Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Belial

Yowie video

87 posts in this topic

How about "legend trip"? - an outing organized to confront an urban legend. As modern-day pieces of folklore, urban legends spread cautionary warnings about locations or events. While some urban legends are essentially true (though wildly distorted), others are entirely false. Although the purpose of a legend trip is ostensibly to discover the truth or falsity of an urban legend, legend trippers most often wind up scaring themselves. [source]

However "legend-tripping" is usually described as an adolescent past-time or rite-of-passage. Maybe "adult legend tripping"?

How about "ostention"? - Instance of an urban legend being unwittingly acted out in real life. (Knowingly acting out an urban legend is called "pseudo-ostension.") [source]

Folklorists Linda Dégh and Andrew Vázsonyi appropriated the term in their 1983 article "Does the word 'dog' bite? Ostensive Action as a Means of Legend-Telling" to refer to ways in which real-life actions are guided by legends.

For instance, legends of contaminated Halloween candy predated the finding of actual contaminants in treats by at least ten years (Dégh and Vázsonyi, 1983). Individuals who placed needles, razor blades and other dangerous objects in treats as pranks engaged in a form of ostension. The theory of ostension explains how easily certain elements can pass from legend to ritualised action.

Entire legend plots can be reduced to an allusive action. If a narrative is widely known individuals may become involved in real life activities based on all or part of that narrative. This is ostension in action; when legend alters or shapes the behavior of people. Real events patterned on an urban legend, fact mirroring fiction.

In a nutshell?

To folklorists, ostension is the real-life occurrence of events described by a legend. Legends we live.

http://www.ostension..._ostension.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that shows anything of note. That could be a possum. Or a bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So do you think JJ Yowie Search are consciously telling a fictional story in this instance...

It's possible they are, and it's also possible their enthusiasm has led them to draw an unlikely possibility from the video - excluding because of bias those possibilities which are far more likely to represent what has truly been filmed.

There is precedence for both types of action in the world of cryptozoological investigation.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that they put their bait apple pile behind heavy cover to be strong evidence they didn't want a very clear video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that they put their bait apple pile behind heavy cover to be strong evidence they didn't want a very clear video.

[media=]

[/media]

The above video is from the same area during the day and shows a bird taking a piece of fruit from the top of the log so it is likely that some pieces may have been knocked off to land behind the log. Therefore the heavy cover does not appear to be a deliberate placement by the "researchers".

It's possible they are, and it's also possible their enthusiasm has led them to draw an unlikely possibility from the video - excluding because of bias those possibilities which are far more likely to represent what has truly been filmed.

There is precedence for both types of action in the world of cryptozoological investigation.

This enthusiasm\bias which leads to incorrect conclusions is a major source (if not THE major source) of false Yowie claims. It is a prominent feature of "Yowie-research" and shows like Finding Bigfoot actually demonstrate how to do it. The term "ostention" - when legends shape behaviour; the living experience of legends - seems to be the best fit for describing it, is it not?

Ostention can be broken down into the following categories:

Proto-ostention - is where an individual draws from a legend and claims it to be their own experience. Transforming a legend into an apparently verifiable first-person account. If after hearing about the Yowie you then make up your own account (or even take the original account as your own) - that is proto-ostention. This category includes the spectrum between "conscious storytelling" and "confabulation" (ie unconscious storytelling).

Pseudo-ostension involves a hoax in which the perpetrator enacts a legend. When evidence is fabricated or fudged - that is pseudo-ostention.

Quasi-ostension is where naturally occurring events are misinterpreted as first-hand experience of an existing legend. The "morning visitor" video, then, is an example of quasi-ostention.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still if you were trying to get a video of an unrecognized ape species, wouldn't you want it to come out into the open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure but if the Yowie's supposed habitat is dense forest then that's where you do your searching...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what was on that tape BEFORE the "Yowie" and AFTER the "Yowie" segment. Perhaps a better shot of what the thing was?

I'd vote bird, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That footage is pathetic. The huge distance between the "eyes" and top of the "head" is ridiculous . How could anyone believe this .? I also would like to know what "Rex Gilroy", thinks of this?

Edited by curiouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also would like to know what "Rex Gilroy", thinks of this?

Gilroy traditionally has an intense dislike of rival Yowie-researchers so I doubt whether he would be impressed by this video.

A follow-up article by the MailOnline features Rex Gilroy who doesn't address the video directly but says: "The reason so many hunters have tried and failed is because they're looking for a big, hairy monster that doesn't exist".

That doesn't mean Gilroy has given up on the Yowie. Instead he says that there are 4 different types of Yowie - all sub-species of Homo erectus and that the north American Bigfoot is also related (having "Aussie genes")...

http://home.yowieoca...stralian_Genes/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could anyone believe this .?

How? By quasi-ostention - where naturally occurring events are misinterpreted as first-hand experience of an existing legend.

Yowie-researchers are actively engaging with an urban legend (ie apocryphal stories involving rather fantastic contemporary incidents which have a tantalizing bit of plausibility to them [source]) – when seeking objective evidence of that which only exists subjectively ANY naturally occurring event without an immediately obvious explanation can then be misinterpreted as “proof” of what is being sought thereby reinforcing the original belief in the legend. In this manner, imaginative speculation becomes lore (ie a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of mouth [source])...

Seek and ye shall find. Essentially, people often help create\propagate the very mysteries that they seek to solve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a Yowie because it didn't look ape like to me and i couldn't really tell what it was even during the close ups. But whatever it was it looked weird as hell and it was pretty smart by staying behind that bush the entire time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"australian team captures yowie" oh my god!!! "footage" awwwww :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We can now add "actor" to the HairyMan's extensive resume: " We'd been throwing him a few extra apples since he was willing to appear on camera,' Jason Heal told MailOnline.

Though impossible to confirm their motive or mindset unless they come clean or are caught setting up a hoax or a comrade comes forth with more information...

I'll go with intentional lying. Where the goal: YouTube (Fame), Power, Importance, Ego, Expertise, Popularity, Whatever, not some "Yowie" (although that would be a hell of a find in their minds) fuels as well as covers a multitude of "sins" on their conscience.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with intentional lying. Where the goal: YouTube (Fame), Power, Importance, Ego, Expertise, Popularity, Whatever, not some "Yowie" (although that would be a hell of a find in their minds) fuels as well as covers a multitude of "sins" on their conscience.

Cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction. For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if they are addicted to smoking cigarettes and continue to smoke despite knowing it is unhealthy.

It is difficult to live in a state of cognitive dissonance. In the smoking example given above there are multitude of reasons that can and are conjured up to lessen that internal conflict - it's my choice, it's my only vice, I'm not going to live forever anyway, etc.

In this Yowie example - it would be dishonest (cognitively dissonant) if they promoted false Yowie evidence AND knew that the Yowie does not exist. Neither condition exists in this case. Firstly they have yet to acknowledge that the nocturnal images couldn't be that of a large creature (ie they don't quite know that their evidence is false) and secondly their actions and statements appear constant with others within the subculture that know the Yowie exists (ie they certainly do not know that Yowie does not exist).

They would search for the Yowie on a full-time basis if they could afford it. Something other than intentional storytelling is going on here (and in many other cases)...

I'm still trying to digest Brain Fiction: Self-Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation and will then try to relate some of the content...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction. For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if they are addicted to smoking cigarettes and continue to smoke despite knowing it is unhealthy.

It is difficult to live in a state of cognitive dissonance. In the smoking example given above there are multitude of reasons that can and are conjured up to lessen that internal conflict - it's my choice, it's my only vice, I'm not going to live forever anyway, etc.

In this Yowie example - it would be dishonest (cognitively dissonant) if they promoted false Yowie evidence AND knew that the Yowie does not exist. Neither condition exists in this case. Firstly they have yet to acknowledge that the nocturnal images couldn't be that of a large creature (ie they don't quite know that their evidence is false) and secondly their actions and statements appear constant with others within the subculture that know the Yowie exists (ie they certainly do not know that Yowie does not exist).

They would search for the Yowie on a full-time basis if they could afford it. Something other than intentional storytelling is going on here (and in many other cases)...

I'm still trying to digest Brain Fiction: Self-Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation and will then try to relate some of the content...

Going by your definition given: Imo,

"It is difficult to live in a state of cognitive dissonance."

1. I don't think cognitive dissonance is rare or that hard to live with. I think it is experienced by many people on various levels. And there are certain types of personalities, maybe those drawn to "selling people the goods (Yowie, used cars)" where an internal conflict doesn't prey on their conscience much at all, or if it does at any point, they can easily dismiss it or live with it.

"Neither condition exists in this case."

2. There could be a discrepancy in time, even years, between the evolution of any two or more contradictory beliefs in an individual. To what degree each of these men are at can't be discerned with any certainty unless we are given a lot more from them or we find the puppet strings.

"it would be dishonest (cognitively dissonant) if they promoted false Yowie evidence AND knew that the Yowie does not exist"

3. Why is the only Conflict Option: Belief and HOAX? Why not Disbelief or deepening doubt AND hoax? Why can't perpetrating a hoax be conflicting in itself whether you believe or not? And if not this particular video of theirs then another example in their history-- even through verbal affirmations of "evidence" they've found and stories they've told.

"and secondly their actions and statements appear constant with others within the subculture that "know the Yowie exists (ie they certainly do not know that Yowie does not exist)."

4. Do others in the subculture really "know" for sure? That there would be various individuals of waning and waxing belief and doubt and disbelief in any group, at any given time, would be my guess. And that that would change from day to day or year to year would also need to be considered.

"In the smoking example"

5. That I smoke is easy to verify, that I believe in Yowie, I would argue is not, or, exactly where my belief is on a scale at any given point in time.

We are diagnosing CD from afar, and measuring belief which is impossible, imo, without a lot more information from the individual. I would think CD would be dynamic and complex and difficult to diagnose with little to go on as far as open and honest input from the individual in question.

So, I still say though also impossible to prove so far, that since the way they go about "proving" a Yowie is so poorly done and suspicious, that they are indeed aware that this is not a Yowie. But that's their story and they are sticking to it for any number of reasons. Are they conflicted now? Were they conflicted "yesterday", but over time it gets easier? How do you know with a video?

Does it become, over time, about the thrill of the deceit?

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good points, QC. Cognitive dissonance is not at all rare – we all do it every day to some degree. That such a process (continuing to smoke when it is known to be damaging, selling a used car with its odometer wound back, realising there were no WMDs after going to war in Iraq) appears “easy” is because it is – we are able to reason that it would be worse if we didn’t do it (violating my right to smoke if I chose to, failing to put food on the family’s table if unable to sell that used car, the need for “regime change” in Iraq)...

You are also correct in that it could take years for any two contradictory beliefs to form in an individual but this indicates that it can be achieved via small steps\justifications down a slippery slope. I reckon that very few people take up an active interest in the Yowie with the intention to deceive but via this process of taking small steps\justifications – exaggerating the details of an account, “enhancing” a mark in the ground so that it is easier to cast\photograph, fudging the data so that an unknown figure appears huge and Bigfoot-like (see here) – is also what helps maintain the belief of Yowie in themselves and others. That brings us to the seemingly paradoxical position of belief AND hoax (faking it in order to prove it – it happens and not only to Bigfooters) and how is it then possible to make the distinction between what is belief and what is make-believe?

Round and round we go but how to break that merry dance in order to step back and see through it for a better understanding of the phenomena?

It is very difficult to prove anything about Bigfoot one way or another – speculating about what species Bigfoot may be is ultimately just as futile as speculating about the extent and influence of mental illness within Bigfoot circles, about what people believe to be true, or what they make-believe to be true.

Bottom line is we just don’t know because the evidence is just not there...

So instead of getting bogged down by circular speculation it is best not to think about Bigfoot solely in terms of biology, mental illness, and belief because while they are all useful in understanding specific aspects of the broader phenomenon they cannot individually grasp what that broader phenomenon is (kinda like the analogy of blind men describing different parts of an elephant).

This is where I reckon the language of folklore studies (largely ignored within cryptozoological circles) can unite the different perspectives (biological, psychological, anthropological) by providing an overarching conceptual basis which covers the whole phenomenon. So – with reference to this current Yowie example – it matters not if the evidence does not really portray the Yowie, whether they are conscious of telling stories or not, or whether they truly believe what they are saying or even in the reality of the Yowie at all; what matters is what that they have said and done and how it fits into the broader Bigfoot phenomenon.

In this manner then we can begin examining what is rather than speculating on what might (or might not) be...

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Excellent reply as usual, NW.

I fully agree with this fundamental analysis in your post:

"I reckon that very few people take up an active interest in the Yowie with the intention to deceive but via this process of taking small steps\justifications – exaggerating the details of an account, “enhancing” a mark in the ground so that it is easier to cast\photograph, fudging the data so that an unknown figure appears huge and Bigfoot-like (see here) – is also what helps maintain the belief of Yowie in themselves and others."

I believe this is particularly possible and important in the whole context of Bigfoot/Yowie belief and shows where belief can "take someone" with little internal conflict or one that wanes over time.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For further reading on cognitive dissonance I recommend: Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts (2008) by Tarvis & Aronson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another video with cheesy writing and comments on the screen, Funky sound effects, that’s enough for me to get alarm bells to sound. I don’t why when someone is supposedly presenting facts they have to turn it into entertainment, If you really had a genuine video the fasts would sell themselves no need for the cheesy entertainment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like an Eloi from H.G. Wells "The time machine" the original version. :clap: Now I am jonesin to see that move !! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If JJ Yowie Search’s “head bopping eye-shine” video was an example of quasi-ostension (where naturally occurring events are misinterpreted as first-hand experience of an existing legend) then their following video (below) is an example of pseudo-ostension (where legend-like events are intentionally acted out by persons aware of the original narrative) - watch the central tree trunk for the first 3 seconds:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxhZCMoxaE[/media]

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Looks like Yowie was interrupted with his um... tree friend... :blush:

or, what was it allegedly doing for that odd shot?

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.