some sort of sticky trap could be used to get some skin cells off a palm or foot. Something like incredibly strong but 'dry' and clean-releasing Con-tact adhesive plastic film?


Anyway, that's my ideas for now

Kind regards,
Shazz

Hello BillTheCat..I went to push quote and cleverly pushed edit..then submitted the reply...my apologises..I chopped off you quoting marius

Thanks very much. I'm sure you're mulling it over and I'll look forward to anything you can add or suggest when I get back.

Nothing to add, you seem to have covered all bases.

opposable thumbs and cranial capacity

There are I think four divisions of thumb movement which are determined by the degree of "independence" of the thumb.
Other than humans, opposable thumbs are also found in old world monkeys and some/all? of the great apes.
So what does that mean regarding guesses of a yowie`s possible thumb dexterity ...nothing really..
Regarding cranial capacity, large head in some reports implies ?....just that.. a large head.
Maybe some form of proof of tools/manipulation of the enviroment/language etc would one day enable an interesting guesstimate of cc.

Hi Bill, that's a nice post.

I am just wondering where you would put "eyewitness evidence" (in general) on the list.

Now, I know that eyewitness evidence is subjective to the viewer, ie you can ask three different people who view the same thing what they have seen, and receive three different responses. However, I recall seeing a DVD recently (I think it was Monster Hunters) where the British police stated that if they had as much eyewitness evidence for a murder as they did for the existence of a certain cryptozoological animal (in this case, a large black cat), they would have convicted the murderer several times over.

Does the sheer number of eyewitness reports give credence to the existence of a yowie? Given that many people may be mistaken in what they see/report, does an increase in numbers suggest that at least one or two people in every thousand, (or million even), might be seeing something genuine?

Or would you consider eyewitness evidence to be, say, subject to the credibility of the witness, the circumstances the witness was experiencing (eg may have had a few drinks, or otherwise subject to hallucination, etc)?

Given that a modern western society such as Australia, places so much emphasis on eyewitness evidence in judiciary procedings, should eyewitness evidence be considered as potential evidence as to the existence of the Yowie, or discounted entirely due to its subjectivity?

G'day FHG,

Thanks for reviving this post. I haven't been posting lately for various reasons but this excellent post of yours deserves a reply.

I think the answer regarding 'eyewitness report' actually lies in another question, which is:

"Are we looking at this from a legal perspective or from a scientific perspective?"

Personally I believe that the scientific perspective is the correct way to go about this and as such I would place 'eyewitness reports' in the evidence category appropriate to the credibility of the eyewitness, e.g.

• Paris Hilton - Zero credibility
• Trained/Accredited Researcher - High
• Drug User - Low
• etc.

Of course, the rating of the eyewitness report would need to be conducted based on the situation and factors involved at the time, e.g. light, weather, location, alcohol, vested interest, etc. Therefore if there were more than one eyewitness then they're individual accounts may fall into different grades of evidence.

If you look at it from the legal perspective then it is probably more a case of 'the more the witnesses, the higher the rating'.

Them's me thoughts at the moment.

Good post!!

Hi BillTheCat

In the AFP we used to use the "Admiralty Scale" to determine the validity of our information or intelligence. It used to work really well. It ranges from A1 to a F6. The F6 being unable to authenticate at all.

These sources give some good background to the scale;

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ccr ... slides.pdf

www.afpa.org.au/get/402.pdf - page 19

Big Cats

Big Cats wrote:Hi BillTheCat

In the AFP we used to use the "Admiralty Scale" to determine the validity of our information or intelligence. It used to work really well. It ranges from A1 to a F6. The F6 being unable to authenticate at all.

These sources give some good background to the scale;

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ccr ... slides.pdf

http://www.afpa.org.au/get/402.pdf - page 19

Big Cats

As a member/former member of the AFP you might be in breach of your confidentiality with that first link. Particularly in this day and age of increased vigilance.

Mary Use wrote: As a member/former member of the AFP you might be in breach of your confidentiality with that first link. Particularly in this day and age of increased vigilance.

By linking to a document publicly available on the USAF Air Uni website?

Hmmm. I think Big Cats can sleep easy tonight...

Hi Mary Use

Good bye!!

How little you know and how wrong you are!

Forestguy you are spot on.

Big Cats