Rock Wallabies are considered to be common with the Great Dividing Range in Qld and NSW but considered to be rare in Victoria. A night feeder, the common rock wallaby's primary method of locomotion is like other kangaroos and wallabies - a spring like action of the powerful hind limbs counterbalanced by a long, strong tail. This spring-like action provides quick acceleration, prolonged bursts of speed, and extended leaps vertically and horizontally which acts as a useful survival mechanism against predators. Furthermore, this spring-like action is also remarkably energy efficient at low and moderate cruising speeds with the tail suspended above the ground in a rocking motion while counterbalancing the spring-like action of the hind-legs.
Achieving cruising speed from a standing start, however, consumes more energy. As the powerful hind limbs spring the body forward the long, strong tail rocks in an increased arc providing increased counterbalance (thrust) making a soft or muffled thump, thump sound. The increase in energy used by the rock wallaby to achieve cruising speed from a standing start is offset somewhat why it's rapid acceleration - 2-3 bounds (thumps) for low-moderate speeds, 3-4 bounds (thumps) for moderate-high speeds.
Thump, thump, thump, thump.
The powerful hind limbs are cushioned somewhat by their spring-like action of motion thereby making a significantly lesser impact with the ground. This insignificant auditory signal is often overshadowed by the far more distinctive thump, thump needed to accelerate.
To build extra power needed for an extended leap (vertical or horizontal), the rocking motion of the rock wallaby's tail is greatly increased immediately prior to "take off" in order to generate further power in the hind limbs spring-like action. The tail comes in heavy contact with the ground creating a more prominent THUMP sound. Occasionally, this is preceded by a lesser thump of the tail on the ground - thump, THUMP - followed by silence as the body is airborne. This is interesting to note, however, and has little relevance to the current discussion.
In comparison, a biped walking “with purpose” down an incline makes a slightly different auditory signal. The heel (compressed and bony in order to support the weight of the body vertically) strikes the ground first marginally before the less-bony and more spread-out front of the foot creating a ka-thump, ka-thump sound. This ka-thump sound is very distinct when a biped is walking “with purpose" down an incline but is largely negligible when walking “with purpose” along even ground (thump) since heel and fore foot strike the ground at almost indistinguishable times. I encourage readers to try it out for themselves.
Possible interpretations for the Biped v Wallaby discussion:
Rock Wallaby - “thump, thump”. Auditory signal match, common, active at night. Highly likely.
Human - “ka-thump, ka-thump“. Possible but unlikely given the time and remoteness (as acknowledged by AYR).
Yowie - “ka-thump, ka-thump” (?) Extremely unlikely at the best of times.
Emu - “ thump, thump”. New nocturnal mountain forest dwelling species? Extremely unlikely.
Other fauna - a "thump" indicates large body mass or roo/wallaby tail strike. Besides a different species of roo/wallaby the chances of an entirely different species is highly unlikely. Larger bodied creatures - cattle, deer - are hooved which creates a sharper "clup" sound.
Nothing - Witness was initially uncertain that sounds were even heard. Highly likely.
Conclusion:
Even though the area may be considered to be a Yowie Hotspot, the number of rock wallaby encounters would FAR exceed Yowie encounters.
It is also possible (not unlikely) that expectations of being in a supposed Yowie Hotspot has clouded judgement.
Interpretation Probability
Biped 0
Rock wallaby 0.5
Nothing 0.5
Other fauna 0
The most likely conclusion is that the soft thump, thump, thump, thump sound was either (1) a common rock wallaby or (2) nothing.
______________________________________
Above is how and why I have reached my conclusion with the evidence you have presented. Over to you, Chewy.
Please inform the readers HOW and WHY you favour the biped interpretation over other possibilities. Furthermore, if you still insist upon your biped interpretation can you offer a likely conclusion - ie what you think that biped actually was - human, Yowie, emu, other.
This is not a personal attack, Chewy. I look forward to your constructive and critical analysis.AYR does not advocate beliefs. AYR presents and advocates physical evidence and personal testimonies. It encourages the right to express theories and to pass constructive or critical comment.