Yowiehunters Forum

Why do we need to look for Bigfoot?

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
June 21, 2010 -- Updated 1350 GMT (2150 HKT)

The Abominable Snowman was thought to have made this footprint in 1951 near Mount Everest.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Bigfoot has never been proved to exist, but the sightings never stop
Across cultures, there are myths of large creatures, ghosts, other mysteries
Expert: It's unlikely that an entirely new large mammal is out there
(CNN) -- Watch out! It's 10 feet tall and hairy, and it could be coming to get you -- or your dogs!

Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is said to be an ape-like monster but has never been proved to exist. Still, reported sightings never stop: Tim Peeler of Cleveland County, North Carolina, says he saw a giant, hairy "man-looking person" with six fingers that was going after his dogs June 5 and told it to "git." On Thursday, a large, muddy footprint in Burke County, North Carolina, stirred up more Bigfoot speculation.
Across human societies, variations on mythical creature stories like that of Bigfoot have persisted for thousands of years, and accounts of seeing or hearing them still abound. There may be some basic culture-based need for these fantastical tales, said Todd Disotell, professor of anthropology at New York University.

Monsters represent dark aspects of our subconscious worlds and can be metaphors for the challenges of life, said Karen Sharf, a psychotherapist in New York.
"Some monsters are scary. Some monsters are friendly. Sometimes in movies or myths, we befriend the monster, and it's just like in our inner world: There are monsters; there are dark aspects that we have to face," she said.

Humans also have a fascination with the divide between their species and animals, and Bigfoot bridges that gap, said John Hawks, anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Believing in these creatures and following their trails in the forest is somewhat akin to an amusement park ride: They are safe ways of experiencing fear, said Jacqueline Woolley, professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.

People are still searching for evidence of Scotland's Loch Ness Monster, said to have first been spotted by Vikings in the sixth century. There have also been reported sightings of mermaids -- in Israel last year, for one -- and ghosts: For instance, there are still believers in La Llorona, "the crying woman" said to have killed the children she had with Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés.

Other cultures also have legendary folk monsters that have supposedly been sighted but haven't been proved to exist. The "chupacabra," roughly translated as "goat sucker" in Spanish, has been blamed for the deaths of goats in Mexico. The blood-drinking creature is said to look like a cross between a giant dog and a lizard, and it has fiery eyes. A coyote-like creature in Blanco, Texas, created a frenzy last year as some speculated it could be a chupacabra.

Humans are inherently interested in the blurred line between fantasy and reality, psychologists say. People also want to feel like heroes; stories such as David and Goliath help people see themselves as capable of tackling their own challenges, even if their "monster" happens to be their boss or in-law, she said.

Serious scientists have studied the evidence that hunters of Bigfoot and others collect but have never made a shocking discovery based upon them.

Disotell has conducted DNA analyses of more than 15 samples over the years of blood, feces, bone, hair and other remnants of supposed chupacabra or Bigfoot-like creatures. His samples have come from various places in the United States, Canada and as far as Nepal, where the Abominable Snowman or Yeti is said to reside.

"It stretches credibility just from the sense that you can't just have one or two of these beasts running around for tens of thousands of years; you need a population to be viable," he said.

The "evidence" he has examined was, in reality, material from bears, coyotes, humans, mountain goats,and inorganic sources. He ran analyses of their DNA with the same rigor as any other samples in his lab, which routinely does such tests to help classify species of primates from all over the world.

Another strike against the reality of Bigfoot and its brethren is the lack of photos, particularly in the age of cell-phone cameras, Disotell said. Of course, believers have their explanations: Sightings are unpredictable and fleeting, beasts are nocturnal, and witnesses are often confused and scared, says the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization.

The work of disproving Bigfoot does have a serious undertone, Disotell said, in the sense that the question of how to identify a new species is still up for debate. Primatologists still argue about which chimpanzees and monkeys should have their own subspecies or fall under the same category.
But it's unlikely that an entirely new large mammal is out there, he said.

In the United States, there have been plenty of sightings and groups dedicated to finding Bigfoot. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization has a map of where the creature has been spotted in North America.

Werewolves used to be a bigger fascination for people looking for supernatural creatures in the wild, but the focus has turned away from them in the past two centuries, said Brian Regal, assistant professor of the history of science at Kean University in Union, New Jersey.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution may have cast werewolves in a more impossible light because they are hybrids of two very disparate species: wolves and humans, Regal said. Bigfoot, on the other hand, seems more plausible as a theoretical primate and not a combination of wolf and human, he said.

Fictional as these creatures probably are, they serve their purpose psychologically, Sharf said.
"We need these stories to teach us about what we are going to come against in life and how to overcome it," Sharf said.

So they're saying it's all in our heads?

This author's take on it is the psychological benefit for those involved.

He sees the search for bigfoot or yowie, is a metaphor for taking on life's challenges, a fascination with brdiging the gap between us and animals, a safe way to experience fear and feeling heroic, and a way to experience the excitement of being a pioneer on the cusp of an important new discovery.

This is all positive.

Sorry I've read and reread this article and I fail to find anything positive. The author gives some bold statements with very little explanations. She has also lumped bigfoot , Nessie, the chupacabra , ghosts and mermaids together but only speaks about disproving the existence of bigfoot. Why? She is saying it's all in our heads but it's OK because we all need a little mystery.

The article appears to be riddled with falsehoods and another cheap shot at the knowers and believers because it fails to give them the same opportunity that they gave that nutcase Todd Disotel. It does not appear to be positive at all. And neither am I on the article. Does Scarts have some hidden agenda to find a chink in the Yowie/Bigfoot armor?

The article is a psychological interpretation of this entire field including witnesses and researchers.

But where's the armor, Manfromglad? There's got to be some armor before you start talking about chinks. The armor would be all the proof these beings are objectively real. But where's all the proof? Do you mean that picture you have of a bigfoot with missing arms pissing all over someone's car? There is no quantifiable proof, just hypothesising based mainly upon a handful of photos, footprint casts, and extensive witness testimony.

The article suggests there are psychologically, some positive aspects to this pursuit: Safe way of experiencing fear, feeling like a hero, warrior or pioneer, and as a metaphor for the difficulties we face in life and how to overcome those difficulties. I would add it's beneficial psychologically, in enabling people to interact though discussion on a common goal of solving a big mystery. Whether it turns out to be real or not there psychological benefits to it.

It could also be argued Scarts that yowie deniers are just control freaks , psycologically unable to deal with the fact that people are entitled to believe in what they want .
Some can live and let live , some may find it impossible to do this and feel a need to intervene .
Symptoms of a control freak .........

If you try to control the behavior of everyone.
If you want everyone to listen only to what you say.
If you want everything to be perfect, and you know best so everyone has to abide by your opinion.
If you think all the decisions should be taken only by you.
If you think people should live their lives according to your whims and fancies.
If you keep interfering with other people, and try to correct and direct them in everything they do.
If you don't trust anyone else performing any of your tasks because you are scared that if at all they fumble, you will have to pay for it. Hence, you do it yourself.
If anything that doesn't level up with your expectations disturbs you, leaving you with major disappointment, anger and frustration.
If you know people are afraid of your anger if they do not meet your expectations, and you use their weakness to your advantage.
In severe cases, control freaks can go to the extent of physically hurting someone, in the frustration of things not going their way. They start to feel very helpless if they have no control over a situation, and may begin to throw things around or destroy them.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/control- ... ptoms.html

I like that "control freak" theory. Because people who attempt to micromanage other people's lives, tend to have deeply embedded psychological problems.

People who are not prepared to received Yowie/Bigfoot discussion are often victims of either their parents, their society's and/or there own failure to prepare themselves for "life's forseeable challenges". Yowie/Bigfoot are often in the news or on the boob tube. Yet they remain somewhat of a mystery wrapped in an enigma, which is challenging to understand due to the lack of public information. That exposure to the mystery creates a foreseeability. All three of the parties mentioned, have a foreseeable duty to prepare the person's that they hold some level of responsibility for protecting, for life's foreseeable challenges. That failure to protect, creates liability for the person with a duty to protect.

In other words Scarts, someone owes you a boatload full of money. But start by blaming yourself first, and then work back from there.

No.

I think the point is being missed. Society condones people's right to believe whatever they choose. Belief in God and church leads people to attending churches, being charitable, hearing surmons., and praying.

Belief informs thought and thought precedes action. Perhaps it can be argued all beliefs have a spiritual undertone to them and we all need sprituality no matter how we get it.

This belief prompts people to do two main things. Go out and spend time in nature, discuss the topic on forums such as this, and interview people and research reports. Spending time in nature if naive can be dangerous, interviewing, researching reports, and spending time on forums such as this can be time consuming. Time is one commodity you cannot buy back and time is money. People have interests for two main reasons - to be entertained or learn something.

I guess you could say there's entertainment value to this, it's spiritual, and you might learn something, but what is it we are learning?

Getting back to the title of this thread , Why search for bigfoot ?

To see if its true, to see if its false .

Some already believe its true , some suspect its true , some are just curious , some do not believe it at all , some will never believe it and some are fascinated with a minority group who appear from the outside to be crazy .

The fact is , there will always be an equal argument from both sides as to the existence/nonexistence of bigfoot , yin yang , yes no , right wrong . No one can prove it , no one can disprove it .
Some may feel a strong need to disprove it , some may feel a strong need to prove it , all psychological arguments apply to both sides .

Researchers may have a predisposed psychological quirk/itch/tick to prove something , scientists may have a predisposed psychological quirk/itch/tick to disprove something .

Everything starts with the sightings . If sightings were limited to over 40's people with an IQ of below 100 (example) then the psychological argument would hold some water . The thing about sightings is they come from almost every part of the community and from every age group . N
Not everyone is crazy , its statistically impossible .

Everything goes around and around from here ..................

IMO If Hairy man wants you to find him, he will find you. Small Hairy men or tall hairy men, good or bad will choose to let you see them, I don't know that you could touch them but they can touch you.

The search for bigfoot is multi-layered. Some people will argue the search is to find bigfoot and prove to the world it exists. For others it is to resolve whether it is real or not. For others again, it is to explore the reasons these reports continue, given the lack of evidence such a creature could possibly exist.

There is no black or white, up or down, yin or yang with this. It's like being pregnant. Either a woman is pregnant or she isn't. If the woman isn't pregnant there is no chance she's going to deliver a baby, is there? Similarly, if there is no objective reality to bigfoot, there is no chance a bigfoot hunter will ever deliver a bigfoot let alone a decent photo.

The other thread in this section is angling towards the idea you don't need to be crazy to see bigfoot. You just have to be normal and possess an imagination, some trauma or stress, the right environment, and a tendency towards dissociation, each of which are available to every member of society.

The point I'm making Scarts is no matter what theories are put forward for or against , it wont matter , its out of our hands and all we can ever do is speculate .

Scarts wrote:The search for bigfoot is multi-layered. Some people will argue the search is to find bigfoot and prove to the world it exists. For others it is to resolve whether it is real or not. For others again, it is to explore the reasons these reports continue, given the lack of evidence such a creature could possibly exist.

There is no black or white, up or down, yin or yang with this. It's like being pregnant. Either a woman is pregnant or she isn't. If the woman isn't pregnant there is no chance she's going to deliver a baby, is there? Similarly, if there is no objective reality to bigfoot, there is no chance a bigfoot hunter will ever deliver a bigfoot let alone a decent photo.

The other thread in this section is angling towards the idea you don't need to be crazy to see bigfoot. You just have to be normal and possess an imagination, some trauma or stress, the right environment, and a tendency towards dissociation, each of which are available to every member of society.

Unfortunately Scarts, you spilled your guts on the other thread by saying that there is no Bigfoot/Yowie, period. So the cat is out of the bag. You do not appear to be really open for discussion on that point. Whether Bigfoot is permanently real or not, has nothing to do with whether a temporary condition of pregnancy is present or not. Apples and oranges.

You keep implying that Bigfoot/Yowie are not real but simultaneously give no weight to the likelihood of them being real, given the number of sightings worldwide. You therefore appear to have a very closed mind that you are attempting to conceal with some non-sensical, pseudo scientific comparisons. You are essentially attempting to sew seeds of doubt in a desert for which there is no moisture to help germinate your crop. Now that is a proper comparison. You are waisting your time here in attempting to win people over to your way of thinking. Your time would be better spent out in the field, alone, at night, down an old track with grass growing in the middle of it, with nothing but a couple of baseball bats to whack the tree trunks, and covered in freshly cooked chicken fat.

Seems to me Scarts is keeping his mind open. He's not attacking anyone's integrity just asking questions. If you find that confronting .....

Rusty, that's all I'm doing here. Speculating...

... and doing so in the correct section of the forum. I'm discussing a couple of articles. I didn't come up with the content of these articles, I'm just seeing where they take us. I'm stepping outside the square and attempting to see the forest for the trees. This is as uncomfortable for me as anyone else who may have some problems with it.

Just remember, every member here is exerting energy and their time by posting here and reading other posts. I see nothing wrong with applying some critical thinking and questioning what is being researched and what we are doing here.

Manfromglad, I am not some newbie who floated in here on the last cloud. I have done plenty of field research and had plenty of experiences myself that conform with the bulk of experiences and sightings. I have actually seen them on two separate occassions in broad daylight as well. So please don't pull the card I am being closed minded here. On that other thread when discussing dissociation, it implies a psychological quirk in myself, as well as underlying trauma and built up stresses, and an overactive imagination perhaps. You think I'm entirely comfortable with that?

This is Yowie Research, and I take the research component seriously. Otherwise why bother with any of this? Fortunately, or unfortunately, at some point I went from researcher to witness, which puts me squarely in with all the other witnesses and their reports. Manfromglad, you may specialise on the invisible bigfoot, but this thread is dealing with us witnesses. Witnesses are the bread and butter of all sightings.

Gavin wrote:Seems to me Scarts is keeping his mind open. He's not attacking anyone's integrity just asking questions. If you find that confronting .....

I beg to differ. Although Scarts is not attacking your integrity, he is attacking your ability to make accurate scientific field observations without hallucinating them in their entirety, regardless of whether you have backup proof recorded on electronic media. Furthermore, the only questions he asks, he is not presenting them as true questions, but rather as questions that have an obvious answer that is based on the closed minded thinking that there is no good enough proof of Bigfoot/Yowie that he is willing to either acknowledge, accept or even mention. In another case, his snarky question implies that we are really learning nothing here. Instead, we are all here for entertainment purposes only because nothing can be learned about something that does not really exist.

Now do I feel that is confrontational? That depends on your definition of confrontational. He is subtly insulting all knowers and believers on this board, by repeating the diatribe that they are hallucinating all supporting evidence, regardless of whether we captured it with electronic recording medium. That hypothesis is completely absurd. And he is apparently insulting us while chowing down on a plate full of peanut butter sandwiches, instead of busting his butt out in the field. Scarts appears to have no significant field experience, which totally explains his complete ignorance on the subject matter. This may be due to you mates not inviting him along on a weekend outing, in order to have the piss scared out of him. Therefore, the burden of teaching Scarts what he doesn't know about what he doesn't know, lies squarely in your hands. Do you find that an intimidating task?

Manfromglad
I don't agree with this article either. In my opinion it isn't researched or written very well at all. That Scarts has posted it doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with it. Maybe he has come across it whilst doing other research and believed it deserved an intelligent discussion. You may see yourself as open minded but your reactions and replies are not. Oh and I say what I mean: Confront - compel to face or consider something.
I don't know Scarts at all but I commend him for taking the time and effort to share his discoveries ( the articles in question ) with the rest us.

The mere suggestion of this explanation shows utter disrespect for the aboriginal people , their culture and their history .
I'm ashamed that I am white and amongst this type of company .

Again , some johny come lately arrives on the scene , been here for half a lifetime and suggests ..........nah nah nah , you guys were just halucinating for the last 40 to 60 thousand years .......

I'd like to see you run that by a remote aboriginal community .

This topic should be closed immediately out of respect for the aboriginal people !

I agree with what most people have put forward here, I agree also that its slander and an insult on Indigenous peoples and anyone who has come into contact with the Hairy man. That goes for the other thread as well.

I also think Scarts has a right to post what he wants, although currently I don’t agree with the articles provided, I think the person who wrote it is most likely a close minded individual and who has never experienced anything other than cooking a home meal in the microwave, and most likely has issues in trying to feel important amongst their peers. It’s still an opinion and people have a right to it.

I encourage the debate, but if it gets nasty I will shut it down.

This article raises relevant points, true believers. But in no way do I see it demoralising Witnesses or the reality of an experience for a Witness. Of the two articles I have offered up for discussion, I agree this is the less researched one with possibly some assumptions put forth as facts, which is sloppy.

This article mentions the American Bigfoot and Canadian Sasquatch. So is this article also disrespectful to the American Indians and Canadians? Is it also disrespectful to the Tibetans of the Himalayas who talk of the Abominable Snowman? Did I miss a part in the last Aboriginal Studies session I attended where the very fabric of their race hinges on dooligarls and yowies being regarded as real bush entities? Suggesting the article is disrespectful, insulting, and slanderous to our Aboriginal people, culture, and history, is a very very long bow to pull! I don't necessarily believe the Rainbow Serpent shaped our great country in the dreamtime, so am I being disrespectful? Come on! Aboriginal elders generally are not even forthcoming on this topic.

This article is from the School of Psychology.

The other thread and this one, do not suggest the experiences are hallucinations. They suggest they are experiences of a different psychological nature.

I'll run this topic by some elders in the Cherbourg community and we'll see what they make of it......
You are referring to educated Aboriginal peoples, aren't you, Rusty?

I don't think you're getting through Scarts. Just quietly.

The apple is falling out of the apple tree, Gavin, and I'm sure it won't be long before it hits it's targets.

If people can remain civil and discuss the merits and pitfalls of this article, then we can engage in some interesting and healthy discussion. Surely there must be some points we can all come to a general consensus and agree upon here?

Here's an article in a similar vein to the Why search for bigfoot article. This one introduces the awe factor.


The Hell with Bigfoot
You can do better in the search for something awesome.
Published on September 25, 2011 by Hank Davis in Caveman Logic

I'm not telling you Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm saying, the hell with him. You don't need him.
I understand. You want awe in your life. Your boyfriend or girlfriend or husband or wife is starting to bore you. Your job is a drag. It all seems kind of humdrum and predictable. If Bigfoot suddenly marched onto the front page, you'd sit up and take notice. Suddenly the world would bring you some excitement and awe!

OK. Fair enough. Who doesn't want awe? And throw in mystery and excitement while we're at it. Those are great things to add to anyone's life. But I'm saying you don't need to turn to urban myths and supernatural nonsense to get there. If you're watching a so-called "documentary" on the Discovery channel and it's recycling that faked 1960s footage of Bigfoot wandering through the woods, maybe that should trigger your BS detector. You're setting your standards pretty low. Maybe the fact that this "documentary" is sponsored by Jack Link's beef jerky or Mike's Hard Lemonade should suggest something is amiss. It's not that these aren't fine products, worthy of your attention; it's that one doesn't normally associate them with serious exploration of the natural world.

But that's just it. Awe has become associated with the supernatural. When did that happen? Why does the real world no longer excite us? Is there nothing about it that is wonderful or "awesome?" There's an area of study known as cryptozoology - the search for previously unknown life forms. It's a perfectly legitimate area of study, or it should be. Lord knows there are plenty of unknown species living on this planet. In fact, there are probably more unknown ones than known. Their discovery and classification should be cause for celebration. But cryptozoology has been hijacked by idiots and hucksters and urban myths and pseudoscience. No wonder fewer and fewer legitimate scientists want anything to do with the field.

Maybe there is something large and hairy trekking around the north woods somewhere and maybe there is something large and scaly swimming around Loch Ness, but there is not a shred of hard evidence to support either one to date. As I teach my first year students, the plural of anecdote is not data.
So does this mean I am a spoil-sport who has no understanding of what it means to feel awe? I seriously doubt it. I'm a big fan of awe; it's just that I look elsewhere for it. I believe you can stay in the natural world and experience plenty of awe. But I think that awe is even sweeter when you know it's not made-up stuff used to sell beef jerky to gullible people. There's no need to delve into the realm of BS or BF (Bigfoot) to find that awe. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about our need to experience danger or thrills, like watching a scary movie of a bug-eyed alien chasing a bunch of screaming kids around a parking lot. That's not what this is about. I'm talking about where we find real awe and wonder, not cheap thrills.

Here are some examples: The oceans on this planet (arguably the ocean since there is really just one big one that we've given different names in different places) are largely unexplored. There are things living down there that we have absolutely no knowledge of. You'll hear it said that if you drop a bucket deep (or maybe even not so deep) into the ocean and bring it up, there's a very good chance there will be a few unknown species swimming around in there. Understandably, they'll be small. Is that a problem? Does awe need to come only in large sizes? So how about the recent expedition (not covered by the Discovery channel, as far as I know) into an extinct volcano in Papua, New Guinea. More than 40 new species were discovered, and they were not the kind of organisms that required a microscope to see.

Can you imagine a rodent over four feet long? Better yet, it was a very friendly critter. There was nothing in its natural history to produce a fear of man.
People will tell you they read supermarket tabloids ("Woman Gives Birth To Alien Baby") just for fun. In fact, that is the single biggest defense offered by people who regularly purchase such publications. It's interesting that most people believe they need a defense. Nobody I've ever met felt compelled to blurt out a reason when they held a copy of the New York Times or the Biloxi Sun Herald . But catch someone who's just bought the National Inquirer orThe Globe, and they'll tell you it's "just for fun." What they need you to know is, "I'm not the kind of empty-headed, gullible idiot who reads this rag and actually believes the c**p they print. I do it just for fun." I suppose that's an important distinction to make, but there's also a chance that the "Bigfoot Stole My Baby" headlines actually do inform or reinforce the world view of some of these people. Plainly not you or your aunt Laura, but somebody down the street from her, perhaps.

Admittedly, scientists don't do a good job of communicating their work. Science is not well publicized. It isn't "sexy." I don't mean just the scientists, themselves, aren't sexy. It's how they do their jobs and what they find. Much of the science news I read is boring and, remember, I'm a scientist. Incredible opportunities to make science interesting are lost. Too many science reporters (or medical reporters) are not specially trained. They may be staff writers who pissed off their editors and got stuck with this assignment. But neither their hearts nor their heads seem to be in it. No wonder most readers or viewers yawn through such coverage. They're waiting for Bigfoot to make the front page. And while they're waiting, that story about Bigfoot stealing the Shroud of Turin that appeared in this week's supermarket tabloid will have to do.

Is there an optimistic way to end this piece? Let's try this. We haven't hit rock bottom yet. Someday you'll meet somebody who not only believes in Bigfoot (because of evidence he saw on a hard lemonade-sponsored documentary), but also believes the government has kidnapped a living specimen and is holding him prisoner in a special facility in Roswell, New Mexico.

Neither I nor anyone should ever deflect you from your search for awe. But neither should anyone, whether merchant or hoaxster, send you on a contrived journey to the supernatural to find it. There's enough awe for anyone who wants it, and it lives within reach in the natural world around us.

Its healthy to share such articles and I think its good to have them raised on the board. Reading such articles and opinions sometimes makes me question what I've personally seen. Just like how I felt the day after - what did i really see? Can't have. They don't exist. But the doubt passes because for me I can't lie to myself: I just can't fabricate what my own eyes saw on two occasions. Ultimately I feel this whole topic is like trying new food (yes I know its a lame analogy but used cause I don't want to use the dangerous comparison to 'faith') - you can't comment on it unless you've tried it firsthand. If you've never been in the bush and had an such an unexplainable experience, you can't cruise the net looking at pics and scoffing at witness accounts. I agree there is a fair share of hoaxes and mistaken identities and fabricated imaginings but there are far too many authentic accounts and too much recorded history IMO.

For those of us who believe, we can't forget that we are a great minority and that our belief will always be tested, judged and unfortunately sometimes ridiculed. But like I said, I'm all for healthy discussion. I like the humor of the article Scarts.

Interesting thread peoples.

Trying to figure out how my experience fits in. I didn't see a yowie, still haven't (and it's not because they're invisible, but that would be a convenient - if somewhat ridiculous - reason why).

Me, two other adults and roughly 15 year 10 girls heard what we did, I was the only one on that camp who was woken up on a different night (same camp, not far from original incident) to hear and experience what I did.

This was in 2004, back then I'd heard of 'bigfoot' but it seemed as legitimate to me as the Loch Ness monster (not very). So for roughly seven years I referred to whatever was there on that camp as 'The Beast', the day after the incident I drew a werewolf - beast thing in my notebook, that's what I thought was out there. Then I heard about yowies, the penny dropped - albeit seven years after the incident.

I wasn't out there looking for it, I was still seven years away from finding out a 'yowie' was more than a chocolate, so I'm struggling to see how my particular experience was imagination/hallucination/dissociation.

I'm with your thoughts Rusty222.