Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

19th century Yowie encounter revealed

29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

UM-Bot

Amateur naturalist Henry James McCooey witnessed the creature near Australia's Batemans Bay in 1882.

While the Patterson-Gimlin footage is often attributed with kick-starting the modern Bigfoot phenomenon, it was by no means the earliest known sighting. Stories of large, hairy hominids have been reported for hundreds of years in countries all over the world including Russia, China and Australia.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/275678/19th-century-yowie-encounter-revealed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patient Zero

Only 5 feet tall?

Must have been the runt of the litter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

That's interesting, wonder why it didn't make much of a splash when he wrote about it?

Then too, it sounds small.....more along the lines of an Orangutang, especially with the brownish orange or "snuff colored" hair and disproportionately long arms. Makes me wonder if maybe he saw an Orangutang with an odd coloration? Periodically animals are born with some serious variations in their fur and skin tones, ranging from all black to all white as in the case of albinos.

Edited by KevinP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundew

Early on, the trade in wildlife was barely regulated and oddities were taking from various places to display in Europe, America and beyond. I often wonder if the sightings of big cats, large primates and so forth are the result of animals imported then released into the wild when no longer wanted or ill. In some cases (such as the cats) it may even be the offspring of such animals that people are seeing. Whether or not this is likely in Australia at this time period who can say, but Borneo and Sumatra may have been one of the ports along the way to Australia at the time and locals may have indeed traded "pet" Orangutans for supplies from abroad. The "yowie" might not have immediately been recognized as a known animal, depending on the knowledge of the observer, but it would have certainly been an unusual sight.

In the Myakka River area near Sarasota, Florida, there was a photo of a supposed "skunk ape" standing in the palmettos, whose facial features look very much like an Orangutan. It was speculated to be an escapee, although I never heard if an Orang was ever missing from a zoo or wildlife facility, but this shows that it's possible to mistake a known animal for an unknown one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

There were a lot of escapes from zoo in Florida back when hurricane Andrew hit, and a lot of that was played down so as not to frighten people. So your observation is sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Why should his claim be given any more credence than the ones we have today? Simply because it's from 100 years ago doesn't give it any more weight than the random stuff people report today.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

5ft? maybe a person with hypertrichosis,suppose it would seem strange if you never encountered someone like that...even today.

The wonder of the internet shows there are many around the world even today.

hypertrichosis_zpsfb4d3534.jpg

445jojo.png

Edited by freetoroam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximusnow

awww, its a weee foot!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

Why should his claim be given any more credence than the ones we have today? Simply because it's from 100 years ago doesn't give it any more weight than the random stuff people report today.

Agreed.

I don't know that it has any more or less validity of any claim made today or in recent years. The only real significance is that it serves to point out that people have been seeing....uhm....something.....they can't readily explain in conventional terms that predates the latest period which really began in the fifties and has gained greater and greater momentum. I had a fellow once claim there were no sighting that predated the fifties and when I provided him with some accounts from the early 1900's he got very upset with me.

Now, I should add, that I'm skeptical and as such this isn't proof of anything, other than this gentleman saw something, he was described as a "naturalist", however I can't tell you what that entails really. Was he a trained naturalist that went to a University or was he just a guy who spent a lot of time in the woods writing about what he saw? The only thing significant is that his account comes from 1882, which I find interesting for the reason I mentioned before, however I don't give it any more credibility than any other account I have read about seeing a Bigfoot.

Edited by KevinP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Agreed.

I don't know that it has any more or less validity of any claim made today or in recent years. The only real significance is that it serves to point out that people have been seeing....uhm....something.....they can't readily explain in conventional terms that predates the latest period which really began in the fifties and has gained greater and greater momentum. I had a fellow once claim there were no sighting that predated the fifties and when I provided him with some accounts from the early 1900's he got very upset with me.

Now, I should add, that I'm skeptical and as such this isn't proof of anything, other than this gentleman saw something, he was described as a "naturalist", however I can't tell you what that entails really. Was he a trained naturalist that went to a University or was he just a guy who spent a lot of time in the woods writing about what he saw? The only thing significant is that his account comes from 1882, which I find interesting for the reason I mentioned before, however I don't give it any more credibility than any other account I have read about seeing a Bigfoot.

The one caution I have about older claims relates to who is doing the interpretation of those claims. Take the alleged historical Native American claims about Bigfoot. If you look at how the BFRO reports them, they are 100% in line with what is being claimed by today's Footers. But if you take the time and dig a bit deeper into NA lore and legend, you'll see that many of the claims and reports are very distinct and quite different from the Bigfoot we all know and love.

And no matter how we want to classify them or compare them, at the end of the day, most are simply nothing more than stories with no solid physical evidence behind any of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

The one caution I have about older claims relates to who is doing the interpretation of those claims. Take the alleged historical Native American claims about Bigfoot. If you look at how the BFRO reports them, they are 100% in line with what is being claimed by today's Footers. But if you take the time and dig a bit deeper into NA lore and legend, you'll see that many of the claims and reports are very distinct and quite different from the Bigfoot we all know and love.

And no matter how we want to classify them or compare them, at the end of the day, most are simply nothing more than stories with no solid physical evidence behind any of them.

We are still in agreement. A sighting like this made over a hundred years ago can be subject to interpretational errors. And again, I agree, it's just a story told from a long time ago with no proof to back it up.

An excellent example of this is in our own Constitution, where one of the requirements set forth is that to be President you have to be, "A natural born Citizen". Sadly the founders obviously knew exactly what they were talking about but now we aren't too terribly sure because some words and phrases take on different means when used in regular language, or in legal terms, or, as in this case, in a Constitutional sense.

Please, this is simply an example of how stuff changes and we have a specific, written language. This is not intended to become a political thread. So an unwritten language can be very subject to interpretation.

Trust me, I get it.

Edited by KevinP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atuke

Why does every Sasquatch and other wood-people types have to be 8 feet or taller? Don't you think there are babies, juvies, teenagers, sub-adults, and even dwarfism among Sasquatch sightings? Here come the depunkers from every corner discounting everything : [

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

We don't know how tall they are supposed to be, I have heard everything from 6'-12' tall and 500 Lbs to 1500 Lbs.

Five feet isn't that odd when you consider the fact that it could be a juvenile, however five feet is about right for an adult orangutan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruel_Cahal

I don't know what to believe with the Sasquatch stuff. I require valid evidence before making a decision, and so far, only grainy/blurry videos and pics and eyewitness accounts are the only "real evidence" there even is and they all need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some of these "Squatchers", like the idiots of the BFRO, Moneymaker, Barackman, and Bobo, claim that no matter what they find or where they find it, it is always 100% a bigfoot. I mean WTF, right? If it weren't for Rene and her scientific explanations, I wouldn't even waste time on those people. Of course, Rene is constantly ridiculed and berated by Moneymaker for not automatically believing that ever sound they hear is some kind of 'squatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GollyBuster

BURRRP!

-- DELETE --

Edited by GollyBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
highdesert50

During the 1800's hoaxers cranked out fake mermaids. Indeed, P.T. Barnum's FeeJee Mermaid was one of his more successful attractions. Our hopes and desires will be met by those with imaginations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

What you say is true, however in this case this person simply wrote down his observation. It isn't like he took it on a road show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMS Dreadnought

Maybe he just wanted some attention?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

Could be Dreadnaught, but it seems to have missed him if that was his goal. At this point in time I can't say one way or the other what he saw or what his intentions were, and really no one else can either. So it makes for a nice diversion and does show people have been seeing a reporting these.....whatever they actually are for some significant time. And I would point out again that just because it's from 1882 it's no more significant than someone who today might claim they saw a Bigfoot, or Dogman or Yowie, or Yeti.

Personally, as my signature states, I need solid proof. A written account is interesting, fuzzy, out of focus pictures and videos are a nuisance, and then the more.......hmmmmmm? What the word I'm looking for? Outrageous? Accounts? Like I shot a Bigfoot but didn't bring him out because I was afraid I'd be prosecuted for something like murder. Then when I went back I couldn't find the body. Or, me and Bigfoot usually sit around the campfire together and have squirrel together when I'm alone. And my personal favorite is the lady in Tennessee, who claims Bigfoot come to her backdoor and ask for garlic, but she doesn't have any pictures or video because the Bigfoot are afraid of cameras. Those are good for a laugh, but shouldn't be taken seriously.

I have often though about what I would do if I encountered a Bigfoot, I have to admit that my actions are going to be based on a number of variables, am I armed, do I have something to cut off say the head or maybe the head an feet and hands, are there other Bigfoot around. I mean shoot one and a whole covey of them might descend on you and when you're found they write it up as an unfortunate bear attack. Fact is, the more I thought about it the more I realized that whatever action I take will be based on a number of situational variables that can't predict. With my luck, I'd see one, get a really good look at it and have nothing to back up my claim. I might well tell my story here but let's be honest, my story will be taken with the same grain of salt that anyone else posting here will get, and without some sort of evidence or something that's not unreasonable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimmOne

Orangutans don't usually walk on two legs, they often walk on all fours when on the ground. Bigfoot is purported to walk on two legs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

Obviously you never saw the movies Clint Eastwood did with the orang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

Henry James McCooey straddled the emerging divide between bush-naturalists and academia. Self-taught and sometimes considered to be somewhat eccentric, McCooey assisted in demonstrating that echidnas were egg-laying mammals, discovered a several species of lizard - Lygosoma maccooeyi named after himself, and contributed many specimens to the Australian Museum yet is only remembered today for his supposed Yowie sighting...

Earliest mention of McCooey in the newspaper archives is 17 Aug, 1877 - as a horse-dealer who went bankrupt. A year later (24 Aug, 1878) McCooey is charged and acquitted of obtaining goods under false pretenses.

McCooey contributed two letters to the editor of the Australian Town and Country Journal between 1878 and 1880 before dropping his "Australian Ape" bombshell to the same newspaper in a series of three letters (9 Dec, 1882; 20 October, 1883; and November 3, 1883). From January, 1884, until his death McCooey was a regular contributor newspapers commenting on a wide variety of local fauna yet never mentions the "Australian Ape" again aside from this cryptic comment on 25 Oct, 1884:

The Australian blackfellow is unquestionably a shrewd and keen observer, but he is not noted for truthful observation.

...

About two years ago I held several long conversations with an intelligent blackfellow at Bateman's Bay on certain points of natural history on which at the time I was extremely anxious to obtain information. The names of many birds and mammals, with the interpretation he supplied me, I took down in shorthand, but in no instance have I used this information for the reasons above stated.

Was McCooey's "Australian Ape" claim the result of deception?

Despite his popularity as a naturalist, McCooey failed to achieve any official positions. McCooey was jailed in 1894 for attempted suicide. The following year McCooey made headlines by naming a new species of lizard after the Premier of New South Wales. In 1896 McCooey was charged, convicted, and jailed for 6 months as part of a conspiracy to defraud - a subsequent petition signed by Narrabri residents failed to secure a pardon.

In 1901, McCooey again attempted suicide from within the Jubilee Sanitarium. McCooey finally succeeded at suicide in 1904.

More information on H.J. McCooey here...

Henry James McCooey (1896):

2uzqjhs.jpg

http://home.yowieoca.../HJ_McCooey_13/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Dada

This kind of reminds me of this story from Canada:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinP

I have to admit the skull is interesting, the rest of the video is just bad. Can someone please explain to me why anyone who makes a video like this always turns the background music up so loud that it is impossible to actually hear the person doing the narration? I swear I only got about half of what the guy was saying and turning up the volume only makes it impossible to understand at a higher decibel level.

Edit to add: By the way, I saw on the list of videos on the right one where a female turkey hunter is supposed to have captured two Bigfoots hunter/carrying a deer. I swear it looked like two hunters to me. Anyone else want to take a look and see what you think?

Edited by KevinP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

Why does every Sasquatch and other wood-people types have to be 8 feet or taller? Don't you think there are babies, juvies, teenagers, sub-adults, and even dwarfism among Sasquatch sightings? Here come the depunkers from every corner discounting everything : [

so you think there are families of bigfoots out there?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.