BRETT GREEN 'YOWIE TALES' REVIEW

[Mike Williams]

Queensland writer Brett Green's book 'Yowie Tales' has just been published, and there are more than a few surprises contained within it.
http://www.warriors.egympie.com.au/yowietales.html
I found the stories and reports by eyewitnesses really interesting and look forward to the second book by Brett.
The two images purportedly of yowies, if proven to be real one day, could be some of the most important secondary evidence of unusual creatures ever recorded!
The Queensland area that Brett concentrates on in his book surpasses, in many ways, the Blue Mountains of NSW, which has been promoted for many years now as a Yowie 'hot spot'.
'Yowie Tales' is a definite 'must have' for any cryptozoology enthusiast in Australia.
Those interested in Bigfoot-type phenomena will be equally enthralled by tales of strange encounters in the Australian bush.
I recently corresponded with Brett by email and sent a list of questions.
Brett decided to respond to all my questions below with the single response :
Under legal advice, the author has been advised not to make any comment on any unreliable or approved Internet source to any person not duly authorised while a current situation is being investigated.

The Questions


1/In the book sales post on AYR you stated the photos were "verified"
All I am going to say is that the cover image was taken from a genuine photograph from 1998; verified; and has been kept under "wraps"since then along with 3 others.
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=3952
Which person/group examined and "verified" the photo.?
And how did they verify the photo.?

2/On the AYR board we were told there were four photos in total...
In the book we are told "..sadly when the photographs were developed, six were clear, five were blurred.."
How many clear, unedited photos were there.Four or six.?

3/Where are the five blurred photos.?

4/Is their anyone who sighted the original negatives that we are able contact.?

5/The photos and negatives are very important secondary evidence of unknown creatures.
Were the original photos/negatives ever shown to scientists/anthropologists etc that can be contacted.?

6/The "raid" occurred on January 23-2012 "...duly demanded entrance entrance to the authors workplace and confiscated all research files, photographs, negatives, cd and dvd records.."
Did you have in your possession, at your workplace, the complete roll of negatives of the yowies before the raid.?

7/Did the "government departmental staff" remove the complete roll of negatives of the yowies.?

8/Regarding the first photo described in the book, the two males..there is this description.
Then out of nowhere, two creatures appeared on top of the rocky waterfall ledges near a fig tree in a fighting mode as they stood with their backs towards me and facing(or gesturing to other invisible entities in the far tree line ahead ( I was around 100 feet up the hill from them with the road in between,I snapped some hurried snapshots without thinking then they disappeared.
This photo(not released yet but discussed in the book) was shown to me.
This interesting photo shows two creatures level with the photographer.
The current description of any elevation above the creatures is impossible.
Can the author please explain this.?

9/Over the last 14 years since the incident , has the author had time to re-create the original photos at the location.?

10/Page 113 "some of the "illustrations" officialdom did not want anyone to see".
Why would a govt department not want the photos to be seen, but allow you to use the photos , so that people can see them.?

12/The original interview with AYR is below.
http://www.yowiehunters.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=145
The original story was five witnesses and no photos.
"It was at this location where Brett and 4 friends had witnessed first hand the power of the Yowie in a freak incident while bush walking 3 years ago....Brett went through the story stage by stage, pointing out the exact places and what was viewed..... It was a most incredible and amazing story with the names of all the people involved as back up of the encounter. "
The next version of the story in 'Yowie Tales' is one witness and photos.
Can the author please explain this.?

13/The author has been a Justice of the peace for over 40+? years.
With your legal background..are you claiming that you handed over your entire life`s work and forgot to ask the two govt staff for a copy of the search warrant, forgot to ask them where the police were to serve the warrant, forgot to ring the police and demand these people leave your property, forgot to ask the two govt staff for Identification for you to record, forgot to ask them for receipts for items seized and forgot to write down their car registration..?

14/If you have handed over your life`s work to two frauds, who were not govt employee`s, how could they have possibly known that you knew absolutely nothing about the law(even less than joe citizen) and would merely hand over your life`s work.
They essentially were risking jail time by impersonating govt officials whilst carrying out an illegal raid with fraudulent documentation.
Can the author please explain this.?

[glenmore79]

Under legal advice, the author has been advised not to make any comment on any unreliable or approved Internet source to any person not duly authorised while a current situation is being investigated.

What a load of codswallop.

Have you read the book Mike?

your personal score? /10 ?

Worth picking up anyway?

[selkiedarre]

Unimpressed so far

[andrew]

Wow! What the heck is going on - other than the obvious material raised by Mike. On second thoughts - don't respond to that. I don't think I want to really know about recent events. Secret squirrel business just gives me headaches and I have had enough experience of that to last a lifetime.

See my tag below.

I have a few questions that require an answer - for now.

Are the photos genuine or not? Does evidence exist that can prove that? Answered with a simple Yes or No is all that is required.

Last question: Where are the sworn affidavits from the witnesses that supports the photographs authenticity?

To put such game changing extraordinary evidence in the public arena carries with it an extraordinary burden of proof to back it up. It is time to convince the jury.

I briefly crossed swords with Brett on this forum and privately but have said nothing since. I will say this loud and clear. This is NOT personal. We are simply dealing with evidence that demands a verdict. I would expect to be subject to no less a burden of proof if ever I was fortunate to have this sort of evidence in my hands.

I invite no speculation on my comment. I have no interest in some endless, pointless debate.

[The yowie Mrx]

Thank you Mike Williams for you research and honestly on the book review.

[DrDirt31]

So are we saying its werth aread or not ? An whats with the ( secret sqirrel sound alittle funny to me

[Mike Williams]

Did you read the first post in the thread..
That answers your question..

[selkiedarre]

Actually Mike.. your original post reads a little like both sides of a debate...

and the second half had me sceptical about the first.

[Mike Williams]

Actually Mike.. your original post reads a little like both sides of a debate...

Actually...i didnt present a "debate".
I laid out briefly my own opinion of a book I purchased.
And some questions/problems..that might be resolved one day...

and the second half had me sceptical about the first.

Not sure where your going with that.
I gave an opinion..for what its worth.
And like many complex subjects there are two sides.
I am surrounded by many books here..many which I love..and many of those same books have problems and unanswered questions in their narrative.
Why would this book be different. ?
If you bought Bretts Book..then tell us your thoughts.
If you didnt..

[SAB 8]

I found it an interesting book but many questions (some of which Mike has put forth) need to be answered IN DEPTH to authenticate the contents. Especially regarding the claimed photographs. In a nutshell similar to Mike`s opinion I guess.

[selkiedarre]

my point being that the first part of your review has the book sounding worth the read, whereas the second part had me wondering if I want to spend my money on it being much of your questioning suggested the evidence dubious and reasonably unsupported.
That is what I meant by the debate.

[horserider]

"Under legal advice, the author has been advised not to make any comment on any unreliable or approved Internet source to any person not duly authorised while a current situation is being investigated."

Awesome.. so when the current situation being investigated has seized being investigated, we'll get some answers, i look forward to that day. I would also assume the second series will not be released under the circumstances until the 'current situation' has completed investigation & we receive the answers in relation to the first series?

Great, look forward to that

[Jo Blose]

Brett's book is a collection of anecdotal reports with one stand-out exception which inevitably had to attract attention sooner or later. The book was never advertised as a serious examination of the phenomena nor a serious examination of any compelling evidence. It is a light-hearted approach to an intriguing enigma utilising legitimately collected reports, that people of all ages can read and enjoy, especially whilst seated around the camp fire.

If interested folk find the Patterson bigfoot footage to be an interesting piece of possible evidence of a cryptid then those same people may experience the same jubilation regarding what's presented within the pages of Brett's book. Remember, the Patterson footage is likewise fraught with controversy concerning the circumstances of it's creation.

It is rare if not unheard-of, that such an extraordinary claim be backed with such extraordinary evidence which is awaiting recognised verification. In my opinion, anyone serious about cryptozoology would be an absolute fool to miss out on this book.

[andrew]

I found it an interesting book but many questions (some of which Mike has put forth) need to be answered IN DEPTH to authenticate the contents. Especially regarding the claimed photographs. In a nutshell similar to Mike`s opinion I guess.

Love the avatar SAB. It blew me away when I saw it for the first time. Then again, you have the original untouched digital image which shows no pixel anomalies and has the camera specs and date the image was taken. Now, that is evidence. The eyes have it. Pun intended.

[SAB 8]

If interested folk find the Patterson bigfoot footage to be an interesting piece of possible evidence of a cryptid then those same people may experience the same jubilation regarding what's presented within the pages of Brett's book. Remember, the Patterson footage is likewise fraught with controversy concerning the circumstances of it's creation.

I don`t wish to get into a huge debate about the Patterson footage but most of the reputable Bigfoot researchers in the US advocate it. Like any subject there are going to be those that oppose. Take global warming, UFOs, Galileo`s astronomical observations etc etc. Any major event or theory which threatens to upset the status quo will always be opposed by a faction regardless of the veracity of the claims. The only reason the Patterson-Gimlin footage has been so strongly supported is because the film and witnesses have made themselves fully available to questioning and analysis. Patterson himself was polygraphed soon after the event and passed (these tests were more highly regarded back in the day). Up unto his death Patterson always maintained his account and Gimlin to this day has been open to questioning from researchers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0dVzIr6bgw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8csreQ5qYbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSqjmTkl8Nk

The point is Joe the witnesses and film have been made fully available to numerous researchers/documentaries for analysis over countless years. For these claimed photographs to be even considered by the crypto community the photographs (originals) and the witnesses account need to be analysed in depth. Until this occurs it is all simply a light hearted ancedotal account.... as you described.

Love the avatar SAB. It blew me away when I saw it for the first time. Then again, you have the original untouched digital image which shows no pixel anomalies and has the camera specs and date the image was taken. Now, that is evidence. The eyes have it. Pun intended.

Ha ha cheers Andrew. As you know I am available for questioning anytime... and you have a copy of the original, plus I have witnesses who were with me at the locality and would support the claim (two who are on this forum)... its really not that hard to take some small extra steps in attempting to authenticate one`s work, observations, photographs and so on after all!!! Having said that I am still open to other researchers interpretation of any material I collect or theories I propose and will not take it personally if they have a differing opinion (as a few have)! It is the nature of the beast to have differing opinions I guess... pun intended!

[horserider]

The only reason the Patterson-Gimlin footage has been so strongly supported is because the film and witnesses have made themselves fully available to questioning and analysis. Patterson himself was polygraphed soon after the event and passed (these tests were more highly regarded back in the day). Up unto his death Patterson always maintained his account and Gimlin to this day has been open to questioning from researchers. ....................................................
... its really not that hard to take some small extra steps in attempting to authenticate one`s work, observations, photographs and so on after all!!!

Amen.
Sorry no offence to Joe or anyone but I totally agree with Sab 8, how can we not agree with this.

[forestguy]

... its really not that hard to take some small extra steps in attempting to authenticate one`s work, observations, photographs and so on after all!!!

That's true to an extent, but didn't the incident in question occur nearly 15 years ago?

For example:

...you have the original untouched digital image which shows no pixel anomalies and has the camera specs and date the image was taken...

That sort of data simply isn't going to exist for film photos from 1998 is it?

I know photoshop etc has made things tricky in terms of hoaxes etc, but the associated advances in tech have also made parts of the job easier...

[SAB 8]

andrew wrote:

...you have the original untouched digital image which shows no pixel anomalies and has the camera specs and date the image was taken...


forestguy wrote: That sort of data simply isn't going to exist for film photos from 1998 is it?

Negatives come with film however and in many ways are more compelling evidence.... that is if they are made available for independent professional analysis.

[glenmore79]

Are there any "leaked" photos from the book available for those of us who wish to view them without wasting *ahem* i mean spending the money on the book?

p.s currently having a cup of tea 20km sws off the 4wd track off tablelands rd. Beautiful day, magnificent view. Beats being at work.

[Ray Doherty]

The monster quest doco was excellent - thanks Sab

[The yowie Mrx]

You know that Brett Green is going to tell you that your questions and answers will be answed in the next book ..lol. And then in the book after that your questions and answers are still coming.lol .

This is called a cliff hanger :- your questions and answers are coming.

A cliff hanger is made to make money in the selling of books.

And the proof is in the pudding.

[Jo Blose]

It isn't an anecdotal account if photographic evidence above a certain standard exists which supports the account. This is way above that standard and the photos themselves are open to examination already. AS Brett highlights, the matter is still being investigated. As Mike highlights, pertinent questions need addressing. The difference is Patterson and Gimlin welcomed the limelight and Brett does not. I can't believe unreliable polygraph tests from the 1960s has entered into this discussion. A five year old kid with a pin could beat one of those machines.

Glenmore79, go to your bank and get a loan for the price of a book. Otherwise you could ask Horserider to send you her copy before she uses it to start her next fire.

Mr. X, I simply don't understand what your last point is and I don't know what relevance that brown and white photo has.

[The yowie Mrx]

Mr. X, I simply don't understand what your last point is and I don't know what relevance that brown and white photo has.

I will break it down for you Black.

What I'm saying is,Brett's pic is a blobsquatch .The mouth is so fun and at this time looks like photoshop.

Come on Joe ; you know

brown and white photo

is my blobsquatch.

And you and I know this hole fed is a pitch for publicity for brett book.So the best thing for me to do is not talk about.So that's all I have to say,by.

[Jo Blose]

Yeah, I thought that's what you were saying, X. The next time you look at Brett's photo, do yourself a favor and remove your blindfold first.

This way you will notice the subject in Brett's photo not only has deepset eyes but has pronounced lower and upper eyelids, a canine tooth in it's mouth exactly where it should be, a left ear exactly where it should be, a pronounced brow line, and individual hairs not only on face and top of head but from the neck down the left shoulder. The devil is in the details X, and your photo has zero details, hence why your photo like SAB's is truly just a bunch of blobs. Your photo is the blobsquatch and Brett's is not.

[andrew]

It isn't an anecdotal account if photographic evidence above a certain standard exists which supports the account. This is way above that standard and the photos themselves are open to examination already.

What standard is that, Joe? Would you care to elucidate what exactly that means and how it is measured, and how do you determine that a photograph is "way above that standard". Is there a quantitative measure here that we can all apply to photographs. Is it related to resolution or some other inherent property of a photo?

AS Brett highlights, the matter is still being investigated. As Mike highlights, pertinent questions need addressing.

"Still being investigated"? How long is that likely to take? I am having some difficulty trying to understand why this was not done well prior to publishing, knowing full well that the microscopes would be trained on them the second the book hit the street. The time for provarication is long past I would have thought.

[horserider]

No need for anyone to get upset with my comments regarding starting a fire, i was simply having a joke as i will be doing alot of campfires soon as im moving into an interesting spot soon... & my joking way of saying that after reading most of it & studying the pic a while i wasnt 100% convinced.. the pic wasnt bad but the disclaimer stunk as did the reply he gave Mike, its put me off & i would find it offensive that we should be taken for such fools. Its as simple as that.

I hope for our own sake this isnt all hoaxed But something tells me it s, there are too many holes in this

[SAB 8]

Sorry Joe, I was going to let it go out of respect for you but you have forced my hand with those last two posts!

It isn't an anecdotal account if photographic evidence above a certain standard exists which supports the account. This is way above that standard and the photos themselves are open to examination already.

Certain standards? There is no standard here. For all we know this is the work of a five year old on photoshop, maybe the same five year old who passed the polygraph, talented kid that one!!!! Where is the documentation, where are the negatives, where is the originals, where is the independent analysis.... ohh thats right some secret department has the negs and originals, how convenient!!!

AS Brett highlights, the matter is still being investigated.

Who exactley is investigating Joe? Yourself? Personal Investigator? Batman??? When are the results of this investigation being released? Did Brett seek legal advice over the matter? Care to answer Mike`s questions 6 and 7. Or will the answers be coming in book 2, or book 6 even???

As Mike highlights, pertinent questions need addressing.

Mike has had some pertinent questions for a long time now Joe... when are they going to be addressed. How about Green sits down for an interview or answers a list of prospective questions from the people who purchased and read the book? (including Mike`s 14)

The difference is Patterson and Gimlin welcomed the limelight and Brett does not.

So having your own website and advertising your own material is not welcoming the limelight Joe. http://www.warriors.egympie.com.au/generalinfo.html
Hardly the actions of an individual who wants to avoid the limelight! Or did you mean he doesn`t welcome the limelight when hard questions are asked?

The devil is in the details X, and your photo has zero details, hence why your photo like SAB's is truly just a bunch of blobs.

Thats funny Joe, I seem to remember an email where you expressed a different opinion. I`m happy to repost it to you if your memory has slipped?

YowieMrX I don`t think the image is a blobsquatch. They are quite clear images. What I am concerned about is the authenticity of the images. These may very well be real images, but without verification how are we to know? Even an attempt at verification would have been nice!!! There lays my criticism. I am not saying they are fake, just being critical of the fact that, to my knowledge and as presented in the book there has been no attempted independent verification. There was a 14 year period where this could have been conducted and it wasn`t!!! In my opinion that is inexcusable....

Joe the fact is Brett has presented the material and the readers have EVERY RIGHT to ask pertinent questions. To expect people to accept it all on face value and withold their concerns or queries is simply ridiculous! I hope as a result of this that future material can be more thoroughly documented and made accessible to other researchers!

Having said all that I enjoyed the reports presented (even if certain ones were taken with a grain of salt) and although critical of the lack of documentation I am happy to have made the purchase!!!

[andrew]

I hope for our own sake this isnt all hoaxed But something tells me it s, there are too many holes in this

I cannot agree with you HR. What has been asked for here is proof of authenticity. If I gave the impression that I was implying this is a fake, then that is absolutely incorrect. There is a world of difference. Please do misinterpret what I am saying in my posts. For the record, I am very intrigued by the photographs but until the questions are answered we are left in limbo, which is an uncomfortable position to maintain for long.
Also, I am of the opinion that all photos can be classed as "blobs" IF YOU ZOOM IN enough. That is a quite distinct difference between that and whether they are authentic or not. Blobby does not make a photo a fake, nor does a clear one get automatic clearance as the real thing. The only difference between blobby and clear is how good the resolution is and what detail can be seen of the features. Obviously clear wins when it comes to detail, but it is wrong to dismiss blobby as useless just because you cannot count the hairs in the left nostril. MrX’s photo tells us something useful, as does SAB’s. To dismiss either out of hand is, frankly, crass. The important thing is the provenance, witness statements, and the image/negative data that supports the authenticity. Without those, the clearest photo has a problematic authenticity. All I am asking for is the evidence to authenticate the photographs. This should have been provided. It was not. I have no doubt that leads to many having big questions about these images. Answers are required, and sooner rather than later.

[Jo Blose]

Andrew states, "What standard is that, Joe? Would you care to elucidate what exactly that means and how it is measured, and how do you determine that a photograph is "way above that standard". Is there a quantitative measure here that we can all apply to photographs. Is it related to resolution or some other inherent property of a photo?"

Easy, Andrew. The first standard would be to surpass the paradolia zone. That's easily measured. If you don't have to say, "What exactly am I supposed to be seeing?" then it is above that standard already. Brett's photos sail through the paradolia zone and straight into legitimate photo or fakery territory. Authenticity is where the ongoing investigation is obviously still centred.

Luckily for Brett and the AYR team, we have had some help along the way as to where to take the photos to authenticate them. In fact, AYR's old friend, "Nightwalker", pointed us in the right direction some years ago now. From the entire AYR team, we say, "Thank-you, Nightwalker!".

The AYR team itself has been on location to where the photos were allegedly taken, and that location is not in dispute. Valuable information regarding the authenticity of the photos has been obtained by being at the location.

Regarding resolution or some other inherent property of photos to guage authenticity, you always have the pixelation test where objects closer to the lens have sharper lines and more pixels than objects farther away.

[horserider]

I hope for our own sake this isnt all hoaxed But something tells me it s, there are too many holes in this

I cannot agree with you HR. What has been asked for here is proof of authenticity. If I gave the impression that I was implying this is a fake, then that is absolutely incorrect. There is a world of difference. Please do misinterpret what I am saying in my posts. For the record, I am very intrigued by the photographs but until the questions are answered we are left in limbo, which is an uncomfortable position to maintain for long.
Also, I am of the opinion that all photos can be classed as "blobs" IF YOU ZOOM IN enough. That is a quite distinct difference between that and whether they are authentic or not. Blobby does not make a photo a fake, nor does a clear one get automatic clearance as the real thing. The only difference between blobby and clear is how good the resolution is and what detail can be seen of the features. Obviously clear wins when it comes to detail, but it is wrong to dismiss blobby as useless just because you cannot count the hairs in the left nostril. MrX’s photo tells us something useful, as does SAB’s. To dismiss either out of hand is, frankly, crass. The important thing is the provenance, witness statements, and the image/negative data that supports the authenticity. Without those, the clearest photo has a problematic authenticity. All I am asking for is the evidence to authenticate the photographs. This should have been provided. It was not. I have no doubt that leads to many having big questions about these images. Answers are required, and sooner rather than later.

Andrew that post was my pwn general comment, although it was written under yours but it was not directed in answer to your one, that was juts my own general overall comment to everything Dont worry i havnt misread what you are saying i understand totally what you are saying