The Yowie

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
How much experience have you had studying or keeping great apes? I've had stacks and these things fit in just fine. They make sense as real animals in their environments. Orang-pendek for example, the one i have searched for the most, seems to be a terrestrial, upright species of orang-utan.
The argument from your personal experiences just isn't persuasive to me when considering the scope of the claim, and primatology is not relevant. It is speculation that the Yowie experience reflects a unknown ape. Unlike the orang-pendek, an Australian ape doesn’t make sense. I’m open to there being an entirely different (or multiple) explanation.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
The argument from your personal experiences just isn't persuasive to me when considering the scope of the claim, and primatology is not relevant. It is speculation that the Yowie experience reflects a unknown ape. Unlike the orang-pendek, an Australian ape doesn’t make sense. I’m open to there being an entirely different (or multiple) explanation.
It could be a hominin rather than an ape. We know that Homo erectus was living in Crete despite the island having been well seperated from the mainland for several million years previously. It is thought they may have rafted there. Not building rafts but being swept out on masses of vegetation during storms or tsunanis. It's a well known method of animal distribution. Australia was much closer to Asia than it is today so the ancestors of the yowie may have got to Australia that way
 

Anonymous-50446

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,865
Points
279
It could be a hominin rather than an ape. We know that Homo erectus was living in Crete despite the island having been well separated from the mainland for several million years previously. It is thought they may have rafted there. Not building rafts but being swept out on masses of vegetation during storms or tsunanis. It's a well known method of animal distribution. Australia was much closer to Asia than it is today so the ancestors of the yowie may have got to Australia that way
Speculation based on 'could' is guessing piled on guessing. Respectfully, this is not persuasive and it's edging towards circular reasoning.

"It could be 'this', so therefore 'this' is true."
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Speculation based on 'could' is guessing piled on guessing. Respectfully, this is not persuasive and it's edging towards circular reasoning.

"It could be 'this', so therefore 'this' is true."
Then what are people seeing? Are they all having the same dilution? There is nothing outlandish about a hominin species making it to Australia during the last ice age.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Speculation based on 'could' is guessing piled on guessing. Respectfully, this is not persuasive and it's edging towards circular reasoning.

"It could be 'this', so therefore 'this' is true."
Cryptozoology, by nessesity is mostly speculation, informed speculation. It cannot by otherwise until we get specimens or DNA.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
Then what are people seeing? Are they all having the same dilution? There is nothing outlandish about a hominin species making it to Australia during the last ice age.
I'd disagree. There's no precedent for a species which could reasonably account for the descriptions of the yowie, as reported, ever having made the kind of journey they would have to have made to be present in Australia.

As I understand it the rakali is the largest terrestrial Eutherian mammal present.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,584
Reaction score
9,686
Points
294
I'd disagree. There's no precedent for a species which could reasonably account for the descriptions of the yowie, as reported, ever having made the kind of journey they would have to have made to be present in Australia.

As I understand it the rakali is the largest terrestrial Eutherian mammal present.

people did though
 

Anonymous-50446

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,865
Points
279
Then what are people seeing? Are they all having the same dilution? There is nothing outlandish about a hominin species making it to Australia during the last ice age.
Well, people are pre-disposed to 'see' humanoid figures and faces, so it's not a stretch that a load of vague sightings informed by this mechanism, plus a certain amount of confirmation bias, results in a common 'sighting' format.

That's rather less outlandish, some might say.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Well, people are pre-disposed to 'see' humanoid figures and faces, so it's not a stretch that a load of vague sightings informed by this mechanism, plus a certain amount of confirmation bias, results in a common 'sighting' format.

That's rather less outlandish, some might say.
Not all sightings are vague, some are very close up and some last a good while. For example...
A politician would risk extreme ridicule or even the loss of his job if he admitted to seeing a giant 'ape-man' in the Australian outback. But that is just what happened to Senator Bill O'Chee of the National Party back in October of 1977 when he was a boy. O'Chee had been part of a party of children from Southport School who had been on a two-day camping trip near Springbrook, Queensland. O'Chee was brave enough to tell the strange story in full. He was interviewed by legendary Australian cryptozoologists Tony Healy and Paul Copper. They also spoke to his friend Craig Jackson.



The camp was called Koonjewarre and stood on open grazing land close to a dense forest. There were thirty boys aged twelve to thirteen and two teachers. They were all stopping in cabins. At 12.30 pm Bill and Craig spotted something lying uphill from the camp, about 1300 feet away in an open area. After a while it stood up. The boys passed a pair of binoculars between them as they watched it. The creature was huge, about ten feet tall. It was covered in black, or dark brown hair about 2 inches long. It had no neck, the head sitting squarely on the shoulders. Craig said the creature reminded him of the character Chewbacca from the Star Wars films except its fur was shorter and it had broader shoulderes and was bulkier. The thing swayed from side to side and seemed to be looking around. It has a stooped posture with long arms that fell down past the knees. Close by was a bush covered in whit flowers. The two lads noted that it came up to the creatures waist.



Other boys came over and a total of about twenty saw the yowie. Two boys stepped outside and the yowie noticed them and ran for the trees. The children told one their teacher, Kevin Brooks, an ex-soldier and he decided to lead a party up the hill to look for the monster. Craig said that when the camp caretaker heard this, he looked really frightened and urged them not to go up the hill. Craig thought that the caretaker had seen the monster before and was scared of it.



Later Healy and Cropper confirmed this by talking to the camps ' present caretaker who said that his predecessor had indeed encountered a yowie.



Ignoring the caretaker's warning Mr Brooks and four brave boys including Bill and Craig ventured up the mountain. They found that the bush that had been waist height on the yowie was five feet tall making the monster eight to ten feet high. Armed only with sticks, they entered the forest and found a trail of broken saplings and trampled bushes. They also found an area of compressed grass and twigs where the thing had apparently slept.



Back at the camp the other boys saw the monster emerge from the forest close to where the party had entered and it move dalong the edge of the woods. The beast was glimpsed intermittently all afternoon.



That night the yowie returned, making awful noises and coming as close as 33 feet to the cabins.Craig admitted to being 'shit scared'.



In the morning they found tracks and 3 foot high, deeply rooted shrubs that had been torn out of the ground by something far stronger than a man.



Back at the school the headmaster asked the boys not to talk about the incident and censored an article about it in the school magazine. Angered by this Bill contacted the Gold Coast Bulletin and told them the whole story.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
I'd disagree. There's no precedent for a species which could reasonably account for the descriptions of the yowie, as reported, ever having made the kind of journey they would have to have made to be present in Australia.

As I understand it the rakali is the largest terrestrial Eutherian mammal present.
I think you misunderstand what i mean by raftering. They are not constructig rafts but are being swept there on huge mats of vegitaition. That's how we think Homo erectus got to Crete.
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Evidence from genetic archeology is piling up that the Denisovans made it across Wallace's line.

Genetic research just presented at the Deciphering Denisovans conference indicates that Humans across that line may have been interbreeding with them as recently as 15,000 years ago.

The Aboriginal myths sound more like a memory of the Denisovans than of an unknown species of ape. Obviously something this large was still around someone would have found at least one bit of DNA testable evidence, and the debate about its existence would be over.



Untitled.png
 

Anonymous-50446

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,865
Points
279
Not all sightings are vague, some are very close up and some last a good while. For example...
But still anecdotal.

A politician would risk extreme ridicule or even the loss of his job if he admitted to seeing a giant 'ape-man' in the Australian outback.
That 's a weak appeal appeal to authority. He's no more credible than anyone else. This is in the same camp as "The witness was a vicar and he has no reason to make it up".

What someone believes they've seen, is not probative regarding what they witnessed, especially in these kinds of cases.

But that is just what happened to Senator Bill O'Chee of the National Party back in October of 1977 when he was a boy. O'Chee had been part of a party of children from Southport School who had been on a two-day camping trip near Springbrook, Queensland. O'Chee was brave enough to tell the strange story in full. He was interviewed by legendary Australian cryptozoologists Tony Healy and Paul Copper. They also spoke to his friend Craig Jackson.

The camp was called Koonjewarre and stood on open grazing land close to a dense forest. There were thirty boys aged twelve to thirteen and two teachers. They were all stopping in cabins. At 12.30 pm Bill and Craig spotted something lying uphill from the camp, about 1300 feet away in an open area. After a while it stood up. The boys passed a pair of binoculars between them as they watched it. The creature was huge, about ten feet tall. It was covered in black, or dark brown hair about 2 inches long. It had no neck, the head sitting squarely on the shoulders. Craig said the creature reminded him of the character Chewbacca from the Star Wars films except its fur was shorter and it had broader shoulderes and was bulkier. The thing swayed from side to side and seemed to be looking around. It has a stooped posture with long arms that fell down past the knees. Close by was a bush covered in whit flowers. The two lads noted that it came up to the creatures waist.

Other boys came over and a total of about twenty saw the yowie. Two boys stepped outside and the yowie noticed them and ran for the trees. The children told one their teacher, Kevin Brooks, an ex-soldier and he decided to lead a party up the hill to look for the monster. Craig said that when the camp caretaker heard this, he looked really frightened and urged them not to go up the hill. Craig thought that the caretaker had seen the monster before and was scared of it.

Later Healy and Cropper confirmed this by talking to the camps ' present caretaker who said that his predecessor had indeed encountered a yowie.

Ignoring the caretaker's warning Mr Brooks and four brave boys including Bill and Craig ventured up the mountain. They found that the bush that had been waist height on the yowie was five feet tall making the monster eight to ten feet high. Armed only with sticks, they entered the forest and found a trail of broken saplings and trampled bushes. They also found an area of compressed grass and twigs where the thing had apparently slept.

Back at the camp the other boys saw the monster emerge from the forest close to where the party had entered and it move dalong the edge of the woods. The beast was glimpsed intermittently all afternoon.

That night the yowie returned, making awful noises and coming as close as 33 feet to the cabins.Craig admitted to being 'shit scared'.

In the morning they found tracks and 3 foot high, deeply rooted shrubs that had been torn out of the ground by something far stronger than a man.

Back at the school the headmaster asked the boys not to talk about the incident and censored an article about it in the school magazine. Angered by this Bill contacted the Gold Coast Bulletin and told them the whole story.
So, a great story.

I note several of the witnesses mentioned were primed to expect to see a 'yowie'.

Any pictures? Other corroborating evidence? Anyone bother to follow the tracks?
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
But still anecdotal.



That 's a weak appeal appeal to authority. He's no more credible than anyone else. This is in the same camp as "The witness was a vicar and he has no reason to make it up".

What someone believes they've seen, is not probative regarding what they witnessed, especially in these kinds of cases.


So, a great story.

I note several of the witnesses mentioned were primed to expect to see a 'yowie'.

Any pictures? Other corroborating evidence? Anyone bother to follow the tracks?

He is no more credible but he has alot more to loose. Most people distrust politicans (quite rightly most of the time). Also this is a multiple witness sighting. The tracks led to a 'nest' area. What ever this was had the strength to uproot some large, deeply rooted plants. There is nothing known in Australia that it could be confused with. If its a man in a monkey costume then his is phenomenally large and strong.
 

Anonymous-50446

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,865
Points
279
He is no more credible but he has a lot more to loose. Most people distrust politicians (quite rightly most of the time).
I say again, this makes him no more credible.

I'd say it make him more likely to be 'confidently wrong' as politicians are master at appearing confident but generally know a lot less than any specialist on any subject.

Also this is a multiple witness sighting.
That strengthens the case, but recent work reviewing Asch's famous experiences [Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 222-236.] shows that once other people make an identification, other parties' cognition is directly affected, i.e. peer pressure is NOT the sole reason for mistaken identifications, actual changes in the cognitive process are.

Asch himself suggested that group influence can change how people perceive stimuli and here's a paper on that very subject [2016 - "Social conformity is due to biased stimulus processing: electrophysiological and diffusion analyses"
Markus Germar, Thorsten Albrecht, Andreas Voss, and Andreas Mojzisch].

In short, a person can actually believe they saw what the other people said they saw.

The tracks led to a 'nest' area.
Whatever that means. If it was a 'hypothetical nest area of the Yowie', one might reasonably expect to find a boat-load of material evidence. Hair, scat, big unambiguous footprints. Which no-one has produced.

What ever this was had the strength to uproot some large, deeply rooted plants.
'allegedly'

So do horses, camels, large roos and frankly, me, at least a younger me.

This is evidence that some bushes were pulled up.

What ever this was had the strength to uproot some large, deeply rooted plants. There is nothing known in Australia that it could be confused with.
"Nothing could have done this except a something like a Yowie, so the Yowie is real."

Really?

If its a man in a monkey costume then his is phenomenally large and strong.
Makes sense, we have monkey costumes and large strong men, so this is far more likely than the occasional near lone proto-hominid remnant to still be wandering about Australia.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,003
Points
154
Whatever that means. If it was a 'hypothetical nest area of the Yowie', one might reasonably expect to find a boat-load of material evidence. Hair, scat, big unambiguous footprints. Which no-one has produced.
Well, apart from taking issue with the phrasing of the last two sentences (I personally know a number of people who produce hair, skat, and large unambiguous footprints), I think this is the crux of the matter.

The poop of an 8 foot tall hominid would be pretty unmistakeable, and if they are as hairy as they are alleged to be, they would also shed like every other mammal with hair. Now I could imagine a situation where the hominid buries its feces, as we humans also bury our feces in wilderness, and I can imagine a hominid that is smart enough to be careful about leaving tracks, but there is no getting around the lack of hair being left behind, as shedding is involuntary, and vegetation is going to catch in that pelt all the time.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
12,285
Reaction score
13,839
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
Is the theory that they are herbivores, carnivores or omnivores?
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Is the theory that they are herbivores, carnivores or omnivores?
Omivores.
I say again, this makes him no more credible.

I'd say it make him more likely to be 'confidently wrong' as politicians are master at appearing confident but generally know a lot less than any specialist on any subject.



That strengthens the case, but recent work reviewing Asch's famous experiences [Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 222-236.] shows that once other people make an identification, other parties' cognition is directly affected, i.e. peer pressure is NOT the sole reason for mistaken identifications, actual changes in the cognitive process are.

Asch himself suggested that group influence can change how people perceive stimuli and here's a paper on that very subject [2016 - "Social conformity is due to biased stimulus processing: electrophysiological and diffusion analyses"
Markus Germar, Thorsten Albrecht, Andreas Voss, and Andreas Mojzisch].

In short, a person can actually believe they saw what the other people said they saw.



Whatever that means. If it was a 'hypothetical nest area of the Yowie', one might reasonably expect to find a boat-load of material evidence. Hair, scat, big unambiguous footprints. Which no-one has produced.


'allegedly'

So do horses, camels, large roos and frankly, me, at least a younger me.

This is evidence that some bushes were pulled up.



"Nothing could have done this except a something like a Yowie, so the Yowie is real."

Really?



Makes sense, we have monkey costumes and large strong men, so this is far more likely than the occasional near lone proto-hominid remnant to still be wandering about Australia.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Omivores.
Big men in monkey costumes? That's harder to belive in than relic hominins because there would have to be a cabal of 7-8 foot men in gorillia costumes scaring people from colonial times up until the present day. Have you seen men in monkey costumes? They look bloody silly, not at all convincing. A guy dressed up as an ape couldn't scare witnesses like yowies do. Ape costumes look baggy and unconvincing. Unless you've got Hollywood costume makers in this cabal of giant men then it's a non-starter.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Oops i seem to have replied to myself there! That's trying to multi-task!
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
I say again, this makes him no more credible.

I'd say it make him more likely to be 'confidently wrong' as politicians are master at appearing confident but generally know a lot less than any specialist on any subject.



That strengthens the case, but recent work reviewing Asch's famous experiences [Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 222-236.] shows that once other people make an identification, other parties' cognition is directly affected, i.e. peer pressure is NOT the sole reason for mistaken identifications, actual changes in the cognitive process are.

Asch himself suggested that group influence can change how people perceive stimuli and here's a paper on that very subject [2016 - "Social conformity is due to biased stimulus processing: electrophysiological and diffusion analyses"
Markus Germar, Thorsten Albrecht, Andreas Voss, and Andreas Mojzisch].

In short, a person can actually believe they saw what the other people said they saw.



Whatever that means. If it was a 'hypothetical nest area of the Yowie', one might reasonably expect to find a boat-load of material evidence. Hair, scat, big unambiguous footprints. Which no-one has produced.


'allegedly'

So do horses, camels, large roos and frankly, me, at least a younger me.

This is evidence that some bushes were pulled up.



"Nothing could have done this except a something like a Yowie, so the Yowie is real."

Really?



Makes sense, we have monkey costumes and large strong men, so this is far more likely than the occasional near lone proto-hominid remnant to still be wandering about Australia.
Big men in monkey costumes? That's harder to belive in than relic hominins because there would have to be a cabal of 7-8 foot men in gorilla costumes scaring people from colonial times up until the present day. Have you seen men in monkey costumes? They look bloody silly, not at all convincing. A guy dressed up as an ape couldn't scare witnesses like yowies do. Ape costumes look baggy and unconvincing. Unless you've got Hollywood costume makers in this cabal of giant men then it's a non-starter. Also these are kids and teachers not scientists so searching for samples would not have been high on their list.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Big men in monkey costumes? That's harder to belive in than relic hominins because there would have to be a cabal of 7-8 foot men in gorilla costumes scaring people from colonial times up until the present day.
But, we KNOW there are people in costumes and ghillie suits that are either intentionally or inadvertently misinterpreted as Bigfoot-like creatures. It really doesn't take much to make people think they saw something very weird when they are surprised in the dark. There is lots of evidence for this. Obviously, this only applies in some situations, but it really is far more likely because I don't have to invent a relict hominoid to account for it. I'm going with many and various possible explanations for sightings, including the "damned if I know" option. But it's too much of a leap to speculate it's an unknown hominin.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,584
Reaction score
9,686
Points
294
But, we KNOW there are people in costumes and ghillie suits that are either intentionally or inadvertently misinterpreted as Bigfoot-like creatures. It really doesn't take much to make people think they saw something very weird when they are surprised in the dark. There is lots of evidence for this. Obviously, this only applies in some situations, but it really is far more likely because I don't have to invent a relict hominoid to account for it. I'm going with many and various possible explanations for sightings, including the "damned if I know" option. But it's too much of a leap to speculate it's an unknown hominin.
Agreed but there is a considerable amount of recorded eye-witness accounts made before dressing up in monkey or ghillie suits was de rigeur.
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
514
Reaction score
1,489
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
The poop of an 8 foot tall hominid would be pretty unmistakeable, and if they are as hairy as they are alleged to be, they would also shed like every other mammal with hair. Now I could imagine a situation where the hominid buries its feces, as we humans also bury our feces in wilderness, and I can imagine a hominid that is smart enough to be careful about leaving tracks, but there is no getting around the lack of hair being left behind, as shedding is involuntary, and vegetation is going to catch in that pelt all the time.
This is an important argument and I agree with you.

When I used to investigate insurance fraud, we could seldom prove absolutely that the claim was false. However, if a claim seemed implausible or improbable we would often point to:
  • "The unexplained absence of evidence that would normally be expected to be present in the circumstances described by the person making the claim."
As long as we did this fairly, the Ombudsman would usually support us in withholdgin payment until the evidence was forthcoming.
  • Example: A customer claims to have left an expensive Rolex watch in the toilet of a train after taking it off to wash his hands. He cannot produce a receipt, valuation, or certificate of authenticity for the watch and has never had it serviced. He cannot produce either the train tickets or proof of payment for the train tickets. He no photos of himself ever wearing the watch. There is no unequivocal evidence that the claim is false, but there's no way it's going to be paid until he has either produced evidence or given a bloomin' good explanation for why he can't.


So, proponents of the yowie, yeti, etc. describe the animals in a certain way. Given the description that they offer, we would normally expect certain evidence to be present including footprints, faeces and fur. The absence of footprints and faeces can be explained — if somewhat tenuously — but the absence of fur cannot.

Therefore, although there is no unequivocal evidence that the creature does not exist, the unexplained absence of fur samples places the onus on the proponents to prove their case.

That aside, the biggest single problem for me with all large cryptids is the need for a sustainable breeding population. The general public seems to think in terms of the Loch Ness Monster, the yeti, the yowie, etc., as if, like Highlander, there can be only one. For comparison, the tiger is an Endangered Species with only about 4,000 of them surviving in the wild.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,000
Reaction score
1,455
Points
169
, although there is no unequivocal evidence that the creature does not exist
It's primate living in Australia, that is as iron clad as it gets.

Edit; a non-human primate of course
 

Anonymous-50446

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,865
Points
279
Therefore, although there is no unequivocal evidence that the creature does not exist, the unexplained absence of fur samples places the onus on the proponents to prove their case.
The onus is always on proponents to prove their case.

That aside, the biggest single problem for me with all large cryptids is the need for a sustainable breeding population. The general public seems to think in terms of the Loch Ness Monster, the yeti, the yowie, etc., as if, like Highlander, there can be only one. For comparison, the tiger is an Endangered Species with only about 4,000 of them surviving in the wild.
Good point and one often overlooked. Even 400 would be a wildly improbable surviving population of hominids and one almost certainly destined to dwindle with every generation.

Nice summary on wiki:

For example, for a theoretical simulation of a population of 50 giant pandas in which the simulated population goes completely extinct, 30 out of 100 stochastic simulations projected 100 years into the future are not viable. Causes of extinction in the simulation may include inbreeding depression, natural disaster, or climate change. Extinction occurring in 30 out of 100 runs would give a survival probability of 70%. In contrast, in the same simulation with a starting population of 60 pandas, the panda population may only become extinct in four of the hundred runs, resulting in a survival probability of 96%. In this case the minimum viable population that satisfies the 90- to 95% probability for survival is between 50 and 60 pandas. (These figures have been invented for the purpose of this example.)
Even with real figures (the estimated MVP for homo sapiens is around 160 [John Moore 2002]) and considering the slim odds of a small population of hominids surviving into the current times, the odds of this circumstance occurring at the same time in so many different places (Oz, Nepal, USA etc) are 'rather thin'. One might say.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,003
Points
154
That aside, the biggest single problem for me with all large cryptids is the need for a sustainable breeding population. The general public seems to think in terms of the Loch Ness Monster, the yeti, the yowie, etc., as if, like Highlander, there can be only one. For comparison, the tiger is an Endangered Species with only about 4,000 of them surviving in the wild.
Even with real figures (the estimated MVP for homo sapiens is around 160 [John Moore 2002]) and considering the slim odds of a small population of hominids surviving into the current times, the odds of this circumstance occurring at the same time in so many different places (Oz, Nepal, USA etc) are 'rather thin'. One might say.
True. Any population of breeding mammals under 1100 in size is going to suffer from issues with inbreeding, even if the population does recover. That ol' West Virginia circular chromosome is a killer. I know cheetahs are probably going to go extinct due to inbreeding.

I don't think we are dealing with a typical cryptid however. I think they are full of tricks, such as infrasound, illusion and mimicry, and might well be very intelligent in a rather alien way. I am inclined to think that the sheer number of people who have seen such creatures, and continue to see them despite repeated debunkings, tells me that they are likely to exist. I certainly consider them more plausible that other things large numbers of people believe in, you know, like religions, because religions don't carry the social censure that cryptid sightings do.

The other thing is that periodically hair samples have been recovered, and normally they prove to be bears, but sometimes the results have been unknown or human, but then there is a reason discovered why the study was flawed. This leads to the believers to cry cover-up and the scientists to cry conspiracy theorists, and nothing ever comes of it beyond impasse.
It's primate living in Australia, that is as iron clad as it gets.
Edit; a non-human primate of course
The pople only visits Australia, and not very frequently.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I don't think we are dealing with a typical cryptid however. I think they are full of tricks, such as infrasound, illusion and mimicry, and might well be very intelligent in a rather alien way. I am inclined to think that the sheer number of people who have seen such creatures, and continue to see them despite repeated debunkings, tells me that they are likely to exist.
Hmm, that argument stands for fairies, too. Are they likely to exist? It's important not to disregard the cultural context of these reports.

The world hide-and-seek champion claims are special pleading. They can't hide every mark upon the world as noted above. Infrasound? To communicate, well maybe, but I hope you don't mean the nonsensical "stun" claims that some Bigfooters use. This creep towards nearly supernatural qualities for cryptids is more obviously seen as an excuse to hold on to the belief, not great at justifying its reality.
 
Top