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 -

Yowie hunters capture new thermal footage


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

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?

I based my quotes of your posts on the following statement from the first post from you in this thread: ( 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 )

Unless I misunderstood your comments above you were attempting to bring the two schools of thought together. Which I interpreted as your attempt to bridge that gap meant that you supported the belief that the Yowie was a biological entity and that you were trying to bring Skeptic on board with that conclusion. If that is the case, that is what I disagree with!

Take Care. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I based my quotes of your posts on the following statement from the first post from you in this thread: ( 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 )

Unless I misunderstood your comments above you were attempting to bring the two schools of thought together. Which I interpreted as your attempt to bridge that gap meant that you supported the belief that the Yowie was a biological entity and that you were trying to bring Skeptic on board with that conclusion. If that is the case, that is what I disagree with!

Take Care. 

Yeah nah. The other way around. A simple misunderstanding... like Bats response to my compliment. All good...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Night Walker said:

Yeah nah. The other way around. A simple misunderstanding... like Bats response to my compliment. All good...

Sorry for the confusion! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 11:38 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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.

1] This one: https://ibb.co/CncJDz7

2] I ask my questions of Harrison publicly. Harrison has yet to answer any but he has sent me some weird messages via FB Messenger threatening to sue me for defamation. If I'm lucky then Harrison will take me to court and he will have many more questions to answer. If I win in a court of law would that be proof enough for you?

___

Manwon Lender - you're an American living in South Korea, right? Are you aware if the local culture has any historical /mythical references to a wild/hairy-man? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be sure but personally i think the woman they interviewed hit the nail on the head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Night Walker said:

1] This one: https://ibb.co/CncJDz7

2] I ask my questions of Harrison publicly. Harrison has yet to answer any but he has sent me some weird messages via FB Messenger threatening to sue me for defamation. If I'm lucky then Harrison will take me to court and he will have many more questions to answer. If I win in a court of law would that be proof enough for you?

___

Manwon Lender - you're an American living in South Korea, right? Are you aware if the local culture has any historical /mythical references to a wild/hairy-man? 

 

Sue you for what exactaly?

If i reach and speculate it has to do with the image you altered for non profit educational reasons, 

If it has to do with you suggesting he is a hoaxer thats your opinion and well geez seems to win any case against you the guy would have to bring the yowie to count with him, and prove your personal opinion in some way hurt him, maybe the yowie will sue you too, this is weird.

I would like to see proof the alleged subject was the size he claims, proof just how far from the camera it was.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

Sue you for what exactaly?

If i reach and speculate it has to do with the image you altered for non profit educational reasons, 

If it has to do with you suggesting he is a hoaxer thats your opinion and well geez seems to win any case against you the guy would have to bring the yowie to count with him, and prove your personal opinion in some way hurt him, maybe the yowie will sue you too, this is weird.

The second one - Defamation. Yes it is weird. He won't do it, though. He did the same thing with his infamous 2009 claim of "Yowie Attack!" ... He is full of it...

 

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

I would like to see proof the alleged subject was the size he claims, proof just how far from the camera it was.

Me too. The cameraman was set up - handed the thermal camera with the settings up so high that the heat signal is bright but washed of detail and the surrounding landscape is invisible. In the recreation the settings are as they should - showing a bit of detail in the heat signal while trees, foliage, and ground are visible. Because there are no details of the surrounds in the original there is nothing to align the images with for scale comparison. The cameraman correctly reported seeing 2 human-like heat signals but it is Harrison claiming they are 8-9ft tall Yowies and lapping up the media attention.

Stick formations were found (broken sticks placed in patterns on the ground or forced into the ground) which apparently were not there the day before. Foot impressions of human size but little detail were "found" by the Yowie Tracker who also "found" a knuckle impression in the soil which, coincidently, was a perfect fit for his own knuckles. Who/Whatever made any of those would leave their DNA behind for collection and analysis but that was not even a consideration... So much for Yowie "research"...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

The second one - Defamation. Yes it is weird. He won't do it, though. He did the same thing with his infamous 2009 claim of "Yowie Attack!" ... He is full of it...

 

Im not Lionel Hutz seems the burden would be on him to prove hes not a hoaxer and the only way to do that is prove yowie is real and was in his picture.

So i take it the cats in it for attention and profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 

Im not Lionel Hutz seems the burden would be on him to prove hes not a hoaxer and the only way to do that is prove yowie is real and was in his picture.

So i take it the cats in it for attention and profit.

He's a man-child of inheritance so money is not a concern and, besides, there's little money to be made in the Yowie business. Attention - yes. Specifically media attention. In his weird messages to me he mentioned something about his "legacy"... but most of it is just childish abuse. Not too bright but he can lift heavy objects...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2021 at 7:47 PM, papageorge1 said:

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

It may have been useful to you.  You need to understand though, presenting your viewpoint in a manner that is based in reality and scientifically sound definitely is far more useful and productive.

I get it, you believe what you want and that's perfectly fine. I (and others) will continue to present contrasting viewpoints and supportive data as necessary as part of the discussion/debate.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Trelane said:

It may have been useful to you.  You need to understand though, presenting your viewpoint in a manner that is based in reality and scientifically sound definitely is far more useful and productive.

I can only present what evidence I have. In this case the show I was referring to prided themselves on their scientific rigor. When something baffling occurs the best even a scientist can do is explain it to the best of their ability.

41 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I get it, you believe what you want and that's perfectly fine. 

No. I believe what seems most reasonable from the evidence and argumentation. I do not need Bigfoot to exist, but I think it does from an overall analysis.

41 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I (and others) will continue to present contrasting viewpoints and supportive data as necessary as part of the discussion/debate.

I encourage more information and viewpoints.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thermal imaging is usually so very bad when trying to show crypto creatures. It literally could be anything thats warm, and scale/perspective is often lost completely. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 5:34 PM, papageorge1 said:

 

No. I believe what seems most reasonable from the evidence and argumentation. I do not need Bigfoot to exist, but I think it does from an overall analysis.

 

"Most reasonable" to you.   Most reasonable to me is that the creature does not exist.  Either of us may be correct.  I assume we'll never know for certain.  I put it at 98% it doesn't exist.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Myles said:

"Most reasonable" to you.   Most reasonable to me is that the creature does not exist.  Either of us may be correct.  I assume we'll never know for certain.  I put it at 98% it doesn't exist.  

That's fine, just seems like a lot of quantity, quality, consistency of stories, smells, footprints, videos. etcetera to dismiss.

But your good point is that we don't need to agree.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That's fine, just seems like a lot of quantity, quality, consistency of stories, smells, footprints, videos. etcetera to dismiss.

But your good point is that we don't need to agree.

There are also lots of inconsistencies.    Bigfoot is stealthy but throws rocks to easily give away his position.  Is seen casually walking out in the open.  Sometimes it smells and other times it doesn't.  Sometimes will fight the 6 Million Dollar Man and other times they are friends.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

There are also lots of inconsistencies.    Bigfoot is stealthy but throws rocks to easily give away his position.  Is seen casually walking out in the open.  Sometimes it smells and other times it doesn't.  Sometimes will fight the 6 Million Dollar Man and other times they are friends.  

Bigfoot may be a complicated subject but SOMETHING seems to be going on is my position.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 2:20 AM, Night Walker said:

1] This one: https://ibb.co/CncJDz7

2] I ask my questions of Harrison publicly. Harrison has yet to answer any but he has sent me some weird messages via FB Messenger threatening to sue me for defamation. If I'm lucky then Harrison will take me to court and he will have many more questions to answer. If I win in a court of law would that be proof enough for you?

___

Manwon Lender - you're an American living in South Korea, right? Are you aware if the local culture has any historical /mythical references to a wild/hairy-man? 

2] I have no idea if that is considered "proof", the original link with a more complete video is missing. Why is Harrison thinking of suing you? 
What could you have possibly said that it could rise to that. 

Proof,, mon ami, is a very tricky thing. Some people think that proofs of earth being round are all bunk.

I wish you luck

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Bigfoot may be a complicated subject but SOMETHING seems to be going on is my position.

Exactly. *Something*... is going on. And I love a good mystery. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

2] I have no idea if that is considered "proof", the original link with a more complete video is missing. Why is Harrison thinking of suing you? 
What could you have possibly said that it could rise to that. 

Proof,, mon ami, is a very tricky thing. Some people think that proofs of earth being round are all bunk.

I wish you luck

 

Defamation. While I acknowledge his decent work of collecting and presenting other people's Yowie accounts over the years Harrison's own research is demonstrably shonky. I've described Harrison as a hoaxer, hoaxer-researcher, prankster, trickster, sensationalist... words along those line which I reckon accurately describe his actions in the field. Of course, to be called a hoaxer is a terrible slur within the amateur paranormal research community and every accused strongly denies being one or associated with one - even the blatant ones. But, really, pranks and hoaxes are not really a big deal in the broader world - particularly if it occurs within a community seen as being "fringe" rather than mainstream. "Mainstreamers" expect hoaxing to occur around claims of Bigfoot whereas those in "fringe" are regularly shocked each time it happens. There's a whole set of competing expectations but in a court of law evidence is prime...

I know its ultimately not really proof of anything much and few, if any, minds will be altered one way or another. Legal action not going to happen, though. Threats of legal action are not uncommon - it is meant to demonstrate the strength of one's convictions and intimidate the the other side into backing down - but actual legal action between opposing amateur Yowie researchers has never eventuated. Yowie apparently use mock charges to scare people away while Yowie researchers use mock legal threats...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Exactly. *Something*... is going on. And I love a good mystery. 

I think that everyone agrees that "something" is going on - stories don't invent themselves. But what that "something" may be is always the point of contention...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Exactly. *Something*... is going on. And I love a good mystery. 

Out of all the paranormal stuff,ghosts,bigfoot,ufos,etc the bigfoot one seems the most plausible one to me.

I've heard many many tales from hunters and people who spend most of their time in the wilderness who have had experiences,

I take their word over some scientist who goes on a month long expidition anyday.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people like myself who spend a lot of their time in the wilderness but  have not experienced or observed anything clearly aren't qualified to say anything contrary.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Trelane said:

So people like myself who spend a lot of their time in the wilderness but  have not experienced or observed anything clearly aren't qualified to say anything contrary.

You are certainly entitled to opinion, however unqualified. 

A scientist claims he saw and atom under the microscope. I never did see same. Am I as qualified to speak on this issue as the person who makes the affirmative claim?

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2021 at 9:36 PM, Trelane said:

So people like myself who spend a lot of their time in the wilderness but  have not experienced or observed anything clearly aren't qualified to say anything contrary.

Thats just it isnt it, only respect and agree with the "expert" whose opinion matches our own,  we have,

On 6/4/2021 at 8:15 PM, diddyman68 said:

I've heard many many tales from hunters and people who spend most of their time in the wilderness who have had experiences,

That would be "alleged" experences.

just more "stories" and of course the rational investigator be it from armchair in his living room or in a tent deep in the woods isnt going to use a "story" as any kind of proof for something like BF where the supporting evidence is so very weak and gets weaker not stronger each passing day.

We have all been startled seen something that we didnt really know what it was, saying "i dont know" is fine but making a leap from "i dont know" to "it can only be ______ " isnt of any value what so ever, and some woodsman claiming he saw BF isnt any value without supporting evidence to back up his tale.

The big difference between the scoffed at scientist who hunts BF for a month and the fellow who spends most of his time in the wilderness is one jumps to believe the other says show me your evidence and then we cycle back to there is none, the woodsman cant even prove he didnt make it up.

i just do not use stories or tales as evidence, a person can be sincere and still be wrong, hoaxed, full of bull or delusinal.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Thats just it isnt it, only respect and agree with the "expert" whose opinion matches our own,  we have,

That would be "alleged" experences.

just more "stories" and of course the rational investigator be it from armchair in his living room or in a tent deep in the woods isnt going to use a "story" as any kind of proof for something like BF where the supporting evidence is so very weak and gets weaker not stronger each passing day.

We have all been startled seen something that we didnt really know what it was, saying "i dont know" is fine but making a leap from "i dont know" to "it can only be ______ " isnt of any value what so ever, and some woodsman claiming he saw BF isnt any value without supporting evidence to back up his tale.

The big difference between the scoffed at scientist who hunts BF for a month and the fellow who spends most of his time in the wilderness is one jumps to believe the other says show me your evidence and then we cycle back to there is none, the woodsman cant even prove he didnt make it up.

i just do not use stories or tales as evidence, a person can be sincere and still be wrong, hoaxed, full of bull or delusinal.

 

 

I didn't use the word 'tale' as a substitute for the word ' proof'.

I know someones word is not proof,but i also don't automatically assume they are lying, delusional or hoaxing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.