Yowiehunters Forum

The Yowie, (asuming its geneticly the same species as Sasquatch) is a human hybrid with mitochondrial DNA identical to human mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA that is of “novel,” or non-human, sequence. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, while nuclear DNA mixes genetic material from both parents. That means that according to Ketchum’s study, Sasquatch’s parents were a human female and some unknown third species, a “novel non-human” male.

Now before anyone screams "aliens" lets bere in mind that recently Scientists anounced that the human gene pool seems to include DNA from Neanderthals as well as Denisovians. That suggests humans interbred with their primate cousins at some point before the Neanderthals went extinct about 30,000 years ago. Furthermore, in a paper published in the journal "Nature" a group of international researchers…collected genomic data on 83 Aboriginal Australians and 25 Highland Papuans from Papua New Guinea. The findings indicated their ancestors had diverged from Eurasians 57,000 years ago, following a single exodus from Africa around 75,000 years ago.

The data may show Aboriginal Australians came to the continent as early as 31,000 years ago.(my understanding is that it was over 50,000 years ago) and Yowies were already well established in Australia at that time according to their oral traditions,
Whats really interesting is that its been shown that ancestors of modern Aborigines as well as indigenous people from Papua New Guinea and of India, had encounters with an as of yet geneticly unkown species of early hominid.

Analysis of DNA from modern indigenous populations in Australasia show evidence that they assimulated DNA from this undiscovered and mysterious ancestor as they migrated. To quote...
"'We show that populations from South and Southeast Asia harbor a small proportion of ancestry from an unknown extinct hominid and that this ancestry is absent from Europeans and East Asians, the researchers wrote in Nature geonomics."

My take on this new data is this...

The research shows quite clearly that the ancestors of indigenous populations in parts of what is now Asia and the Pacific appear to have interbred with not only the Neanderthals but another prehistoric species called the Denisovans and as the new study has revealed that they may have mated with a third species who's DNA does not match any hominid species on record.

Dr Ketchums reference to sasquatch genome containing DNA from a novel "non human male" is a bit misleading "undiscovered extinct hominid" would be a less inflamatory way to discribe this DNA donor and fits more in line with yowies as a type of genetic cousin to homosapiens. As most indigious tribes traditions will relate yowie type beings can very rapy buggers, which sad as it is, would have allowed genetic transfer of the DNA anomaly in either direction I suppose.

Whats really Aussie proud awsome is that it also proves by proxy that Sasquatch arrived in America after Yowies were established in ancient Australia. How so? Because the newly discovered mystery hominid gene is not carried by ancestral Europeans and is predominant in Australian aboriginals, whom have, to my knowledge no ancestry found in the fossil records of the Americas or europe, ergo if both the mystery DNA found in sasquatch is a match to the newly discovered relic hominid DNA found in Australias aboriginal population and lets say , not in the genome of the American indian, then all european based sasaquatch must have migrated out of the former landmass we now call Australia.

This in turn smashes asunder the skeptics age old argument against the existance of Yowies due to the lack of a landbridge, allowing migration into ancient Australia. That argument has always been floored falsely assuming that Yowie is a divergent type of Gigantopithicus blacki when they are actualy a Co-evolved yet divergent sub spiecies of many relic hominids.
Ill let the true egg heads sum it up.

Quote...."Europeans or east Asians do not have these particular DNA sequences, which suggests the third hominin met our early ancestors in south Asia or the Pacific region..." Said Partha Majumder, director National Institute of Biomedical Genomics (NIBMG), told IANS."

So lets pull out the maps and see when aboriginals, Indians, some asians and pacific islanders gene pool's could have mingled in such a way as to allow for the newly discovered (but relic) DNA to be introduced to specific ancestral races and yet geographicly exclude euroasians et al.

This makes perfect sense - especially when we consider the fact that species like Homo floresiensis existed in Asia and there was the potential for genetic transfer among human populations who seem to have been continually migrating, and who lived alongside each other.

The other thing that's often suggested by a great deal of research, but not stated outright due to a lack of hard evidence , is that the genus Homo may have existed for far longer than most mainstream paleobiologists currently acknowledge. They keep uncovering things which seem to suggest this, but nobody ever dares to state it as a fact - this means that there was a lot more interbreeding going on for a much longer time and over a far wider geographical range than anyone has yet been willing to consider.

It's also worth remembering Raymond Dart's ideas, which were largely ignored at the time, but which seem more and more like being a more realistic appraisal of human origins than any of his contemporaries believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Dart

Just wanted to add that this theory allows for both an early migration by land bridge into Australia and also the cause of species isolation after the break up of pangea ,allowing a non marsupial hominid species to exist algonside ancient megaforna and relic saurons like megalania. It also aligns with the later arrival of aboriginals around 50,000 years ago.
Aboriginals have stated that yowies (insert native regional names here) were already ancient in Australia by the time they arrived. With some megafauna species still in existance here at the time of aboriginal habitation its pretty clear that the yowies now stranded early ancestor survived several mass extinctions by virtue of its arrival here prior to the pangean break up afround 150 million years ago.

Ladies and gentleman let me introduce you to whom I belive yowies are themselves divergently evolved from.
The 2.7 million years old Paranthropus boisei....

Cheers

The other thing that's often suggested by a great deal of research, but not stated outright due to a lack of hard evidence , is that the genus Homo may have existed for far longer than most mainstream paleobiologists currently acknowledge.

Indeed, thats the very reason I incuded the so called Homo erectus footprints. Thertes no reason that they cant be actual Homo Sapiens Sapiens footprints from what Im seeing in the data.

"A set of 1.5-million-year-old footprints discovered in Kenya recently are believed to belong to Homo erectus.
The footprints are indistinguishable from those of a modern barefoot human, with the same foot anatomies and mechanics..."

Thats a spade being a spade IMHO

Cheers matey

I think human evolution is a fluid, non linear event - one that is ongoing, obviously. If there were as many as seventeen hominids/hominims extant at one time in Africa (that we have a fossil record of), and if they were constantly moving around the world, and if members of the genus Homo were around over a million years ago.....well, there's no telling what went on. Most theories in this area are too narrowly focused in my opinion.

It wasn't that long ago that Dr. Chris Stringer was insisting that Neanderthals were a distinct species who couldn't possibly have interbred with Cro-Magnons....and he was proven wrong. He had no idea about the Denisovans, either (in fairness, nobody did at that stage).

It's possible, and I think very likely, that creatures not dissimilar to us have existed for millions of years...but, once again, science would label anyone who said so as being part of the lunatic fringe, despite the weight of evidence that they simply cannot explain away.

Good discussion. I would just like to add the following image from the expanding earth theory...

It's still utter conjecture. As species can only breed with those that are extremely close to them genetically(us and neanderthals being an example)....where is this mystery hominoid in the fossil record? It will also need to account for the 7 to 11 foot tall hirsute biped that has been sighted...this would stick out like a dog's bollocks in the fossil record and the DNA.

Oh wait, it's Melba Ketchum. Moving on......

A sore thumb

A sore thumb, mirrored enlarged and rotated....ouch

Meganthropus A/Sangiran 6 an 8 foot tall 600 pound relic hominid found in java and has a double temporal ridge (sagittal crest) and a very thick nuchal ridge!

O.D. von Engeln [and] Kenneth E. Caster. mentioned that " Another astounding discovery is that of human teeth in China and Java of such size as to suggest a period of gigantism in human evolution. If the teeth can be accepted as indicative, these giant men stood 9 to 10 feet tall and weighed perhaps 600 to 700 pounds!"

https://rperon1017blog.wordpress.com/20 ... anthropus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus

If one or two type of ancient hominids survived then why not multiple types? It would help explain the different appearences and sizes reported around the world. It confuses me how they can know so much from these partial skeletons and bone fragments??

VicYowieResearch wrote:It's still utter conjecture. As species can only breed with those that are extremely close to them genetically(us and neanderthals being an example)....where is this mystery hominoid in the fossil record? It will also need to account for the 7 to 11 foot tall hirsute biped that has been sighted...this would stick out like a dog's bollocks in the fossil record and the DNA.

Oh wait, it's Melba Ketchum. Moving on......

Gorillas and chimpanzees aren't in the fossil record.
Because their environments do not create the right conditions for fossils to form.
Who know how many other creatures that inhabited likewise wet, forested environments existed and left no 'record'...

That's a good point - the conditions necessary for fossilization are very specific.

These conditions include: no oxygen as oxygen decays material , the organism must be buried quickly so it doesn't get eaten or begin to decay, and after burial the dead creature mustn't be disturbed.

It's why fossils of sea creatures are more common than fossils of (for example) ancient hominids.

Wolf wrote:

VicYowieResearch wrote:It's still utter conjecture. As species can only breed with those that are extremely close to them genetically(us and neanderthals being an example)....where is this mystery hominoid in the fossil record? It will also need to account for the 7 to 11 foot tall hirsute biped that has been sighted...this would stick out like a dog's bollocks in the fossil record and the DNA.

Oh wait, it's Melba Ketchum. Moving on......

Gorillas and chimpanzees aren't in the fossil record.
Because their environments do not create the right conditions for fossils to form.
Who know how many other creatures that inhabited likewise wet, forested environments existed and left no 'record'...

Our 'Homo Sapien' place in the fossil record is remarkably well supported by previous fossils found of earlier examples of Great Apes. What I am saying is that if the Yowie is a relative of ours, then it makes little coherent sense from a logical progression viewpoint. Way back in time from when we were all deciding that the ground was the hip place to be and trying out a new fancy way of locomotion called bipedal-ism, we have gradually become taller. Now the reports these days of 'Yowies' are all what? 7-9 feet tall? Species can only mate with those genetically VERY close to them...so where is this large hominid in our record? Why does the DNA not show a big bloody difference when the hybridisation occurred ?

People ARE seeing something...in the Australian Bush..and other places elsewhere around the planet. SOMEWHERE there would have been a fossil. The strawman argument with Gorillas and Chimps is irrelevant as our ancestors ARE THE SAME.

It's equally possible that the ancestors of these particular creatures didn't live in areas where fossilization occurred (for whatever reason). As you state, our own ancestors are present (even numerous) in the fossil record of Africa, Asia and Europe.

Gigantopithecus is known only from various teeth and jawbones - to my knowledge no complete skeleton, or even a skull, has ever been found. If not for these scant traces we'd never have known they ever existed. It's possible that creatures such as the Yowie/Sasquatch diverged a very long time ago from our nearest common ancestor, and it's also possible that none of their forebears are present in the fossil record because they lived in places where fossilization never took place, or we simply haven't found the areas where these fossils are present - both situations are possible.

It's also possible that we share the same common ancestry despite the clear differences between humans and the creatures people are seeing in the Australian bush. If humans and Chimpanzees share a significant genetic similarity despite our many obvious physical differences it's also possible that the Yowie also has a great deal in common with us genetically.

All of this is possible, and we have no way of knowing how likely it is.

As you also state, all of this is pure conjecture, and I am certainly no expert in any of these fields of study, only someone with an opinion.

I accept your assertion that great ape fossils not being present is a 'straw man' argument, and a classic example of one, but the lack of fossil evidence for Yowies doesn't negate their existence either. It's equally possible that ours and the Yowie's ancestry is also remarkably similar.

It's not a foregone conclusion that we're going to find every fossil that was ever formed - I often wonder how many will never be found due to things such as open cut mining having destroyed them, or them being in areas which are so remote, inhospitable and inaccessible that nobody's ever going to look there, or notice that fossils are present. If an untrained person walks past a fossil and never notices it, it's just the same as if nobody ever found it, I suppose.

All I'm saying is that you're both making solid points - and we simply don't know enough to make any claims about fossil records of Yowies due to the many variables and unknown factors involved. We can all agree that people are seeing something, as to what that something is....it's open to interpretation, but I would bet that the Yowies are as close to ourselves genetically as Chimpanzees are; they've just gone in a different evolutionary direction than ourselves or any of the other surviving great apes.

Simon M wrote:It's equally possible that the ancestors of these particular creatures didn't live in areas where fossilization occurred (for whatever reason). As you state, our own ancestors are present (even numerous) in the fossil record of Africa, Asia and Europe.

Gigantopithecus is known only from various teeth and jawbones - to my knowledge no complete skeleton, or even a skull, has ever been found. If not for these scant traces we'd never have known they ever existed. It's possible that creatures such as the Yowie/Sasquatch diverged a very long time ago from our nearest common ancestor, and it's also possible that none of their forebears are present in the fossil record because they lived in places where fossilization never took place, or we simply haven't found the areas where these fossils are present - both situations are possible.

It's also possible that we share the same common ancestry despite the clear differences between humans and the creatures people are seeing in the Australian bush. If humans and Chimpanzees share a significant genetic similarity despite our many obvious physical differences it's also possible that the Yowie also has a great deal in common with us genetically.

All of this is possible, and we have no way of knowing how likely it is.

As you also state, all of this is pure conjecture, and I am certainly no expert in any of these fields of study, only someone with an opinion.

I accept your assertion that great ape fossils not being present is a 'straw man' argument, and a classic example of one, but the lack of fossil evidence for Yowies doesn't negate their existence either. It's equally possible that ours and the Yowie's ancestry is also remarkably similar.

It's not a foregone conclusion that we're going to find every fossil that was ever formed - I often wonder how many will never be found due to things such as open cut mining having destroyed them, or them being in areas which are so remote, inhospitable and inaccessible that nobody's ever going to look there, or notice that fossils are present. If an untrained person walks past a fossil and never notices it, it's just the same as if nobody ever found it, I suppose.

All I'm saying is that you're both making solid points - and we simply don't know enough to make any claims about fossil records of Yowies due to the many variables and unknown factors involved. We can all agree that people are seeing something, as to what that something is....it's open to interpretation, but I would bet that the Yowies are as close to ourselves genetically as Chimpanzees are; they've just gone in a different evolutionary direction than ourselves or any of the other surviving great apes.

While I agree Simon, what are the chances of this creature and its potential relatives remaining so, so elusive in Australia, the US, the Himalayas, Indonesia and various other locations around the globe? Not one body? Not one decent video clip? Something odd is going on.

VicYowieResearch wrote:
While I agree Simon, what are the chances of this creature and its potential relatives remaining so, so elusive in Australia, the US, the Himalayas, Indonesia and various other locations around the globe? Not one body? Not one decent video clip? Something odd is going on.

I agree 100% with that point. It seems that this creature is being hidden under a veil of misinformation, perhaps to avoid public panic, or to appease politically/financially powerful interests (for religious reasons, and/or commercial ones).

The lack of any physical evidence is odd - you'd think someone would've shot one or crashed into it in a car by now, surely - but could have been suppressed by the authorities I suppose. The fact that people are seeing something is undeniable, as you've said, but the absence of a body is puzzling. Even if they bury their dead, it seems inconceivable that no body has ever been discovered.

Again, without any solid info, we can only surmise that evidence exists but has been kept hidden. I have no doubt, despite my never having seen one of these things, that they're there. There's just too much evidence suggesting that they are there to dismiss all of it.

We've all read stories about how the U.S. military supposedly shot one during the Vietnam war, etc - but it's all hearsay without a body. There was even the "Minnesota Iceman", and other fakery that happened more recently, which all adds to the confusion.

The earliest known work of fiction - The Epic of Gilgamesh - contains a character named Enkidu, who is a super-strong "wild man" living in the forest alongside herds of animals. The concept of the hairy man is one that has manifested in the stories of every culture...and may simply be a cultural remnant from a time when there were competing hominoids with whom our ancestors co-existed.

None of this explains why people continue seeing them, though...and hallucinations don't leave footprints. It's confusing, and I'm not religious in any way, but I still take it on faith that Yowies exist. In all honesty, I'm not one for believing ins the supernatural/paranormal characteristics people ascribe to these creatures, and see them as purely physical beings which live in the wilderness. They've clearly adopted human avoidance as a (very prudent) survival technique, but it is hard to imagine no physical evidence ever having been found.

I do think that the most likely explanation is that the physical evidence has been actively hidden and that a tone of whimsicality is deliberately introduced into their discussion in the mainstream media. These stories are treated as tall tales told around the campfire, and that's one way of making sure people don't come forward.

VicYowieResearch wrote:.....what are the chances of this creature and its potential relatives remaining so, so elusive in Australia, the US, the Himalayas, Indonesia and various other locations around the globe? Not one body? Not one decent video clip? Something odd is going on.

Hi VicYR,

You will find out eventually.

Maybe instead of trying to figure it out, just accept it and appreciate this creature, being, beast, "HairyOne",
Yowie or the dimension that we can't comprehend.... ! Yet.

Simon M wrote:

VicYowieResearch wrote:
While I agree Simon, what are the chances of this creature and its potential relatives remaining so, so elusive in Australia, the US, the Himalayas, Indonesia and various other locations around the globe? Not one body? Not one decent video clip? Something odd is going on.

I agree 100% with that point. It seems that this creature is being hidden under a veil of misinformation, perhaps to avoid public panic, or to appease politically/financially powerful interests (for religious reasons, and/or commercial ones). Doubt it, it would take a hell of a lot of effort and not one person has come forward to spill the beans. Even wikileaks has bugger all on it.

The lack of any physical evidence is odd - you'd think someone would've shot one or crashed into it in a car by now, surely - but could have been suppressed by the authorities I suppose. The fact that people are seeing something is undeniable, as you've said, but the absence of a body is puzzling. Even if they bury their dead, it seems inconceivable that no body has ever been discovered.

Bingo.

Again, without any solid info, we can only surmise that evidence exists but has been kept hidden. I have no doubt, despite my never having seen one of these things, that they're there. There's just too much evidence suggesting that they are there to dismiss all of it.

We've all read stories about how the U.S. military supposedly shot one during the Vietnam war, etc - but it's all hearsay without a body. There was even the "Minnesota Iceman", and other fakery that happened more recently, which all adds to the confusion.

The earliest known work of fiction - The Epic of Gilgamesh - contains a character named Enkidu, who is a super-strong "wild man" living in the forest alongside herds of animals. The concept of the hairy man is one that has manifested in the stories of every culture...and may simply be a cultural remnant from a time when there were competing hominoids with whom our ancestors co-existed.

Cultural memory of interactions with neanderthal aside, still doesn't explain the 7 to 12 feet tall hairy biped people are seeing.

None of this explains why people continue seeing them, though...and hallucinations don't leave footprints. It's confusing, and I'm not religious in any way, but I still take it on faith that Yowies exist. In all honesty, I'm not one for believing ins the supernatural/paranormal characteristics people ascribe to these creatures, and see them as purely physical beings which live in the wilderness. They've clearly adopted human avoidance as a (very prudent) survival technique, but it is hard to imagine no physical evidence ever having been found.

And how exactly does a physical being disappear INTO a tree...NOT behind it...or tracks that just 'end'?

I do think that the most likely explanation is that the physical evidence has been actively hidden and that a tone of whimsicality is deliberately introduced into their discussion in the mainstream media. These stories are treated as tall tales told around the campfire, and that's one way of making sure people don't come forward.

I used to think that too. But being up in mountains in the wee small hours freezing my ass off has led me to think otherwise. The more logic you pour into this phenomena, the less sense it makes.

Not one body? Not one decent video? Clear photograph? Rusty, who I greatly admire has thrown sh*tloads of $$$ and time into this and has got interesting results...but still no 'smoking gun'?

Come on.

Simon M wrote:

I do think that the most likely explanation is that the physical evidence has been actively hidden and that a tone of whimsicality is deliberately introduced into their discussion in the mainstream media. These stories are treated as tall tales told around the campfire, and that's one way of making sure people don't come forward.

People do come forward. The amazing Audio Reports here on AYR provide stunning testimony to that!

gregvalentine wrote:

VicYowieResearch wrote: I used to think that too. But being up in mountains in the wee small hours freezing my ass off has led me to think otherwise. The more logic you pour into this phenomena, the less sense it makes.

Not one body? Not one decent video? Clear photograph? Rusty, who I greatly admire has thrown sh*tloads of $$$ and time into this and has got interesting results...but still no 'smoking gun'?

Come on.

Maybe, whilst they may be "everywhere", there's not that many of them overall.

Yet, they are reported worldwide....

Searcher wrote: People do come forward. The amazing Audio Reports here on AYR provide stunning testimony to that!

Yes some people do, but those who do probably represent a fraction of those who witness such events overall - many people may see something and simply choose not to discuss it (as mentioned in some of those audio reports, many people who've witnessed these animals simply refuse to discuss the subject even with those who saw it at the same time). How many people see them and simply don't know about this site, or have never even heard of a Yowie? We have no way of knowing, obviously.

VicYowieResearch wrote: I used to think that too. But being up in mountains in the wee small hours freezing my ass off has led me to think otherwise. The more logic you pour into this phenomena, the less sense it makes.

Not one body? Not one decent video? Clear photograph? Rusty, who I greatly admire has thrown sh*tloads of $$$ and time into this and has got interesting results...but still no 'smoking gun'?

Come on.

Fair point - what do you believe is happening? I am no expert and have zero experience "in the field" and have never witnessed anything unusual in the Australian bush (unless you count some of the people I once saw during a brief detour through Nimbin, but that's another category of unusual).

If solid information on this topic isn't being deliberately suppressed (as I have assumed for years), then I'd be interested to hear other explanations. I genuinely can't account for the lack of bodies or the lack any independently verifiable physical evidence either, and the only thing I can put that down to is human intervention of some kind.

I'm not willing to entertain the idea that there's a supernatural/paranormal aspect to this phenomenon, as it stretches my credulity beyond its limits. I don't say that to belittle anyone else's beliefs, only to clarify my own. I'm not religious at all, and I am sure there is a natural, logical, scientific explanation for all this, but if there isn't a deliberate effort being made to ensure this topic remains consigned to the 'lunatic fringe' by the scientific community (and others), then I cannot account for the lack of evidence.

If there's another way of looking at it which I haven't considered, I'd like to hear other ideas. The lack of a body/bodies has always bothered me as well.

Simon M wrote:I am no expert and have zero experience "in the field" and have never witnessed anything unusual in the Australian bush (unless you count some of the people I once saw during a brief detour through Nimbin, but that's another category of unusual).

Hi Simon M

In a way I like your sense of humour, Nimbin is another place altogether, however there are some long time people/members/researchers on this forum that have spent many years/money/time trying to get to the bottom of this mystery and probably take it very seriously... although maybe they shouldn't. Some still cling to the possibility that somehow that there is a scientific explanation and they will be proven to be Flesh and Blood. In a way so do I.

However, I can guarantee that the majority of those that have in some way done field research for years would have considered the fact that there is something not quite right with the phenomenon.

I have thought about this for some time and can only come up with the idea that researchers are either:

1. Have been following the scientific community for many years (have been brought up as kids to respect science and cant accept any Spiritual solution to anything).

2. Are afraid they wont be accepted by peers/friends etc to say they are something else, (stubborn).

3. Are lazy with their research (see what they want to see, accept what they want to accept).

I no longer do field research because of personal experiences out in the field and research into others researchers personal experiences.

Simon M wrote:I'm not willing to entertain the idea that there's a supernatural/paranormal aspect to this phenomenon, as it stretches my credulity beyond its limits. I don't say that to belittle anyone else's beliefs, only to clarify my own. I'm not religious at all, and I am sure there is a natural, logical, scientific explanation for all this, but if there isn't a deliberate effort being made to ensure this topic remains consigned to the 'lunatic fringe' by the scientific community (and others), then I cannot account for the lack of evidence.

If there's another way of looking at it which I haven't considered, I'd like to hear other ideas. The lack of a body/bodies has always bothered me as well.

Thats fine, the lack of bodies should be a major wake up call to all researchers.

Even the scientific community is coming to the conclusion of different Dimensions

Although the trick is to remain grounded at all times....... no hippie c**p, weed, drugs or peace man stuff

The truth is out there however.

I have no problem with the lack of bodies. We just havent found one and maybe someone or something is making sure we never do. There has been at least one body reported.

One of a junjudee probably-an orange orangutan looking thing on the side of a highway. Of course its all anecdotal but im inclined to accept that one because of who is telling it .

There are forum members posting accounts of what they have seen with their own eyes. Its up to the individual if you want to take it as fact or maybe listen and keep it in the back of your head somewhere. We need to keep an open mind about these things!

Fair points, Dion - and it's possible that string theory, or the 'many worlds' theory, could account for some of what we don't know about these animals. As I say, I have no answers, only questions.

And you're right, Yowie Bait - it is best to keep an open mind, but the fact that there are some types of physical evidence (footprints) and not others is problematic to me.

It's equally possible that they eat their dead and scatter the remnants, but even then you'd imagine not every Yowie dies in company, or in a location of its own choosing (ie, a remote one).

It's also possible that, if they do bury their dead, they do so in locations where the conditions promote rapid decay for one reason or another. Again, I'm presuming a great deal.

This documentary came to mind - not Yowie related, but it does deal with a mostly forgotten human culture, whose remains are difficult to find because of where they chose to bury those members of their group who had died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPfOiX4MKo

I'm not trying to disparage anyone's beliefs, I am just not willing to accept that they are anything other than flesh-and-blood creatures, albeit unusually rare ones. It's certainly possible they could be able to phase between one dimension and another in some manner (hence their 'paranormal' reputation), but I am still applying Occam's Razor (among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected) to the debate due to the sheer lack of solid facts.

Dion wrote:
Even the scientific community is coming to the conclusion of different Dimensions

When I first became 're-interested' in the Sasquatch/Yowie phenomenon I remembered some Louis L'amour books I read when I was young.
I went through a stage of reading every single one of his books I could find (it helped that my dad and sister collected them). FOr those who do not know the author... he was famous for western 'dime novels', publishing hundreds during his lifetime.

What was interesting about this author is that he NEVER wrote about something that did not exist. Every single campground, every cave, every bend in a river he wrote about exists. He wrote while camping, travelling and living in the bush.

In at least two stories his hero was confronted by a 'wild man' who the hero got bad feelings off. Said incidents always happened when the hero was injured and alone way out in the bush trying to survive.
And in one novel he wrote about his hero passing through some kind of shimmering in the air and being in another dimension or time period. I remember this story distinctly because it was so unlike L'amour to write of such things and it was written in his usual realistic, describing every detail kind of way, like he had himself experienced such a thing (I am not saying he did).

Then last year I heard Bob Garrett describing something similar, passing through a kind of shimmering in the air and finding himself in a slightly different environment than the one he 'exited'. His descriptions were earily similar to L'amour's.

Either he did experience such a thing and so did Louis L'amour, or Bob had read that particular novel and was BSing. Only he knows.

Wolf, that type of experience is commonplace in a lot of folklore as well - especially Celtic folklore, in which someone suddenly finds themselves in an unfamiliar part of the woods which they've somehow never noticed before. They'll wind up having an adventure (usually involving the faerie folk somehow) and then just as suddenly return to the place they first got lost, only to find several days have passed even though it only felt like a few hours, etc. It's an old trope and also reminds me of the 'missing time' reported by alleged UFO abductees.

I've often wondered if the similarities between these reported experiences are indicative of either an undiagnosed form of psychiatric disorder involving hallucinations, or the result of having tapped into the 'collective unconscious" in some manner - possibly both.

Dion wrote:researchers are either:

1. Have been following the scientific community for many years (have been brought up as kids to respect science and cant accept any Spiritual solution to anything).

2. Are afraid they wont be accepted by peers/friends etc to say they are something else, (stubborn).

3. Are lazy with their research (see what they want to see, accept what they want to accept).

What would you like to see researchers doing Dion ?

Simon M wrote:Fair points, Dion - and it's possible that string theory, or the 'many worlds' theory, could account for some of what we don't know about these animals. As I say, I have no answers, only questions.

And you're right, Yowie Bait - it is best to keep an open mind, but the fact that there are some types of physical evidence (footprints) and not others is problematic to me.

It's equally possible that they eat their dead and scatter the remnants, but even then you'd imagine not every Yowie dies in company, or in a location of its own choosing (ie, a remote one).

It's also possible that, if they do bury their dead, they do so in locations where the conditions promote rapid decay for one reason or another. Again, I'm presuming a great deal.

This documentary came to mind - not Yowie related, but it does deal with a mostly forgotten human culture, whose remains are difficult to find because of where they chose to bury those members of their group who had died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPfOiX4MKo

I'm not trying to disparage anyone's beliefs, I am just not willing to accept that they are anything other than flesh-and-blood creatures, albeit unusually rare ones. It's certainly possible they could be able to phase between one dimension and another in some manner (hence their 'paranormal' reputation), but I am still applying Occam's Razor (among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected) to the debate due to the sheer lack of solid facts.

Thanks Simon. Those old docos are cool. Ive found part two now so will watch that later. By the way think i saw a dogman at the front of those boats...! I thought the same thing as you;that the yowie/bigfoot devour their dead or dispose of or bury the bodies in a clandestine fashion. Your right though, its just speculation. May they have another dimension put aside for that sort of thing....

i mean "Maybe" they have....