Page 1 of 3

New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:48 pm
by Dean Harrison
These are the latest photos received, and now probably doing the rounds.

Allegedly filmed at Fitzroy Crossing, in northern W.A.

Looks like something out of Star Wars....




DMH

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:00 pm
by Yowie bait
Thats interesting. Doesnt even look like the same thing in the 2 different photos/poses but hard to tell with those pics. Could be 10 ft tall for all we know?

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:29 pm
by AL Pitman
A bush turkey !
Sorry couldn't resist Lol

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:32 pm
by AL Pitman
In the 1st view there appears to be the lower branches of a gum tree to the left of the frame .
That would make whatever it is approximately 7 ft tall even hunched over like that if thats what I am seeing ??

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:49 pm
by Yowie bait
Some more details would be nice. Is it a trailcam ?,because most of us wouldve snapped a few hundred shots if we saw something like that.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:55 pm
by David
The bulk of it from the front view doesent seem to correspond with the side view.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm
by Dion
Not very big whatever it is maybe 2-3ft tall.

Edit to add: Allegedly Filmed so there is footage?

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:32 pm
by Ray Doherty
New Controversy is right........very interesting though

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:37 pm
by adventurer
To me it looks pink around the hand, does it not have any hair on its hands?
You would assume they would have at least hair on the tops of there hands (Like us). Dee

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:51 pm
by Dean Harrison
They were sent to us a couple of days ago and we traced them back to an Indigenous Website. They called it a Mummari (Hair Man). We have asked the person who posted them for more details, but not holding our breath.

Most likely fake. The eyes being the size of golf balls were interesting.

As I said, they will probably do the rounds on the Internet soon, so best show them here first.



DMH

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 pm
by Yowie bait
Dion wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm Not very big whatever it is maybe 2-3ft tall.

Edit to add: Allegedly Filmed so there is footage?
How can you tell the size? Yep film would be great.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:58 pm
by Shazzoir
I took the liberty of doing some 'overdrawing' in red line (old art habits die hard).

From the front, it looks massively solid, with no apparent head, but it could have its head lowered to avoid the light of the vehicle/torch (not sure which, but I'm opting for vehicle going by the broad swathe of light on the roadway).

It's also difficult to see any real arms, and that black spot presumably between the left arm and torso, could be shadow cast by massive pectorals. I have no idea what the 'white' looking patches are, but it could be coincidental that two of them just happen to be in the eye region on what I assume is the head.

The legs look to be almost formless pillars, and have that shapeless 'fur boot' look from hip to toes. It really looks like some strange version of when an animal puffs itself up to look bigger and more intimidating that it really is.

The profile shot looks dramatically more bipedal/humanoid in shape, but I still can't make out arms. Legs are quite apparent, and whatever it is seems to be mid-stride, and knees and feet are fairly clear. Now a tapering 'cone' shaped head becomes apparent, along with what seems to be defined upper arm and shoulder musculature in the side facing the viewer.

The knees appear to bend forward, and there is little obvious tapering of the lower limbs, so any type of mammal we know in this country can be eliminated as a suspect, I think, if I were to make a bold call.

Can't tell size at all with no information from the picture-taker, though.

https://i.gyazo.com/6a75783392d2c6da714 ... 231b3a.png

That's my amateur take on this oddity.

Shazz

(Now I can't get this wretched image to show, you'll have to click the link, my patience is done)

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:59 pm
by Yowie bait
adventurer wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:37 pm To me it looks pink around the hand, does it not have any hair on its hands?
You would assume they would have at least hair on the tops of there hands (Like us). Dee
I noticed that pink tinge whatever it is. They have hair on the back of their hands from what i could tell with visible nails or claws.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:36 pm
by Rastus
Lifted the shadows a bit...

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:51 pm
by Dion
Yowie bait wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 pm How can you tell the size? Yep film would be great.
Going by the tyre marks in the road, and also the road itself, just doesnt seem very big to me.

Would like to see the footage if available.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:27 pm
by Rastus
Dion wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:51 pm
Yowie bait wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 pm How can you tell the size? Yep film would be great.
Going by the tyre marks in the road, and also the road itself, just doesnt seem very big to me.

Would like to see the footage if available.

I think they are corrugations in the road Dion. From the side on striding shot and the spacing of the corrugations my guesstimate is it is somewhere in the 5 to 6 foot range with 6 foot being the upper extreme.Maybe one of the smaller ones? Legs look like tree trunks so could be a baggy suit?

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:41 pm
by paulmcleod67
My bet is a ghilly suit

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:04 pm
by Rastus
Yup I can totally see it as a ghillie suit now you mention it Paul, or yowie suit as aussie army slang calls it ( how appropriate :) ) . Im not saying it is but I can certainly see the possibility of it. It does look rather rotund.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:20 pm
by Black
Nice to see your image enhancing skills coming in handy, Paul.

The images look like they were taken from a high vantage point. I initially thought from a dashboard camera in a prime mover, with the figure on the side of the road to the left, and walks in front of the truck in front of the headlights. Just speculation ofcourse.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:45 pm
by adventurer
Shazzoir wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:58 pm



The legs look to be almost formless pillars, and have that shapeless 'fur boot' look from hip to toes.
a tapering 'cone' shaped head becomes apparent.

Fully agree here with Shazz, when i saw the skin on the hands, looked down and i noticed a boot shape too and the real cone shape head.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:10 pm
by yowiedan
When it looks dodgy it usually is dodgy! Put this next to the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot and there is no comparison!

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:27 pm
by TheBlackStump
Dean Harrison wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:51 pm They were sent to us a couple of days ago and we traced them back to an Indigenous Website. They called it a Mummari (Hair Man). We have asked the person who posted them for more details, but not holding our breath.

Most likely fake. The eyes being the size of golf balls were interesting.

As I said, they will probably do the rounds on the Internet soon, so best show them here first.



DMH
Hi Dean

I posted info below in another thread last year.

_______________________________________________
Western Australia tribe

… Noongar people are very spiritual people and you know if you do something, if you kill something for the fun of it then you know something will happen to you so you know you were taught that and you were taught about rules. You know when we sit around a campfire you’re not allowed to whiz the sticks around because you’ll bring the mummaries and woordatjis up. That’s the spirits. So you know growing up in the bush … where the rules were pretty well known.


tiny hairy men = mamari or mummary (taz)


evil., mischievous little man = woordatj woordatji (plural)

Different tribes/areas throughout Australia would most likely use different names.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:31 pm
by ripperton
For 5 minutes all I could see was a Black Bear frontal view with its head turned slightly to its left.
Then theres the side shot of "it" walking. Finally saw a figure from behind hunched over.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:47 pm
by Rastus
TheBlackStump wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:27 pm
Dean Harrison wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:51 pm They were sent to us a couple of days ago and we traced them back to an Indigenous Website. They called it a Mummari (Hair Man). We have asked the person who posted them for more details, but not holding our breath.

Most likely fake. The eyes being the size of golf balls were interesting.

As I said, they will probably do the rounds on the Internet soon, so best show them here first.



DMH
Hi Dean

I posted info below in another thread last year.

_______________________________________________
Western Australia tribe

… Noongar people are very spiritual people and you know if you do something, if you kill something for the fun of it then you know something will happen to you so you know you were taught that and you were taught about rules. You know when we sit around a campfire you’re not allowed to whiz the sticks around because you’ll bring the mummaries and woordatjis up. That’s the spirits. So you know growing up in the bush … where the rules were pretty well known.


tiny hairy men = mamari or mummary (taz)


evil., mischievous little man = woordatj woordatji (plural)

Different tribes/areas throughout Australia would most likely use different names.
Hi TBS , I spoke to an indigenous colleague from the Jerrinja clan here on the south coast of NSW recently and she told me that her people dont whistle in the bush on dusk or cook fish at the same time or it will attract the dooligah / yowie. I have pretty much treated indigenous stories as just myths to scare the kids and make them behave but from the way my colleague was talking they take it very seriously indeed. I really hadnt given much creedence to the indigenous stories but now I might read up and inform myself a bit better about their beliefs.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:50 pm
by Rastus
When I say "cook fish at the same time " I mean at dusk, not cooking multiple fish at the same time :)

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:07 pm
by adventurer
yowiedan wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:10 pm When it looks dodgy it usually is dodgy! Put this next to the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot and there is no comparison!
Hi,
Im not talking about this pic in particular and
Not disputing this at all but why should it come into our heads( or just mine) that if Patty was real then why would we expect them to all look and move the same?
Some may be under developed
Some may have skin conditions
some may be injured and maybe bend with a limp
I know your probably thinking of it having more a muscular body then looking at sag
but how many people now have said they look so human like.
Look at us
fat,thin,short,tall,black,white,invalid,round face,with big long nose, oblong face with wide small nose lol,you get what i mean.
A dog is a dog but hey, spaniel to great dane?

I suspect the few people that have actually laid eyes on a flesh and blood creature would have a better idea at looking at these photos to see if they at least have some simularities on what they have seen.
I mean its a guessing game to me whats real or not as i havnt seen one.( Well not a black one lol)

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:19 pm
by TheBlackStump
Rastus wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:47 pm
TheBlackStump wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:27 pm
Dean Harrison wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:51 pm They were sent to us a couple of days ago and we traced them back to an Indigenous Website. They called it a Mummari (Hair Man). We have asked the person who posted them for more details, but not holding our breath.

Most likely fake. The eyes being the size of golf balls were interesting.

As I said, they will probably do the rounds on the Internet soon, so best show them here first.



DMH
Hi Dean

I posted info below in another thread last year.

_______________________________________________
Western Australia tribe

… Noongar people are very spiritual people and you know if you do something, if you kill something for the fun of it then you know something will happen to you so you know you were taught that and you were taught about rules. You know when we sit around a campfire you’re not allowed to whiz the sticks around because you’ll bring the mummaries and woordatjis up. That’s the spirits. So you know growing up in the bush … where the rules were pretty well known.


tiny hairy men = mamari or mummary (taz)


evil., mischievous little man = woordatj woordatji (plural)

Different tribes/areas throughout Australia would most likely use different names.
Hi TBS , I spoke to an indigenous colleague from the Jerrinja clan here on the south coast of NSW recently and she told me that her people dont whistle in the bush on dusk or cook fish at the same time or it will attract the dooligah / yowie. I have pretty much treated indigenous stories as just myths to scare the kids and make them behave but from the way my colleague was talking they take it very seriously indeed. I really hadnt given much creedence to the indigenous stories but now I might read up and inform myself a bit better about their beliefs.
Hi Rastus
I have no opinion either way with the topic pics.
In any case I think that we should show some respect to the info/stories coming from indigenous people. After all indigenous folks have been on the ground living and breathing and dealing with a lot of stuff for many tens/hundreds of thousands of years . Who are we to diss what they say, see , know and believe.

Cheers

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:12 am
by Yowie bait
adventurer wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:07 pm
yowiedan wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:10 pm When it looks dodgy it usually is dodgy! Put this next to the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot and there is no comparison!
Hi,
Im not talking about this pic in particular and
Not disputing this at all but why should it come into our heads( or just mine) that if Patty was real then why would we expect them to all look and move the same?
Some may be under developed
Some may have skin conditions
some may be injured and maybe bend with a limp
I know your probably thinking of it having more a muscular body then looking at sag
but how many people now have said they look so human like.
Look at us
fat,thin,short,tall,black,white,invalid,round face,with big long nose, oblong face with wide small nose lol,you get what i mean.
A dog is a dog but hey, spaniel to great dane?

I suspect the few people that have actually laid eyes on a flesh and blood creature would have a better idea at looking at these photos to see if they at least have some simularities on what they have seen.
I mean its a guessing game to me whats real or not as i havnt seen one.( Well not a black one lol)
I doubt anyone could tell us Dee. Not much there to go on!

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:12 am
by Simon M
Just to buy into the controversy...I'm going to agree with the bold claim others have made that this is a person in a suit.

Re: New Controversy.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:24 am
by Black
I'm buying into the controversy, too. It's Australia's first dashcam footage of a dooligarl caught on video by a truckie. The head is squarely set on very broad shoulders, no neck, very large yellow eyes, has a large head, a saggital crest, covered in hair, and nocturnal.