Yowie hunters capture new thermal footage

[Resume]

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

 This team prides themselves as scientists and just seemed legitimately baffled. 

 

It's a TV show, what else are they gonna say?  Are you familiar with the actual realities of a "reality show."

Quote

Anyway after enough weird Bigfoot stories the ALWAYS fibbing becomes almost impossible.

Almost impossible.  But I heartily agree that lying isn't the only explanation for footie stories, weird or not.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

12 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Okay, that’s a better photo. 
What evidnce is there that there wasn’t five sods in the bush?

Grrrr. that's not from the Ausie yowie video, no idea what that pic is.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

9 hours ago, diddyman68 said:

Yeh,i saw the other clip on this forum.

Couldn't make much out on thermal,but the other filter showed it much clearer,and was interesting.

Thanks diddyman. If anything, at least I know I am not going crazy. yet.

I wonder if that thread got deleted. so strange. I know it was here. I posted in it

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

This makes me think of an even odder case I saw on a recent Bigfoot search show. They captured a thermal image of a large creature at a position where their naked eyes saw nothing. Argument (not proof; simmer down skeptics) for the theory that Bigfoot has interdimensional abilities that allow it to disappear from our three dimensional physical-only seeing eyes.

Good points, Papa.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Resume said:

Another argument would be that the show's presenters were telling fibs.  You know, for ratings.

very possible. But stories should still be examined for consistency. it may help in determining veracity, not to mention they are fun campfire stories

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Resume said:

It's a TV show, what else are they gonna say?  Are you familiar with the actual realities of a "reality show."

Almost impossible.  But I heartily agree that lying isn't the only explanation for footie stories, weird or not.

Great. And if you could substantiate who is lying and who isn't that would truly end the mystery, 

[Resume]

33 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Great. And if you could substantiate who is lying and who isn't that would truly end the mystery, 

An actual type specimen would end the mystery.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

This makes me think of an even odder case I saw on a recent Bigfoot search show. They captured a thermal image of a large creature at a position where their naked eyes saw nothing. Argument (not proof; simmer down skeptics) for the theory that Bigfoot has interdimensional abilities that allow it to disappear from our three dimensional physical-only seeing eyes.

Well, yes and no. 
There are other options that need to be explained before we get to “unproven creature has inexplicable powers”, such as tree on fire internally, natural gas vent, deception on rhe part of rhe people filming....

[Trelane]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Oh Please spare us 

Spare you what exactly? Please clarify.

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, yes and no. 
There are other options that need to be explained before we get to “unproven creature has inexplicable powers”, such as tree on fire internally, natural gas vent, deception on rhe part of rhe people filming....

Sure we should be willing to consider any possible explanations. But I recall the thermal image vanished completely at a point making the natural explanations less likely.

Papameter Reading 

Paranormal 61%        38%   Natural Explanation            1% Hoax

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Spare you what exactly? Please clarify.

That interdimensional beings can not possibly be true because the dictionary showed '(science fiction)' in the first entry. Spare us that waste of time post.

[XenoFish]

Let me know when a fresh corpse of these yowie/bigfoot are found. 

[Night Walker]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Grrrr. that's not from the Ausie yowie video, no idea what that pic is.

The original was from the Yowie Hunters but it had 4 thermal images of the various expedition members to the right of the "Yowie" thermal which made it look 8-9ft tall in comparison. I adjusted the size of the "Yowie" to the human comparisons and it looks very human in proportion. The "Yowie" has a very similar body shape and thermal hairline as the fellow on its immediate right, don't you think?

 

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Great. And if you could substantiate who is lying and who isn't that would truly end the mystery, 

In this particular case there are at least 2 tricksters within the expedition group while the cameraman was set up to be the dupe. One is the "Yowie Hunter" himself and the other is relatively new to the scene - let's call him the "Yowie Tracker"...

Edited May 31, 2021 by Night Walker

[the13bats]

11 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Ah... Well, I guess you are correct.

You've been waiting sever years to win a point of contention? Both impressive and bemusing...

I dont blame the ad hominem rejoinder, you high jacked my thread just to bluster your ego.

when i saw you pop back in here i recalled how you ran and hid for years when asked you to back up your claims,  so yeah. Im amused.

Ps, dont waste your time with troll tactics on me doesnt work, just ask EoTs.

Edited June 1, 2021 by the13bats

[the13bats]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Of course we all consider that. All things considered I find that highly unlikely in this case. This team prides themselves as scientists and just seemed legitimately baffled. Anyway after enough weird Bigfoot stories the ALWAYS fibbing becomes almost impossible.

 

And calling out papa,

Name this show, name the episode,

Name the cast and list there scientific credentials, let me guess you loan them the make believe papa meter,

Did this show ever prove bf exists?

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, Night Walker said:

The original was from the Yowie Hunters but it had 4 thermal images of the various expedition members to the right of the "Yowie" thermal which made it look 8-9ft tall in comparison. I adjusted the size of the "Yowie" to the human comparisons and it looks very human in proportion. The "Yowie" has a very similar body shape and thermal hairline as the fellow on its immediate right, don't you think?

 

In this particular case there are at least 2 tricksters within the expedition group while the cameraman was set up to be the dupe. One is the "Yowie Hunter" himself and the other is relatively new to the scene - let's call him the "Yowie Tracker"...

You scaled it down to human size means nothing if you cant prove its size to start with which you cant.

Debunkers need to be held to the same standards as believers your ego gets in your way.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, Night Walker said:

1] The original was from the Yowie Hunters but it had 4 thermal images of the various expedition members to the right of the "Yowie" thermal which made it look 8-9ft tall in comparison. I adjusted the size of the "Yowie" to the human comparisons and it looks very human in proportion. The "Yowie" has a very similar body shape and thermal hairline as the fellow on its immediate right, don't you think?

 

2] In this particular case there are at least 2 tricksters within the expedition group while the cameraman was set up to be the dupe. One is the "Yowie Hunter" himself and the other is relatively new to the scene - let's call him the "Yowie Tracker"...

1] Well, I don't know about that,, and I can't find the video to compare. I do recall they had a way to have the yowies superimposed with the humans and they were taller.
But who knows if it is legit. I get it. Truly.

2] LOL, good luck proving that one.

[Golden Duck]

18 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Okay, that’s a better photo. 
What evidnce is there that there wasn’t five sods in the bush?

it's reminiscent of an album cover

[Trelane]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

That interdimensional beings can not possibly be true because the dictionary showed '(science fiction)' in the first entry. Spare us that waste of time post.

If you can provide something useful in the context of interdimensional and how it relates to the topic being discussed I would oblige. When I say this I mean something of substance and not items taken out of context as you and some others do all too often.

If my posts irritate you simply ignore them.

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, Trelane said:

If you can provide something useful in the context of interdimensional and how it relates to the topic being discussed I would oblige. When I say this I mean something of substance and not items taken out of context as you and some others do all too often.

If my posts irritate you simply ignore them.

Well, I contend that story I presented was something useful in the consideration of Bigfoot's interdimensional nature.

[Dejarma]

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, I contend that story I presented was something useful in the consideration of Bigfoot's interdimensional nature.

what? answer the question! though technically you have replied with the above- you could have answered with 'wibble'- it would have the same impact imo

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 5/29/2021 at 9:44 PM, Night Walker said:

A couple of years ago I started a thread about bridging the skeptic-believer divide in the Yowie community. Well, update: I failed and this thermal video is the result…

It is disappointing seeing the number of Yowie researchers coming forward to congratulate the Yowie Hunter for this footage without the slightest bit of skepticism nor scrutiny. I tried but I was always on the outside looking in. If anyone had any lingering doubts about the integrity of Yowie research then surely this latest episode dispels it…

Hello and welcome back to the forum, however, with that said I do not share your conclusions on the Yowie at all for the following reasons.

1) In Australia's prehistoric past there have never been any Great Ape or even Monkeys living in what is now called Australia and the fossils record of the Continent proves this conclusively. So if the Yowie isn't a off shoot of the Great Ape family like Humans are it not logical that it exists.

2) The first habitation of Australia were ancestors of the current indigenous peoples of Australia. The fossil record is currently based upon dating methods have established the presence of Aboriginal Australians on the Australian continent at least at 47,000 y B.P and to date no earlier. Even the updated DNA results for Mungo Man and the other remains located the Willandra Lakes region are not older that the date I have list above?

There for Scientificly there is a single conclusion I can come too at this time and that is what people are calling the Yowie is another animal that is some how misidentified or someone is attempting to hoax researchers because according to the fossil record and DNA evidence the Yowie is not either a prehistoric or living biological entity so it can not exist. So unless an amazing new discovery updates all the current Scientific data no one who believes in Scientific investigation and DNA Analysis can believe in the Yowie.

Here is the most up to date Paper I could find on the subject, it is a Academic Peer Reviewed Paper that is excepted by the Scientific Community:  https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6892

Take Care 

[Night Walker]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hello and welcome back to the forum, however, with that said I do not share your conclusions on the Yowie at all for the following reasons.

1) In Australia's prehistoric past there have never been any Great Ape or even Monkeys living in what is now called Australia and the fossils record of the Continent proves this conclusively. So if the Yowie isn't a off shoot of the Great Ape family like Humans are it not logical that it exists.

2) The first habitation of Australia were ancestors of the current indigenous peoples of Australia. The fossil record is currently based upon dating methods have established the presence of Aboriginal Australians on the Australian continent at least at 47,000 y B.P and to date no earlier. Even the updated DNA results for Mungo Man and the other remains located the Willandra Lakes region are not older that the date I have list above?

There for Scientificly there is a single conclusion I can come too at this time and that is what people are calling the Yowie is another animal that is some how misidentified or someone is attempting to hoax researchers because according to the fossil record and DNA evidence the Yowie is not either a prehistoric or living biological entity so it can not exist. So unless an amazing new discovery updates all the current Scientific data no one who believes in Scientific investigation and DNA Analysis can believe in the Yowie.

Here is the most up to date Paper I could find on the subject, it is a Academic Peer Reviewed Paper that is excepted by the Scientific Community:  https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6892

Take Care 

Thanks for the welcome and your comment but I did not conclude that the Yowie exists as an undiscovered species of any type...

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

19 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

Thanks for the welcome and your comment but I did not conclude that the Yowie exists as an undiscovered species of any type...

 

I very clearly understand that you don't believe that the Yowie is an undiscovered species. What I am saying is that the Yowie can't exist as a Species period. Simply put, it's impossible to exist aS a Scientifically, Phyiscally, and Biologically entitie on the Australian Continent.

Again welcome back and thanks for you reply.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Manwon Lender

[Night Walker]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

I very clearly understand that you don't believe that the Yowie is an undiscovered species. What I am saying is that the Yowie can't exist as a Species period. Simply put, it's impossible to exist aS a Scientifically, Phyiscally, and Biologically entitie on the Australian Continent.

Again welcome back and thanks for you reply.

Yes. I get that, too, but what did you mean when you said "I do not share your conclusions on the Yowie at all"? What did I conclude that you don't agree with?