I posted this comment on another Yowie related thread but thought I should start another thread. The validity of the existence of BF has often been doubted due to the fact that BF sightings seem to pop up on every inch of the globe.

My original comment:

"I have to admit but I am ignorant of the history of upright hominids/apes with regards to their possible migration or
pre-modern age into Australia. What is the history of hominids in Australia? I am assuming that they existed in Australia before it detached from "Pangea"?

I think they did, but, with Sasquatches isn't that a little different? Are we are assuming that within this small area (sorry I grew up in Texas) that Sasquatches developed in a similar evolutionary way that they did in the other parts of earth that follow a patern that is actually logistically possible? Also I am not familiar with the landscape of Australia. From what I understand there is not a lot of terrain that fits the statistics of Sasquatch reports meaning: Heavily forrested or wooded and/or mountainous areas?

I'll say it outright. If we are assuming that Sasquatches exist, are we to also assume that "Yowies" exist? And if so are we actually talking about the same creature? I doubt it. I do not think that Yowie discussion should be included with BF/Sasquatch discussion and should be excluded from this forum until more is known."

Hmmmmm...............this may cause an Aussie uprising. The boys down under aren't going to like this.

Hi


I would think our BF and the Yowie would be differant in some ways just like the animals are differant even strange at times,

I got ya,,,, Maybe the Yowie evolved along with the animals around them stuck on the continent, no wear to go



Peace
Tim

No I am not trying to cause controversy. The timeline of reports relating to creatures that fit the description of "Sasquatches" follow from Europe/Indonesia across the Ice Bridge into Alaska, into Canada, into the PNW and so forth whereas this is all one united land mass.

My only question is where does an isolated land mass like Australia fit into the picture of this migration, or is it a totally different creature?

Wow......what a topic

I agree with the fact that across the world that are many stories and sightings of Ape-like creatures. Some seem less related to the BF Phenomenon than others, though I think from much of the research on the Yowie, it seems to very closely parallel the BF phenomenon in every way. Our descriptions of the creatures resemble BF very closely, in Australia we also have a long standing native tradition right through first settelment to modern times that tell of the same creatures. We have similiar footprint evidence, behavioural evidence, other physical evidence eg hair, faeces. I think it could be quite possible that we are talking about a very closely related creature if it does exist. I think any phenomenon that parallels BF so closely should be worthy of discussion in these forums. I think the fact that we have such a similiar phenomenon in our country strengthens the arguement of BF's existance!

This will be very interesting to see peoples response to this post.....I think many in the US who follow the Yowie research will agree with me, along with the few and very passionate Australians who frequent these forums!

Go the Yowie

Thank you YowieMan. I think that all of our concentrated efforts are necessary in researching these things as we all know that the current scientific community has not yet caught up with this subject. Perhaps piecing together the pieces from the big picture will give us all a better understanding of what has happened, what is going on, and where we can move forward.

Australia is fairly close to where fossils of very large erectus were found in Java. They were thought to have arrived Asia about 2 million years ago from Africa. Asia had other apes but if one made it to Australia, it was probably fairly recently in the last few million years. There are no primates known to be native of Australia. Last I heard, modern humans arrived there about 50,000 years ago.

Should "Yowies" be included in BF discussions?

Should this really even be a question?

Nightscream. :Those are fightin words".........hairy man/ yowie.......as 'yowie man' states has a long history here in Australia...Indigenous Australians, especially those whose land is bush or rainforest have a long history which includes hairy man...A couple of the aboriginal names for them are the 'jangery', dumbin etc etc.....

Australia used to be connected with Papua New Guinea, India, Africa, Antarctica, South America, Arabia plus all of the islands that make up Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines etc etc by a land bridge...it was called Gondwanaland....Australia broke away around 50-60million years ago, as did the others at differing stages.....So Hairy Mans origin lay in about half the rest of the earths land surface.......Any serious inquiry into Bigfoot must consider the possibility of it or similar strains of it living in other continents....For example: If I were to go out tomorrow and find myself a Hairy Man....drag the bugger in, in a headlock......Go to FoxNews (god forbid)....and get Bill O'Reilly to interview Mr Hairy Man....what impact, support, insight, habits, ... things that you guys could learn from to better understand and maybe even find your bigfoot.......

one thing is for sure; it would piss many devotees of the bigfoot off if some dumb Aussie country boy found one.....

Australia has miles of dense bush and scrub....it has miles of tropical rainforest and sub-tropical rainforest....It has mountains and valleys.....The Woolamai Pine was only discovered 10years ago, in one such remote forested valley........we got the habitat and only 23million people...........you guys have over 230+million people.........anyways, its cool, you asked a fair question and hopefully we have answered it well enough for you to reconsider.......cheers rod

Excluded from this forum until more is known? What do we think we know about "bigfoot" in the first place?

The title of this board is "Bigfoot Forums" - it's designed to accommodate the discussion of a wide range of creatures generally referred to as "bigfoot", including sasquatch, yeren, almasty, skunk ape, yeti, yowie, etc..

I'd say that we're all pretty much in the same boat here, so don't try to class your version of "bigfoot" above "yowie", or visa versa.

I think our neighbors from down under have a lot to contribute here and they are welcome to participate anytime with their "yowie" research - in fact, I think they add a lot to the discussions and we can each learn quite a bit from one another.

I strongly disagree with even considering excluding Yowies from being discussed on these forums. We don't JUST discuss the "Bigfoot"/"Sasquatch" of North America here. We've discussed it's possible ancestors, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, The Indonesia thingy, Almas etc. WHY would exclude Yowies? We're not even sure that all the alleged subspecies of what we call bigfoot are even related, meaning those in the Pacific Northwest, vs Eastern, vs Southern vs Skunkape.

I think that there could be some synergy there in including Australian possibilities, and any discovery of evidence would lend credence to others' work even if it were to prove to be something other than what exactly we usually speculate is occupying our natural landscape.
But I'll admit that I favor the h.erectus as the prime candidate and would attribute to them some degree of adaptability and variety typical of primates, in what would make for a really wide and dispersed population. For the vast majority of their species natural history, even if they are essentially extinct now, maybe they would have been able (in the not too distant past,) to exist as a single interbreeding population but these days with the high ocean levels of our current inter-glacial period (a mere 13 thousand years), seperated populations would naturally become more distinct from one another while maintaining their instinctive behaviors regarding social interactions: huge territories, small groups or solitary indiduals who can travel widely, nocturnally.
For the same reasons I also would think that Eurasian evidence should be considered when a hypothetical creature being discussed in a speculative sense.

I'll nod towards the others in support raising good points and go with a "hell yeah!" we should include them still.

And, if you mean in topics specifically focussed on "classic PNW bigfoot" well then if yowies aren't welcome by comparison in those, then neither should chimp, gorilla or orang behaviour, anatomy, diet, anatomy, physiology etc be mentioned.

There's enough island BF reports off the PNW coast to be open to the possibility that they are good swimmers or log pushers, I believe there have been points in time where island hopping from Asia to Aus in shallow seas has been possible. Ergo, I don't know if we can deny the possibility that the yowie is very closely related to BF.

Keep this open to Yowies too. Sounds like the critters are simular enough that info on one may help find the other, even if they aren't exactly the same. Besides, for all we know, the same low ocean levels that caused the Bearing Sea to withdraw and allow the "Bearing Land Bridge" may have made it possible to get from island to island over to Oz.

17x7

To be honest, I wouldn't mind there being MORE discussion about various alleged hairy hominds from around the world here.

I've a big interest in the Russian variety, but I don't see too much talk of it here. In my opinion I think the Russian variation is as likely to be authentic as sasquatch.

Ohhh geez everyone....gotta stop cuttin these f*&king onions.....your beautiful...I loves ya.......we were with you in WW2, in Korea, in Nam, in Desert Storm, in Afghanistan, in Iraq...and we'll be with you with your bigfoot as long as you accept our yowie........GOD BLESS AMERICA........chuckle chuckle...

Thanks Volsquatch, that's great to hear......I really enjoy participating here. Its great to meet so many people and hear of their knowledge and experiences. I am learning more than I ever thought I would.

Cheers





I started a thread on the New Zealand Moehau, but no one had really heard of it. Its interesting though, but i'm not sure about the validitiy of its sightings.. I think it was a stray gorilla that arrived by boat in years gone past, but who can say!

Hey I didn't see that. I miss a lot here.

*runs off to go and look for the Moehau thread*

Yowies, Orang Pendak, Almas, Barmanu, Skunk Apes, Wood Devils, Ucu, Yeren, and Yeti all share similar traits...except geography. I'm not about to profess my faith in one's existence, without seriously considering all of these similar hominids. Sure, Australia seems to have been isolated for quite a while, but in geologic, and hominid evolutionary terms, Australia isn't so far off the beaten track.

Hominids have been around for about 10 million years, with Ergaster appearing about 2 million years ago. Let's say that Sasquatch is an offshoot of Ergaster, albeit one that chose brawn over the use of tools (for kicks, I'd rather not turn this into a Blacki v. Homo thread, and not saying that is my contention, just a timeframe example). Let's also just totally make stuff up, and consider that it was able to spread northeast to Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, China, and Russia. From there, with a healthy land bridge, it spread to North America. Seems reasonable, all of those areas have similar reports of hominids with the same general appearance. Now, from India and China, it spread down through southeast Asia.

Let's look at a theorized map of the world 1 million years ago:



It doesn't seem far fetched for whatever species this is to have reached Australia, given the timeframes we must be dealing with. Sasquatch (and the like) may even come from an older evolutionary branch, making the feasibility of an Australian hominid even greater.

Nice Map...........well there it is......hairy man, yeti, bigfoot all linked............

Yeah cool. But please don't ANYONE then suggest there are such creatures in western Europe or Britain.

Adding my two-pence-worth – am interested in anything “cryptozoological” (bipedal likely hominid / pongid, in particular): am glad to be reassured that BFF’s line is that anything concerning reports of such creatures, anywhere on the globe, is welcome. Fascinating though North America’s Bigfoot is (and as regards credentials as a possible truly flesh-and-blood life-form, in my opinion – sticking neck out – the best of a dubious bunch), I would regret any policy decision, which restricted BFF to the phenomenon on the North American continent.

hey everyone good early cold morning yes i think the yowie pheanomena should be seriously talked in the bigfootforums this is a great new thread i hope people talk new yowie sightings, new yowie books footprints etc. thanks bill

Not anymore.... but we could reintroduce them along with the wolves and bears.

A comprehensive discussion assuming a position that any, all, or none of these creatures exist can only benefit from sharing similarities or differences pertaining to the overall phenomenon of big hairy hominids.

I just hit my lucid post quota for the day.

I'd think that we know about as much about the remaining wild places in Western Europe and the British Isles as we do about the wild places in our own back yard. In other words, we know a lot about what we think we know, which is fine since it adds to utter amazement and humbling self-awareness on those occasions when we find out how little that can be sometimes.
But just like here, people in Western Europe can't see in the dark and are utter perceptual incompetents when it comes to recoginzing and identifying the new and unfamiliar because human traits in cognition are part of being human no matter where humans are.

Wasn't there a sighting around 2am right outside Westminster Abbey back in the Fall of 97?

Oiy! Do you want a poke in the eye, geezer???!!!!!!!!!

There's pretty much no "wild places" in the UK as we think of them on this continent. Even in the highly populated and long settled parts of NA there are little patches you can fight your way into and think "no man has stood here for 5 years" whereas in the UK you can barely be sure "no man has stood here for 5 days".

You might be right as I have yet to hike western Europe and the British Isles but I find it hard to believe based on my trips via Google Earth over the Pyranees, the Alps, the Socttish Highlands (just look at that area north of Loch Ness and imagine walking that rocky terraine off trail) and some of the deeper and less accessible areas even in western Britain that there are some surprises there yet. I do know however having done a fair bit of hiking, recreationally and professionally in the western US that even when you are practically in our National Park's front country, once you leave the path within a mile you are likely to be in a place that nobody ever goes. The front country people rarely leave the paths, and the true wilderness afficionadoes have nothing but distain for the front coutry...consequently you can enter de-facto wilderness very very quickly and be left entirely alone provided you dont make any attention drawing activity part of your outing. I'd also add that the creatures we describe as BF need food not trees or wilderness and hiding from humans is not all that hard for a critter that's familiar with its wild surroundings and itsown abilities.
That area of McKean County, PA where the BFRO skinny bear was screencaptured is an excellent example of how a place can be completely ransacked with developement and people and roads and yet harbor all kinds of animals. Note, nobody's saying that this skinny bear or BF couldn't be there because of the lack of wild areas in the region, but I know they are not really very wild...but we modern civilized humans are really pretty lazy and clumsy on our hunting day trips or excursions to pick berries, ground pine or leeks, and are still very near to being ignorant and arrogant by thinking that if something unknown is out there we'd have seen it or shot it already. T'ain't necessarily so, and I'd say it would make sense if it were a lot like that in western Europe too.

Hi dogu4,

Yes Flashman is right. Sure there are a few places here that see little (even no) people. I've been to a few of them, but we don't have the dense forests of America to hide anything like a sasquatch. A lot of the places where few people go in Britain are not grand forests but rather open moreland or the sparse highlands of Scotland. These are only periodically broken up by forested areas. We just don't have the huge expanses of forested land as seen in North America.

On top of this almost all of Britain and most of western Europe has either been settled, fought over during numerous wars, cultivated or excavated. If there was ever something like a sasquatch species in Britain or western Europe then the chances are with all the tramping and digging up that has happened over the centuries there would have been evidence of it by now.

I can see that a smallish number of alien big cats can remain hidden in parts of Britain (say, a few dozen) but there is zero chance that a species of hominid like sasquatch can do so.

I disagree. I'm no expert on Australian fauna but I recall the last time I took a quick look into this I could not reconcile a reasonable explanation for an extant ape (or indeed any primate) arriving (in enough numbers to establish itself) in Australia (with no other modern animals) unless it was essentially a modern human who rowed there (or got there however the aboriginals arrived). My recollection is that there is evidence of rodents (excluding those from NZ) arriving in Oz around 15 mya, which would be the most recent (non-flying) arrival before humans. So if there is a yowie, it would have most likely arrived either very recently, or at least 15 mya....around the time the orangutan line was splitting off from the rest of the apes. So it would take a lot of convergent evolution (which obviously is well documented in Australian fauna) for such an animal to so closely resemble a supposed North American ape, unless both are a "living fossil." It would also be odd to have only one surviving form with 15 my to diversify, remember that most introduced species have exploded in Australia. And the very recent hypothesis would require higher intelligence (e.g. boats) than most usually ascribe... or would mean a viable population was deliberately brought there?

So that problem, as best I understand it- which isn't very thoroughly, combined with no decent evidence that I've ever seen, makes the existence of the yowie highly implausible in my book. And if that's the case, and there are STILL reports coming from Oz, one has to wonder about the credibility of similar reports from anywhere else.

I just rechecked the refs of Krantz (and Meldrum, Daegling, Coleman, and Napier- who all seemingly skipped the subject) and he thought reports were very inconsistent, most plausibly misidentified aboriginals (and other real animals [which, for anyone reading any sort of racism into this, all humans are]), though he claims the possibility of H. erectus in Oz based in his own research??????

But, regardless, I'm all for discussing it in this forum as we have only slightly more evidence and plausibility for our favorite cryptid.

-A

I think that yes, we should talk about a possible relative of Bigfoot. interesting discussion.

I think a Yowie is a Koala Bear, that didn't stay cute and cuddly.

Thanks for that perspective, Lyndon. Europe's long history of relatively dense occupation by civilized people does make the likelihood of an undiscoverd hominid, particularly in western Europe unlikely and I'm not a strong advocate of there being in existence now, but western Europe also does have a long history of "wooodsmen" "trolls" "werewolves" and "ogres" which point to the existence of remnant populations up until not too long ago. It is worth keeping in mind that just like here in North America, people have abandonned the land practices that put intensive human labor out into the fields, with large machines now doing the work. I understand that in the less developed eastern europe where people do still work the land with hand tools, reports of these woodsmen are still occasionally heard, typically attributed to superstitious rustics. So, there's a bit of a dis-connect in that if the land is sophisticated in its land practices it means that people don't visit it much and if it is visited much it is characterized as being worked by people subject to superstition and therefore unable to be considered objective.
Another interesting juxtaposition of reason is that Europe because of its long history of relatively dense human occuapation has examined its landscape to a level we have not here in North America. Have we found primitive hominid fossils in europe because so much time has been spent looking in a relatively small and geologically favorable place (Karst regions)? Are we going to find more here in North America as we continue to occupy and explore this country? Remember it was curious shepherds, peasants really, with a bit of time and mischievous energy on their hands that discovered some of the best surviving examples of decorated caves despite there being a long familiarity with the land by these illiterate but intelligent people. Instead of calling in a priest as would have been the SOP before the emergence of modern natural historical understanding, who would then have declared it all evil and had it somehow sterilized or neutralized, these discoveries happened at a time when there was a lot of curiosity by scientists and other antiquarians with a more modern understanding. I really wonder how many fantastic sites have been destroyed by ignorance or simply "cleaned out" and re-used by susequent people.
Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is not so much that they inhabit western Europe now but evidence might still be there, identified as h.erectus, or heidelbergensis or neandertal...so some anomolous case of human giganticism. In any case, considering Europe as part of the habitat is, I think, a valid perspective and could, without fooling ourselves into believing that they are still there, help in generating a more comprehensive concept of how these cryptic primates might have co-existed and perhaps still do somewhere along the remote fringes...and my point is that the fringe still exists and in surprising places. For instance, is Scandinavia part of Western Europe? Is Europe itself an antiquated concept as Europe and Asia from a biological and geological standpoint is actually more accurately described as a single landmass, Eurasia and for that matter Eurasia as a Quaternary Era condition of the once single landmass identified as Laurentia which included North America...and still does, despite the recent submergence of Beringia over the last ten thousand years or so; a relatively short amount of time in the record of recent terrestrial life.
Cheers.

dogu4,

Very interesting post. I enjoyed reading that a great deal. You make some good points although I'm still skeptical regarding even a past accaintance with our hairy chum, even though as you say there is a long history of wild men/wood devil tales etc etc. As somebody else pointed out though, Europe also has a tradition of vampire and werewolf legends/stories and these are not considered as evidence of fact.

I still do think that any past wild man/hairy hominid presence in Britain at least would have been fairly well documented.



Good question. I believe politically and culturally Scandinavia would be considered 'western Europe' but geographically I would say (might be wrong on that) it's not. At least it wouldn't be what I was refering to as western Europe. I wouldn't be averse to the idea of Scandinavia having remnant populations. It's a huge densely wooded area with very very few people. I have heard of reports from that area, and Finland itself borders northern Russia and in fact there is a good well known multi witness report from that area of Russia, not far from Murmansk. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the northern parts of Sweden and Finland as being home to a small number if, as I believe, northern Russia might be.

I think western Europe includes Norway, Finland, Sweden, and The Baltic states(Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia), but Not East Germany (formerly) and Poland

Lyndon; I see what you mean about the lack of evidence and rationally that should speak volumes but think about how much of the writing describing Britain from the time of the Romans...almost nothing survived. Yes, there's Julius Ceasar's writing and few historians working and some personal records etc...but really, the Romans occupied that land for hundreds of years and yet it's almost a miracle Beowulf survived...and it just barely and it just one of many many different stories and epic sagas. For that matter, the Picts. What do we know of their language or culture? Not too much...and they weren't as shy like we suppose our elusive cousins might be...or might have been. And truth be known, for all that we know of the Romans themselves almost none of that survived the divinely lead period of history known as the dark ages.
Ah, and while considering Scandinavia and the boreal forests of the north (which puts a lot of its production into hard to digest wood and resin unlike the steppe with its grasses and forbes which supported a wide variety of grazers and predators), do keep in mind that all that forested land was largely covered with ice, and mammoth steppe which spread widely east to beringia and beyond and for a few hundred kilometers south of where the taiga begins today. What we see now, for all its seemingly timeless landscape is dynamic over the thousand year scale. The North Sea and the Channel; both well recognized as former mammoth and big ungulate (megaloceros) habitat from remnants picked up in relatively shallow hauls by fishermen's nets.
Sorry, again, it's not that BF is there now, but honestly I think it makes sense for some tuff-primate before us puny pink monkeys came onto the scene to have adapted to take advantage of that huge food generating biosystem of the northern steppes which had been in operation for the last 2 or 3 million years, incorporating nocturnal ambush hunting over huge individual territories and that these days they remain where forest and open land meet to offer a wider range of options for food than just the forests or just the open ground.
Were an animal adapted to that lifepattern it would be a great advantage to be about 8 feet tall and have enormous strength and mobility in order to take down elk sized prey with bare hands or even simple clubs and other killing tools, while not becoing prey itself...hence the smell.
In my speculative natural history of what we're calling the holocene has an easy to see niche for a successfull type of hunting primate...and primates have been very very successfull in many incarnations besides man, for many millions of years...and my question is where is the creature that should fit there?

IMO we're the plains primate proper, the gorilla's orangs chimps etc are the deep forest primates proper, and retained some capacity for accessing the rich food resources of the forest canopy. For woodland that does not have a rich canopy, and is not so conducive to brachiation or branchwalking etc, that's the niche where "hairy men" fit. As the plains primate prospered and grew smart and began to wield sharp objects on long sticks and fire, and could organise in numbers, so there was conflict at the borders of realms, and the edges of the woods came nominally under our control again. The "tweenie" primates became more elusive and suspicious of us, retreated into the dark depths by day, to reclaim their realms under the shelter of darkness... when the plains monkeys huddled round their fires and jumped at shadows...

Apeman, I enjoy your input mate..you know what your talking about....but..........Australia was connected to many other places 65million years ago by a land bridge...called Gondwanaland.................it is easily possible....up here in the rainforest we have tree kangaroos, so does Papua New Guinea, we have cassowaries, so does New Guinea, we got huge pythons in the rainforest. etc etc......Geez with a bit of luck we could of had tigers, the now extinct Balinese tiger(last one shot in the 30s I think) was only a stones throw away.....If you can have them, then so can we.........completely plausible........we have the habitat......this place aint just desert and outback.....also, we have big crocodiles here that are unchanged since the dinosaurs...the cassowary is unchanged since the dinosaurs...we are talking 70-80million years ago mate.......hairy man unchanged since the dinosaur...well why not?...others do it........rod

Apeman,

Of course you have excellent points, I would expect no less from you. However, considering the relative youth of the plate tectonic and evolutionary biology sciences, there are going to be drastic errors in which species were isolated and WHY they were isolated. The isolation of the marsupial population seems to be one of the major factors in dating the Australian/South American land bridge split, theorizing that if placental mammals and marsupials were in competition, the marsupials would have been dominated, and thus wiped out.

What if the isolation of the marsupials was due to the land bridge split, then, when the Australian plate and the Indian plates met and fused, sea levels fluctuated due to ice ages, and sediment buildup connected the two land masses (allowing rodents and bats to reach Tasmania), the isolation was largely due to greatly diverse landscapes (lush southeast Asia, and arid Australia)? The species in southeast Asia would find the already arid Australian landscape inhospitable, and vice versa. A further barrier for the species' isolation could be created by the sentiment buildup creating tidal and fresh water marshes, an environment that stretching for 200-500 Km (minimum 50Km, approximately 12,000 yrs ago) would be an insurmountable barrier for most species.

An uneducated guess at sediment build-up around the Australian and southeast Asian landmasses during ice ages:



I don't know the timeline for snipe evolution, but Australia, New Zealand, India, and Africa (as well as Europe) share various species of snipe. The variant found in Australia, the painted snipe, is also found in Asia and Africa. There seems to be enough of a difference in DNA of the Australian painted snipe to suggest that it may have become a separate species from it's African and Asian counterpart, suggesting a fairly recent isolation of these snipes. If tidal and fresh water marshes connected southeast Asia, Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, the snipe, as well as the rodent and bat populations could be explained, while the placental mammal and marsupial population remained isolated to an extreme extent.

The dingo question also should be re-investigated, as they do not make suitable domesticated pets, and the mtDNA evidence (Savolainen, et al) suggests that dingos arrived in Australia 4,600-10,900 years ago. Due to archaeological records, Savolainen adjusts his conclusions to approximately 5,000 years ago. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, which would have allowed a non-human aided migration of the dingo to Australia IF my (B.S.) theory of sediment build-up due to ocean currents occurred around the maximum range of Savolainen's findings.

Dingo range throughout Asia, Australia, and the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago:



I understand that dingos have been used as semi-domesticated animals on and off through Australian history, but this may be a response, rather than causal of their introduction to the Australian mainland.

Now, I want to make it clear that I'm creating completely hypothetical situations to justify the migration of a large primate to Australia, and explanations for controversial species introduction. This is PURELY hypothetical, and more of a shallow thought experiment, rather than a statement of facts.

Also, could the dingo be responsible for the introduction of humans to Australia?

Sure Rod but what you're forgetting is that there were no primates of any kind anywhere on Earth that far back so it doesn't matter what was connected. If you want to theorize that a rat-like insectivore independently evolved into a hominid, be my guest, but count me out.

PL- You clearly know more about this than I do, and I really don't care to debate it that much, but it just doesn't make any sense than the only animal without wings to get to Australia in a 50 million year stretch is a giant ape. The possibility of a very recent arrival is the only thing that makes any sense to me, but even that is hard to explain. So, considering the overall lack of evidence of any sort anywhere in Australia, that I'm aware of, I don't really feel much need to stretch my imagination. But everyone else is certainly welcome to, which is why I think this is a worthy topic. I wish it have been given better consideration in any of the major bigfoot books, pro or con.

-A

I'd say apes have a tad more ambition than anything else though.

As I said on the Yowie thread. There is evidence of HHs in Asia, Indonesia, and Australia. There is evidence of wallabys in Australia and Indonesia but not in Asia. It seems that because of these factors, there was once a land bridge connecting Asia with Indonesia which allowed this HH to migrate to the islands. That land bridge went away then another opened later from Indonesia to Australia. This allowed them to migrate to Australia and the wallaby to migrate to the islands. If the HH is in Australia due to connection in Pangea it seems there should be migration both ways. I am saying this is definitely what happened, but it makes sense to me to explain what is known. If the Australian Yowie cam from Asia as did our BF, there is a possibility of common ancestry.

Yes! Our deliberation of the question at all shows our almost complete unknowing-ness (ignorance?) of the (so-called) subject of Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yowie/Yeti/Alma/WoolyBooger/CulliganMan/BeaArthur. We can't catch a long enough glimpse of the sucker in any country to know there's even something actually there. At this point the 'Yowies' have to be included as part of the discussion because they're the exact same thing - unknown hairy bipedal Apemen™ with BO running around the countryside leaving footprints and scaring people.

Great posts everyone...........enjoyable to read them.............in the end, all I know is there have been stories and sightings of yowies for 1000s of years...from indigenous peoples......through to the early european invasion till now............I have spoken to many many people who have seen them...face to face...looking square at each other...........15people in 2005 all saw the same critter together....there it was.......big and hairy and on 2 legs and looking at them..........now, is it one big on-going mass hallucination over 1000s of years from different eras, cultures and walks of life.....or is it a real creature.........

Blimey, is Merve Hughes still at it? :realhappy

Only joking. I agree. Great subject. Makes a nice change.

I'm still interested in reading/hearing more details about the truck drivers on the road between Coonabarabran and Narrabri in NSW in the 1970s whp kept seeing strange things and in the end wouldn't stop on overnighters there. Do you have anything???

"Blimey' and you remember swervin mervyn hughes...........you must be a pom, lyndon...........the area you are talking about is also well-known for the 'pillaga princess'.....some ghostly woman seen walking the highway.....
I have heard about the yowies spotted along that area and the truckies being spooked by them and the pillaga princess, but thats about all I know.......hey, yowieman, do you know anything more mate?.............lyndon, here is a link worth checking out....bongo's story is pretty bloody weird..have a listen..........rod
http://www.abc.net.au/overnights/stories/s1738937.htm

Now whatever gave you that idea?

I spent a year travelling round Australia in the mid 90s though.





Thanks mate. I had not heard of the 'Pillaga Princess' before but that is definately the area and road I meant. I did ask Paul Cropper once for more details on these truckers but he couldn't come up with much either.

I played the Bongo radio thing. He sounded very affected. I don't know what happened at the end of that coz he almost went crazy. Weird. Too bad he didn't get to describe it more.

Cheers Rod. Good stuff.

We shurly have to discuss other heary hominids here. That´s simply because if BF isn´t a blood and flesh animal but a psychological phenomena! Until we have a body we can´t denie this possibility.

Western Europe:
Besides the northern parts like norweign or simular, there are also reports of hairy hominids in other places in europe.
Somewhere since the 80s there was a "werewulf" report out of germany. It was quite credible. Other reports in the 90s talked about hairy apeman in Italy (Mainland).

CU

Data