ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot

Reply
Old 22nd December 2009, 04:45 PM   #121
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Humour me as I go about yowie-theorising. Feel free to pull it apart or add further details - I find the "Lion's Den"-type situations more educating that those of unquestioning believers.

Homo erectus/ergaster appeared in eastern Africa about 1.9 million years ago and, taking advantage of favourable conditions was able to migrate into Eurasia about 1.8 million years ago.

The northern hemisphere particularly after that time was affected by cycles of glaciation. There is evidence that both Neanderthals and the the erectus-types could use fire and may have also used skins for warmth, however neither had the capacity to sew skins into garments which would have drastically reduced their mobility (and hence their survivability) when hunting/gathering in cold conditions. Having retained a natural coat of body hair would counter that.

We modern humans H. sapiens sapiens evolved from a small isolated population in harsh, dry conditions in and around what is modern-day Somalia. In addition to having evolved a unique thermal eccrine system (sweat glands)we are not truly hairless but rather generally covered in sparse and fine hair more suited to those conditions.

Sweat glands, like bodily hair, does not preserve well in the fossil record.

Studies of lice genes reveals two distinct forms - one that evolved on us and one that evolved independently on another species (possibly H. erectus) and jumped over to modern humans via contact 25-30k years ago.

If H. erectus-types did not co-operate on occasions with modern humans how did WLH 50 get to Australia?

(I still am unable to post pics or links so feel free to Google WLH 50 for further details.)

Willandra Lakes Hominid 50 (WLH 50) was the 50th set of human remains found in the Willandra region - and the most significant. In 1980 the skull, arm, hand, and foot bones were found on the surface near Lake Garnpung, which lies close to Mungo. Thorne has described WLH 50 as 'much more robust and archaic than any Australian hominid found previously'.

There are 2 extraordinary things about WLH 50: its condition and its form. It's condition is unique: all the normal phosphate in the bones has been replaced by silicates, on the same way that things become opalised, which suggests great antiquity. And WLH 50 is massive: he is so robust he makes Kow Swamp man look gracile! The cranium is extremely wide and approximately 210mm long. The cranial vault bone averages 16mm thick. Massive brow ridges form a continuous torus above the eyes, and the forehead is flat and receding. The back of the skull shows even more archaic features, with subtle cranial buttressing. The neck muscle area is huge, the skull is extremely wide, the greatest width occurs very low in back view, and the difference between the width above and below the ears is much greater than in any modern people. Yet WLH 50’s brain was extremely large; the estimated endocranial volume is 1540mm, well above the 1300 for modern skulls. The skull is flask-shaped, like the Kow Swamp skulls, in bird’s eye view, but all the rugged features of Kow Swamp are much more pronounced in WLH 50. Unfortunately the face, jaw and teeth of WLH 50 have not survived, but enough is left of the rest of his skeleton to indicate that his body was equally massive; his elbow bone, for instance, is enormous.

The age of WLH 50 has been estimated as at least 35 000 BP, and more probably in excess of 40 000 to 50 000 years by John Head of Radiocarbon Dating Research Unit of the ANU. Although very little bone material survives, an electron spin resonance (ESR) date of 29 000 +/- 5000 BP was obtained, but this was regarded as a minimum age. More recently, WLH 50’s age was determined by the OSL method at about 25 000 years, an age accepted by Thorne.

In spite of very uncertain dating, the significance of WLH 50 is immense. Firstly, Thorne maintains that robust WLH 50 could not possibly be descended from the gracile type of WLH 1. It is not only the size and shape of the skulls that differ, the most striking difference is the thickness of the bone; the skull of WLH 50 is some 15-19mm thick, that of WLH 1 only 2mm. The contrast is so great as that between earthenware and bone china, or orange peel and eggshell.

J. Flood (2004) “Archaeology of the Dreamtime: The story of prehistoric Australia and its people”.(revised edition). p 69-70.


Only modern human fossils from the out of Africa expansion should be found in Australia yet there is the archaic-looking WLH 50. I find it interesting.

Last edited by Night Walker; 22nd December 2009 at 05:03 PM.
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2009, 06:00 PM   #122
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Not all hairy creatures sweat. The more sophisticated ones perspire.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos...haraohicus.jpg
Homo pharaohicus (common akhenaten)


Merry Christmas Kitz! Party hard.
I have beard envy.
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2010, 10:02 PM   #123
cyclonic
Muse
 
cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 975
A still from a 'yowie video' 2006.


What a load of crapola.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-r...owie-video-ud/
cyclonic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 04:39 PM   #124
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
No comments on WLH 50?

If the yowie once existed or still exists today it is a type of hairy man (and woman) - not an ape, monster, or giant - with a cranial capacity comparable yet with a brain structurally different to our own - lesser frontal lobe but larger occipital lobe (often referred to as the occipital bun). Intelligent, but in a different way to us and without a dependency on tools - Nature Man, so to speak.

Their famed reclusiveness and elusiveness would not be merely a neat parlour trick - it would be essential for the survival of the species up against the most unique and dominiant hominids the world has ever seen - us!
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 05:19 PM   #125
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,240
Originally Posted by cyclonic View Post
Where's Han?
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 05:28 PM   #126
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,240
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Not all hairy creatures sweat. The more sophisticated ones perspire.



Homo pharaohicus (common akhenaten)


Merry Christmas Kitz! Party hard.
A belated Merry X-mas and Happy Hannukah/Festivus/New Year to you, Ak. Apologies for the late return.

You came to the JREF because you saw the little picture of Randi up in the corner there and thought it was like some kind of Gandalf man club, right?

BTW, do you shampoo that bad boy for bounce or is that all natural?

__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 06:30 PM   #127
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Humour me as I go about yowie-theorising. Feel free to pull it apart or add further details - I find the "Lion's Den"-type situations more educating that those of unquestioning believers.


Sorry mate, I wasn't ignoring you, but I must have turned my subscription to the thread off and I missed your post.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Homo erectus/ergaster appeared in eastern Africa about 1.9 million years ago and, taking advantage of favourable conditions was able to migrate into Eurasia about 1.8 million years ago.


Wouldn't you love a time machine, so you could go back and see these developments? I'd love to meet our ancestors. (much more so than my living relatives)




Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
The northern hemisphere particularly after that time was affected by cycles of glaciation. There is evidence that both Neanderthals and the the erectus-types could use fire and may have also used skins for warmth, however neither had the capacity to sew skins into garments which would have drastically reduced their mobility (and hence their survivability) when hunting/gathering in cold conditions. Having retained a natural coat of body hair would counter that.

my bolding


I'm not too sure what you're getting at, so if I'm using the wrong premise, please forgive.

I think you're saying that wearing clothing would have slowed the poor old Neanderthals down enough to affect their ability to hunt, but I don't think that's the case.

Rather, I think developments such as warm clothing probably gave peeps(?) like the cro-magnons the advantage of being able to hunt further from home, and could in fact be said to have improved the mobility of the more modern species.

Taking this thinking to the extreme, I'm far more mobile than than a Neanderthal, even when I'm wearing a three-piece suit.

In other (not very scientific) words, I think being smarter more than made up for being less hairy. My evidence for this would simply be that there aren't any Neanderthals any more, so hairyness can't have been that good a survival 'strategy' for evolution to follow.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
We modern humans H. sapiens sapiens evolved from a small isolated population in harsh, dry conditions in and around what is modern-day Somalia. In addition to having evolved a unique thermal eccrine system (sweat glands)we are not truly hairless but rather generally covered in sparse and fine hair more suited to those conditions.


I'm going to have to read up a bit. The uniqueness of our eccrine system is something I was unaware of. I thought it was shared by a whole branch of Mammalia, but I'm clearly no expert.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Sweat glands, like bodily hair, does not preserve well in the fossil record.


I'm not sure that sweat glands can be fairly compared to hair like this. My impression is that hair, and even feathers, is not so rare a feature fossils as internal structures are.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Studies of lice genes reveals two distinct forms - one that evolved on us and one that evolved independently on another species (possibly H. erectus) and jumped over to modern humans via contact 25-30k years ago.


It seems to me quite likely that this sort of thing ought to happen fairly often.

Mosquitos that evolved to suck dinosaur blood seem to have adapted to their whole class of hosts disappearing, not just a single species. I'm inclined to say "So what?", but I won't because I might be missing your point.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
If H. erectus-types did not co-operate on occasions with modern humans how did WLH 50 get to Australia?


?

What happened about the lices. We seem to have skipped forward a bit there.

In any case, I can't see why WLH needed sapiens help to get to Australia, any more than the Marsupials did.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Willandra Lakes Hominid 50 (WLH 50) was the 50th set of human remains found in the Willandra region - and the most significant. In 1980 the skull, arm, hand, and foot bones were found on the surface near Lake Garnpung, which lies close to Mungo. Thorne has described WLH 50 as 'much more robust and archaic than any Australian hominid found previously'.


Yup.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
There are 2 extraordinary things about WLH 50: its condition and its form. It's condition is unique: all the normal phosphate in the bones has been replaced by silicates, on the same way that things become opalised, which suggests great antiquity.


It's also suggestive of variations in local conditions since the remains were left. I don't know enough to comment on all the factors, but I do know that opalisation isn't solely a function of age.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
And WLH 50 is massive: he is so robust he makes Kow Swamp man look gracile! The cranium is extremely wide and approximately 210mm long. The cranial vault bone averages 16mm thick. Massive brow ridges form a continuous torus above the eyes, and the forehead is flat and receding. The back of the skull shows even more archaic features, with subtle cranial buttressing. The neck muscle area is huge, the skull is extremely wide, the greatest width occurs very low in back view, and the difference between the width above and below the ears is much greater than in any modern people. Yet WLH 50’s brain was extremely large; the estimated endocranial volume is 1540mm, well above the 1300 for modern skulls. The skull is flask-shaped, like the Kow Swamp skulls, in bird’s eye view, but all the rugged features of Kow Swamp are much more pronounced in WLH 50. Unfortunately the face, jaw and teeth of WLH 50 have not survived, but enough is left of the rest of his skeleton to indicate that his body was equally massive; his elbow bone, for instance, is enormous.


Arnie is hooge too. He's not a separate species though.

I think.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
The age of WLH 50 has been estimated as at least 35 000 BP, and more probably in excess of 40 000 to 50 000 years by John Head of Radiocarbon Dating Research Unit of the ANU. Although very little bone material survives, an electron spin resonance (ESR) date of 29 000 +/- 5000 BP was obtained, but this was regarded as a minimum age. More recently, WLH 50’s age was determined by the OSL method at about 25 000 years, an age accepted by Thorne.


Yup. Big AND old.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
In spite of very uncertain dating, the significance of WLH 50 is immense. Firstly, Thorne maintains that robust WLH 50 could not possibly be descended from the gracile type of WLH 1. It is not only the size and shape of the skulls that differ, the most striking difference is the thickness of the bone; the skull of WLH 50 is some 15-19mm thick, that of WLH 1 only 2mm. The contrast is so great as that between earthenware and bone china, or orange peel and eggshell.

J. Flood (2004) “Archaeology of the Dreamtime: The story of prehistoric Australia and its people”.(revised edition). p 69-70.


He's entitled to an opinion. What do others say on the matter?


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Only modern human fossils from the out of Africa expansion should be found in Australia yet there is the archaic-looking WLH 50. I find it interesting.


Mungo Man is indeed interesting, but not a Yowie. In any case, it seems he's been dead a while, so I don't think he accounts for any of the recent sightings.



PS

Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
(I still am unable to post pics or links so feel free to Google WLH 50 for further details.)


Post your cites in munged form, mate, and I'll fix them up and repost them for you.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 06:55 PM   #128
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
A belated Merry X-mas and Happy Hannukah/Festivus/New Year to you, Ak. Apologies for the late return.

You came to the JREF because you saw the little picture of Randi up in the corner there and thought it was like some kind of Gandalf man club, right?

BTW, do you shampoo that bad boy for bounce or is that all natural?




No dramas mate, I know you're busy

Yeah, I must have a word with Mr Randi about his false advertising in the header. I was hoping unbeardies wouldn't be allowed to post.

I'll start a thread in FM about it.

Pharoaoh's Phinest Hair and Beard Tonic™ is made from crocodile fat, powdered rhincerous horn and the tears of the Aten. Available in all reputable outlets throughout the Upper and Lower lands. Hathor swears by it, although she adds henna, and that babe has one wicked 'do'.


__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 7th January 2010 at 07:28 PM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 09:24 PM   #129
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
"Post your cites in munged form, mate, and I'll fix them up and repost them for you." - Akhenaten

"You are only allowed to post URLs to websites after you have made 15 posts or more." - vBulletin Message

I'll just make another post to get to the required limit...
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 09:26 PM   #130
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
In Lawson’s Australia, it was the bush that stirred the imagination, and it was the bush yarn—a tale conveyed by word of mouth—that provided both a realistic view of life there and a voice to turn-of-the-century Australian nationalism. The bush yarn had a style of its own, midway between speaking and writing; its dominant feature was calculated casualness, its favourite subject-matter, the celebration of the basic Australian virtues confronted with “the weirdly melancholy and aggressively lonely Australian bush.” In spite of their highly referential dimension, bush ballads were acknowledged as pieces of fiction, as “true lies”, “make-believes” so to speak, i. e., stories whose main function was first to entertain generations of listeners. And it is precisely the relay of so many “reliable liars” across decades that legitimates the ‘reality’ of the tale. This is what happens with the Hairy Man:

"He had been heard of and seen and described so often and by so many reliable liars that most people agreed that there must be something."

The story dramatizes everyday experience and is full of practices (gambling, heavy drinking), domestic imagery (kangaroos, pubs, huts), ghosts of all sorts, “spooks and bogies”, and legendary figures like the Hairy Man, a riddle that gives rise to harsh speculation:

"The most popular and enduring theory was that he was a gorilla, or an orang-outang which had escaped from a menagerie long ago. He was also said to be a new kind of kangaroo, or the last of a species of Australian animals which hadn’t been discovered yet."

For the Hairy Man does belong to national memory; of course, it is nothing but a fantasy whose function is to channel collective fears of the racial, ethnic, cultural other. In Lawson’s short story, the Hairy Man as motif appears and disappears like the Loch Ness monster; it sometimes gives the impression of getting lost in the proliferation of minor stories that forms the intricate pattern of the main narrative, before it springs up to the surface of the text, like the return of the repressed.

In the whole process, it summons figures that belong to a collective imagination where everything is dramatized and intensified.


From "The Hairy Man: Voicing National Identity" by Denise Ginfray
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2010, 09:46 PM   #131
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Hooray!

WLH 50:


- images from http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/WLH50.html

Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
I think you're saying that wearing clothing would have slowed the poor old Neanderthals down enough to affect their ability to hunt, but I don't think that's the case.

Rather, I think developments such as warm clothing probably gave peeps(?) like the cro-magnons the advantage of being able to hunt further from home, and could in fact be said to have improved the mobility of the more modern species.

In other (not very scientific) words, I think being smarter more than made up for being less hairy. My evidence for this would simply be that there aren't any Neanderthals any more, so hairyness can't have been that good a survival 'strategy' for evolution to follow.
The point I was making was that Neanderthals didn't wear stitched garments and retaining a full coat of body hair would certainly have been of benefit. Cro-Magnon (modern humans) were able to stitch garments and it sure improved their prospects in glacial Europe. Ultimately, Neanderthals were displaced by modern humans (we are an innovative species who generally doesn't tolerate undue competition for resources) but give the Neanderthals some credit - they survived for much longer than we have as a species.

Humans host three different kinds of lice: head lice, body lice (which live mainly in clothing), and pubic lice. The DNA differences between head lice and body lice provide corroborating evidence that humans started wearing clothes about 72,000 years ago, give or take 42,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse

This seems to support the hypothesis that Neanderal and Erectus-types were covered with full body hair and had no need to fashion garments like us "naked" modern humans (although I admit that I need to read more of the lice-literature on that one). Head lice evolved on modern humans, not the other species of Homo species.

If the others in the Homo lineage lacked the precision dexterity, innovation, and technological prowess of the new kids on the hominid block (modern humans) then there is little chance they could have made it to Australia via their own means (like modern humans). There is nothing to suggest that WLH 50 evolved independently in Australia like the menagerie of marsupials. The modern humans that departed out of Africa 85-90k years ago seemed to have led a beachcomber-type of existence as they expanded eastward along southern Asia reaching Australia via sea across the Wallace Line 50-65k years ago. It is not a stretch to imagine modern humans developed some sort of maritime skills via their extended life by the coasts of southern and south-eastern Asia. (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ has been very helpful in collating human evolutionary and migratory data).

WLH 50 bears similarities to the Ngandong Erectus-types of Indonesia. An analysis titled "An Australasian test of the recent African origin theory using the WLH-50 calvarium" by John Hawksa, Stephen Ohb, Keith Hunleyc, Seth Dobsond, Graciela Cabanae, Praveen Dayaluf and Milford H. Wolpoffg indicates that "that the Ngandong hominids or a population like them may have contributed significantly to the ancestry of WLH-50". Unfortunately, I have only read the abstract and not the entire article.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1449567770ed30

There is always the possibility that WLH 50 arrived in Australia by accident (eg tsunami) but co-operation between these "hairy men" (archaics) and modern humans cannot be ruled out. Admittedly, more data is needed on the interactions between modern and archaic humans but there does seem to have been considerable temporal overlap. However, I think it is unwise to assume that all interactions were of the hostile-displacement type. Hence my hypothesis is that some Sangiran erectus-types accompanied modern humans to Australia.

Therefore, IF yowies existed or still exist they were/are most likely to be forms of archaic (hairy) humans with a range of physical attributes (eg size) comparable with that of modern humans. That said, I acknowledge that there is no physical evidence for their continued existence and hoaxing/fabrication of yowie stories is widespread.

"He had been heard of and seen and described so often and by so many reliable liars that most people agreed that there must be something."
- from Henry Lawson's bush ballad "The Hairy Man".

Unfortunately, little has changed from Lawson's time except some of the reliable liars now call themselves "yowie researchers".
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2010, 06:09 AM   #132
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
"Post your cites in munged form, mate, and I'll fix them up and repost them for you." - Akhenaten

"You are only allowed to post URLs to websites after you have made 15 posts or more." - vBulletin Message

I'll just make another post to get to the required limit...


Well done.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2010, 06:13 AM   #133
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post


Originally Posted by Denise Ginfray
In Lawson’s Australia, it was the bush that stirred the imagination, and it was the bush yarn—a tale conveyed by word of mouth—that provided both a realistic view of life there and a voice to turn-of-the-century Australian nationalism. The bush yarn had a style of its own, midway between speaking and writing; its dominant feature was calculated casualness, its favourite subject-matter, the celebration of the basic Australian virtues confronted with “the weirdly melancholy and aggressively lonely Australian bush.” In spite of their highly referential dimension, bush ballads were acknowledged as pieces of fiction, as “true lies”, “make-believes” so to speak, i. e., stories whose main function was first to entertain generations of listeners.


That reminds me of a certain poster in this forum.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2010, 07:33 AM   #134
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post

Well, I had to quote your first pic, didn't I?

The second one didn't work, but I went to your source and had a sticky.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
The point I was making was that Neanderthals didn't wear stitched garments and retaining a full coat of body hair would certainly have been of benefit. Cro-Magnon (modern humans) were able to stitch garments and it sure improved their prospects in glacial Europe. Ultimately, Neanderthals were displaced by modern humans (we are an innovative species who generally doesn't tolerate undue competition for resources) but give the Neanderthals some credit - they survived for much longer than we have as a species.


I don't think I entirely missed your point about the Neanderthals after all, but my difficulty is in understanding why you're making it.

Are you saying that WLH 50 is a Neanderthal?

That seems unlikely to me.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Humans host three different kinds of lice: head lice, body lice (which live mainly in clothing), and pubic lice. The DNA differences between head lice and body lice provide corroborating evidence that humans started wearing clothes about 72,000 years ago, give or take 42,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse


I love the way they can figure these things out, although 72 000 +/- 42 000 isn't real specific, is it?

I'm a little surprised that they can't use other clues to narrow it down a bit.

Still, I was at first surprised that the date seemed so recent, having never thought about it much, although when one considers that there are still naked folks living in the world, it seems reasonable.

I've always more-or-less assumed that clothing developed as a result of northern expansion meeting a southbound ice-age, and if pressed I would have picked the last ice age as the culprit, so my guess and your most recent date above are in the same cricket pitch. (What's a ball park?)


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
This seems to support the hypothesis that Neanderal and Erectus-types were covered with full body hair and had no need to fashion garments like us "naked" modern humans (although I admit that I need to read more of the lice-literature on that one). Head lice evolved on modern humans, not the other species of Homo species.


This is where we start to diverge in our thinking.

Neanderthals didn't make clothes because they were (relative to cro-magnon) unintellegent brutes, not because they were hairy and didn't need to.

Horses are hairy, and they need a blanket in either the hot sun or the freezing cold, but the poor buggers certainly can't make them.

In other words, you seem to be saying that losing hair made it a necessity for moderns to make clothes, whereas I would say that the modern ability to make clothes is what resulted in the loss of hair.

I'll still claim that hairyness was no match for intellegence in the end, and that's why there's no Neanderthals, except for Rugby League players,who have sapiens assistants to dress them.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
If the others in the Homo lineage lacked the precision dexterity, innovation, and technological prowess of the new kids on the hominid block (modern humans) then there is little chance they could have made it to Australia via their own means (like modern humans).

my bolding

Hang on a sec.

We haven't established that they got here at all, let alone on an assisted travel plan.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
There is nothing to suggest that WLH 50 evolved independently in Australia like the menagerie of marsupials.


I haven't seen anything to suggest that WLH 50 is a separate species either, so I'd say he evolved wherever the rest of us did.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
The modern humans that departed out of Africa 85-90k years ago seemed to have led a beachcomber-type of existence as they expanded eastward along southern Asia reaching Australia via sea across the Wallace Line 50-65k years ago.


I don't know if 'beachcombing' would appear in the scientific journals, but I gather you mean hunter/gatherer-type stuff. No dispute though.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
It is not a stretch to imagine modern humans developed some sort of maritime skills via their extended life by the coasts of southern and south-eastern Asia. (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ has been very helpful in collating human evolutionary and migratory data).


Absolutely. Until recently I'd assumed that people walked here across land bridges, but some folks here educated me about the Walllace Line et al.

I have no doubt of the skill of Asian sailors and their ability to reach Oz. They're still doing it, after all.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
WLH 50 bears similarities to the Ngandong Erectus-types of Indonesia. An analysis titled "An Australasian test of the recent African origin theory using the WLH-50 calvarium" by John Hawksa, Stephen Ohb, Keith Hunleyc, Seth Dobsond, Graciela Cabanae, Praveen Dayaluf and Milford H. Wolpoffg indicates that "that the Ngandong hominids or a population like them may have contributed significantly to the ancestry of WLH-50". Unfortunately, I have only read the abstract and not the entire article.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1449567770ed30


I'm afraid that doesn't tell me much. I probably bear similarities to the Ngandong Erectus-types of Indonesia too, and I'm only Neanderthal in my habits.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
There is always the possibility that WLH 50 arrived in Australia by accident (eg tsunami) but co-operation between these "hairy men" (archaics) and modern humans cannot be ruled out.


You mentioned earlier yourself that the cro-magnons didn't enjoy competition, and I agree. I'm inclined to think that sapiens, to this very day, displays the kind of behaviour which would rule out co-operation with competing species.

As for WLH 50 surfing all the way to the Willandra lakes - no.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Admittedly, more data is needed on the interactions between modern and archaic humans but there does seem to have been considerable temporal overlap.


Until we wiped them out.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
However, I think it is unwise to assume that all interactions were of the hostile-displacement type. Hence my hypothesis is that some Sangiran erectus-types accompanied modern humans to Australia.

my bolding

Why do you find this unwise? I find it to be perfectly in accord with modern human behaviour. What happened to Captain Cook?


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Therefore, IF yowies existed or still exist they were/are most likely to be forms of archaic (hairy) humans with a range of physical attributes (eg size) comparable with that of modern humans.


No. There are no Yowies, so your 'if' is a non-starter.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
That said, I acknowledge that there is no physical evidence for their continued existence and hoaxing/fabrication of yowie stories is widespread.


Then why not draw the most obvious conclusion? Occam's Yowie.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
"He had been heard of and seen and described so often and by so many reliable liars that most people agreed that there must be something."

- from Henry Lawson's bush ballad "The Hairy Man".


If I'd been born a hundred years earlier, I would have written that story.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Unfortunately, little has changed from Lawson's time except some of the reliable liars now call themselves "yowie researchers".


And some call themselves 'heretic Pharaoh'. It's not that unfortunate, is it? Some of us have sworn to use our powers for teh Good.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 8th January 2010 at 07:40 AM. Reason: typo
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2010, 10:02 PM   #135
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Thanks for your comments - you've given me a bit to think about. I find that if I spend too much time around "believers" the theories and ideas become less and less grounded.

I remain unconvinced that ALL reported yowie sightings are BS but on the flip side I have yet to personally investigate a potentially authentic one and finding reliable information about other alleged sightings is difficult considering many "yowie researchers" are hoaxers or suspect themselves.

If I do find something of interest I will post here again.

Respect.
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2010, 10:21 PM   #136
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
you can find the latest info on WLH 50 here
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/WLH50.html
along with these quotes
Quote:
Most recently, Simpson and Grün (1998) have published a U-series date of 12 to 18 ka for Wilandra Lakes 50
Quote:
Apart from the extremely large overall size of the vault, and the position of maximum cranial breadth, the only other unusual feature of WLH 50 is the extremely thickened bone in the cranial vault. While thickest in the frontal and on the midline, which is the normal pattern for Aboriginal crania (Brown 1992b), the vault is also thickened laterally. The thickened bone is composed almost entirely of expanded diploë, with the inner and outer tables only about 1 mm thick. Both Brown (1989) and Webb (1990) have argued that this thickened vault bone is pathological. This is certainly nothing like the pattern of thickened vault bone found in the Indonesian Pleistocene hominids
so not related to indonesian hominids and at a date some 30,000 years after the first colonisation by aborigines and with a deformity which makes its skeleton unusual which is not common to the rest of its familial species

with the lice you are making the common mistake of assuming that head lice diverged into body lice immediately after clothing was invented. The reality is that evolution or species selection doesn't happen that fast. Examining lice will only tell you how long the lice have been around, not the clothing they inhabit

Last edited by Marduk; 8th January 2010 at 10:25 PM.
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2010, 10:44 PM   #137
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Thanks for your comments - you've given me a bit to think about. I find that if I spend too much time around "believers" the theories and ideas become less and less grounded.


No wuckers. Hopefully skepticism will have the opposite effect. Some of us are so well grounded we're living in Hobbit holes.

I'm a terrible cynic, so I suppose I'm a bit of the other extreme to the bleevers. You'll be OK if you're somewhere in the middle.




Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
I remain unconvinced that ALL reported yowie sightings are BS . . .


If you mean that some of the sightings were of genuine, 100% living somethings, then we've got no argument.

I've seen those sort of things myself, and I have no way of knowing what they were, but I can work out what they weren't, and top of the list for elimination is non-existant things, since that thing I just saw myself definitely exists.

So Wookies, bigfeets, Bunyips, aliens and Yowies are all non-starters in the "Jeebus, WTF was that!" elimination game that I like to play at these times.

Maybe I'm doing myself a disservice by automatically disbelieving in this way, but I consider it in terms of "What's the worst that can happen?" and I think it's a safe bet that "Being eaten by a Yowie." isn't it.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
. . .but on the flip side I have yet to personally investigate a potentially authentic one . . .


In full knowledge that I'm repeating myself, there are NO potentially authentic ones. You're starting from the wrong place.

I start from the position that there are no Yowies and see if anyone can convince me otherwise. You can judge for yourself the success 'they' have had.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
. . . and finding reliable information about other alleged sightings is difficult considering many "yowie researchers" are hoaxers or suspect themselves.

my bolding


All. I've researched Yowies extensively, but I couldn't be bothered with Yowie hoaxes because I prefer UFO hoaxes.

But I lie like it's going out of fashion.

I have no idea how you're gonna figure it out.





Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
If I do find something of interest I will post here again.

Respect.


It's all interesting, especially the way these threads wander about like a hairy goat.

Keep posting whatever comes up and we'll make it interesting, one way or another.



Respect right back at ya, cobber,

Dave
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2010, 04:26 PM   #138
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
As a "yowie investigator" conducting an interview my position is: Perhaps yowies exist yet there is ALOT of fakery, deception, and misconception taking place. I am well aware that people can be convincing liars who do so for a wide variety of reasons and sometimes for no reason at all.

With an interest in pre-history my position is: If yowies exist, what could they be?

WLH 50 - the Simpson and Grun report is from 1998 and hardly the final word on this interesting find. What are the odds of finding a fossil from a single pathological individual as opposed to one that is representative of the species? I suggest that it is not just we gullible yowie-folk who clutch at straws to explain things that don't fit. Certainly, further research is needed into WLH 50 and I will wait for what better and more qualified minds than I have to say on the subject in the near future.

Lice - the life span of a head louse is about 1 month with breeding cycles (a generation) about 10 days. In one generation of human life (say 20 years) a population of lice will have went through 720 generations - the equivalent of 14,400 human years. Therefore, genetic mutations which go on to cause a branching off into a new species would occur far more rapidly in lice. Look how fast bacteria and viruses evolve new strands. Is it merely a coincidence that head lice emerged at the same time as modern humans or were they responding to some structural change within us?

The direct ancestors of modern humans went through a genetic bottleneck of sorts giving rise to Mitochondrial Eve some 160k years ago. In other words, as a species we were reduced to a small population and almost didn't make it out of infancy. Perhaps forced to the environmental margins, our direct ancestors had to overcome the adversity of hot, dry conditions in and around what is today Somalia before beginning their exodus out of Africa.

Others in the Homo lineage may well have been fully hairy and only modern humans or those who remained in Africa (before dispersal) evolved our relative hairlessness.

Neanderthals may well have been "dumb" compared to us modern humans but only in the things that we, as a species, excel in - language, motor function (precision dexterity), problem solving, spontaneity, initiation, social behaviour (cooperation and competition). We should not forget that it is we - Homo sapiens sapiens - that are a unique combination of attributes that has allowed us to largely dominate the global environment in ways never before experienced. And rather than simply being a part of our surroundings we are unique in our ability to alter, transform, and destroy the environment in many different ways.

Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity that us - but larger does not always mean better or more intelligent. It is how our larger rounded frontal lobes are structured that seem to have given us the distinct advantage over the other Homo species. Perhaps Neanderthals were still highly intelligent in their own right but differently so to us. What advantages did their enlarged occipital lobes bestow upon them? Clearly not enough to out-compete modern humans yet they survived over a much longer time frame than us and managed to co-exist along side modern humans for thousands of years.
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2010, 08:21 PM   #139
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
As a "yowie investigator" conducting an interview my position is: Perhaps yowies exist yet there is ALOT of fakery, deception, and misconception taking place. I am well aware that people can be convincing liars who do so for a wide variety of reasons and sometimes for no reason at all.


Good-oh. I'm happy to meet you at that starting point.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
With an interest in pre-history my position is: If yowies exist, what could they be?


Can we go back as far as Gondwana, you think? I reckon that will open up the possibilities a bit, although it would be pushing the limit to have Neanderthals (for example) that far back in history.

The only reason for wanting to go back a bit further is because I don't like the idea of Neanderthal sailors, or the co-operation theory, but I'll follow your lead with that.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
WLH 50 - the Simpson and Grun report is from 1998 and hardly the final word on this interesting find. What are the odds of finding a fossil from a single pathological individual as opposed to one that is representative of the species?


Despite this being my personal favourite theory, I have to agree that the odds might seem astronomical.

However, there are factors which may skew the odds:

1. What if the relations did this guy in during a period of not enough tucker to go around. He'd likely be the first pick for a tap on the head with a nulla nulla if he was seen as too much of a burden on the tribe,

2. His 'deformities' make him a more likely candidate for having an accident and getting all fossilised and stuff.

3. Maybe there was a whole tribe with the same congenital 'deformity'.


Still, makes you wonder.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
I suggest that it is not just we gullible yowie-folk who clutch at straws to explain things that don't fit.


What's this 'we', white man? I don't find you gullible at all. I'm quite pleased with your tenacity and willingness to listen.

You're right about the straws though. I've seen a few rabid sceptics (not here) come up with some pretty desperate mundane or 'scientific' explanations.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Certainly, further research is needed into WLH 50 and I will wait for what better and more qualified minds than I have to say on the subject in the near future.


Yep. Me too. There's a lot to figure out, and I'm not surprised that there's a bit of controversy about the findings so far.

They'll sort it out in the end and come up with a consensus.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Lice - the life span of a head louse is about 1 month with breeding cycles (a generation) about 10 days. In one generation of human life (say 20 years) a population of lice will have went through 720 generations - the equivalent of 14,400 human years. Therefore, genetic mutations which go on to cause a branching off into a new species would occur far more rapidly in lice. Look how fast bacteria and viruses evolve new strands. Is it merely a coincidence that head lice emerged at the same time as modern humans or were they responding to some structural change within us?


No dispute from me. You've thought about this more than I have so far and what you say seems quite reasonable.

It sounds a bit like Gregor Mendel and his peas or the fruit flies that they use today(?) for speeded-up genetic studies.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
The direct ancestors of modern humans went through a genetic bottleneck of sorts giving rise to Mitochondrial Eve some 160k years ago. In other words, as a species we were reduced to a small population and almost didn't make it out of infancy.


Yup. We seem to find the effects of that everywhere.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Perhaps forced to the environmental margins, our direct ancestors had to overcome the adversity of hot, dry conditions in and around what is today Somalia before beginning their exodus out of Africa.

Others in the Homo lineage may well have been fully hairy and only modern humans or those who remained in Africa (before dispersal) evolved our relative hairlessness.


I'm not sure enough of the level of adaptations like that since Eve's time to have a real opinion, but it sounds perfectly reasonable.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Neanderthals may well have been "dumb" compared to us modern humans but only in the things that we, as a species, excel in - language, motor function (precision dexterity), problem solving, spontaneity, initiation, social behaviour (cooperation and competition).


Well, you have to admit, those are pretty significant advantages. Almost a complete set, in fact.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
We should not forget that it is we - Homo sapiens sapiens - that are a unique combination of attributes that has allowed us to largely dominate the global environment in ways never before experienced. And rather than simply being a part of our surroundings we are unique in our ability to alter, transform, and destroy the environment in many different ways.


I'm not going to argue with that because it's pretty much the reason I think any ancestral Yowie would have been displaced or wiped out long before it actually got to the Yowie stage, or Australia.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity that us - but larger does not always mean better or more intelligent. It is how our larger rounded frontal lobes are structured that seem to have given us the distinct advantage over the other Homo species. Perhaps Neanderthals were still highly intelligent in their own right but differently so to us.


I use this approach when someone asks me why whales don't evolve into something better, like people.

After I bite my tongue to avoid pointing out their abject ignorance, I simply answer that it's because they're already much, much better at being whales.


My argument against the Neanderthals being better equipped upstairs than was thought is that this would have made them even more of a threat to the cro-magnons (if they were indeed the culprits in the demise of N.) and thus, more likely targets for assisted extinction.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
What advantages did their enlarged occipital lobes bestow upon them? Clearly not enough to out-compete modern humans yet they survived over a much longer time frame than us and managed to co-exist along side modern humans for thousands of years.


Yes, and lions and zebras co-exist too, but I doubt they were giving each other a hand to get up the ramp onto the ark.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 9th January 2010 at 08:23 PM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 01:04 AM   #140
Hallo Alfie
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,691
We were in the 'outback' (er, country road any way) last week somewhere between Wang' and Yarra' approaching a small town called Peechleba (pronounced Peach-el-bar) where we saw what must have been a baby Yowie.

It was about 10.00pm, the car that had just passed us had had it's high beams on (ignorant twat - city folk no doubt, thought I) causing some momentary blindness. As we (the good lady wife and the two youngest 13 and 11) started coming out of this 'blindness' we saw crossing the road a very startled animal.
It must have been a baby yowie because it wasn't very big.
We originally thought it was a rabbit, but it was too big.
Then we thought wombat but it used it's hind legs more pronouncedly that a wombat.
Koala? No same reason as a wombat.
It certainly wasn't a roo, nor a fox.

No doubt the car that had had its high beams on had seen the adult, hence the high beams - I have no doubt that the person/people in that car have their own yowie story that will hit the press/internet very soon.

We discussed this for some time afterwards and by the following morning all agreed it was a Yowie as we could not identify it as anything else.

I know this sounds a bit like a previous hypothetical that I threw up - but this story is actually true. My wife is still shaking.


As an off topic aside; Peechleba is the 'home' of Mad Dog Morgan and I will post some stuff on him in the Aussie thread a little later tonight for those interested.
Hallo Alfie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 02:31 AM   #141
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Not the same as the deer story though, because now you're aware of them, and you know what you're looking for.

If you're sure it wasn't a wallaby then my first hypothesis is a Koala.

Any recollections of colour? Have you folks seen Koalas when they're in a hurry, galloping along? Their back legs are a bit too long, so they 'lope' along, but they can get really mobile.

Koalas really suck at crossing roads too.

Of course, I'm just floating these ideas for the fun of it, and there's no doubt at all that it was a Yowie. I wonder if that Rex feller would be interested.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 02:42 AM   #142
Hallo Alfie
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,691
Got it!

Tassie Devil (or a yowie)
Hallo Alfie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 03:18 AM   #143
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie View Post
Got it!

Tassie Devil (or a yowie)

.




Tasmanian Devil, Sarcophilus harrisii

Picture: ABC News


Parks Tasmania says:


Quote:
The Tasmanian devil cannot be mistaken for any other marsupial. Its spine-chilling screeches, black colour, and reputed bad-temper, led the early European settlers to call it The Devil. Although only the size of a small dog, it can sound and look incredibly fierce.


and:


Quote:
Devils once occurred on mainland Australia, with fossils having been found widely. But it is believed the devil became extinct on the mainland some 400 years ago – before European settlement. Devils probably became extinct there due to increasing aridity and the spread of the dingo, which was prevented by Bass Strait from entering Tasmania.


However, Mainland Devils reckon:


Quote:
Although it is not common knowledge, five Tasmanian devils have been collected from the wild in mainland Victoria during the 88 years between 1903 and 1991 (see the photo of two mainland Tasmanian devil specimens).


Yowie, definitely
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 12:31 AM   #144
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie View Post
We were in the 'outback' (er, country road any way) last week somewhere between Wang' and Yarra' approaching a small town called Peechleba (pronounced Peach-el-bar) where we saw what must have been a baby Yowie.

It was about 10.00pm, the car that had just passed us had had it's high beams on (ignorant twat - city folk no doubt, thought I) causing some momentary blindness. As we (the good lady wife and the two youngest 13 and 11) started coming out of this 'blindness' we saw crossing the road a very startled animal.
It must have been a baby yowie because it wasn't very big.
We originally thought it was a rabbit, but it was too big.
Then we thought wombat but it used it's hind legs more pronouncedly that a wombat.
Koala? No same reason as a wombat.
It certainly wasn't a roo, nor a fox.

No doubt the car that had had its high beams on had seen the adult, hence the high beams - I have no doubt that the person/people in that car have their own yowie story that will hit the press/internet very soon.

We discussed this for some time afterwards and by the following morning all agreed it was a Yowie as we could not identify it as anything else.

I know this sounds a bit like a previous hypothetical that I threw up - but this story is actually true. My wife is still shaking.
Was it walking upright or on all-fours?

Could you and your wife draw separate pictures of what you saw and then scan and post them for inspection?

Thanks
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 02:23 AM   #145
Hallo Alfie
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,691
NW, just in case you are not joking - a little friendly advice about me generally (but especially when it comes to Yowies) - anything I say, apply salt liberally and check to see how firmly my tongue is lodged inside my cheek.

Cheers

Alfie
Hallo Alfie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:13 AM   #146
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,844
Sweet ! Yowiie Skulls. Good find Nightwalker, I've been waiting for the Yowiie evidence to start filtering into the thread.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:26 AM   #147
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie View Post
NW, just in case you are not joking - a little friendly advice about me generally (but especially when it comes to Yowies) - anything I say, apply salt liberally and check to see how firmly my tongue is lodged inside my cheek.

Cheers

Alfie

Nice one. I certainly don't mind - a sense of humour is important especially in this field of endeavour. I thought I'd better ask about it just to be safe.

Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Sweet ! Yowiie Skulls. Good find Nightwalker, I've been waiting for the Yowiie evidence to start filtering into the thread.

Unfortunately, WHL 50 is quite old (exact dating still in dispute) and there is still little to nothing in the way of physical evidence for yowies. I'm kind of surprised no-one has linked WJH 50 to yowies before considering it's features. Rex claims to have found 100 skulls and endocasts but let's not go there...
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 09:00 PM   #148
atpeace
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by cyclonic View Post
I live near ormeau, south east queensland where a yowie likes jogging next to the gold coast highway during the morning rush hour!:

DATE : 98

LOCATION : Gold Coast, Pacific Hwy

TERRAIN : Heavy bush on both sides of the road.

"Women driving to work along the Pacific Highway in the early morning peak hour, noticed the traffic was slowing down ahead of her. As she crept along the road, she saw what appeared to her as a vagrant trundling along the side of the Highway.

As she approached a little closer, a terrible smell came through the car that resembled rotting eggs. The "person" looked very dirty, like he was covered in mud and looked quite distressed.

She eventually caught up with him and to her shock, it was not a man at all. It was 7' tall and exept for the face it was covered in dirty brown hair. It seemed to be hunched over as it jogged along side the motorists and from her report, it seemed to be extremely emaciated. She drove onto work, and had a very confusing and stressful day.
Can I nominate her as an Honorary Bigfoot Researcher? I sense I'd have no trouble getting her in
ap
atpeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 09:49 PM   #149
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Yowie - the Australian Bigfoot (part 1)
http://tv.fooyoh.com/fooyohtv_videos_viral/5731441

Yowie - the Australian Bigfoot (part 2)
http://tv.fooyoh.com/fooyohtv_videos_viral/5732149

Dean Harrison, yowie-hunter: "Now the normal sceptic, you've got to keep in mind, he sits in his armchair in his lounge room mainly in a large city and he says "Because I have not seen I do not believe". Now if a scientist or a sceptic would like to spend a week in our lives I think we'd turn him around pretty quickly."

Dr Steve Van Dyke, zoologist: "All scientists exist for the monumental discovery of their life time and I would love this more than anybody but our position as scientists is to keep people without that kind of knowledge on the tracks, really, and if we can provide a simple explanation for those kind of things then, in a way, we're keeping them sane and we're keeping their case honest."

Compare the methodology - Yahoo Theatrics vs Calm Reason.

*sigh*
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 10:59 PM   #150
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by atpeace View Post
Can I nominate her as an Honorary Bigfoot Researcher? I sense I'd have no trouble getting her in
ap


It seems the requirements for 'bigfoot researcher' are pretty lax. Why not?


We're all Yowie researchers here, by the way, and that's how we debunked the story in your quote. It was Professor Norm, if I recall correctly, having a tough day at work.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2010, 11:20 PM   #151
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Unfortunately, WHL 50 is quite old (exact dating still in dispute) and there is still little to nothing in the way of physical evidence for yowies. I'm kind of surprised no-one has linked WJH 50 to yowies before considering it's features. Rex claims to have found 100 skulls and endocasts but let's not go there...


I'd be surprised if a few people haven't tried to link WLH 50 with Yowies, but I'm not at all surprised that the idea will never get enough traction to be taken seriously by the hoi-polloi.

Anyone old enough and experienced enough to be taken seriously knows that Yowies are a joke. The only people wanting to promote the idea of real Yowies would either have to have some other agenda running in the background or be a few sangers short of a picnic.



Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Yowie - the Australian Bigfoot (part 1)
http://tv.fooyoh.com/fooyohtv_videos_viral/5731441

Yowie - the Australian Bigfoot (part 2)
http://tv.fooyoh.com/fooyohtv_videos_viral/5732149

Dean Harrison, yowie-hunter: "Now the normal sceptic, you've got to keep in mind, he sits in his armchair in his lounge room mainly in a large city and he says "Because I have not seen I do not believe". Now if a scientist or a sceptic would like to spend a week in our lives I think we'd turn him around pretty quickly."


Not only a strawman, but completely wrong.

The people most likely to debunk Yowies are folks like Alfie, Norm and myself who have between us many years of experience out in the mulga.

Not to mention that the Native Australians don't believe in bloody Yowies either.

I'll bet Mr Harrison is projecting.



Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Dr Steve Van Dyke, zoologist: "All scientists exist for the monumental discovery of their life time and I would love this more than anybody but our position as scientists is to keep people without that kind of knowledge on the tracks, really, and if we can provide a simple explanation for those kind of things then, in a way, we're keeping them sane and we're keeping their case honest."

Compare the methodology - Yahoo Theatrics vs Calm Reason.

*sigh*


Oops! I've been using Yahoo Reasoning and Calm Theatrics. Stoopid instructions were in Jinglish.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 02:54 AM   #152
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Not to mention that the Native Australians don't believe in bloody Yowies either.
Well, there are claims to the contrary but the sources of those claims (i.e. "yowie researchers") are suspect and/or unreliable. In my limited experience, the indigenous folk either swear they are real or laugh at the suggestion leaving me none the wiser.

Plenty of "researchers" claim their numerous sightings as evidence of yowie existence but such "researchers" (like in the video link above) are among the most prolific hoaxers.



The image above is a comparison between a supposed yowie footprint cast (the footprint was conveniently found by Harrison while alone at camp the morning after allegedly being attacked by a yowie) and Harrison's own foot. I would say that it is pretty conclusive proof of hoaxing - or am I jumping to conclusions?

Harrison is a supposedly respected "yowie researcher" supported by and with close links to other supposedly respected "researchers" - Neil Frost, Brett Green (of Gympie Pyramid fame), and Pixie Byrnes all who supply information to authors Healy & Cropper ("The Yowie: I Search of Australia's Bigfoot") and Gary Opit ("Australian Cryptozoology"). It's little more than a hoaxer's network yet these guys represent the mainstream of "yowie research" since taking over from Gilroy (who is suspect and unreliable in his own right).

Below is Frost's photo allegedly showing yowie eye-shine. What do you guys think?



"Unfortunately I only have two photographs of the Yowie, probably two more than most people. This one is a photograph of the "red eye" that I took with a hand held camera at a distance of about 16 metres (48 feet). The height to the eyes is 6 feet 1 inch (plus forehead), a height confirmed by the New South Wales Police who were investigating our "problem" as part of their extended investigation over 3 months plus 3 day stakeout. The eye separation was estimated at 66 mm (2.6 inches) by professional photographer and confirmed by actual comparative measurements of thickness of branches in immediate foreground." - Neil Frost.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...5&st=0&start=0

My analysis (assuming Frost's measurements are accurate and not exaggerated) is that it is nothing more than a brush-tail possum - which also has red eye-shine, can grow to a body length of 55cm and an additional tail length of 40cm.



Is it possible to mistake a possum for a hairy man? No. Frost's picture is so indistinct and the supporting information is so vague (anonymous experts and policemen - impossible to verify) that I believe he felt that he could make any claim about it and it would pass as yowie evidence. That is why there seems to be only the one photo in this sequence.

Am I jumping to conclusions?
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 03:04 AM   #153
Hallo Alfie
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,691
How many times have you seen human eyes catch the light like that?
The answer will be "never" - we are not nocturnal, and to the best of my knowledge there is only one primate (monkeys or apes) that is.

Isn't the Yowie supposed to be close to human? His eyes would be 'designed' similarly to ours.

If he is close to possum, this argument might work, otherwise; Yes, you are jumping to conclusions.

BTW. There is no such thing as a Yowie.

Last edited by Hallo Alfie; 19th January 2010 at 03:38 AM.
Hallo Alfie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 03:31 AM   #154
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Well, there are claims to the contrary but the sources of those claims (i.e. "yowie researchers") are suspect and/or unreliable. In my limited experience, the indigenous folk either swear they are real or laugh at the suggestion leaving me none the wiser.


The aboriginal people are wonderful at deadpan comedy, and all the blokes I've met have enjoyed a joke at the expense of an ingénu just as much as I do.



Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Plenty of "researchers" claim their numerous sightings as evidence of yowie existence but such "researchers" (like in the video link above) are among the most prolific hoaxers.


Yup.


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
<stuff>


Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Am I jumping to conclusions?


Depends. Have you concluded that there are no Yowies? If so, then no, your conclusion is valid.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:05 AM   #155
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,240
Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
Below is Frost's photo allegedly showing yowie eye-shine. What do you guys think?
I think any Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie etc enthusiast that talks about eyeshine needs to do some reading. Eyeshine is caused by a reflective structure within the eye known as the tapetum lucidum. The only primates to have TL are prosimian (primitive primates) such as the sportive lemur and the aye-aye. Monkeys and great apes, humans included, lost TL many millions of years ago in favour of developing colour vision. Yowie, like Bigfoot, is either an ape like Gigantopithecus or a hominin such as Paranthropus boisei. None of these creatures would have had TL.

The kneejerk reactions by enthusiasts is to state that Bigfoots or Yowies simply re-evolved the TL. Nein. Sorry. No. You don't just boom evolve something back. You can look to tarsiers for an example. These are nocturnal primates descended from diurnal ones. They did not have TL so to make up for it, they evolved huge eyes each as large as its brain. It's like expecting emus to evolve flight capable wings. It's not going to happen. Eyeshine where Yowie is concerned is either misidentification of a known animal or object or simply a fabrication by the storyteller who is unfamiliar with primate biology.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:16 AM   #156
Night Walker
Thinker
 
Night Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Depends. Have you concluded that there are no Yowies? If so, then no, your conclusion is valid.
lol... not yet. I need to keep the possibility of their existence open in order to adequately investigate alleged sightings and encounters. You will just have to bear with me on that one. However, the more I look the more I find evidence of nothing more than chicanery (as in the footprint cast and red eye photo above). I have no problem admitting that.

Alleged eye-shine from yowies is a quandary and is perhaps best explained away by the high number of bogus and misidentified reports. From my position, the only remotely similar thing in humans (and near-humans and apes) would be the red eye effect from flash photography. It's something I need to examine and understand further before I examine the possibility of linking it in with the "occipital bun" (enlarged visual perception system) of archaic humans. If anyone here has further knowledge on the subject I am all ears...
Night Walker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:21 AM   #157
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Ohnoes! You've awoken the kitakaze!

Prepare to be facted mercilessly.


__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:36 AM   #158
Hallo Alfie
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,691
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
I think any Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie etc enthusiast that talks about eyeshine needs to do some reading. Eyeshine is caused by a reflective structure within the eye known as the tapetum lucidum. The only primates to have TL are prosimian (primitive primates) such as the sportive lemur and the aye-aye. Monkeys and great apes, humans included, lost TL many millions of years ago in favour of developing colour vision. Yowie, like Bigfoot, is either an ape like Gigantopithecus or a hominin such as Paranthropus boisei. None of these creatures would have had TL.

The kneejerk reactions by enthusiasts is to state that Bigfoots or Yowies simply re-evolved the TL. Nein. Sorry. No. You don't just boom evolve something back. You can look to tarsiers for an example. These are nocturnal primates descended from diurnal ones. They did not have TL so to make up for it, they evolved huge eyes each as large as its brain. It's like expecting emus to evolve flight capable wings. It's not going to happen. Eyeshine where Yowie is concerned is either misidentification of a known animal or object or simply a fabrication by the storyteller who is unfamiliar with primate biology.

Exactly what I said...

Well except that I had no good scientificy stuff.

Originally Posted by Night Walker View Post
big snip to correct
I find evidence of nothing more than chicanery (as in the footprint cast and red eye photo above). I have no problem admitting that.
Sensible lad.

There is no such thing as a Yowie.

There are things called "Owies" however. My kids used to collect them, they are a bit like a Boo-Boo and can usually be managed with a kiss and a pat on the head, or maybe a band-aid if they are a little nastier.
Hallo Alfie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:55 AM   #159
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,240
Quote:
Alleged eye-shine from yowies is a quandary and is perhaps best explained away by the high number of bogus and misidentified reports. From my position, the only remotely similar thing in humans (and near-humans and apes) would be the red eye effect from flash photography. It's something I need to examine and understand further before I examine the possibility of linking it in with the "occipital bun" (enlarged visual perception system) of archaic humans. If anyone here has further knowledge on the subject I am all ears...
There's nothing mysterious about eyeshine and Yowies. Either people are mistaken about what they see or they never saw anything in the first place and are lying. The red-eye effect is a photographic effect and not one that can occur in nature. Red-eye happens with humans and other animals that have no tapetum lucidum, only rarely in animals that do. Red-eye happens when the light from the flash of a camera passes through the pupil into the retina and reflects off the fundus at the back of the eye back out the pupil before the pupil can contract, which is recorded by the camera.

The occipital buns are skeletal protrusions that occur at the back of the skull in a region of the brain that governs spatial reasoning and motor function. It will have nothing to do whatsoever with the internal morphology of the eye and its inner surfaces.


Mistakes and lies - there is no reason to overcomplicate what is inherently simple. Is there any good reason at all to think that there really are Yowies and that they have somehow, impossibly developed eyeshine?
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 19th January 2010 at 05:00 AM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:59 AM   #160
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,240
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Ohnoes! You've awoken the kitakaze!

Prepare to be facted mercilessly.


__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.