Yowiehunters Forum

I’m aware before any species of the Yowie is conclusively discovered, any such discussion on their origins and identification is pure speculation. Regardless, I find it curious to try, and from here on everything is my own opinion. To the long time forum users who’ve heard this topic debated countless times: thanks for your patience.

First off, I’m often frustrated to find how most people can quickly discount the possibility of another bipedal creature living beside us. To me, such views like someone saying “there’s no such thing as a zebra – we’ve already got four legged things called horses.” I think this stems from the whole ‘we are man, unique, the dominant, and there can be nothing like us cause we’re the ultimate.’ But I’ll leave that rant for another time.

Although paleoanthropology is forever a work-in-progress field, it has unearthed a good deal of fossils that have given us a basic insight into our remote past. I believe what has been found is only the iceberg of our hominid origins; the sequence of events that have to occur to preserve and fossilize remains are extremely rare and I’m sure there are so many more undiscovered branches. Be that as it may, we can only go off what we have.

My thoughts are to narrow down everything we know about the Yowie and try to match it with what we know.

As far as we’re aware and can be reasonably confident biologically (however arguably), the homo genus (habilis, erectus, rudolfensis, floresiensis, heilderbegensis, neanderthalensis and we homo sapiens) had the ability of verbal communication. The unique ability of phonation brought building blocks of language and enabled each homo species to express ourselves, share knowledge, thoughts, and articulate strategies for survival and ideas for development. Researchers aren’t sure exactly when this happened but when our larynx dropped, allowing us to speak, it meant we could no longer swallow and breathe simultaneously. (Notice before the larynx drops how human babies can nurse while breathing like other mammals – evidence of how we’ve changed). It is my belief that the Yowie does not have a voice box as we do, making them unable to communicate through speech. They can snort, growl, grunt and so forth, and bellow louder than any man (possible for them because they’re extreme volume isn’t restricted by the voice box). Without verbal communication and complex speech, our development and prosperity as a species would not have been possible. Imagine trying to explain to someone how laws work in a community without speech.

The next clue we can be fairly certain about is that all species in the homo genus employed the use of tools – however rudimentary. Putting complex structures like crude hovels and riggings like animal clothing and twine aside, even something as simple as a spear was considered a tool. One had to identify a piece of timber being straight enough (or fashioned that way), sharpened at the end for the sole purpose of piercing and killing, and lastly used to carry the hunt back. Weapons are tools and take imagination to identify, create and utilize. Archeological evidence suggests that in addition to tool making, early homo genus could also create, if not manage, fire. This was perhaps the greatest step. But it is my belief the Yowie don’t employ complex tools nor create fire. I’m aware they can often throw stones or use branches or cudgels, display simple ingenuity similar to our cousin the chimpanzee who has been known to strip a stick of its leaves, carefully insert the stick into a termite mound and fish out the insects for a snack. I’m sure they even assemble low-lying trees and shrubs to create a shelter from the weather. However I would argue this would be the limit to their creating and employing ‘tools’ and ‘structures’.

Its these two major points, the absence of speech, tools and use of fire, that I can logically assume the Yowie are not from the homo genus line, despite there being such a diverse range within the homo species.

A third point is their arrival into Australia. Australia’s land bridge to New Guinea was intact up until about 18,000 years ago, during the end of the last ice age, and prior to that, the low-lying islands in Indonesia completed the bridge to Asia. Although still debated, our Australian indigenous people walked into Australia between 55 - 60,000 years ago using the ancient land bridge. By about 30,000 they had reached Tasmania via the Tasmanian-Mainland bridge. Aboriginal Dreamtime mythology, widely believed by countless tribes across Eastern Australia, recount the Yowie as already being here in Australia before they arrived. One account from the Gunedah tribe stated there used to be tribes of Yowie, the original inhabitants of Australia, which used to clash with the new arriving indigenous tribes.

If its widely calculated that our species, homo sapiens, appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago, its not hard to accept by 60,000 years ago indigenous Australians finally arrived to the country. If the homo genus dispersion to discover Australia finished at this time, and the Yowie were already living in Australia, it’s logical to assume they had come from a more ancient hominid. This ancient hominid must have predated any homo genus, been just as capable of walking great distances, and had more time to disperse throughout the world.

For those of you who don’t know, there is another large branch of ancient hominids called the Australopithecine. These hominids appeared long before the homo line appeared and lived up to and side by side to early homos. The Australopithecine were more advanced than the Ardipithecus hominids (who were the first to walk upright) in that they had become systematically bipedal and no longer relied on trees for protection, transportation or occupation. It can’t be proved, but is highly unlikely the Australopithecine could speak and there is no evidence they employed any tools. They comprised of both ape and human physiology, displayed characteristics and ingenuity to the smartest chimpanzees of today and were perhaps one of the hardiest and physically powerful hominids to ever live.

Here’s where I go out on a limb. I postulate Australopithecine, or rather the descendants of this line of hominids are not extinct - they are todays Yowie. Yes, fossil finds reveal the original Australopithecine were only 4 foot 11 inches tall, but those fossils are dated between 4.2 – 2 million years old. Since that time, a species has plenty of time to evolve. Its not far-fetched to accept, in isolation and with the worlds jungles and forests as protection and a place to exist, they developed into todays so called crypto-hominids: the Yowie (and Sasquatch, Almas, Kappa, Mande Barung, Maricoxi, Orang Pendek ect). Based on further research, I believe the Yowie comes from a specific species of Australopithecine called Australopithecine Sediba. All accounts of Sediba further accredit the similarities to the Yowie and how they were perhaps more physically advanced than some of the homo genus such as Habilis.

The image on my logo is an Australopithecine Sediba…and remarkably similar to the individual on my first sighting (but add grey hair and lots of it).

I’d be interested if these points strike true with you guys.

Thanks for reading.

Brindabella Ranger wrote: Its these two major points, the absence of speech, tools and use of fire, that I can logically assume the Yowie are not from the homo genus line, despite there being such a diverse range within the homo species.

Bigfoot have speech. See Sasquatch Ontario on youtube to listen to one attempt English. See Sierra Sounds for others to use both their language and English four letter words. Some even communicate telepathically in English to humans. Yowie in the Blue Mountains are reported to make fire. Some other unclassified bipedals on Finding Bigfoot, have been reported to make fire by the natives. I have witnessed a repurposing of a creek erosion control barrel into a rain barrel that was hauled a couple of miles from it's original location in a creek bed. And that was exactly where a Bigfoot hung out at. They don't need bows and arrow, or boomerangs, because they can chase down whatever they want, or materialize right next to their prey and promptly dispatch them.

themanfromglad wrote:

Brindabella Ranger wrote: Its these two major points, the absence of speech, tools and use of fire, that I can logically assume the Yowie are not from the homo genus line, despite there being such a diverse range within the homo species.

Bigfoot have speech. See Sasquatch Ontario on youtube to listen to one attempt English. See Sierra Sounds for others to use both their language and English four letter words. Some even communicate telepathically in English to humans. Yowie in the Blue Mountains are reported to make fire. Some other unclassified bipedals on Finding Bigfoot, have been reported to make fire by the natives. I have witnessed a repurposing of a creek erosion control barrel into a rain barrel that was hauled a couple of miles from it's original location in a creek bed. And that was exactly where a Bigfoot hung out at. They don't need bows and arrow, or boomerangs, because they can chase down whatever they want, or materialize right next to their prey and promptly dispatch them.

How do they make the food they eat invisible?

Hi themanfromglad,

Thanks for your thoughts. I had a listen to the Sasquatch Ontario and Sierra Sounds and if they are in fact legitimate, they are quite profound. However when I referred to speech, I meant the precise phonation of syllables and diction that form the basis of a language. What I heard in those recordings were grunts, howls, growls, moans, clicks and noises that couldn’t be identically repeated in sequence to suggest speech/language. Like I said in my previous post, I have no doubt they have the ability to “sound” like they’re talking: have you ever heard a dog try to sing to a song or make funny howls when a siren is heard in the distance? In terms of ‘communication’, I could grunt, howl, growl, moan and snarl in addition to using body language, maybe thrash around wielding a branch and I think most people would get the picture I’m angry and frustrated. That’s communicating. But not by speech. At the end of the day, they are hominids and the closest relation to us, and we really have nothing to compare them with except us. Again, this point won't ever be settled until the real thing presents itself.

Yes, I’m still a doubter on the fire issue. I’m aware of one reported witness account of a Yowie stamping out a fire in a National Park, however it was vague, the witness was a fair distance from it and I think it could have been someone stamping out a fire because there are strict regulations in National Parks with making fires. Perhaps another point I’ll raise is that I believe the Yowie are primarily nocturnal creatures, their eyes are not unlike other nocturnal animals. At night, a fire would be like sticking needles into their eyes. Additionally, I doubt they would use fire as a means of cooking – they are omnivorous and eat anything they can find raw and have done for tens of thousands of years. It just doesn’t cut it visualizing a group of Yowies sitting around a fire with meat on sticks. My cousins back in the villages do that, and yes, even though they’re barely human it’s too human a design to suggest Yowie do that.

I’m also aware of the theory they are paranormal creatures; they are able to materialize from between this world and a parallel world, co-existing in both, leaving traces of sulphur associated with inter-dimensional travel that explains how they can disappear without a trace and haven’t been discovered. I respect this theory, however I am a flesh and blood believer and don’t subscribe to it. I’ll post my thoughts on that soon.

FM80, by logical design, once the food is digested it becomes apart of the Sasquatch and therefore attains the properties of becoming invisible. I’m only presuming.

Brindabella Ranger wrote:
FM80, by logical design, once the food is digested it becomes apart of the Sasquatch and therefore attains the properties of becoming invisible. I’m only presuming.

There's nothing logical about that whatsoever. What about the faeces in their digestive tract? How does a sasquatch make that invisible? What about the foreign organisms in it's body? How does it make them invisible?

themanfromglad wrote:

Brindabella Ranger wrote: Its these two major points, the absence of speech, tools and use of fire, that I can logically assume the Yowie are not from the homo genus line, despite there being such a diverse range within the homo species.

Bigfoot have speech. See Sasquatch Ontario on youtube to listen to one attempt English. See Sierra Sounds for others to use both their language and English four letter words. Some even communicate telepathically in English to humans. Yowie in the Blue Mountains are reported to make fire. Some other unclassified bipedals on Finding Bigfoot, have been reported to make fire by the natives. I have witnessed a repurposing of a creek erosion control barrel into a rain barrel that was hauled a couple of miles from it's original location in a creek bed. And that was exactly where a Bigfoot hung out at. They don't need bows and arrow, or boomerangs, because they can chase down whatever they want, or materialize right next to their prey and promptly dispatch them.

Here is a start of several presentations by a U.S. Navy linguistic expert Scott Nelson, who has carefully analyzed the Sierra Sounds and is certain that they have language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN-d1NmAO0k

Brindabella Ranger wrote:Hi themanfromglad,

Thanks for your thoughts. I had a listen to the Sasquatch Ontario and Sierra Sounds and if they are in fact legitimate, they are quite profound. However when I referred to speech, I meant the precise phonation of syllables and diction that form the basis of a language. What I heard in those recordings were grunts, howls, growls, moans, clicks and noises that couldn’t be identically repeated in sequence to suggest speech/language. Like I said in my previous post, I have no doubt they have the ability to “sound” like they’re talking: have you ever heard a dog try to sing to a song or make funny howls when a siren is heard in the distance? In terms of ‘communication’, I could grunt, howl, growl, moan and snarl in addition to using body language, maybe thrash around wielding a branch and I think most people would get the picture I’m angry and frustrated. That’s communicating. But not by speech. At the end of the day, they are hominids and the closest relation to us, and we really have nothing to compare them with except us. Again, this point won't ever be settled until the real thing presents itself.

Yes, I’m still a doubter on the fire issue. I’m aware of one reported witness account of a Yowie stamping out a fire in a National Park, however it was vague, the witness was a fair distance from it and I think it could have been someone stamping out a fire because there are strict regulations in National Parks with making fires. Perhaps another point I’ll raise is that I believe the Yowie are primarily nocturnal creatures, their eyes are not unlike other nocturnal animals. At night, a fire would be like sticking needles into their eyes. Additionally, I doubt they would use fire as a means of cooking – they are omnivorous and eat anything they can find raw and have done for tens of thousands of years. It just doesn’t cut it visualizing a group of Yowies sitting around a fire with meat on sticks. My cousins back in the villages do that, and yes, even though they’re barely human it’s too human a design to suggest Yowie do that.

I’m also aware of the theory they are paranormal creatures; they are able to materialize from between this world and a parallel world, co-existing in both, leaving traces of sulphur associated with inter-dimensional travel that explains how they can disappear without a trace and haven’t been discovered. I respect this theory, however I am a flesh and blood believer and don’t subscribe to it. I’ll post my thoughts on that soon.

FM80, by logical design, once the food is digested it becomes apart of the Sasquatch and therefore attains the properties of becoming invisible. I’m only presuming.

Oops! I should have added the Scott Nelson youtube video reference here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN-d1NmAO0k

FM80 wrote:

themanfromglad wrote:

Brindabella Ranger wrote: Its these two major points, the absence of speech, tools and use of fire, that I can logically assume the Yowie are not from the homo genus line, despite there being such a diverse range within the homo species.

Bigfoot have speech. See Sasquatch Ontario on youtube to listen to one attempt English. See Sierra Sounds for others to use both their language and English four letter words. Some even communicate telepathically in English to humans. Yowie in the Blue Mountains are reported to make fire. Some other unclassified bipedals on Finding Bigfoot, have been reported to make fire by the natives. I have witnessed a repurposing of a creek erosion control barrel into a rain barrel that was hauled a couple of miles from it's original location in a creek bed. And that was exactly where a Bigfoot hung out at. They don't need bows and arrow, or boomerangs, because they can chase down whatever they want, or materialize right next to their prey and promptly dispatch them.

How do they make the food they eat invisible?

I have been told by an ex NSA person, that if you have a Bigfoot stand on each side of you and each holds you tightly by an arm, they can make you invisible. If that is the case, then it would appear to be related to something like a magnetic field, but not necessarily a magnetic field. Since the invisibility thing has been described as a change in vibration of a type of "free quanta loop energy" from string theory, they must be changing some kind of vibration of your body by you being simply be in close proximity to their bodies as they intentionally change their own vibration. I have been standing next to people who could see Bigfoot when I could not. I also later became aware that that person had a wider light frequency range that they could see in, than is normal. When people see spirits floating above someone else, they would likely do that with a wider light frequency range than is normal.

So making something inside of themselves become invisible, would be a "piece of cake", as they say. Pun intended.

I have heard of Bigfoot being spotted that were wearing medallions around their necks. They could not do that unless their field of energy encompassed the medallions, in order to cause that medallion to travel to other subdimensions of the 4th dimension with them.

Bigfoot will also accept hair brushes and large combs as gifts. Those would be considered tools.

You do realise that the other dimensions described by string theory are the size (or smaller) of quarks? How can a bigfoot reside in those dimensions? And this divx book is hardly a reliable source of information, is it, really.

You may be confusing other dimensions with some sort of parallel world, but the dimensions of string theory are minuscule, they don't mean there's other worlds with beings living in them.

Can you provide any supporting literature/experiments for your ideas?

Or do you only have anecdotes?

FM80 wrote:You do realise that the other dimensions described by string theory are the size (or smaller) of quarks? How can a bigfoot reside in those dimensions? And this divx book is hardly a reliable source of information, is it, really.

You may be confusing other dimensions with some sort of parallel world, but the dimensions of string theory are minuscule, they don't mean there's other worlds with beings living in them.

Can you provide any supporting literature/experiments for your ideas?

Or do you only have anecdotes?

Physicists are notorious dreamers. They repeat wild speculation until it becomes accepted fact. They will also misrepresent scientific conclusion, in order to not alarm the public. They pull stuff out of thin air, like the tetrahedron, throw it into a physics book somewhere, repeat it in every physics book that gets published after that, and never weed it out. In the 60'as, real scientists in the U.S. decided to kick TIME out of the 4th dimension slot, and use that dimension to explain Bigfoot invisibility. In the spring of 1975, a separate group of U.C. Berkeley staff together with Stephen Hawking, also did the exact same thing. The tetrahedron was concocted by the 60's group of scientists, then discarded as worthless, but never weeded out of the physics books after that. So don't believe everything you read in a physics book.

You will not be able to understand invisibility and the 4th dimension, together with it's infinite number of sub-dimensions, until you can find some invisible bipedal people to study with your ears. Your eyes will useless except to only tell you that they are invisible. Unfortunately, 99.9999% of Yowie/Bigfoot researchers, rely primarily on their eyes in their attempt to study the subject matter. So you likely will have a little hurdle to overcome from the getgo.

Once you locate some friendly invisible bipedal people, and are fortunate enough to have them perform a sub-dimension change on the fly as you listen, only then can you begin to understand that the 4th dimension is not tiny. IMO, each and every sub-dimension would have a "tiny" bandwidth like a radio channel, but each sub-dimension is the exact same size as the dimension that you inhabit. Invisible people tend to inhabit favorite sub-dimensions, presumably for stealth and to be able to see others of their kind and interact with them. But they can still see us, from their sub-dimension. The jury is still out as to whether they are seeing our sub-dimension presence in their sub-dimension, or seeing us in our dimension, from their dimension. But don't expect to be clued in on the results if others decide that verdict for you. Since I have been nipped, zapped, bumped and a hand sat on my shoulder, all by presumably invisible people, I tend to believe that they can have a physical presence in man's dimension, but still remain invisible.

Once you get the right field experience, you will find that invisible people tend to walk parallel to the land's surface. That would be mean that their sub-dimension has some connection to the ground that we can see, and to our gravity. They can also float above our ground. That would tend to prove that they can also make themselves weightless to our gravity. (Ask Dean about "floating" people for more details.) Their various favorite sub-dimensions, can be differentiated based on the foot pressure that they exert on the ground. I have witnessed with my ears, approximate foot pressure of 90%, 10%, 0.0001%, and 0% of estimated total body weight. Only when you hear them running or walking at you while changing sub-dimensions on the fly, will you be able to connect them all to the same perpetrator. After that, then you will be able to better recognize when invisible people are nearby, because you will recognize very slight noises for what they are. Prior to that point in time, you will ignore and discard very slight noises as being "nothing".

I have previously described a highly amplified microphone setup that you can place in the middle of an open meadow in the forest, and listen to real time from a good distance, all the bipedal foot step noises that you never knew existed. To my knowledge, nobody has done it downunder. By performing this experiment in the daylight, you will be perplexed that you cannot see what is making the noises. With this setup, you can prove to yourself that bipedal creatures do exist in a dimension that you cannot see, and that dimension is all around you. But you have to be there and experience it yourself, if you are interested in proof. Then, you will acquire anecdotal evidence that others will blow off as you imagining something. Then, you will officially be labeled as a "paranormal weirdo", because you have experienced a part of reality that others have not dared to. Which is why science goes nowhere fast.

Listen to Scott Nelson, U.S. Navy linguistic expert on youtube, lecture series dated 10/1/11, if you want to hear some fun paranormal experiences.

TheManFromGlad, I see there are obvious passionate views regarding their abilities. However the thread has gone off-point. What are your views on their origins? What species do you believe they are or descend from and why?
That was the intention of this post.

Brindabella Ranger wrote:TheManFromGlad, I see there are obvious passionate views regarding their abilities. However the thread has gone off-point. What are your views on their origins? What species do you believe they are or descend from and why?
That was the intention of this post.

I think that Bryon Sykes has already answered the origin question in his DNA paper that is under peer review now. I don't see any point in speculating on whether they descended from any other previously classified hominid. Their survival skills could have allowed them to live during the dinosaur age, and some communicators have relayed that the Bigfoot claim to have been around then. I believe that there is some fossil evidence to support that.

themanfromglad wrote:I don't see any point in speculating on whether they descended from any other previously classified hominid.

Ok... then maybe cut down on your posts in the thread that is about speculation on descent?

That said, what fossil evidence are you referring to?

If you're referring to Bryon Sykes DNA results from samples taken from 'Zana's' descendants, I believe that's an isolated case and can't be assumed to speak for any other species of unknown hominid.

As I mentioned in my first post, a discussion on their origins is of course speculation at this stage, however as one who is not lightly swayed by theories such as hominids existing during the time of the dinosaurs, I feel a grounded, realistic and logical explanation of their origins might help understand how they got here and how they will fare in the future. Besides, its an interesting topic to discuss if you're truly interested in the Yowie.

Physicists are notorious dreamers

.

Yes those pesky physicists have only come up with

The Unraveling of the Microscopic Constituents of Matter
Quantum Mechanics
The Discovery of the Vastness of the Universe
Special Relativity
General Relativity
Subatomic Forces
The History of the Universe

Apart from those achievements they are a sneaky bunch of invisibility deniers.

Once you locate some friendly invisible bipedal people, and are fortunate enough to have them perform a sub-dimension change on the fly as you listen, only then can you begin to understand that the 4th dimension is not tiny. IMO, each and every sub-dimension would have a "tiny" bandwidth like a radio channel, but each sub-dimension is the exact same size as the dimension that you inhabit. Invisible people tend to inhabit favorite sub-dimensions, presumably for stealth and to be able to see others of their kind and interact with them. But they can still see us, from their sub-dimension. The jury is still out as to whether they are seeing our sub-dimension presence in their sub-dimension, or seeing us in our dimension, from their dimension. But don't expect to be clued in on the results if others decide that verdict for you. Since I have been nipped, zapped, bumped and a hand sat on my shoulder, all by presumably invisible people, I tend to believe that they can have a physical presence in man's dimension, but still remain invisible.

Oh well that solves it then. Go and win a Nobel Prize. The precision of your ideas betrays their fragility, only those who really don't know claim the truth. "Science" isn't 'stumped' or dumbfounded by these claims, the role of science is to admit when our knowledge has reached its limits.

That's what is truly great about science, it acknowledges when it has no answer and ear marks it for further investigation. You seem to think that so long as science isn't looking or 'has no answer' then it's fine to make up anything you want. That's lazy. Sure you can believe your ideas if you want, but don't assert them as fact and don't belittle the process of science just because it doesn't agree with your ideas.

Once you get the right field experience, you will find that invisible people tend to walk parallel to the land's surface.

Yeah nicely done, people who don't 'find that invisible people tend to walk parallel to the land's surface' will forever be labelled as those with not enough field experience, an ever unattainable level for those who value reality.

Which is why science goes nowhere fast.

Please. Please................

FM80,


Ha, ha, ha!
Nice try FM80. My recollection is that you have a history of being belligerant and antagonistic toward paranormal ideas that are stated in the paranormal section of this forum, yet you are apparently immune from disciplinary action.


From what I can discern, your core complaint is that I "assert my ideas as fact". Just for your general information, in the States where we speak the President's English, "IMO" is computer shorthand for "In my opinion". My understanding of the English language essentially defines an "opinion" as the exact opposite as "asserting my ideas as fact". Legally speaking, I need only state "IMO" once, for my entire statement or report, to be considered "an opinion". Also, my statement which contained "I tend to believe", also appears to be very nearly exactly opposite to your claims that I "assert my ideas as fact". Should you have made your frivolous claims in a court of law, your claim would have have been tossed out unceremoniously.

As far as your apparent attempt to imply that I claim that all science is bad science, nice try again at putting words into my mouth, that I never spoke nor wrote. Since you appear to have missed the point about the "tetrahedron" specifically, I am now begging you to please do not refrain from directing us to the absolute proof that the tetrahedron exactly describes the 4th dimension, or any other dimension.

themanfromglad wrote:FM80,


Ha, ha, ha!
Nice try FM80. My recollection is that you have a history of being belligerant and antagonistic toward paranormal ideas that are stated in the paranormal section of this forum, yet you are apparently immune from disciplinary action.


From what I can discern, your core complaint is that I "assert my ideas as fact". Just for your general information, in the States where we speak the President's English, "IMO" is computer shorthand for "In my opinion". My understanding of the English language essentially defines an "opinion" as the exact opposite as "asserting my ideas as fact". Legally speaking, I need only state "IMO" once, for my entire statement or report, to be considered "an opinion". Also, my statement which contained "I tend to believe", also appears to be very nearly exactly opposite to your claims that I "assert my ideas as fact". Should you have made your frivolous claims in a court of law, your claim would have have been tossed out unceremoniously.

As far as your apparent attempt to imply that I claim that all science is bad science, nice try again at putting words into my mouth, that I never spoke nor wrote. Since you appear to have missed the point about the "tetrahedron" specifically, I am now begging you to please do not refrain from directing us to the absolute proof that the tetrahedron exactly describes the 4th dimension, or any other dimension.

Disciplined for what? I'm allowed in section of the forum, everyone is. I love this section of this site because I can interact with people who have ideas that bewilder me and it's great to flesh out their ideas with them. You can defend your right to have your own opinion but it's a waste of your time because I already agree that you should have an opinion, I was just looking for you to back up your beliefs in some way.

Funny how asking questions etc. can be taken as belligerent and antagonistic when I really haven't attacked anything but your beliefs. I'm sure you're a great person and this is not a personal thing. Seems like when it comes down to backing up what you believe you find it offensive or something - but we should get this thread back on track, the OP was fascinated by their origins, can you shed any light on the matter?

FM80 wrote:

but we should get this thread back on track, the OP was fascinated by their origins, can you shed any light on the matter?

Asked and answered previously.

No, I can't shed any light on the matter of origin. I am not a geneticist. I don't pretend to be an expert in areas that are outside of either my areas of expertise, nor outside of areas that I have a more experience in that most humans in the private sector. And I have a lot of experience, recording and interpreting the audio of apparently invisible entities at very close range. Entities that few people are willing to admit that they exist.

One of my favorite stories regarding the existence of Bigfoot is, if you call up the FBI and ask them whether Bigfoot exists, the first person that answers the telephone will pretend ignorance on the subject matter, but say that they have been disproven. However, if you call back and ask to speak to their expert on Bigfoot, and then tell him that they are paranormal, he will admit that the FBI already knew that. They may also offer some cautionary advice, in regards to that they can be dangerous, and also about whether there are other dangerous paranormal entities out there. In my experience, there are other paranormal entities out there, and they are not all nice. I am experienced in dealing with not very nice, invisible entities. Bigfoot however, tend to be nice because IMO, they know that they can just walk away from a fight, and patiently wait for another human to come along that is more friendly towards them.


Previous answer.
"I think that Bryon Sykes has already answered the origin question in his DNA paper that is under peer review now. I don't see any point in speculating (at this point in time) on whether they descended from any other previously classified hominid. Their survival skills could have allowed them to live during the dinosaur age, and some communicators have relayed that the Bigfoot claim to have been around then. I believe that there is some fossil evidence to support that."

themanfromglad wrote:I believe that there is some fossil evidence to support that.

Link? Any further info at all?

forestguy wrote:

themanfromglad wrote:I believe that there is some fossil evidence to support that.

Link? Any further info at all?

Kewaunee Lapseritis, The Psychic Sasquatch

Hi Ranger.

You might (or might not lol) find this article interesting. Our closest evolutionary relative (morphologically) by far, is the Orang-utan. It has even been proposed in various papers that instead of the chimpanzee common ancestor, our evolutionary forebears were an Asian Ape species that re entered Africa. Though it's a bit controversial, as most scientists accept the popular model based on molecular studies. The problem is, the fossil record seems to support the Orang utan common ancestor far more strongly. The chimp/human common ancestor is not as well supported by either morphology or the fossil record.

Either way, there is still an immense amount to learn about our evolution (if we ever do learn it). IMO, the Yowie (if it physically exists) also has the Orang utan as its closest "morphological" relative (a lot closer to it than humans are). It's only "IMO", but it would have evolved from similar species as proposed in the human/orang-utan ancestor, then via shivapithecus/ramapithicus etc.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .20107/pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ative.html

themanfromglad wrote:

FM80 wrote:


Their survival skills could have allowed them to live during the dinosaur age, and some communicators have relayed that the Bigfoot claim to have been around then. I believe that there is some fossil evidence to support that."

Really? You believe the fossil record supports hominids being around in the Cretaceous period, or before..? 66 million year old hominid fossils?

themanfromglad wrote: Kewaunee Lapseritis, The Psychic Sasquatch

Had a bit of a look but still haven't found any relevant fossil claims. Got a direct link?

Though (IMO) this work has "charlatan" all over it. No real difference to claims made by religious fanatics, of which bigfoot research has largely become IMO, a religious cult. Lots of empty and unrealistic claims, supported by fakes and every logical fallacy known to mankind (apologies to any genuine researchers).

sapere aude wrote:Hi Ranger.

You might (or might not lol) find this article interesting. Our closest evolutionary relative (morphologically) by far, is the Orang-utan. It has even been proposed in various papers that instead of the chimpanzee common ancestor, our evolutionary forebears were an Asian Ape species that re entered Africa. Though it's a bit controversial, as most scientists accept the popular model based on molecular studies. The problem is, the fossil record seems to support the Orang utan common ancestor far more strongly. The chimp/human common ancestor is not as well supported by either morphology or the fossil record.

Either way, there is still an immense amount to learn about our evolution (if we ever do learn it). IMO, the Yowie (if it physically exists) also has the Orang utan as its closest "morphological" relative (a lot closer to it than humans are). It's only "IMO", but it would have evolved from similar species as proposed in the human/orang-utan ancestor, then via shivapithecus/ramapithicus etc.

Thanks for the two articles. First one was a great read, second one I only read the opening as I’m not an on-line member of NewScientist (should be, but I'm old fashioned and still buy the hard copies). I’ve always thought from a layman’s viewpoint, without analyzing DNA comparisons or the characters point system from each great ape, that Orangs display more ‘human’ actions. Its fascinating stuff.

It actually makes me wonder: if there were any DNA evidence of the Yowie (hair or blood – not a body) would it not be strikingly similar to ours that it could be easily overlooked as human? If chimps and humans share 98.8% of DNA and assuming Yowie is closer biologically to humans, it would come down to fractions of a percentage, greater than 98.8%, surely?

I wonder if this has led to misidentification or dismissed as human in the recent past?

G’day Sapere Aude,

Thank you very much for this very fascinating article. I have saved it to a folder with other interesting and / or controversial hominoid related documents.

What I like most about the paper, is that it explores an alternative model that seems to effectively challenge the standard Homo evolutionary model, even in the face of current DNA belief. It is no news to many people that I do not think that our hominoids are biologically related to any of the Great Apes, for a variety of morphological and behavioural reasons. I also lean towards an “Out of Australia” explanation, with this proposed Asian evolutionary origin achieving a half way point with the prevailing paradigm. Consequently, the article appeals to me. Dated 2006, I wonder how it has stood up against the reviews?

Also, a colleague from school found a body when he was eighteen, driving along a dirt road outside of Tamworth while truanting. He said that the roadkill caught his attention because the body hair was an orange colour. After reversing back and examining the animal, his first impression was that it was an orangutan. It had lengthy orange hair and long arms. He thought that it was odd but, drove on. Furthermore, some witnesses over the years have suggested a likeness with orangutans during encounters. Additionally, the three long hairs of Fatfoot that I once had, had an orange tinge. However, this theory still remains my second favourite, by a large margin.

Finally, I really liked a number of quotes and statements used. In particular:

“Pilbeam (1978) resolved never again to cling quite so firmly to one particular evolutionary scheme…” (p 147)

“The systematic problem is that similarity is not a de facto measure of evolutionary relationship because primitive retentions are not distinguished from derived novelties.” (p 149)

“If everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking.” General George S. Patton (I am going to use this quote).

Neil

sapere aude wrote:

themanfromglad wrote: Kewaunee Lapseritis, The Psychic Sasquatch

Had a bit of a look but still haven't found any relevant fossil claims. Got a direct link?

Though (IMO) this work has "charlatan" all over it. No real difference to claims made by religious fanatics, of which bigfoot research has largely become IMO, a religious cult. Lots of empty and unrealistic claims, supported by fakes and every logical fallacy known to mankind (apologies to any genuine researchers).

This is what Kewaunee referenced in his book:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm

I wish you would all read the latest writings on Human Evolution including taxonomy, morphology and now more importantly genetics. These hold the key to understanding the hairy ones big and small. We do need more samples and yes it is going to take that perfect video or still, that body or bone, acceptance by the 'mainstream' . I do however believe that those'higher' up the tree do know about the hairy ones, and what we need to do as I said to bring irrefutable proof to the public's attention and not to be classed as some nut job because of what they have seen or have have been in a situation that confirms the existence of our friends.

["Brindabella Ranger"]
Thanks for the two articles. [/quote]

Glad you liked them. The article by one of the co-authors basically covers what was in the paper. I only posted that link to show that it was published, as many would see the ideas in it as possibly a bit "out there" or "fringe".

Not knowledgeable enough in genetics to know about your other points, though I doubt it would be misidentified this way.