Yowiehunters Forum

Been thinking about the whole supernatural versus reality debate regarding yowies and I have an idea worth putting forward I think.

Firstly this idea could be completely wrong, so I'm not saying this is 100% correct, but it's plausible.

There is a lot of support for the idea that Neanderthals died out as a result of competition with Homo sapiens. We also know that H. sapiens lived alongside other primates throughout history.

So if there was a bipedal, intelligent animal/ape that still exists today (we call bigfoot/yowie/yeren), what kind of evolutionary adaptations would have enabled it to survive alongside us humans? Humans are very good at destroying, polluting, conquering and dominating the natural world, direct competition with us is probably not a good idea. The Neanderthals might have found out the hard way that you don't compete with our species otherwise you're not going to be around long.

So for yowies to survive alongside us, one evolutionary trait that would ensure they survive is to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM US. And that's exactly what they appear to do, maybe it's why they're so hard to find.

Over time, those yowies who exhibited behaviour that kept them out of our way, kept them unknown and no where near competition with us would pass on their genes and learned behaviour and we might end up with what we see today (or don't see actually!), an intelligent, bipedal animal that might be closely related to us that has survived alongside us successfully by staying out of our way.

Possibly a case for genes and memes (see Richard Dawkins in regard to memetics i.e the transfer of cultural adaptations via genes. [Homo sapiens] has been found to have co-existed with a number of other Homo[i species including Floresensis, Denisova, as well as Neandertals. The Neandertal were on their way out before sapiens began to appear, with Floresensis only going extinct (at this stage) around 12,000 years ago. Neandertal genes are found within most of the Caucasian population with 2 to 4% range and the Denisovan gene is found all the way down to our local Aboriginal populations. Perhaps Yowies etc have survival strategies that don't use the same kind of habitats or food sources terrirtories etc, but that doesn't sit right to me because genetically and logically a Yowie etc would be more closely related to us than Bonobos are today at around 98.7%. But they must have clashed in some time period. I think I have just opened more questions than trying to provide a theory lol. mmm will have to do some thinking on this one.

vinderliker65 wrote: Perhaps Yowies etc have survival strategies that don't use the same kind of habitats or food sources terrirtories etc, but that doesn't sit right to me because genetically and logically a Yowie etc would be more closely related to us than Bonobos are today at around 98.7%. But they must have clashed in some time period.

Not sure what you mean here, being closely related (whether more so than a bonobo or less) doesn't mean they have to directly compete. Look how different we are from bonobos. Sure they might have clashed with humans, those that avoided us lived. Maybe.

It is hunting season in US for deer and elk, so hunters in mass in the US woods. I just got back from two locations for 4 nights and my forest contacts were laying real low. They have adapted to the conditions. They have strong survival instincts. Remember the US west is vast with lots of challenging vertical terrain. Humans seek the path of least resistance. In fact, many road hunt from their vehicles. They do not. Good thought process FM80.

I am in the woods allot and nature here seems to me to seek balance. Eagles and Hawks during the day, owls at night, birds during the day, bats at night, and it goes on and on. Humans during the day, Sasquatches and Yowies at night equals balance. It should be expected.

At last someone making sense well to me anyway !

Right on FM !!!!!!!!

I think what I am trying to get too is that both our hairy friends and our own species, must have been co-existing for a long period of time. But they must have clashed for resources along the evolutionary way. While we have ended up as we are today or hairy friends have evolved to where their are at the moment, and during the last 12 000 years or so we began to develop agriculture and domestication of other species letting of the pressure of similar resources from a hunter gatherer prospective ( I am not saying that are advanced as we were along the evolutionary scale, but we must have clashed for resources as top predators at some time). You just have to look at the indigenous stories of the hairy ones for clues in regards to this. If you have ever seen the phylogeny of Hominoidea, it would be interesting where our friends would find a place.

vinderliker65 wrote:I think what I am trying to get too is that both our hairy friends and our own species, must have been co-existing for a long period of time. But they must have clashed for resources along the evolutionary way. While we have ended up as we are today or hairy friends have evolved to where their are at the moment, and during the last 12 000 years or so we began to develop agriculture and domestication of other species letting of the pressure of similar resources from a hunter gatherer prospective ( I am not saying that are advanced as we were along the evolutionary scale, but we must have clashed for resources as top predators at some time). You just have to look at the indigenous stories of the hairy ones for clues in regards to this. If you have ever seen the phylogeny of Hominoidea, it would be interesting where our friends would find a place.

Yeah you're right, there must have been competition at some point, but you don't see any competing in this day and age which means that kind of behaviour or ecological niche was not favoured by natural selection, hence those that preferred to keep well clear of us survived and evolved in to the type of creature they are today.

It's all conjecture, but what if this is one of the main ways they have survived alongside us? Does the little amount of information we have on them support this idea? Maybe. I’ve had some time on my hands so I’ve tried to come up with a few points to see if this idea fits with what we know about them.

1. They would become masters of their territory, the bush, which seems to relate to all the experiences people have of them sprinting through extremely tough terrain etc. As humans became masters of agriculture, they may have found that a secluded life in the bush was where they could thrive, and they have become very, very good at moving through it.

2. They would avoid us at all costs. Some people claim that the yowie just 'disappeared' in front of them, but perhaps the skills they possess that enables them to blend in to their surroundings are so well developed that they seemingly 'melt' in to the bush like magic. Maybe it's not magic, just really good evasive techniques.

3. All of their warning behaviour, for the most part, seems to be non-confrontational. Their defense strategy seems to be geared towards frightening the s#@t out of us so we too will keep our distance. To me this seems like they know that conflict with us is not a good idea in the long run, so if any humans are going to get too close, give them a fright, throw a big rock, shake a few trees, roar at them, give them a subtle hint that they should move on.

4. Some people say “Where is the evidence? Where are the photos?”. Well for starters, bigfoot/yowies are not a recent phenomenon, sightings stretch back a long way. It’s not like back in the days before cameras yowies were walking around in plain sight and people were saying “If only I had some sort of invention that could record what I am seeing right now”. No, they seem to have been as elusive back then as they are now. There might be more sightings now because people are encroaching on their territory more, but they are as elusive as ever.

I guess it may seem to some people that yowies/bigfoot are playing ‘hide and go seek’ games with us, they think that’s ridiculous. They think that by now we should have some evidence, why would an animal play hiding games with us? So I’m going to use this line of reasoning if someone asks about lack of evidence.

The fact we don’t have any evidence is exactly what we should expect if bigfoot/yowies exist. What would be strange is if after hundreds of years (or more) of no hard evidence, that all of a sudden there was an influx of evidence and prolonged encounters with the animals. They survived by being elusive. To survive alongside us, they carved out a niche that ensured as little interaction with us as possible. We shouldn’t expect this to change just because we’re looking for them or just because cameras exist.

You make some good logical points FM80 (even if I disagree). Though it does seem that for every problem/inconsistency, an ability can be found to attribute to Yowies to counteract it. In the end it all starts to resemble "magic" abilities anyway and begins to look like a special pleading fallacy (IMO).

I have never seen a Yowie (or anything else) dematerialise or emit light from it's eyes, nor do I have any paranormal beliefs. What I have seen (that looked quite real) was strange enough that it makes me far more hesitant to completely pass off other peoples experiences too easily (even if they seem paranormal).

There are areas of science itself that are completely overlooked regarding this subject, possibly because they could infer a less than physically real creature. Though this isn't meant to dissuade people from trying. I veer more to "paranormal", not so much because I believe in dimension hopping Yowies, but simply because after many centuries of these things being seen around the world, none of it makes sense. When you also consider the claims that appear to have a paranormal element, it is very possibly something else going on here.....

FM80 wrote: There is a lot of support for the idea that Neanderthals died out as a result of competition with Homo sapiens.

There is also support for the idea that, in the end they were simply bred out of existence. This makes some sense when you consider what has happened to modern indigenous populations after only a few centuries.

From studies of the fossils we do have, inferring not just basic morphology but things like nervous system/brain development, it seems to show a progression of features, notably intelligence, though nothing of the special adaptions you mention in any obvious way. Though it is obviously incomplete and the massive changes undergone from the time our forebears began to stand upright could no doubt (hypothetically) support a homonid that evolved a different type of intelligence, or similar features but used in a different way (via environmental pressures etc). Sounds logical enough.

FM80 wrote:one evolutionary trait that would ensure they survive is to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM US.

Stalking bushwalkers and armed hunters, frightening campers, terrorising truck stops, returning to the same suburbs for decades where they are seen by scores of people, seen crossing busy highways, freeways, seen in orchards, walking out of the bush and surrounding cars, jogging along the gold coast highway in peak hour traffic.....

How does this translate to "keeping away"? In fact many accounts suggest Yowies go out of their way to approach people. Creatures exhibiting the behavior noted above most definitely do come to grief in various ways and leave specimens over the centuries. Really, their behavior seems vastly different to what you are implying. The further you get away from the urban fringes, the less likely it is you will see a Yowie, if the bushwalking clubs, canyoners and myriad other groups that do go to remote areas is anything to go by.

The "big cat" phenomenon is plausible (if unlikely)) as they most definitely are solitary and well adapted to remain secretive. Not breeding populations of 8' apes in the areas claimed, no chance IMO.

FM80 wrote:They would avoid us at all costs. Some people claim that the yowie just 'disappeared' in front of them, but perhaps the skills they possess that enables them to blend in to their surroundings are so well developed that they seemingly 'melt' in to the bush like magic. Maybe it's not magic, just really good evasive techniques.

Or perhaps people are telling exactly what they saw? Reinterpreting other peoples experience to fit a preconceive and as yet unsupported idea may not be the best way. That could equally apply to anyone who has seen a Yowie and is what mainstream science/population in general do where Yowies are concerned ie. "you thought you saw a Yowie but were mistaken probably because of (insert hallucination, misidentification or anything else you like here).....

What would you make of claims that Yowies eyes emit light (as opposed to reflecting it), which is not an uncommon one? The chances of a large terrestrial mammal having such an ability are surely close to zero? Do we just ignore this and cherry pick the rest?

FM80 wrote:The fact we don’t have any evidence is exactly what we should expect if bigfoot/yowies exist.

That seems very doubtful. Really, it would be quite the opposite, wouldn't it?.

I agree regarding photos, it can be difficult to get pics of mundane creatures (particularly nocturnal ones) and blobsquatches seem a likely result. Though at some stage a game cam should get one. If you are talking of a creature with the intelligence and abilities to avoid such things so comprehensively, you are already veering towards "special pleading" and "magic" IMO.

I also see the accepted "indicators" of Yowie presence/activity in research areas as problematic. Having studied these things in particular, in areas with histories of Yowie sightings. This has the possibility of being very misleading IMO.

Hi Sapere,

cheers for the feed back, appreciate it.

Stalking bushwalkers and armed hunters, frightening campers, terrorising truck stops, returning to the same suburbs for decades where they are seen by scores of people, seen crossing busy highways, freeways, seen in orchards, walking out of the bush and surrounding cars, jogging along the gold coast highway in peak hour traffic.....

How does this translate to "keeping away"? In fact many accounts suggest Yowies go out of their way to approach people. Creatures exhibiting the behavior noted above most definitely do come to grief in various ways and leave specimens over the centuries. Really, their behavior seems vastly different to what you are implying. The further you get away from the urban fringes, the less likely it is you will see a Yowie, if the bushwalking clubs, canyoners and myriad other groups that do go to remote areas is anything to go by.

Good point. They do seem quite inquisitive. I think what I'm trying say by 'keeping away' is the general trend of them not making it easy for them to be found. I think my version of 'keeping away' is not standing in clearings eating like deer or bears would. They seem to understand that we might be a threat to them (perhaps their only potential predator or danger?) and try not to make themselves easy to find. This is all speculation but the fact that they like to observe us and interact with us could be because they recognise their similarity with us.

You're right, they are seen, they do stalk bush walkers, frighten campers etc., I guess I would offer the explanation (it might not be a good one) that perhaps an intelligent species has individuals that behave differently to others, like humans. Some are mean, some are dumb, some are inquisitive, some are shy, some are lazy.

It's not even that they don't want to be found, they interact with us enough for us to know that they are not trying to conceal their existence, they know that we know they're there, but they are going to keep their distance from us (again they might see us as their primary, perhaps only, threat). Perhaps terrorising truck stops is a way of saying "I don't come in to your area, this is my area, go home".

There's a very well documented case of ongoing, regular interaction with one or more yowies that occurred after the person built their house on vacant land that was once used as thoroughfare by yowies to adjoining valleys. As we encroach, there will be encounters. The urban fringe is a major yowie/human interface, it's the frontline, it's where we're pushing in to their territory so I'd assume this is where the majority of interaction would take place.

Or perhaps people are telling exactly what they saw? Reinterpreting other peoples experience to fit a preconceive and as yet unsupported idea may not be the best way. That could equally apply to anyone who has seen a Yowie and is what mainstream science/population in general do where Yowies are concerned ie. "you thought you saw a Yowie but were mistaken probably because of (insert hallucination, misidentification or anything else you like here).....

What would you make of claims that Yowies eyes emit light (as opposed to reflecting it), which is not an uncommon one? The chances of a large terrestrial mammal having such an ability are surely close to zero? Do we just ignore this and cherry pick the rest?

No I'm not reinterpreting peoples experience, apologies if it seems that way, just trying to offer an alternative. It just doesn't seem to be a common theme in nature or reality that things, especially animals, disappear. Nothing comes to mind when I try to think of other animals that disappear. What I was getting at is perhaps their ability to melt in to their surroundings is so exceptional that for all intent and purposes they disappeared.

People who have seen them literally disappear in to vapour or whatever, actually go from visible to invisible, well I have nothing for that whatsoever.

That seems very doubtful. Really, it would be quite the opposite, wouldn't it?.

I agree regarding photos, it can be difficult to get pics of mundane creatures (particularly nocturnal ones) and blobsquatches seem a likely result. Though at some stage a game cam should get one. If you are talking of a creature with the intelligence and abilities to avoid such things so comprehensively, you are already veering towards "special pleading" and "magic" IMO.

No I don't think it's doubtful. The amount and type of evidence we have seems to fit quite right. Forget fossil evidence for starters. Footprints, hair, vocalisations and thousands of sightings seem to point to a living creature. It seems that they don't want to be found otherwise they would been found by now.

Thanks FM80. Thanks also for the manner of your post. It's nice to discuss this subject without it degenerating or becoming irrelevant, as it has been known to.

I guess where we might differ is in our interpretation of what constitutes evidence of Yowies/Bigfoot etc. I find the claims I have seen somewhat unlikely in lieu of verification. Even for a highly qualified scientist like Meldrum who no doubt appears genuine, I can understand why his work is not acknowledged by the scientific community. I have read rebuttals from amateurs who have inspected and researched his footprint casts and thrown all sorts of genuine doubts over it all. In short, I haven't found any claims that would indicate such things physically exist, that doesn't require a leap of faith or isn't full of ambiguity.

Research seems full of strangeness and ambiguity with no end of things that "could" be caused by Yowies, but seemingly nothing that definately is. I can't help also notice such a great variety in footprints, that they require at least several different species. Some I have seen some that look so strange, the thought that it could support a large upright ape is hard to imagine.

Similar with descriptions, there must be several different species which decreases the odds IMO. The thought that several species could exist in the areas claimed while remaining hidden is verging in the area of not being possible IMO. Especially if they cross roads and harass hunters. There should be genuine unambiguous traces and I would go even further, there should have been specimens long ago. It appears they are immune to mishap, illness or old age, then at the end of it all they just "evaporate".

Though I do agree that so many sightings are a good indication people are genuinely seeing something. It is this very fact coupled with a lack of anything to genuinely verify a biological cause, that has me veering to "paranormal" (as in, beyond our present ability to understand). Though I don't say this is necessarily a correct view. We nay have to agree to disagree at this point until something a little more definitive is found regarding Yowies, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Viva la difference, as they say.

There is no evidence to anything being put forward here, I agree with much of sapere aude has said, the argument of the Yowie being Flesh and Blood is just as non existent to the argument they are paranormal. It could be viewed the same in some peoples eyes.

Seriously what evidence is there to a flesh and blood yowie?

I ask anyone to come forward and give me evidence of a Yowie being Flesh and Blood?

I am happy to be proven wrong here.

There is no evidence to anything being put forward here

No joke, that's why the title of this thread is "An Idea" not "Evidence".

Seriously what evidence is there to a flesh and blood yowie?

Can't help you here mate obviously. It must be a godsend (no pun intended) for those with paranormal leanings that there is no biological evidence.

All I was trying to do was use the things we know to try to explain the things we don't. Perhaps the things we know about the natural world might help to explain the things we don't yet understand.
My idea is probably wrong, I was just spit-balling, thanks sapere for the constructive criticism.

It's astounding to me that the paranormal fraternity need no evidence whatsoever to be so sure. I don't mean evidence of flesh and blood yowies, but evidence of the paranormal in any form. If you look around you'll see many flesh and blood animals. The complete lack of paranormal animals and the abundance of real animals speaks volumes.

I've said it before - imagine how little we would know if we attributed every strange or enigmatic phenomenon to some sort of paranormal, or even worse, religious cause.

Folks, it has to start some where. It starts with folklore from the indigenous population, a sighting, a foot print, then maybe a hair, and then maybe a DNA sample and what do you know you find there is something unknown lurking in the Himalayas. There was tons of evidence, the problem is the unknown entity was remote, hard to find, probably in limited numbers and was not wanting to be found by another apex predator. Plus, the fact is science really wasn't looking very hard. We can all agree to that. Sound familiar?

I apologise FM80 if I came across a little harsh with my wording it was not my intention.

I realise I probably derailed your thread from an idea, to not supporting evidence for them being Flesh and blood.

What I am trying to get at is with the lack of solid evidence for any of these phenomena what is there to gain from, Other than to speculate the paranormal? Especially when one has had a rather unexplainable sighting which could not be explained away as the norm? And there are many people who have those encounters! Many I would suggest that do not come forward in fear of ridicule.

We all have different beliefs, experiences, etc. they all lead us down different paths some will cling to the modern scientific world of an evolving universe (in a way I do to), others to a spiritual existence that was created; it’s a part of life. There will always be a difference of opinion. I believe in a lot of things doesn’t make me right or wrong just an opinion based belief system.

The below Quote is taken from the wiki page for Phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

In modern philosophical use, the term 'phenomena' has come to mean what is experienced as given. In Immanuel Kant's Inaugural Dissertation, On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World (1770), Kant theorizes that the human mind is restricted to the logical world and thus can only interpret and understand occurrences according to their physical appearances.

So taking the above quote into consideration if we are always trying to understand Physical appearances in a logical world are we are dismissing an intelligent unseen force behind it all that being a spiritual world capable of more than what is known to be possible?

I think that’s plausible, but hey that’s just a belief and opinion.

No worries Dion, I understand what you were getting at, all good. At the risk of getting repetitive I've replied to some things below, I guess it's in the right section of the forum so so we're not bothering others.

What I am trying to get at is with the lack of solid evidence for any of these phenomena what is there to gain from, Other than to speculate the paranormal?

This is the logic that I personally can not understand. How can a lack of evidence be evidence for anything? How does one make the leap from no evidence to "It must be paranormal then"? Baffling, to me anyway. It seems a very weak position when the best thing it has going for it is a lack of evidence, you know, "so long as we don't know anything about it we can call it anything".

Especially when one has had a rather unexplainable sighting which could not be explained away as the norm? And there are many people who have those encounters! Many I would suggest that do not come forward in fear of ridicule.

Yeah I admit this is a difficult aspect to deal with. I can't sit here and say people didn't see these strange things, or they're crazy or mistaken. I can honestly say I don't have anything to offer on this aspect, it's a puzzle.

We all have different beliefs, experiences, etc. they all lead us down different paths some will cling to the modern scientific world of an evolving universe (in a way I do to), others to a spiritual existence that was created; it’s a part of life. There will always be a difference of opinion. I believe in a lot of things doesn’t make me right or wrong just an opinion based belief system.

These aren't competing theories. There's strong evidence for the scientific description of the universes evolution, no evidence for the other, if anything, just evidence that refutes the other.

I think that’s plausible, but hey that’s just a belief and opinion.

Fair enough, good to discuss it though, see other peoples views, amazing how differently we interpret the world.

The best advice I can give any of you is get out and try and experience them for yourselves. It can be done. I am the perfect example of that. Just remember it is not easy and you get back what you put into it. I work hard to achieve what I know now. It wasn't easy, it wasn't free, but it is one of the most rewarding things I will ever do. Then share it with some one else. Experiencing the unknown is like walking on the moon for the first time. Its that good.

FM80 wrote: This is the logic that I personally can not understand. How can a lack of evidence be evidence for anything?

FM80, I hope this isn't too long winded. I understand why people feel they must be dealing with a real creature that just manages to remain elusive and certainly see that as very logical. So this is not in the hope of changing your pov (differing/diversity of opinion should be encouraged IMO) as much as in the hope it might help explain how a different opinion could be reached. I see your point about "paranormal" being another word for "I give up". It might be more difficult to approach from a paranormal view, butI don't really see it as giving up at all.

As to the logic, we are dealing with a negative position which would rarely be supported with something positive. Seeing no reason to believe in god for instance, would be similar.

I do take the point that research into the possibility of a real creature shouldn't be ruled out. A problem there IMO is that in the absence of anything genuine/verifiable, there appears a general acceptance of all sorts of things regarding Yowies, which could be no more than assumptions. This, from a scientific view, would be seen more as "folklore" and seems to prevail in cryptozoology. I wonder why even those who have encountered a Yowie, don't at least consider in some way, that something else might be happening.

The general consensus amongst science would be that there is no physical indication that Yowies exist, so it is most likely the result of hoaxing, delusion and misidentification. I agree with that consensus re the first part, the difference being that I think there is more to this than hallucination, misidentification and hoaxing. Not sure what that might entail as yet (fascinating though), but (IMO) I have a reasonable idea of what it doesn't entail.

I don't claim to have an answer (no magic, god made it, or anything like that), only that (IMO) this phenomena seems to fall outside of the normal range of human experience and appears to have no viable/supportable scientific explanation nor any of the indications that should be there. I doubt any amount of adaptions or abilities ascribed to Yowies can account for this. Though I could always be wrong and I have looked into many paranormal/new age claims, which has resulted in a largely increased appreciation of science. Though I find some areas of the paranormal worthy of a closer look and at times it does seem that known science is incongruent with human experience. This is one of them times IMO. There could be something more to this, at the very least, a study from this angle might broaden our understanding of the process of human perception and cognition in some way.

FM80 wrote: How does one make the leap from no evidence to "It must be paranormal then"? Baffling, to me anyway. It seems a very weak position when the best thing it has going for it is a lack of evidence, you know, "so long as we don't know anything about it we can call it anything."

I remember hearing Tony Healy ( from memory) state that if we disregard the paranormal, we disregard around 20% of this subject, or something along those lines. There is plenty to directly indicate the paranormal. That it might not lend itself to being easily understood, doesn't imply it should be overlooked IMO. It does seem relevant. Glowing eyes are definitely paranormal IMO until someone demonstrates otherwise and seem to be a feature of many night time encounters. I find all of this consistent with something for which no genuine physical trace can be found. Something about this vid seems relevant to why people can only find (likely) mundane things to associate with Yowies, rather than unambiguous traces of Yowies themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQsE7l50FI

FM80 wrote:These aren't competing theories. There's strong evidence for the scientific description of the universes evolution, no evidence for the other, if anything, just evidence that refutes the other.

I agree completely. It's very likely that with abiogenesis looking likely (and being the only possibility at this point) that a theory of evolution will one day incorporate from the time of our universe's inception to present. I find the explanation that (mostly) remnants/stardust from ancient supernovae accreted into a little ball on which chemical evolution not only gave rise to biology, but then speciated into such diversity that in one instance at least, it gained the capacity to be self aware and cognizant, somehow as beautiful as it is mysterious. Though there is so much we don't know. When we do delve deeper at fundamental levels, we can find things that alter our view of reality (at least to that extent), quite radically. At the risk of appealing to ignorance, I can see a possibility that when we begin to understand the consciousness that animates our minds, it could hold some surprises that may be relevant. Though it doesn't have to and at this stage it is left to science "philosophers" to debate things like this, with even genuine scientists.....Penrose and the like, basically seen as delving into pseudo science...

Generally I find alternate theorists very tolerant. I don't always find the same with "real biological creature" proponents (present company excepted of course ). It's not such a problem in Australia thankfully, but certainly is in the US. The amount of hoaxing, charlatanry and scientific "facts" used to promote the existence of bigfoot is right up there with "creation science" IMO. To suggest this might not really be so, or that there might be another reason for it all, can be tantamount to challenging a religious belief. It appears that for many (particularly in North America) people have long ago stopped looking for answers and accepted a belief which cannot be substantiated, as a fact.... it has become a religion IMO and is worth a sociological study as a separate subject of its own.

Though I do like some of the research and if someone does find a Yowie, or part of one, no doubt many opinions will change.

mlj1mlj1 wrote:The best advice I can give any of you is get out and try and experience them for yourselves. It can be done. I am the perfect example of that. Just remember it is not easy and you get back what you put into it. I work hard to achieve what I know now. It wasn't easy, it wasn't free, but it is one of the most rewarding things I will ever do. Then share it with some one else. Experiencing the unknown is like walking on the moon for the first time. Its that good.

Have you ever approached a scientist, say biologist or the like, with your findings Mike (an impartial one)? Or perhaps tried to persuade one to accompany you, to verify what is happening? I'm not doubting that you are being anything other than honest here (I see no reason to), but why do you feel they remain unknown (to science)?

ps. I apologise for quoting from your post to Dion. I have no doubt he has his own opinions which are possibly quite different to mine and wasn't trying to speak for him. I thought they were relevant to the topic as a whole.

I agree completely. It's very likely that with abiogenesis looking likely (and being the only possibility at this point) that a theory of evolution will one day incorporate from the time of our universe's inception to present. I find the explanation that (mostly) remnants/stardust from ancient supernovae accreted into a little ball on which chemical evolution not only gave rise to biology, but then speciated into such diversity that in one instance at least, it gained the capacity to be self aware and cognizant, somehow as beautiful as it is mysterious. Though there is so much we don't know.

Have to agree here 100%. It's so much more amazing, poetic, beautiful and awe inspiring than any creation myth. And yes, exploring consciousness may yield many surprises.

I have been trying to get people from science to go with me for quite a while including Dr. Meldrum. I have also offered Michel Sartori, but no takers to date. Dr. Meldrum will come in due time is my thought. Obviously, it is the next logical progression of things. People are real cautious in the US on this for some reason, whereas I am quite bold. I will go anywhere with anyone if a Sasquatch is involved and I can help.

I was under the impression that fossil evidence ( especially hominids ) is the exception to the rule. So why is it that a lack of fossils is used to support/deny any argument. By the way I'm flesh and blood just like our elusive cousins. Anyone who has been in the bush can plainly see there's plenty of space for them to exist.

If I was to add another idea to the first post I’d propose that the Yowie has been able to live during the time of homo sapiens (I avoid saying ‘alongside’) because it is less human than the other extinct hominids. What I mean here is that I don’t think the Yowie (Big foot, yeren etc) is part of the “homo” line.

All those of the homo line; Neanderthal, Denisovan, Floresiensis etc. according to anthropological evidence suggests they displayed emotions and actions that were “human”. For example if they were to come across other hominids, they would either attack en force, steal, rape, attempt to communicate, exchange items of value, trade etc. These actions are a display of ‘human nature’ albeit simple; the combination of our intrigue, curiosity, compassion, or equally our cunning, antagonistic, greedy dispositions.

Perhaps the reason the other homo lines vanished because they displayed these attributes, and through direct and constant contact with we homo sapiens, they were ultimately destroyed. Conversely the Yowie did not vanish because it is void of those strong ‘human nature’ emotions that might otherwise urge it to come out in open arms; yet another step in supporting the theory that it is not from the homo line (but from the Australopithecus line) which would mean it is more ‘animal’ than ‘human’. And this has ironically and ultimately kept it safe in the protection of the forests where all the other homo lines have failed.

Having had performed a field experiment over a couple of months, where I returned to the same spot every week but sometimes missing a week, and been able to call two separate Bigfoot out of their separate resting spot in another dimension, but they always came from the same spot that I left them previously, I don't see any point in arguing whether Yowie has simply some intelligence that allow it to avoid man. It should be noted that between two visits, during daylight hours, I did walk past both points in the forest from which they came out of their rest in another dimension, and there was nothing to be seen. Their resumed presence that could be audio witnessed from man's dimension, was noted by the heavy bipedal footstep noise that they made as they moved forward for a few steps to presumably obtain a better view of me. I have also experienced other paranormal lizard people materilize and drop on all fours onto the middle of my tent floor, or onto my pillow next to my ear. There can be an electrical noise associated with that transition.

A hypothesis/conclusion that could be reached from my field experiment, is that Yowie/Bigfoot accumulate zero calorie intake requirements by hiding in another dimension, in whatever phase that they hide in. Otherwise, they would have moved between visits, and gone in search of food.

So if you want, you are welcome to pursue the flesh and blood route and see if you can answer all of those pesky unanswered questions in your lifetime. As for myself, I have more productive things to be doing with my time. Incidently, homo florensis americanus, is alive and well and have had their vocalization recorded. But, that recording is not available on the internet.

Um... are you actually serious TMFG? I mean no disrespect. I'm quite familiar with your views but I can't work out if you're, as we say in OZ, taking the piss with every post you make. I was going to quote sections of your reply, but there's just too much to question. Each to their own I suppose.

Brindabella Ranger wrote:If I was to add another idea to the first post I’d propose that the Yowie has been able to live during the time of homo sapiens (I avoid saying ‘alongside’) because it is less human than the other extinct hominids. What I mean here is that I don’t think the Yowie (Big foot, yeren etc) is part of the “homo” line.

All those of the homo line; Neanderthal, Denisovan, Floresiensis etc. according to anthropological evidence suggests they displayed emotions and actions that were “human”. For example if they were to come across other hominids, they would either attack en force, steal, rape, attempt to communicate, exchange items of value, trade etc. These actions are a display of ‘human nature’ albeit simple; the combination of our intrigue, curiosity, compassion, or equally our cunning, antagonistic, greedy dispositions.

Perhaps the reason the other homo lines vanished because they displayed these attributes, and through direct and constant contact with we homo sapiens, they were ultimately destroyed. Conversely the Yowie did not vanish because it is void of those strong ‘human nature’ emotions that might otherwise urge it to come out in open arms; yet another step in supporting the theory that it is not from the homo line (but from the Australopithecus line) which would mean it is more ‘animal’ than ‘human’. And this has ironically and ultimately kept it safe in the protection of the forests where all the other homo lines have failed.

Yeah I definitely see where you're going with this, absolutely plausible. I think we agree that it's possible that the lack of human/yowie interaction (when compared to say kangaroo/human interaction) has helped to protect them, but is it a conscious effort to avoid us or simply the nature of the beast so to speak? I still reckon they must make a conscious effort to avoid us. I mean kangaroos and other animals seem to always cross our paths, yowies for the most part are pretty good at specifically avoiding humans and cameras etc.

Lizard men? WTF

Very good theory. Well thought and plausible.

FM80 wrote:I still reckon they must make a conscious effort to avoid us. I mean kangaroos and other animals seem to always cross our paths, yowies for the most part are pretty good at specifically avoiding humans and cameras etc.

Undoubtedly. And I guess that would be a reflection of the more 'human' side to them; they still appear to possess a higher consciousness and awareness than your average docile animal in the bush. But is the avoidance a result of being shy and solitary, or because there was a deep embedded fear of humans because of ancient clashes between our species? Maybe both.

Has anyone ever witnessed these creatures using fire?