David NC Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 Yowie, the hair evidence you have should be enough for scientist in your area to take a look. The fact that they are not in my opinion points to the fact that "science" does not want them discovered. Australia is an amazing continent for the animal life. You have the highest percentage of marsupials found on the planet in one area. There are no native hooved animals and no native dogs, cats, bears, or weasels. The dingo is believed to have been introduced several thousand years ago by Indonesian traders. The original role of the dog was filled by the Thylacine (Tasmanian wolf) which was a marsupial. The biggest reason science in your area should be all over your evidence is that there are no monkeys in Australia outside of captivity.
yowiie Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 David NC I have approached several universities and labs over the years but they refuse to help or just don't bother replying. Its no real drama to me , I know the animals are here in Australia, I don't need further proof
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 ^The Yowie has more going against it than bigfoot does in North America. Unless there was a certain de evolution of human beings into a more primitive form how did the Yowie get to Australia without the technology of sea faring means? Were they somehow cohorts of the humans who brought them along? For what reason? As with most crypto's it requires a certain dismantling of reason and make the allowance as "well it happened and that's all that is important." We see this in the PGF about the film developing. By virtually all respects the film could not have been developed in the time and place Patterson claimed. Even one of the most objective researchers to study the film ignored that aspect of it. And as with most crypto pursuits having to apply truly rigorous logic is avoided as it usually defeats the possibility of the crypto in question.
yowiie Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 Crow I really don"t care how the Yowie got to Australia, but it is here. AS I said I have seen 5 animals in the past 20 years, we don't have bears so there is no mistaking what I saw
JDL Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 It was possible to migrate over land to Australia using the Sunda Shelf during Ice Ages. https://kadarsah.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/wallacea-migration.gif Australia is relatively close to those areas of Asia with relic hominid sightings.
yowiie Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 JDL You are correct, I get sick and tired of being told that its not possible for the continent of Australia to have Yowies, and that's not just from the skeptics. It has been mentioned on this site by the people who think they are in the know, who believe that only the USA has the hominids
norseman Posted March 13, 2016 Admin Author Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) ^The Yowie has more going against it than bigfoot does in North America. Unless there was a certain de evolution of human beings into a more primitive form how did the Yowie get to Australia without the technology of sea faring means? Were they somehow cohorts of the humans who brought them along? For what reason? As with most crypto's it requires a certain dismantling of reason and make the allowance as "well it happened and that's all that is important." We see this in the PGF about the film developing. By virtually all respects the film could not have been developed in the time and place Patterson claimed. Even one of the most objective researchers to study the film ignored that aspect of it. And as with most crypto pursuits having to apply truly rigorous logic is avoided as it usually defeats the possibility of the crypto in question.How did the hobbit get to the island of Flores? You speak of reason as if your the judge, jury and executioner of it...... when the reality of the situation is that your simply NOT well read and abreast with human ancestor evolution!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b-qK-zMT9BE Edited March 13, 2016 by norseman
SWWASAS Posted March 13, 2016 BFF Patron Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) From what I can find, there never was a land connection from SE Asian continent to Australia. The closest to that being the last ice age, when you could literally island hop to Australia and never be more that 45 KM from land. The source says that you could always see the next island off in the distant horizon. The aboriginal migration was at least 40,000 ago according to carbon dating which is in the last ice age and possibly as much as 120 some thousand years ago. Ice ages are very cyclical. http://austhrutime.com/aboriginal_history_in_australia.htm It is thought that the aboriginese used boats and island hopped much like the Polynessians did many thousands of years later. How Yowiie got there might explainable by the many tsunamis that wreak havoc with the pacific islands. Wash some off a large island who cling to trees and floating debris and the wind blows them to nearby islands or the continent of Australia. Rodents have spread that way why not Yowiie or even the aborigines themselves since their use of boats is just conjecture anyway without any physical evidence? The point like Norseman makes is islands get populated with humans, plants and animals somehow. Edited March 13, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
yowiie Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) We really don't know what land bridges were connected to where. The scientists can speculate, but at the end of the day. What proof supports the theory. As little as 6000 years ago Australia was connected to New Guinea and New Guinea to Indonesia. Edited March 13, 2016 by yowiie
FarArcher Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 ^The Yowie has more going against it than bigfoot does in North America. Unless there was a certain de evolution of human beings into a more primitive form how did the Yowie get to Australia without the technology of sea faring means? Were they somehow cohorts of the humans who brought them along? For what reason? As with most crypto's it requires a certain dismantling of reason and make the allowance as "well it happened and that's all that is important." We see this in the PGF about the film developing. By virtually all respects the film could not have been developed in the time and place Patterson claimed. Even one of the most objective researchers to study the film ignored that aspect of it. And as with most crypto pursuits having to apply truly rigorous logic is avoided as it usually defeats the possibility of the crypto in question. Crow, your postulation that there is no way a Yowie could possibly get to Australia makes one really wild assumption: they are the same species as the North American Bigfoot. With all the little people around the world, and on islands, and all the large hairy bipedals reported by almost every culture in every millennia, on every continent - I'm skeptical that they could all be making this up. That flies in the face of the preponderance of evidence. We execute people based on eyewitness testimony. Apparently, there's something to it - except in scientific circles - but then again, they've been so wrong about so many things for so long - it's hilarious. 1
JDL Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 From what I can find, there never was a land connection from SE Asian continent to Australia. The closest to that being the last ice age, when you could literally island hop to Australia and never be more that 45 KM from land. The source says that you could always see the next island off in the distant horizon. The aboriginal migration was at least 40,000 ago according to carbon dating which is in the last ice age and possibly as much as 120 some thousand years ago. Ice ages are very cyclical. http://austhrutime.com/aboriginal_history_in_australia.htm It is thought that the aboriginese used boats and island hopped much like the Polynessians did many thousands of years later. How Yowiie got there might explainable by the many tsunamis that wreak havoc with the pacific islands. Wash some off a large island who cling to trees and floating debris and the wind blows them to nearby islands or the continent of Australia. Rodents have spread that way why not Yowiie or even the aborigines themselves since their use of boats is just conjecture anyway without any physical evidence? The point like Norseman makes is islands get populated with humans, plants and animals somehow. RainCoast Sasquatch has accounts of them swimming several miles to the Islands off of the coast of British Columbia and chronicles encounters on those islands.
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) Crow I really don"t care how the Yowie got to Australia, but it is here. AS I said I have seen 5 animals in the past 20 years, we don't have bears so there is no mistaking what I saw Obviously you don't care and by not caring or questioning the possibility of what you're seeing as having had a viable reason to exist there just may be coloring your sightings so as to make them fit the Yowie question. ^^Good for Raincoast Sasquatch but are there any videos or photos of them doing the swim? People can say lots of things and in bigfootism the can and do say lots of things. Marathon swimming bigfoot are great for campfire stories I suppose. Edited March 14, 2016 by Crowlogic
yowiie Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 Crow You believe what you want., how they become to be in Australia, America or Russia really is beyond me and doesn't concern me, they are here, probably not in the numbers that are reported in the USA. Please explain with all your wisdom, why these animals cannot be evident around the world, i am sure that you will have an answer. These animals are in Australia, whether you wish to believe, I dont give a rats
Night Walker Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 I know the animals are here in Australia, I don't need further proof AS I said I have seen 5 animals in the past 20 years, we don't have bears so there is no mistaking what I saw "I know what I saw" is precisely the issue - EVERYBODY knows what what they saw when it comes to Bigfoot despite the complete lack of objective confirmation whether they see him stepping behind a tree or stepping into an interdimensional portal... Marvin Gaye has some words of wisdom: People say believe half of what you see Son and none of what you hear While one's personal subjective experience of Bigfoot may be perceived as real (and powerful and even life-changing) the objective evidence does not support it being an objectively real creature. It is not crazy to subjectively experience things differently to objective reality - it is an integral part of being human... happens to us all... Perhaps the question, then, is not "What type of creature is Bigfoot?" but "What is the Bigfoot experience?" or "Why do some people experience Bigfoot while others do not?"
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) However they are right about much more than pseudo scientists. Questioning scientists is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Scientists questions science,as well. Only they use scientific techniques and logic, not beliefs and conjecture unsupported by established data, theories, and wild speculation. Wait for it... Edited March 14, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
Recommended Posts