It turned, looked at us and snorted...

[Trelane]

So what does the fossil record of the region show? Are there any remains that lend credence to the idea of the animal as (now) described has ever existed?

Much like the Yeti and Bigfoot, there would need to be a breeding population for the animals continued existence. How many would it require? What would be the dietary profile and daily caloric intake requirements of the alleged creature?

A curious note is the evolution of the description of the animal over the last 50 years.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Trelane

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

number one, and I grow real tired of explain this to you bashers and smashers of people who disagree with you, if there was PROOF of any subject matter, the subject would be a moot point here at UM, got it???  But it's and I need not supply PROOF to anything or anyone, got it?

Conspiracy theories are allowed here at UM, so why don't YOU leave and and take your crap attitude to Explained Realities 

"I am not going to continue to chase you down this this bull**** rabbit hole..." - promises promises

Get over yourself and put me on "ignore".  Very simple to do 

Poor little whiny cry baby.

The only posters I bash are those that repeatedly lie and refuse to learn.

There are plenty of issues which can be debated, but posting stupid lies is not an acceptable tactic. Have you considered being truthful for a change?

 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

People have theories... 

Oh.... My... GOD!!!!!

That is acceptable, but using lies is not a part of constructing an idea. It is dishonesty.

[Golden Duck]

On 20/07/2019 at 1:32 PM, the13bats said:

 

you made an issue of it as you do must things here,

okay everyone in addition to everything else one can name eot is also an expert in the behaviors and habits of all known Ursidae,

he will soon honor us with his full published report on the roaming patterns of bears proving just how far is too far.

 

It is highly unlikely that there are any ursine species outside of captivity in Australia.

Quote

Some species listed on Appendix II to CITES always require a wildlife trade permit for import into Australia. Personal and Household Effects exemptions do not apply to these species.

Australia does not allow any exemptions to requirements for wildlife trade permits for imports of  

• Family Ursidae (bears)

https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/cites

The granting of the permit is dependent on an assessment of the facility proposed to keep the animal.

A wild ursine is just as woo as the Yowie itself.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Golden Duck

[Gwynbleidd]

13 hours ago, the13bats said:

i was baiting, i knew what the pic was from...the cut out.

Oh my bad, sorry @the13bats I thought you were serious!  I didn't notice the cut out.  My eyes were on the person I thought was walking about in the scrub aimlessly  

[Ironside]

My god the ecological implications of a loose bear in the Australian bush. There's not a lot to eat for a large predator out here infact our largest predator the Dingo has a hard time already and often turns to scavenging human scraps and human babies. Not to mention its hot out here, high 30s most of the year any fully furred animal would over heat quickly. There is actually not that many zoo's that hold bears here in QLD if one had escaped we would all hear about it. BTW Koalas are not bears. I hope ya'll know that. Side note : check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tibrogargan there's your yowie

[Ironside]

On 20/07/2019 at 1:32 PM, the13bats said:

 

you made an issue of it as you do must things here,

okay everyone in addition to everything else one can name eot is also an expert in the behaviors and habits of all known Ursidae,

he will soon honor us with his full published report on the roaming patterns of bears proving just how far is too far.

 

I'd like to see the bear that has "roamed" across the entire pacific ocean or crossed the equator from Asia and shake its paw for its enormous effort.

[the13bats]

no amount of twisting around what i said  or making up stuff i didnt say changes the fact "unlikely" only means impossible to the closed mind.

i see it, people are being closed minded for just the sake of it,  fell in but missed the near moot point, 

the account this thread is based on is a story, the writer had to use a fake picture cut out, 

sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie, bigfoot or almas etc being real creatures with the defining difference being bears are know to exist and do roam, and have been misplaced, released escaped etc. yowie, bigfoot almas etc are fictional, folklore.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by the13bats
mistyped added

[Ironside]

53 minutes ago, the13bats said:

no amount of twisting around what i said  or making up stuff i didnt say changes the fact "unlikely" only means impossible to the closed mind.

i see it, people are being closed minded for just the sake of it,  fell in but missed the near moot point, 

the account this thread is based on is a story, the writer had to use a fake picture cut out, 

sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie, bigfoot or almas etc being real creatures with the defining difference being bears are know to exist and do roam, and have been misplaced, released escaped etc. yowie, bigfoot almas etc are fictional, folklore.

 

 

I agree with you bats I know exactly what you are trying to say! Unfortunately I say the same stuff about fringe UFO theorys and I get heckled for it! For what's its worth I've felt some weird presences out in the bush. But Shadows and branches can be just as scary as any folklore creature out here. The Dreamtime has some great creepy stories in it.

[the13bats]

57 minutes ago, Ironside said:

I agree with you bats I know exactly what you are trying to say! Unfortunately I say the same stuff about fringe UFO theorys and I get heckled for it! For what's its worth I've felt some weird presences out in the bush. But Shadows and branches can be just as scary as any folklore creature out here. The Dreamtime has some great creepy stories in it.

its all good, i doubt it will ever happen at this point but i would have loved to visited Australia,

when i came back here to the forum i expected to see a division, skeptics vs dear believers, i didnt ecpect to see both sides being so closed minded and slammed door, just because i need proof to believe doesnt mean i expect the next guy to feel the sameway i do, and i respect that.

The sense of presence i would guess has always been with man to help keep us safe in a way, and sure when we are out somewhere like the woods in the dark, alone, leafs crunching, twigs breaking, it can be very unnerving,

i recall a bigfoot skeptic was out deep in the woods alone and starts hearing grunts, his mind lets him get more and more unnerved he cant see whats grunting and then the next day finds hog tracks, but at the time he was sure a bf was gonna nap him, its just the mind,

any time i go to enter my basement or attic which are large 2k sq ft, i have that split second pause to catch a breath hoping to see something, i never do

 

[Night Walker]

Bats - I will try to reason with you once again. Your position is:

i find it just as likely that a wayward bear could have neen mistaken for yowie as i do the person made up the whole encounter, i would rather lean to bear to be more fair than to say everyone who reports a yowie makes it up.
to say something is highly unlikely is fine to 100% rule it out as you did because its just unlikely is to me close minded and not scientific

That “wayward bear” is as reasonable explanation as fabrication for any particular alleged Yowie sighting in Australia. And, to show how fair minded you are, you would rather lean towards “wayward bear” as being more likely than fabrication. 
Finally, you seem to think anyone who points out the flaws in your logic are “close minded and not scientific” – meaning that you see your own position on this to be open-minded and scientific…

There are hundreds if not possibly thousands of alleged Yowie (and Hairy Man) sightings in Australia over the last 200 years. Exactly zero of them can be explained as a sighting of a wayward bear. In contrast, people HAVE fabricated Yowie sightings and claims before – I could point out multiple examples if you like. As pointed out, there are zero instances of Yowie=bear in recorded history…

According to scientific literature, there are exactly zero wayward bears roaming the Australian bush. There are many feral animals here but bears are not even on the radar of possibilities. The science is in on that one so it is clearly you who is not scientific in this instance…

The probability of Yowie=Bear is less than 0.00% - way below statistical probability. Far from being close-minded, it is reasonable and scientific to exclude bears as a potential explanation of Yowie sightings in Australia precisely because the explanation is highly improbable and has no basis in fact. That is why no scientists/academics have proposed such a thing. Your reasoning in this instance is un-scientific because you are inflating remote possibility (bears in Australia; Yowie=bear) with probability. The only issue here is that you are wrong about Yowie=bear, Bats, and cannot bring yourself to acknowledge it...

Yeti/Bigfoot=bear has some merit. Yowie=bear is simply inapplicable...

p.s. so tell me what is the picture that looks like an odd print in your avatar? - It is the footprint cast taken from the scene of an alleged Yowie attack on a prominent Yowie researcher. The print was fabricated by the researcher by simply distorting the print made by one of his own (quite distinctive) feet. It is just one example of fabrication when it comes to the Yowie...

 

18 hours ago, stereologist said:

Poor little whiny cry baby.

The only posters I bash are those that repeatedly lie and refuse to learn.

There are plenty of issues which can be debated, but posting stupid lies is not an acceptable tactic. Have you considered being truthful for a change?

You are good at explaining things, S. How about you trying to take the time to explain to Bats the folly of his Yowie=bear stance. No need for childish name-calling and "bashing" - just simply set that poor b***** straight on this issue...

Unless, of course, you think Yowie=bear IS accurate and scientific for the Australian context...

Edited July 21, 2019 by Night Walker

[the13bats]

42 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

Bats - I will try to reason with you once again. Your position is:

i find it just as likely that a wayward bear could have neen mistaken for yowie as i do the person made up the whole      encounter, i would rather lean to bear to be more fair than to say everyone who reports a yowie makes it up.
to say something is highly unlikely is fine to 100% rule it out as you did because its just unlikely is to me close minded and not scientific

That “wayward bear” is as reasonable explanation as fabrication for any particular alleged Yowie sighting in Australia. And, to show how fair minded you are, you would rather lean towards “wayward bear” as being more likely than fabrication. 
Finally, you seem to think anyone who points out the flaws in your logic are “close minded and not scientific” – meaning that you see your own position on this to be open-minded and scientific…

There are hundreds if not possibly thousands of alleged Yowie (and Hairy Man) sightings in Australia over the last 200 years. Exactly zero of them can be explained as a sighting of a wayward bear. In contrast, people HAVE fabricated Yowie sightings and claims before – I could point out multiple examples if you like. As pointed out, there are zero instances of Yowie=bear in recorded history…

According to scientific literature, there are exactly zero wayward bears roaming the Australian bush. There are many feral animals here but bears are not even on the radar of possibilities. The science is in on that one so it is clearly you who is not scientific in this instance…

The probability of Yowie=Bear is less than 0.00% - way below statistical probability. Far from being close-minded, it is reasonable and scientific to exclude bears as a potential explanation of Yowie sightings in Australia precisely because the explanation is highly improbable and has no basis in fact. That is why no scientists/academics have proposed such a thing. Your reasoning in this instance is un-scientific because you are inflating remote possibility (bears in Australia; Yowie=bear) with probability. The only issue here is that you are wrong about Yowie=bear, Bats, and cannot bring yourself to acknowledge it...

Yeti/Bigfoot=bear has some merit. Yowie=bear is simply inapplicable...

p.s. so tell me what is the picture that looks like an odd print in your avatar? - It is the footprint cast taken from the scene of an alleged Yowie attack on a prominent Yowie researcher. The print was fabricated by the researcher by simply distorting the print made by one of his own (quite distinctive) feet. It is just one example of fabrication when it comes to the Yowie...

 

You are good at explaining things, S. How about you trying to take the time to explain to Bats the folly of his Yowie=bear stance. No need for childish name-calling and "bashing" - just simply set that poor b***** straight on this issue...

Unless, of course, you think Yowie=bear IS accurate and scientific for the Australian context...

 

That ship sailed...

whew,

what that was in long you made up for in redantly dull

You must have ( conveniently ) missed this....

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

no amount of twisting around what i said  or making up stuff i didnt say changes the fact "unlikely" only means impossible to the closed mind.

i see it, people are being closed minded for just the sake of it,  fell in but missed the near moot point, 

the account this thread is based on is a story, the writer had to use a fake picture cut out, 

sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie, bigfoot or almas etc being real creatures with the defining difference being bears are know to exist and do roam, and have been misplaced, released escaped etc. yowie, bigfoot almas etc are fictional, folklore.

 

 

you have my permission to stop

[Carnoferox]

20 hours ago, Trelane said:

So what does the fossil record of the region show? Are there any remains that lend credence to the idea of the animal as (now) described has ever existed?

Much like the Yeti and Bigfoot, there would need to be a breeding population for the animals continued existence. How many would it require? What would be the dietary profile and daily caloric intake requirements of the alleged creature?

A curious note is the evolution of the description of the animal over the last 50 years.

Non-human apes are completely absent from the fossil record in Australia, so the yowie doesn't have a plausible ancestor.

[Night Walker]

sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie, bigfoot or almas etc being real creatures with the defining difference being bears are know to exist and do roam, and have been misplaced, released escaped etc. yowie, bigfoot almas etc are fictional, folklore.

Sure bears are real but also are inapplicable as an explanation when it comes the Yowie in Australia for the reasons I have already established. With zero instances of Yowie=bear, the idea of bears roaming the Australian bush is, itself, improbable folklore. Whilst trying to explain folklore (Yowie) with more folklore (bears in Australia) you seem to acknowledge that you are incorrect just can't bring yourself to say it in as many words. It is like trying to reason a petulant child. I will defer to Stereologist, or any other skeptical contributor (ChrLzs, Habitat, Sir Wearer of Hats, Carnoferox, etc)...

You don't need anyone's permission to keep going - you are demonstrating the folly of your position quite well...
 

21 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Non-human apes are completely absent from the fossil record in Australia, so the yowie doesn't have a plausible ancestor.

Carnoferox - how plausible and/or scientific do you consider the Yowie=bear hypothesis? Apparently, "unlikely" only means impossible to the closed mind...

Edited July 21, 2019 by Night Walker

[Carnoferox]

3 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie, bigfoot or almas etc being real creatures with the defining difference being bears are know to exist and do roam, and have been misplaced, released escaped etc. yowie, bigfoot almas etc are fictional, folklore.

Sure bears are real but also are inapplicable as an explanation when it comes the Yowie in Australia for the reasons I have already established. With zero instances of Yowie=bear, the idea of bears roaming the Australian bush is, itself, improbable folklore. Whilst trying to explain folklore (Yowie) with more folklore (bears in Australia) you seem to acknowledge that you are incorrect just can't bring yourself to say it in as many words. It is like trying to reason a petulant child. I will defer to Stereologist, or any other skeptical contributor (ChrLzs, Habitat, Sir Wearer of Hats, Carnoferox, etc)...

You don't need anyone's permission to keep going - you are demonstrating the folly of your position quite well...
 

Carnoferox - how plausible and/or scientific do you consider the Yowie=bear hypothesis? Apparently, "unlikely" only means impossible to the closed mind...

Even though a vagrant bear is possible, it doesn't seem plausible for one to be responsible for the majority of yowie sightings. I wonder if some of the brief and/or far away sightings are actually of kangaroos standing fully erect. They're the only sizable bipedal mammals native to Australia that I can think of.

[the13bats]

NW,

you still cant grasp my orginal moot point.

anyway, my opinion shouldnt matter any much less this much to you for you to obsess over me as you are, while flattered,  i have no idea why i have so deeply hurt your huge fraigle ego to the point you feel the need to not only ad hominem me yourself but being too much for you alone you are trying to recruit others to attack me on your comand and behalf for nothing more than a moot opinion you dont agree with and are threatened by, its very odd, but its a you problem.

since its past just you getting in your last word and feeling all victorious its an obsession for you i will just back away, babble all you want about me, go nuts ( moreso )  get it all out of your system, high five yourself that you set that bats straight, its not personal for me im way good with tossing this to you, okay, i gotta go now as i know you are all aching to hand it all to me yet again, good luck with that, hope you get feeling better.

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by the13bats

[Night Walker]

1 hour ago, Carnoferox said:

Even though a vagrant bear is possible, it doesn't seem plausible for one to be responsible for the majority of yowie sightings. I wonder if some of the brief and/or far away sightings are actually of kangaroos standing fully erect. They're the only sizable bipedal mammals native to Australia that I can think of.

Thank you. That reinforces my point. Feral animals like red deer, cattle, horses, and even pigs are also more plausible explanations... Everything sounds bipedal in the bush after dark...

___

EoT (#31): "I'm pretty sure Australia *is* out of the range of any bear"

Bats (#36): "um no earl you epic failed yet again being all closed minded in your little box."

Bats (#71): "i find it just as likely that a wayward bear could have neen mistaken for yowie as i do the person made up the whole encounter"

Bats (#83): "sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie"

___

EoT - From "just as likely" as fabrication to "ridiculous", Bats Yowie=Bear has run its course and that's probably as close as we'll come to an admission of error from our mutual acquaintance. I don't owe you any favours and we rarely see eye-to-eye on things but I simply couldn't "bear" to see a perfectly reasonable comment getting irresponsibly smashed by blatant BS in a topic that means something to me. Attack-dog skepticism would perhaps be more acceptable if it was universally applied to all BS not just against those with a different ideology...

[Golden Duck]

There's another large bipedal mammal frequently spotted around the Currumbin area.

Quote

Central Coast ghillie suit attacker camouflaging himself to prey on young girls

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-09/central-coast-attacker-wears-ghille-suit/8691674

[Night Walker]

11 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

There's another large bipedal mammal frequently spotted around the Currumbin area.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-09/central-coast-attacker-wears-ghille-suit/8691674

Update: Captured and sentenced - https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/112124561/attacker-in-full-camouflage-suit-grabbed-12yearold-girl-on-her-way-to-school-in-australia

 

[Habitat]

No doubt in-store videos of people who bought "ghillie" suits will come under scrutiny. Pretty sad case that bloke ! I shouldn't laugh, but I did.

[Golden Duck]

Just now, Night Walker said:

Update: Captured and sentenced - https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/112124561/attacker-in-full-camouflage-suit-grabbed-12yearold-girl-on-her-way-to-school-in-australia

 

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it was the same bloke.

[Night Walker]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it was the same bloke.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that. I just like resolutions. Interesting story you found. Fun fact: Ghillie suits are also known as "Yowie suits"...

[openozy]

On 22/07/2019 at 11:41 AM, Night Walker said:

): "sure, the idea of bears roaming the outback is almost as ridiculous as the idea of the yowie"

Almost, but plenty of exotics have been released here

On 22/07/2019 at 9:28 AM, Carnoferox said:

Even though a vagrant bear is possible, it doesn't seem plausible for one to be responsible for the majority of yowie sightings. I wonder if some of the brief and/or far away sightings are actually of kangaroos standing fully erect. They're the only sizable bipedal mammals native to Australia that I can think of.

A lot of city people don't even know there are fallow and red deer running wild here and wouldn't expect them,unlike roos.I think the sightings are mostly deer due to the height.In my area they are more common than rabbits.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, openozy said:

Almost, but plenty of exotics have been released here

A lot of city people don't even know there are fallow and red deer running wild here and wouldn't expect them,unlike roos.I think the sightings are mostly deer due to the height.In my area they are more common than rabbits.

did you ever decide what the oddball critter you saw was?

[openozy]

11 minutes ago, the13bats said:

did you ever decide what the oddball critter you saw was?

Which are you asking about?