G'day all,

I am interested in opinions of the below footprint cast.



It comes with the following information:

"On the left side of the dirt roadway on a muddy slope leading down onto the road, a large hominid shaped right footprint with a clearly defined large toe and three smaller toes. The footprint measures 28cm from tip of big toe to end of heel... Note: The [print] was found on a muddy incline and looked to be a slip, which may account for any distortion of the print. Of most relevance is the toe area. The smaller print to the side, unfortunately resembles a blob but the ball and front of foot can still be made out. "

I apologise for the low quality of the image but it was the best that I could acquire. There still seems to be enough detail for analysis. I have my own opinion, of course, but being relatively new to this field of research I would value the opinion of others.

Thank you.

Can't offer much since it is distorted from the ball back, but it's narrower than your own foot (assuming that's yours).

My first impressions are that there isn't anything outstanding that may indicate that it isn't just a human footprint. I guess it's hard to tell just from the photo, but the overall size of the print isn't large when you consider other larger yowie prints. Who knows what other distortions may occur in the mud with a slipping foot. Also, it would be good to know the size of the human foot in the picture for some more scale. I guess the only other thing I would consider if I saw a print like this, is whether it would be rare for a bare foot person to be walking there or if it was remote enough that people would rarely, if never visit.

Here is my analysis:

The impression of where the heel originally struck the ground appears to be visible (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The heel, striking the declining ground first, is noted to have slipped in the original description although this does not show up on the image of the cast. A close examination of the toes (see Figure 2) reveals no signs of slippage - the outlines of the toes are reasonably well defined and exhibit no signs of smearing as would be expected if the whole foot slipped. So, it appears that the heel slipped forward slightly on the muddy decline before the front of the foot came down after the slip leaving a relatively clear impression. Such a motion appears natural in these circumstances.

Figure 2.

Let's examine this motion using the overlay of the comparison foot when the human comparison foot rotated 4 degrees clockwise and given 70% opacity (see Figure 3). 1) Heel strikes muddy decline. 2) Heel slips forward slightly but comes to a rest as the front of the foot comes down.

Figure 3.

Examining the human toes overlaying the toes of the cast reveals a very similar match (see Figure 4). The toes on the cast appear to be of a comparable length to those of the human foot but the cast toes appear to be spread more widely which would be expected when walking across a slippery surface - the toes flex and spread in order to maximise traction with the surface.

Figure 4.

A closer examination of an overlay of the 5th-2nd toes and of the big toe suggests that the overlayed human foot is comparable to that of the cast (see figure 5).

Figure 5.

For another comparison, a different human foot (my own) is placed over the cast (see Figure 6) which seems to provide another generally comparable match with the cast.

Figure 6.

Conclusion 1.: The footprint cast provides a very good match with both human feet presented. Therefore, the original footprint was most likely made by a human.

Additional Information:

The original picture of the footprint cast was presented as supporting evidence for a recent alleged Yowie assault. A comparison of the footprint cast and other suspected Yowie prints is given below (see Figure 7):

Figure 7.


Conclusion 2: The footprint cast from the alleged Yowie assault has a striking similarity to that of a human but bears little to no resemblance with any of the suspected Yowie prints.



Is this a fair and balanced analysis of the original footprint cast?

If so, it may well have dramatic consequences for Yowie Research in Australia. Stay tuned...

Have you ever found a yowie print? Yowies have a similar print to humans. As do sasquatch prints!

What are you expecting a yowie print to look like?

Your analysis is quite boring and are trying to sound smarter than you are?

What exactly are you trying to get at?

I'm not an expert so I get to guess. It looks like a human stepped on a clam. Steamer, no doubt.

Mate, if you are fair dinkum about getting unbiased opinions, it might have been a good idea to not flavour your posts with your own thoughts first.

And then you have 'flavoured' the whole thing with some kind of cliffhanger ending about something going down in Australia.... did you want an unbiased opinion, or just to stir the pot?

AussieAussie

Oi oi oi

Duck down everyone, the Auzzies are gonna go at it very soon, i can feel it...

Nah, mate, not at all. It just seems like soemthing is going on but I could be reading toomuch into it.

AussieAussie (with no Oi on the end

It's the new one who you should keep your eye on...

Only joking, welcome by the way spongebucket, hope you enjoy the Forum Fella..

Thanks Bobby will do!

Yeah, Spongebucket, welcome, mate. It's always good to have another Ozzie around.


Just of interest, with regard to Nightwalker's foot cast, have a look at this.

This one you posted looks similar to Sas footprints photographed by Robert Laverty in 1967 near the location of the famous Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage in Northern California (the photo attached is credited to Lyle Laverty). it looks pretty darn human to me too


Click to view attachment

For those of you who don't follow the AYR forum in Australia you should know that NightWalker was recently savaged on that particular forum for asking a number of pertinent and valid questions. As the abuse of NW built up by a number of AYR cultists and inner circle members he was ultimately forced to retire from the board. And yet still, none of his very good questions were answered (in a serious way).

You should also know that 'Spongebucket' is most likely an AYR member called Chewy (who is the AYR forum administrator and briefly changed his name to Spongebucket on AYR for a while). He has most likely been sent on a scouting mission to this forum to begin the dis-crediting process here as well. Shame on you AYR!!!

For me, I am of the very same opinion as NW that this footprint is simply a cast of another human foot and does bear a strong resemblance to the foot in the picture albeit that the cast is upside down and therefore the opposite foot (of Joe Black) who admitted on the AYR site that his feet are very symmetrical.

There is certainly something very fishy going on inside AYR.

By the way SpongeBob. What do you mean by your words below:



Are you actually suggesting that Yowies/BF/Yeti have similar footprints to humans despite the amazing number of plaster casts floating around that:

• Have only three or four toes
• are two and three times the size of humans
• Are broader and flatter than human
• are generally used by Yowie/BF/Yeti researchers as evidence of existence PRECISELY BECAUSE they are different to humans.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You're comment is nonsense, even by AYR standards.

Hi Night Walker, great topic. I believe that it is a human footprint. It looks pretty close to the foot in the picture next to it. Your overlaying pictures show that up rather well. I would actually say that it was made from a smaller foot than the one pictured.
Do you have any pictures of the footprint whilst it was still in the ground? That would help out a bit better.

AussieAussie, I have to firstly tell you that for the most part, unless I see it, I don't believe it.
With the photograph of the Sas footprints by Robert Laverty in 1967, did anybody see the Sasquatch make the footprint? If not then, logically...well, it looks like a human footprint.

Spongebucket wrote,
Yowies have a similar print to humans. As do sasquatch prints!
What are you expecting a yowie print to look like?
Your analysis is quite boring and are trying to sound smarter than you are?
What exactly are you trying to get at?

Your reply to this topic seems quite hostile. As a senior member at AYR? is there anything further you wish to tell us about this subject that causes you such discomfort?

Have you ever found a yowie print?? Are you sure it was from a yowie?? Did you see it make the print??? Hmmm.....
You make it sound as though it is common practice. Is it?
Night Walkers analysis is not boring at all, it is quite informative, even though NW might come across as a little leading.
I am also pretty sure that what he is 'trying to get at' is that the footprint looks like it was made from a human foot, not unlike the one which is photographed next to it. To me, it seems very plausible. He has even offered us evidence of why he thinks so.
I suggest that unless you have some analysis of your own, perhaps you could hold off on the critisism until you do. Besides, nothing of what you have written makes me believe that you are anything of a professor about the yowie/sasquatch/bigfoot subject.

In your own words, are you "trying to sound smarter than you are?" Get off of your pedestal!!!
This isn't an AYR forum and these posts won't get deleted or changed like they do over there.
So, if you have no actual input into this thread, other than trying to critisise members who don't have the mental capacity of yourself, go away. Go back to the ship you came from and help plug up the holes before you sink.

Some serious sounding new Members on the Forum today huh ??

That was my thought exactly. The ball of the big toe has an odd lean to the left which can clearly be seen in the cast (albeit mirror image, so it would be the other foot of the person).

I'm no expert, but from the many books I've read...

The length of the toes do not match the typical BF foot characteristics. Maybe the yowie is different.

Hi

One doozy of a first post ya have there ~ SuperAwesome ~ Good luck on your future here on the BFF.

Peace
Tim

I apologise for my heated response.

I am just pointing out that a yowie print especially juvenile Yowie print is very similar to humans. Here in Australia some areas only produce a very small print they are not all broad and flat like what you find here in the US.

It’s very easy to assume it’s human at first glance, I admit, But I know the guys that found the print and their not in the habit of fabricating evidence just for the sake of it, like what is being suggested.

What most people don’t know is there was a fall out between members of AYR who where on the trip, and when the print was found, and so hence forth there has been nothing but a “where out to get you” sort of mentality aimed towards AYR by a few non existing members who seem to have some vengeful score to settle. This is sad.

That’s why this thread is a little heated.

Anyway all I have to say is, it’s a print that the guys found and they are good and honest people and wouldn’t even dream of fabricating evidence. Because of the high percentage of Yowie history over the years where the print was found it’s more likely to be Yowie than human unless of course we have a hermit walking around the bush somewhere but I doubt that.

Hi

You guys from the Awesome Continent sure are hard to handle ~ How about this, If you go to the new member thread and say hello to the forum and let folks know who you are, We can reset the the opening post and start fresh

Peace
Tim

Except for the flat padded sole and pronounced midtarsal break.



Are there any precedents for any species of animal (other than insects) where the footprint of a juvenile differs markedly from that of the adult? Can the juvenile-Yowie-with-human-feet hypothesis be verified by any non-AYR researcher? I would be interested in examining the pics any non-AYR alleged juvenile Yowie prints.

To clarify, I was not involved with the AYR trip. I have no personal stake in this - I am only concerned about the validity of the event and it's implications for Yowie research. I raised the issue over the alleged Yowie prints on the AYR Forum and was less than impressed with the replies and abuse. I am seeking non-biased opinions and the BFF is usually well balanced and informed. Either the alleged 2nd January, 2009 incident is one of the most significant Yowie developments ever or it is something else. Either way, the implications for the ways in which Yowie research is to be conducted now and in the future are "dramatic".

Questions need to be asked if we are to understand the implications, whatever they may be...

Other than insects.... amphibians and crustacea are animals that go through complete and incomplete metamorphosis. I think there might be one more type of animal that change, but I'm pretty sure it's not any type of mammal. I'm not taking sides in the Ozzie Civil War, but it's fun to read. So have at it. Cheers.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear in what I said Ooopssies… .A juvenile yowie print is remarkable similar to a human print size wise I am not suggesting they metamorphose into a different shape altogether when they become adults.

Having said that I have seen some odd looking footprints, and in my opinion not all Yowie prints look the same some don’t resemble human shaped footprints at all, number of differing toes etc. I think it depends on the area you find them. Could also be dealing with a number of different species, just my opinion.

Thank you for that clarification, Furious George. You need not "take sides" but anyone with a considered opinion is welcome to participate. I'm aware that friendships/alliances were broken over this alleged incident but that has no relevance to an analysis of a footprint cast.

I shall rephrase and number my questions to help keep track:

Q1. Are there any precedents for any species of mammal (specifically primate species) where the foot and/or footprint of a juvenile differs markedly from that of the adult?

Q2. Can the juvenile-Yowie-with-human-feet hypothesis be verified or denied by any non-AYR researcher? If so, pics and/or references would be appreciated.

I was trying to see the simelarity with the look of the toes, as the rest of the Nightwalker print is pretty much a mess & I cant even make most of it out to be frank. As I havne't seen a bigfoot I cant tell if they look like our yowies as much, but hey, they might.

AussieAussie

Thank you for your input, AussieAussie. However, the pic you provided originated in the U.S. - I am interested in confirming or denying the alleged Yowie footprint using Australian data considering that spongebucket from the AYR has implied there is a difference between Yowie and Bigfoot feet.



If you have any relevant information it would be most welcome...

Spongebucket - I would also be interested to know how many juvenile-Yowie-with-human-feet prints the AYR have examined. Pics and/or references would be appreciated.

Further to NW's last question I would like to know where and when the AYR (or any other researcher for that matter) has had a close enough encounter with a juvenile yowie that they are able to prove that they know what a juvenile yowie footprint looks like.

In other words, how do you back up the claim that you know what a juvenile yowie footprint looks like?

Where's the research?

I had the cast of the print in the second row, first pick for quite some time, although the toes are messed up, I'd say that's a real print, sadly that cast got broken (not by me).

I think Yowie prints differ depending on where they've been seen/cast/photographed. There have been prints documented with between 3 and 6 toes visible, so I don't necessarily think that they have to resemble a human foot to qualify, JMHO. Why the difference? I have NO idea.

Please leave AYR issues at AYR, this is a different forum. AYR has done some great things and I think it's a valuable resource and place for people to refer to when they encounter a Yowie and have no idea about what the creature was. They may not contribute to the forum, but I'd hazard a guess that there have been quite a few witnesses who have visited AYR. At least they may find some answers as to what they saw and some solace, their minds can rest, they are not nuts and can find information on what they may have seen and can contact someone about it if they want to.

Please, no pissing matches, this is about the Hairy guy, not us...

Cheers,

Kraig

I agree, yakcam - this IS about the Hairy guy.

I am new to Yowie Research. I don't know who to believe - there is so much BS out there - assumptions as fact, crazy theories, outlandish characters, etc. Given that this field of enquiry traditionally attracts more than it's fair share of exaggerators, liars, shonks, charletans, ego freaks, and nutters I take the approach of questioning everyone and everything, which I believe to be sensible. I am compiling my data slowly and methodically in an attempt to weed out misleading or false data.

To their credit, the AYR have been a major contributor to our knowledge of Yowies in Australia. But how valid is the information they provide? This is an important question that no-one seems to ask and I do not understand it. Like it or not, the alleged "Yowie attack" is a significant event for Yowie research. How could it not be? Yet, I question why few are willing to discuss it. I am new to research, perhaps someone could explain this to me.

I would like to discuss this in an orderly and scholarly manner - which was simply not possible within the AYR Forum. I appreciate their involvement in this current discussion. I have many questions to ask, many things I would like to clarify. This is important in order to further to our (very limited) understanding of our Hairy friends. Events should be clarified not obscured so that we may gather as much evidence as possible. Is this not the approach other researchers take?

Am I wrong to question why a most-likely human footprint cast is included as evidence for an alleged Yowie attack? Is this how research is done in Oz? Would the American researchers have the same approach to potentially suspect evidence?

Is this not a Forum FOR discussion?

I may be treading on some toes but this IS about the Hairy guy...

And so it is Mate, my apologies, I could just see this turning south and would be disappointed to see this thread be sullied by personal attacks.

I believe that any claims made publicly should be subject to scrutiny, you're dead right.

Cheers,

Kraig

Back to the topic...
The print in the pics posted.

It appears to me that the foot that made these prints is much smaller than the cast (approximately half the size, maybe a tad bigger).
What I see, and with the help of the description of the terrain, is a smaller foot that was planted and slid, then came to a stop leaving the toe impressions. The shape of the track (how it has a "bend" in it near the middle) is a dead giveaway for me. Look at the "bend". In my opinion, this is where the heel ended up after the slide, and the portion of the track between here and the toes is closer to the actual size of the foot that made it. I think this also helps to explain why the toes are splayed slightly to the left; I think this is a natural motion of the toes grasping at the ground to arrest the slide.

As to what made the track? No idea. I think this is just as likely to be human as Yowie, and based solely on the print pics, I just can't make any kind of educated guess. If the print was found in an area where people might camp or walk barefoot for ANY reason, then I would probably not hold this print as evidence.
It should still be studied, but it is just not clear enough to use as any kind of evidence (in my opinion, and again, based solely on the posted pics).

Hey NW I can only talk of my own personal experience of finding prints.

I don’t think I can posts photos up here yet not until I make a few more posts so here is a link to photos and report of suspected juvenile yowie prints http://www.yowiehunters.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1322

The prints are quite small probably around the same size as your average adult human. The measurements of the footprints are in the report and measure 23 cm in length. This is my opinion but I assume they are juvenile Yowie prints because a much larger print was found in the same area that measured around 35 cm. Compare that to the prints found at 23 cm and you have a remarkable difference, that’s why it’s my belief and my own opinion that the prints found in the report are juvenile.

We could also be dealing with two different species in the same area the larger and the smaller which would make the juvenile prints adult prints, but I would suggest that it’s just the one species in the area, making the prints found to be juvenile.

It’s all hypothetical of course and we can only go with what we are given.

Hope this helps.

A1. Not for primates. They are miniature versions of their adult form (for the species). The individual can obviously vary due to injury, disease, growth or growth defect.
Adult mammals that have claws will have different prints than juveniles due to nail growth.
Adult mammals that are digitigrades, where their dew claw touches the ground when running, will have different prints than juveniles. The dew claw wears down for the majority of the adults.

A2. If some are suggesting that juvenile Yowie footprints are identical to human footprints, all you need to really do is apply common sense and Ockham's razor. They are human footprints until they are proven not to be.

Sorry for the double post but it's too late for me to edit.

After thinking about it more, a big however to what I said in A2. would be .... To support the theory, there was an example of when the footprints of Australopithecine were mistaken as human because they were identical. I don't remember where I read it though. So it may be possible, but it's just not likely.

My foot is remarkably average (27cm by 10cm) putting it squarely in the range of these 'alleged' juvenile yowie footprints. Its also of a similar shape taking the presumed slip into account.
Therefore I believe the question becomes, "On what basis is it assumed that these footprints have been made by a juvenile yowie?"
Nobody (presumably) saw a juvenile yowie make them or found any other evidence such as hair, skin or blood. So as Furious_George said, Occam's razor insists that the prints are human. Humans are known and proven to exist. Yowies are not.
The argument that theres only four toes is pretty thin. Its a foot imprint into ground! Weathering could account for the missing 'pinkie toe' or the pinkie toe probably didn't exert enough pressure in the first place especially on a slope.
In my opinion it's an unremarkable cast of a human footprint.

No, the possibly Australopithecine footprints were not identical to human prints, there was a sizeable gap between the big toe and the other toes, on all the footprints. And we also don't know if they were Australopithecine or perhaps from something more like Homo habilis. The new Homo floresiensis foot is fairly different from a modern human foot, the big toes are shorter and thicker, and the other toes are longer, probably better for grasping. There is no arch.

Good one, 'vilnoori'. Also, per last week's latest publication on the Hobbit foot I will add that the Hobbit big toe is in-line like the human foot rather than offset as in great ape feet. But unlike the human foot, the Hobbit foot has no mid arch and therefore is said to appear somewhat flat-footed. So this is a rather mixed bag which draws speculation about the possibility the Hobbit (Homo Floresiensis) might not have been very efficient runners.
Dudlow

Juvenile-Yowie-with-human-feet tracks with an unknown big cat or human walking his dog along a creek bed?

It may be all hypothetical, spongebucket, yet you are very quick to label the prints as "Yowie" and "big cat" while offering no possible or even reasonable alternatives. I will wait a while to see if any non-AYR researchers offer support for your juvenile-Yowie-with-human feet hypothesis before taking a closer look at the "Yowie attack" claims and evidence.

Hey Night walker

You are also quick to presume that they are dog and human prints without knowing the area.

The area has a long history of yowie sightings it is also very rugged and not easy to get to, you have climb down a steep embankment to get to the creek bed, and there is no well defined track in or out of this area. I doubt very much that we are dealing with a man walking his dog. Big Cats print measurements 9cm across = 10cm from back pad to middle paw that’s one very large dog if that’s what you are presuming



While you may be correct this is years of research we are talking about. I doubt a man was walking his dog bare feet down an isolated creek bed when you have things like leeches, ticks and snakes to worry about let alone stubbing your toe on the rocky out crops.

Nice try though.

I'm not saying it IS a dog print but I question why you immediately ASSUME Yowie prints and big cat print instead of considering other more likely possibilities. I reckon there would be a lot more large domestic dogs in Australia than big cats. Surely, you are aware that there are big dogs here.

I hike alot in rugged places and relish getting into hard to get places - especially where there is a creek. I imagine other hikers do to - that is the point of hiking. When resting around water I remove my boots and go barefoot for a while. I'd hate to see my footprints posted as juvenile-Yowie-with-human-feet prints. I am always conscience of the fact that because I am there it doesn't mean others haven't been - no matter how rugged it is.


I think this pic is a good representation of how a regular human footprint can appear flat or distorted depending on how and where pressure is applied. I will post further examples shortly. Do you have a pic of the 35cm footprint?

The area may or may not have a long history of Yowie sightings but, again, they would be insignificant to the number of human sightings and visitations into the area. Are you aware of how a self-fulfilling prophecy works?

These are different casts of the same foot where the arch and contours are visible in some of the prints but not others. The above footprints give a good example of how a human foot can appear flat depending on how pressure is applied. If I get some time today I will do up some fresh examples - it's not hard to do. These prints were found in the Gold Coast hinterland not far from one of Australia's fastest growing regions in an area that hikers would favour along a creek bed which is exactly the place a hiker WOULD walk barefoot for a while.

Whereas a human foot is capable of leaving behind a seemingly flat print, could a presumably flat Yowie/Sasquatch foot leave behind a human-like track with arch and contours?

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy works in this instance because you were in a region with a history of Yowie sightings (Are there mountainous forests in Australia without a history of Yowie sightings?), you expected to see evidence of Yowies, and the footprints you found along the creek bed met your expectations. This is despite the fact they very closely resemble human feet, were found in an area likely to be frequented by hikers not far from a major population centre, and were found in precisely the place you would expect a human hiker to walk barefoot.

You may have been "researching" this for years but your evidence is based on assumptions. Just because you assume they are tracks made by a juvenile-Yowie-with-human-feet does not mean that they are - most likely they are human tracks made by human feet. There's a saying - if it walks like a duck...

Comments would be appreciated.

Yeah, who's foot did you skin and place on the right middle pic???

It looks like he reversed the image of the foot from post #1.


Before we move on, you're not suggesting Yowie has a big cat for a pet? Please say no.

The foot is the reversed image from the original post. Personally, I have not seen ANY evidence for a Yowie - Big Cat connection in Australia other than they both are reported in mountainous forested areas.

The claim from http://www.yowiehunters.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1322 "So here is another instance of Big Cats and Yowies being seen together" is unusual as 1) they were not seen together, and 2) they are most likely human and big dog tracks.

nightwalker,what a fantastic subject,keep up the great work.

I have been a lurker on this website on and off for quite a while, I have been a lurker on the AYR (Australian Yowie Research) website for a long time.At the risk of restarting a flareup within this absorbing (not boring) post that nightwalker started and at the risk of upsetting nightwalker by saying this,spongebucket is not telling the whole story regarding his post here,and for spongebuckets information,I have nothing to do with the "Sceptics or The Brothers" in case you think that I am one of them,this is my opinion only,

QUOTE(spongebucket @ May 14 2009, 12:47 PM)

I apologise for my heated response.

I am just pointing out that a yowie print especially juvenile Yowie print is very similar to humans. Here in Australia some areas only produce a very small print they are not all broad and flat like what you find here in the US.

It’s very easy to assume it’s human at first glance, I admit, But I know the guys that found the print and their not in the habit of fabricating evidence just for the sake of it, like what is being suggested.

What most people don’t know is there was a fall out between members of AYR who where on the trip, and when the print was found, and so hence forth there has been nothing but a “where out to get you” sort of mentality aimed towards AYR by a few non existing members who seem to have some vengeful score to settle. This is sad.

That’s why this thread is a little heated.

Anyway all I have to say is, it’s a print that the guys found and they are good and honest people and wouldn’t even dream of fabricating evidence. Because of the high percentage of Yowie history over the years where the print was found it’s more likely to be Yowie than human unless of course we have a hermit walking around the bush somewhere but I doubt that.

the reason that members of the Ayr people on the trip "fell out" is because two of them (The Brothers) totally disagreed with the validity of a supposed attack by a Yowie upon their founding leader DMH,on the AYR forum they publicly disagreed with the alleged story and offered to provide evidence of the kind and offered to post it on AYR,all but one of the admins and moderaters then went into instant defense mode to protect the integrity of their leaders claim that he was attacked by a Yowie,the Brothers were then censored,ridiculed and eventually banned because they refused to back down on their leaders claims,pandemonium then broke out with a certain Mr MW within AYR going on a rampage of deleting posts,changing peoples posts and banning people who took the side of The Brothers. AYR, nobody is "out to get you",those "Brothers" ,to their credit and due to their professionalism, are only out to publish the "real evidence" as they see it by posting sound files onto Youtube for people to make up their OWN minds as to whether they believe DMH's alleged attack,not to be told that they HAVE to believe his story or be persecuted and eventually banned from the AYR forums.Spongebucket says that the people within the group are all "good and honest people and wouldn’t even dream of fabricating evidence",I believe that they are too,but unfortunately I believe that from what I've read within the AYR forums,they can eventually be swayed from repetitious cajoling to eventually accepting what the heirechy wishes them to believe so as to come into line to support their leaders claims of a Yowie attack upon himself!

This is not the first time that this has happened,there were some sceptics that went onto the site earlier within the year and were asking perfectly credible questions regarding certain claims made by people on AYR,they were subsequently banned,then un-banned then re-banned because of their opinions.The only reason that they were un-banned was because of the only moderator on the site that has any crediblity at all by the name of stickyfingers fought for their re-instatement because he felt that they were unfairly banned in the first place.But the rest of the admins and moderaters eventually got their way and got rid of them,poor nightwalker went on a crusade for a few months to offer up what he passionately believes is GENUINE Yowie research and backed his claims up with photos,links,analysis of evidence etc only to eventually be turned on by the usual admins and moderaters when his questions got too close to the validity of DMH's alleged Yowie attack.

nightwalker was up against a wall of hostile ridicule because he was too close to the bone with his questions,he was eventually given no choice other than to go elsewhere with his questions and research,he obviously believes (as I do) that The Bigfoot Forums are more credible and will treat his work with the respect that it deserves,then what happens?,spongebucket aka Chewy,who happens to be part of the AYR admin and moderater inner circle of damage control,(with the exception of stickyfingers,who seems to be the black sheep of the family and on the "outer" because he doesnt blindly follow the rest of them),spongebucket instantly comes onto this website with a rather "hostile attitude" as Superawesome pointed out to discredit nightwalker!,as Superawesome also pointed out,AYR admins and moderaters can't delete posts within this forum,so the truth can be said without repercussions from AYR with permanent bans!

As with the "Sceptics" and "The Brothers" that they banned from AYR because they disagreed with DMH's alleged attack,the same would have happened to nightwalker if he didnt leave on his own accord,such is the nature of AYR.I'm glad that I resisted the urge to post anything on their forums,I would'nt have lasted very long at all!.By the way AYR,a little heads up,nobody actually believes that DMH was attacked by a Yowie you know,only you "believers" on AYR do,just look at other Crypto websites to get confirmation on this for yourselves.

Nightwalker,I'm sorry to re-open all this when all you are asking for is peoples opinions on your research and evidence,but people really do need to know why spongebucket is out to discredit you on here.No doubt he will try to dismiss what I have said by using his "worldly knowledge of everything" to ridicule me,but all anyone has to do is go onto the AYR forums to see what I am talking about.AYR,you people really do need to move on and leave nightwalker alone on here to pursue his research and not keep coming on here just to put him down ,seriously.Big Foot Forums,you people will really benefit from taking nightwalker on board,he has a lot of questions and research to get through from what I have seen on the AYR forums, you will reap rewards aplenty from it.My only regret after writing this is that I didnt bother to go onto the AYR forums to back him,the "Brothers" and the "Sceptics" up when they were being subjected to all of that crap dished out to them,but as I said, I wouldn't have lasted long on there, accepting criticism is not one of AYR's stronger points.

Nightwalker,for the second time,I apologise for reopening this subject, but some things just have to be said,continue the great work that you are doing.

Thanks for the information, cyborg69, but to spongebucket's credit he hasn't tried to discredit me on this forum, the debate has been pleasant and informed, and I appreciate his involvement in this discussion. I hope that this will continue as I will soon begin a re-examination of the alleged "Yowie attack". AYR involvement is more than welcome.