Recent Yowie encounter in SE Queensland

Truckie.  Mid morning. Coming around a bend. Thought a boulder had rolled onto the road.  Boulder stood up.  Big. Gave the truck a shove. Grunted. Took off into the bush

Truckie got a good look at it from the navel up. When asked if it was animal or human, truckie's impression was that it was an animal

LINK
Youtube

I honestly think that its just an elaboration (exaggeration) of an 'every day person', that has mannerisms/expressions that give the impression  of something worse. Really just a big drunk guy who hasn't been home from weeks on the grog.

The other thought is that it is a relic 'Hominid' species.
You could say, Australia's version of the more older San Bushman, compared to the Bantu - though San Bushman are not hominids.
If the Yowie are relic Hominids living in the densest forests and bushlands. They probably wouldn't number more than 50 across the country.

How incredible that would be - that such Hominids can deal with the extremes of the natural environment, unlike us  - or even the Aboriginals/San Bushmen. These Hominids only... scavenge. Never cook, use tools - they are the 'animal' in us.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 29^th, 2019 at 9:17am:


Why would it not be credible?

Ever been required to provide a witness statement to police? 

How about when a couple of dozen random strangers are required to provide witness statements to police involving the same incident?

Ever been called as a witness in a trial?
How about when several witnesses are called to provide testimony at a trial relating to the same incident?

We either trust our fellow man to provide what they believe to be their honest testimony, or we do not.  If we do not, it's time we scrapped all witness statements and saved ourselves a lot of time and money

Early colonists encountered unknown creatures, neither man nor animal.  These were reported in news and via word of mouth going back to earliest white settlement.  Aborigines of various tribes confirmed the creatures existed and claim the creatures were always known to Aborigines.  Not all the creatures were large. Not all were clothed in heavy coats of hair and they were reported as being, in colour, from light grey to white and through the spectrum to dark brown, black.  The Aborigines claimed to fight them and did not regard them as benign

In the early days of white Australia, tales of kangaroos and other animals unique to Australia, were not believed.  The platypus was widely considered an amateurish hoax. Were those who'd reported the platypus and kangaroo lying, inventing or imagining those creatures?

Life has always been tough for the rank and file and was particularly so for Australia's early settlers.  No electricity or running water, no supermarkets or ready-packed meat and food generally.  Land had to be cleared with muscle and pick. The climate sapped energy and destroyed crops. Children were born in rough slab huts. Water drawn from the creek. When they dropped onto their beds at night, they slept the sleep of the exhausted.  Religion and promise of a happy afterlife was all they had to look forward to.  They were practical people, of necessity. Those who couldn't survive didn't last.  With bandicoots, snakes, lizards, exotic birds, unknown insect life and a multitude of strange creatures and unexplored terrain, did the early settlers (and those who followed) need yet another strange creature -- the Hairy Man or Yowie (travelling via a multitude of names)?


The earliest known inhabitants of this land, along with people of today, occasionally claim to see creatures unknown to them.  They invariably report how unsettling the experience was.  Many say they had no knowledge or interest in 'Yowies' prior to their experience.  Yet they drive vehicles, raise families, hold down jobs, are regarded as 'solid, respectable, down to earth' individuals.  They may have provided witness statements to police which comprised evidence later utilized by police in the solving of a case or apprehension of a criminal.  They may have given testimony in court which contributed to the acquittal or conviction of another person.  Obviously police and courts, employers, families, neighbours, friends, etc. believe them to be credible.  So when (and why) are we supposed to decide their reporting of a creature dubbed the Yowie is not credible? Remember, those who reported sighting a platypus were considered to be hoaxers and liars

There are thousands of witness reports re: Yowies. Under different names, they are reported from all corners of the globe

Our legal system relies on witness reports. So do religions

If twenty people are saying roughly the same thing, I'm going to believe there's some substance to it

On the other hand, I didn't buy the US govt's claims about 9/11

PZ547 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2019 at 4:11pm:


But not one clear photo (which is remarkable considering that everyone has mobile phones and cc cameras and dashcams are everywhere)
No Yowie remains have ever been found
No evidence of a Yowie population (which would be required if they were to breed)


PZ547 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2019 at 4:11pm:


So you believe a handful of people who say they have seen Yowies but you dismiss the thousands of eyewitnesses who saw 9/11........that is truly bizarre

PZ547 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2019 at 4:11pm:


Do they though? From my understanding the cops also want forensic evidence

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 8:42am:



Not that long ago that police had to rely on witness statements.  As in, before fingerprinting, blood-typing and way before dna profiling, forensic analysis

Plunge our technically-advanced world into chaos and once again, police will be back to asking, 'What did he/she look like? Can you remember what he/she was wearing?  Did they have a weapon?  Which way did they go?  If you see them again, get in touch'

Even IN our technically-advanced world, people are tried and convicted for murder without a body & without a scrap of forensic evidence.  It's known as 'circumstantial' evidence and that is basically the police's conviction, all t hings considered, that Bloggs murdered Smith, based primarily on witness statements

and you know all this