Yowiehunters Forum

Scientists tracking gorillas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e7mbHMMbzU

Some interesting potential parallels with our Hairy friends.

Comments?

Nice work!

Some very, very interesting parallels. Here's some I noted:

1) Difficulty following their tracks.
2) Difficulty seeing them even in broad daylight and only fifteen feet away.
3) A strong odour indicative they are nearby.
4) Displays of aggression if personal space is threatened.
5) Their growls or roars described as chilling.
6) A repore developed over time by continually being in the area and seeking them.
7) If distanced from them for some time, the repore is broken and has to be built up from scratch again.

When the gorillas became aggressive the scientists and trackers all adopted a non-threatening and submissive position - squatting with heads bowed and no sudden movements.

Would this be an appropriate approach with Yowies or when experiencing the FEAR given that displays of Yowie aggression, like that of gorillas, seems to be about intimidation or just for show?

Adopting a submissive position may be risky but would it be any more risky than the usual human response - running?

One fairly big difference. Gorillas are zoology, not crypto-zoology.
This is a good example of the problems with the existence of yowie/bigfoot et al.
The evidence of the existence of gorillas is scarcely in dispute.
It is self evident they exist. You can see one at a zoo any day of the week.
They actually exist.
Where then, is the similar evidence for yowies etc?
Hyper dimensionality not withstanding, of course.

Muppets wrote:One fairly big difference. Gorillas are zoology, not crypto-zoology.
This is a good example of the problems with the existence of yowie/bigfoot et al.
The evidence of the existence of gorillas is scarcely in dispute.
It is self evident they exist. You can see one at a zoo any day of the week.

Thanks for pointing out something no doubt 99% of us know and understand

Muppets wrote: They actually exist.
Where then, is the similar evidence for yowies etc?
Hyper dimensionality not withstanding, of course.

If the same evidence existed this would be on a Biology based forums or scientific paper would it not ? and not a crypto forum like it is.

This is "almost" and "kind of" like a strawman argument. Building up the others sides argument and bursting through it, even though most of the believers agree to start with their is no "proof" or hard scientific evidence


Im not going to even bother with hyper dimensional

No, Mikka. A strawman would go something like this.

"Well, Sure you have proof of yowies. I bet you have a family of them at the bottom of your garden. In their spare time, they like to throw yowie hunters about the place."
Or such like.

If the same evidence existed this would be on a Biology based forums or scientific paper would it not ? and not a crypto forum like it is.

Indeed. This is my point. There is no evidence that stands scrutiny.
Isn't it more likely that these animals are non existent then? Occam's razor and all that?

Is it a kind of quasi religion that leads people to believe in such things without any evidence?

Cryptozoology, as the name implies, is still zoology - only concerned with those creatures still unknown to science hence the "crypto" part.

In order to learn about the unconfirmed animals a common approach is to examine similarities in appearance, diet, and behaviour with potentially similar animals. Given that many eyewitness reports describe Yowies as resembling bipedal apes, it is not unreasonable to examine gorillas in this context.

Obviously, studying gorillas in captivity is easy. The clip above shows some of the difficulties this team of researchers have in studying gorillas in their natural environment even after 5 years of daily attempts. Just because gorillas are known to the world to exist doesn't mean they suddenly become easier to study in the wild as the clip shows.

Those of us who attempt to gather evidence about an unconfirmed species (Yowies) simply don't have the luxury of attempting daily pursuits over a similar time frame. Many of the reported sightings received are weeks, months, or years old rendering their trail cold. Our approach is hit and miss - mostly miss. Hence, the difficulties we face are multiplied in comparison.

Where is the evidence? 'Tis a work in progress.

I have had no personal sightings yet I have studied a lot of evidence - some I accept, some I am unconvinced, some I reject. I consider myself to be a harsher judge than most yet from what I have seen I am convinced that there is something real out there and that it is a worthy field of endeavour. Others, like yourself Muppets, have different standards of what to accept and reject. That is fine.

For me, the search is enthralling.

Long may you run, Hairy Man...

Muppets

Believe it or not I might be a skeptic on some topics and have debated as such on some other forums I might know what things mean.

Another stawman might be "believers in yowies automatically think we have proof and scientific evidence of such" again I haven't met anyone like that.


You have your opinion and fair enough, how about let this one go and bring out you knifes when someone mentions evidence and proof ?


Feel free to PM me, you would be surprised how much we agree on

Poor ol' Muppets! I'm not sure you'd distinguish an eight foot yowie if it was only two feet in front of you. You really ought to invest the time to find your own evidence, especially considering you enjoy spending so much time here. Otherwise, stick with your strawman. Afterall, seeing an eight foot tall yowie man, may not be good for your mental well being.

Crypto-zoology is the study of unknown or unrecognised zoology. With the Yowie, how could there not be some parallels with known zoological findings in the study of primates? At least the known primates are here for us to study, unlike our humanoid ancestors who can only tell us so much from the bones they've left for us to find.

joe black wrote:Poor ol' Muppets! I'm not sure you'd distinguish an eight foot yowie if it was only two feet in front of you. You really ought to invest the time to find your own evidence, especially considering you enjoy spending so much time here. Otherwise, stick with your strawman. Afterall, seeing an eight foot tall yowie man, may not be good for your mental well being.

How many have you seen?

As you seem to be having a little trouble with understanding the "strawman" logical fallacy, here is some clarification for you.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Ergo, I did not use one.
If you disagree, perhaps you could dissect my alleged offending post and point out the straw like parts. Here it is again, for your convenience.

One fairly big difference. Gorillas are zoology, not crypto-zoology.
This is a good example of the problems with the existence of yowie/bigfoot et al.
The evidence of the existence of gorillas is scarcely in dispute.
It is self evident they exist. You can see one at a zoo any day of the week.
They actually exist.
Where then, is the similar evidence for yowies etc?
Hyper dimensionality not withstanding, of course.

If you were wondering about the last sentence, thats a nod to our pal doctorscream. He is yet to prove that hypothesis to my satisfaction.

Crypto-zoology is the study of unknown or unrecognised zoology. With the Yowie, how could there not be some parallels with known zoological findings in the study of primates? At least the known primates are here for us to study, unlike our humanoid ancestors who can only tell us so much from the bones they've left for us to find.

Tell me, Joe Black, how many new species have been discovered by crypto-zoologists? Also, how many Universities offer degrees in the same?

Muppet's,

Once again, we see your basic pseudoscientific line of argumentation is straight from the skeptic guide on "how to argue"...it really is getting very tiresome reading the same Skeptic arguments over and over...Or am I just Confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence!!!..Or confusing unexplained with unexplainable, Slippery Slope, straw Man, Tautology and my all time favorite "The case for conformation bias" and not to forget "distorted version of a position". blaa...blaaa....blaa...etc...etc...etc

Reality is much more complex than that, and the natural observation is that there are shades of gray, not just black or white. Your sort of rigidity of thought is dangerous. It is what has led to witch hunts, to the inquisition, and the Holy crusades.

No-one here needs to be saved. People decide what they want to learn about, what they want to believe in, and the right to talk freely about it, with out being ridiculed for it.

Your comments are boring and typical of a PSEUDO Skeptic.

Isn't it time you got over your skeptic crusade and moved on....?

Muppets, you aptly remind me of one of the Muppets. Probably Bert or Earnie. I can imagine one of them lazily cut and pasting whole chunks of text from an unreferenced source and expecting everyone to understand a point being made. If you wish to spend your time here trying to educate us, at least do it to basic academic expectations. If the skeptic society trained you, they ought to be ashamed.

In answer to that first question you put to me, I'm sorry but I am unable to answer that at present, and I don't see the point of your second question. Cryptozoologists aren't trying to discover new species, they're researching known unidentified species. Yowies and big cats for instance, were discovered to exist long before cryptozoology came into being. Universities will never recognise cryptozoology as a legitimate field of study, and when a species is identified, it will lose it's crypto aspect, making it a legitimate zoological source of study. Hence, universities will never teach cryptozoology.

I was quite serious when I stated if you were to ever observe a yowie with your own eyes, it would not be good for your mental well being. Well, initially anyway. No doubt you have a very clear and rigid idea of how things work. Such an occurrence would be highly traumatic, and with trauma, usually comes the grieving process. For you, your current view of the world would be shattered and you would experience denial then anger, then bargaining, followed by depression, and finally acceptance. In the long run it would actually be great for your mental well being. Hard nosed skepticism is not unlike a religious sect. If you wish to remain a skeptic in this endeavour, I highly recommend no field work for you. Continue hiding in front of your computer monitor where it's safe.

A little tetchy, gentlemen.
Pseudo skeptic?
What then, might I ask, is your definition of an actual skeptic?
Assuming that you actually know, which given the nature of this site, I doubt.
Doctorscream, keep 'em coming.
So hawking was already in his chair when you saw him? What year might that have been?

Also, great work with the Bert and Ernie reference Joe. Thats really funny they way you have made that connection.
And original.

The only references to Stephen Hawking and Bigfoot that I can find are those posted on the internet by some frequently banned apparent-nutters:

historian wrote:You boys don't seem to have what some would call, an open mind.
In 1975, the previous 4th dimension of TIME, was reassigned by both a consensus of U.C. Berkeley staff and Stephen Hawking, TO EXPLAIN BIGFOOT INVISIBILITY. The Bigfoot as well as dozens of other smaller people, hide in the higher dimensions so they don't get shot by morons with guns. The reason why the government has not told you about it is evidenced by the above posts. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

JREF Forum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94981

bigfootmagnet wrote:I saw Jimmy Carter admit that Bigfoot is real and paranormal on Television. It was the first public statement he made after leaving office. "The Psychic Sasquatch" also reiterates Jimmy Carters position and experiences. Stephen Hawking was at U.C. Berkeley the same time I was and was famous for lecturing on Bigfoot. Since he obtained all of his information from a secret study at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that took place in the 60's, I believe that he went out of his way to not put it in writing. When he was on his recent world tour promoting his latest book, he specifically mentioned that Bigfoot is real and is paranormal. Why doesn't somebody track him down in England and hold his feet to the fire on Bigfoot? My field experience includes calling in about 60 Bigfoot and Littlefoot in the last year, that arrived in one phase or another that made noise commonly attributable to Bigfoot or Littlefoot. I did have two Littlefoot approach me on a mountain road in brush, watch me for a few minutes, turn on their self-illuminating eyes, increase the intensity to the maximum, reduce it to the minimum and then turn them off. The eyes were about nickel size and nearly touching. I heard them walk in on two feet and leave on two feet. Not many creatures out there can do both of those and without a flashlight. Someone always asks for proof. Yet virtually all proof can be faked, so why ask for it? Just another game?

Cryptozoology Forum: http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topi ... pid=244730

Looks familiar doesn't it, "historian"... I mean "bigfootmagnet"... er... I mean "doctorscream"?

A credit to Australian posters is that the replies on AYR are much more patient and tolerant than from within his own country.

Now, can we PLEASE get back on topic:

Night Walker wrote:When the gorillas became aggressive the scientists and trackers all adopted a non-threatening and submissive position - squatting with heads bowed and no sudden movements.

Would this be an appropriate approach with Yowies or when experiencing the FEAR given that displays of Yowie aggression, like that of gorillas, seems to be about intimidation or just for show?

Adopting a submissive position may be risky but would it be any more risky than the usual human response - running?

Muppets wrote:A little tetchy, gentlemen.
Pseudo skeptic?
What then, might I ask, is your definition of an actual skeptic?
Assuming that you actually know, which given the nature of this site, I doubt.
Doctorscream, keep 'em coming.
So hawking was already in his chair when you saw him? What year might that have been?

Also, great work with the Bert and Ernie reference Joe. Thats really funny they way you have made that connection.
And original.

Ad hominem..

At the risk of repeating myself again, your response is pridictable to the point of being painfull, ... It's almost laughable.

I will repeat my origanel question

Isn't it time you got over your skeptic crusade and moved on....?

Strange2 wrote:

Muppets wrote:A little tetchy, gentlemen.
Pseudo skeptic?
What then, might I ask, is your definition of an actual skeptic?
Assuming that you actually know, which given the nature of this site, I doubt.
Doctorscream, keep 'em coming.
So hawking was already in his chair when you saw him? What year might that have been?

Also, great work with the Bert and Ernie reference Joe. Thats really funny they way you have made that connection.
And original.

Ad hominem..

At the risk of repeating myself again, your response is pridictable to the point of being painfull, ... It's almost laughable.

I will repeat my origanel question

Isn't it time you got over your skeptic crusade and moved on....?

Well heres another predicable response that you no doubt are expecting. If your going to throw the ad hom accusation around, it carries a little more weight if you can manage to avoid committing it your self.

I admire your tenacity, doctorscream, but I am not going to argue with you. That is old ground covered MANY times, over and over, time and time again in the forums I listed above. Anyone is welcome to read it at their leisure. The result is always the same. I have enough professional and personal experience to realise the futility of reasoning with a person in your condition. I suppose that it never occurred to you that perhaps you are the only one in the world to "see" Jimmy Carter and Stephen Hawking discuss Bigfoot. I acknowledge that it is difficult to accept that sometimes what we perceive may not be as it actually is. It happens to all of us at one time or another - to some more than others. Good luck with that and be sure to read my upcoming article.

Speaking of old ground - Muppets, Strange2 - neither of you are advancing the age old skeptics v. "believers" debate. I don't doubt the passion of either of you but could you consider either starting a new thread/topic or continuing via PM.

So, in case anyone failed to look at the topic of this thread it is:

Great Ape Behaviour

I encourage participation but, please, can we refrain from behaving like LESSER apes. If any Forum Moderators would care to MODERATE this thread it would be appreciated. I am genuinely interested in discussing the possible parallels of the "Gorilla Charge" vid listed in the original post of this thread as well as any others that people may find.

Again:

Night Walker wrote:When the gorillas became aggressive the scientists and trackers all adopted a non-threatening and submissive position - squatting with heads bowed and no sudden movements.

Would this be an appropriate approach with Yowies or when experiencing the FEAR given that displays of Yowie aggression, like that of gorillas, seems to be about intimidation or just for show?

Adopting a submissive position may be risky but would it be any more risky than the usual human response - running?