And like you, I tend to, well, not discount utterly but hold back for future consideration, anything for which evidence isn’t available. I also look for the evidence to happen frequently, and consistently.

(e.g. One report of a sasquatch shape-shifting, or one report from a Lansdowne pub, or even only one report from a Canberra garage, aren’t going to be more, to me, than interesting stories. Hey, could have happened. But I’m not spending good money on chasing it. Even though I may have no evidence that the person making the report is a nut, it’s simply insufficient to go on. You can’t just toss it. But you won’t mount a search on it, until you start seeing it a lot in a given place.)

There are direct eyewitness accounts of sasquatch apparently disabling prey with a loud roar, similar to the tiger’s inferred use of infrasound. Now, there aren’t many of these. (I am directly aware of two.) But eyewitness accounts of animals actually capturing prey are rare even for known species, so you wouldn’t expect many. And, of course, if infrasound is causing a hallucination, a source needs to be present, and reasonable to speculate. Many encounters I have read in conjunction with the “fear reaction” don’t seem to be the kind of thing one would hallucinate; and they seem consistent with other reports, something I wouldn’t expect from a hallucination.

What it comes down to is this: there isn’t much one can consider “hot” in this search, other than that a lot of people appear to be having consistent experiences. (Most of them, granted, not in their garages. But a number of those – garages; front porches; driveways; front landings; back doors; bedroom windows; chicken/rabbit coops; hog pens – definitely.)

In short: if a large primate exists in Oz, the kind of behavior documented in this, granted ONE, report is possible, and not at all unreasonable, given what we know about primates and about wild animals in general.

I’m always careful not to let incredulity get in the way of evidence. If the yowie is real, it’s real whether we think it is or not.

As to Bigfoot and infrasound, I have heard of the hypothesis that you mentioned. It would not be completely far fetched since there are already many animals well documented as using infrasound for a variety of reasons. I will not discount that notion.

However, with regards to considering hallucinations and infrasound, when looking at the possibilities, it is important to consider the known versus the unknown.

What do we know? We know that infrasound exists. We know that it causes a variety of physical and psychological effects, including hallucinations. We also know that it is produced from natural sources. These are facts, they are not in dispute.

Now let’s look at what we don’t know. We don’t know for sure if Bigfoot or in this case, Yowie, exist. If they do exist, we don’t know if they use infrasound. If they do use infrasound, we don’t know to what extent, or if they produce it in the quantity necessary to cause the symptoms I have already discussed. They may, sure, but we don’t know that. We don’t have the data, and therefore cannot completely rely on that as an explanation. It is a hypothesis.

Now considering what we know and don’t know, it seems to me that it may not be a good idea to completely write off hallucinations as the source of some sightings. We cannot dismiss that possibility. And if some sightings are caused by hallucinations, then that means we have to be very careful of which ones we consider to be authentic and which ones are not. Accepting a hallucinatory sighting as real can muddy the waters and give us innaccurate information about any possible real animal that may be there.

So really, I’m just being careful, as any scientist has to be. Does the Yowie or Sasquatch use infrasound? Sure, maybe. But we don’t know and until we do, we can’t just throw out the data that says naturally produced infrasound can cause hallucinations and feelings of fear and unease.

Throwing out the known in favor of the unknown is never a good idea. The unknown may pan out to be exactly like you say, and for that reason should be explored. But I’d say let’s not chuck out the possibility that indeed hallucinations may sometimes be the source of a percentage of sightings of the unknown.

This is not a blanket dismissal of any kind. You know I would not do that. But it is something in my mind that had to be considered.

“If that makes me ‘unscientific’ then so be it. I don’t claim to be a scientist in the first place. I’m just me. No more, no less.”

And this makes you, um, an expert? “I will not consider this. By the way, I don’t know what I am talking about.”

Imagine doing this on a physics website. “There are limits to what I will consider. Quarks? Relativity? PUH-LEEZE. Oh, by the way, I’m not a physicist.”

The only people who can understand these concepts are physicists. So don’t tell me they’re real. We don’t know that. All we know is that physicists say they are. You ever seen a picture of one? We pretty much go, OK, guys, we have to go with you on this, because you are the ones with the advanced degrees. We sure don’t go to international physics conferences and say, cut out the drugs, you idiots!

If you took the above tack on a hard-science forum populated by hard scientists, the mild form of the response would be: come back when you know something, sonny. And they would, of course, be right. You can contribute nothing to the conversation but braying ignorance of what they know. After the initial response, you would either be studiously ignored or blocked.

This is proper. And cryptozoology has to start understanding this if it is going to be taken seriously as a science. Braying ignorance of evidence can’t be catered to. I can appreciate the proponents’ problem: they have to bring the braying ignoramuses in the scientific mainstream over to their way of thinking, by first, hats in hand, bowing and scraping and slowly winning over the truly skeptical to actually consider the evidence.

Me? I don’t have to do that. This is good cop/bad cop. And as someone who knows how scientists have to work if science is to work, I feel free to bad-cop anyone who comes on here just to scoff. Based on everything we know about animals, it is irrational to simply scoff at this account unless you have in hand evidence that tells you that this did not happen. Animals do this, once in a while. If the yowie exists, it probably does too. Done.

There is only one thing keeping cryptids from being discovered: the braying ignorance that keeps science from touching the topic with a ten-foot pole. This has to be called out; because otherwise responsible people – like scientists, and I’m presuming without evidence you – are doing it, and they shouldn’t be.

Here is the only position a true scientist can hold on any unconfirmed phenomenon, including the Archangels’ Conference that met in your kitchen last night:

Show me the evidence.

And if you dispute me on this, you may just lack the chops required to make a positive contribution to the discussion.

Just sayin’. (And I’m right.)

Actually, you have to come off of something. Which is a position that, subjected to common sense, simply doesn’t scan.

“Come off it” is what scientists say four years before they all universally accept what was “come off it” four years ago. It’s a close-minded attitude. That ain’t science.
“A ‘crypid’ [that’s crypTid] animal wouldn’t stay a ‘cryptid’ and uncatalogued for very long if it turned up in suburban garages. What evidence is there to back this assertion up? It’s called common logic and common sense.”

No. IT IS NOT. You say you’re not a scientist. You certainly don’t think like one.

(For example, I just told you there is no evidence to back up a single assertion you made; and any scientist worth his spectacles knows that ‘common logic and common sense’ don’t explain anything in the universe; only evidence does. Yours, please.)

These things aren’t being routinely seen – at least not routinely reported – from suburban garages. Nor are most wild animals. So you wouldn’t expect a slew of reports. But anybody who has watched Youtube more than twice knows that wild animals, all kinds, occasionally pay unexpected visits to civilization. If this thing is like any primate, it does too. (Like, you know, the sasquatch, and the yeti, are frequently reported to do. Oh, you don’t read the evidence.) There is no evidence – you clearly don’t read the evidence, do you? did I say that? – that this animal is any different from any other primate, any other wild animal, in its elusiveness. Except for one thing: you are a nut if you saw one. This guy sees one, in yes a rather unlikely location, and nobody believes him. You don’t; and yet you say that if this thing did this it would be catalogued. Well, common sense should tell you that’s wrong; and that’s what I told you. Don’t be silly. IF NO ONE BELIEVES YOU, NO PROOF. jEveryone in Canberra could have one building model airplanes in his garage; and if no one came by to check it out, and no one ever does, nothing. I have evidence for my claim: no cryptid hairy hominoid has been confirmed by science. Yours, please.

Thinking that this sighting could potentially have merit is not True Belief or gullibility or anything other than noting that, since otherwise sane people don’t seem to run around blurting this stuff out, well, maybe there could be something to it, and you file it until you have more.

See? Common sense. Don’t worry. I’m waiting for the mainstream of scientists to catch up, too.

You could just read my post again, because I essentially re-posted it. Don’t worry. I can wait.

And as to

“How far do you take your position? Do you personally equally consider a bigfoot sighting in the British countryside every bit as much as a bigfoot sighting in the countryside of British Columbia?”

I say: Well, how many reports are there from Britain? Do they appear consistent? (I know the answer.) You’re going to have to go somewhat farther to convince me there, now aren’t you.

See how science looks at stuff? Would be nice if scientists – and lay people who should know better – remembered it. If you don’t want to learn something from people who know something, grasshopper, what the HELL are you doing here? If I thought like you, I would never come to a crypto site, because, well, it’s all crap, right?

BTW: there aren’t nine (major) planets anymore. Because when some nobody amateur said: hey, I think I have a new planet here…

…SOMEBODY CHECKED IT OUT.

How far do you take your position? Do you personally equally consider a bigfoot sighting in the British countryside every bit as much as a bigfoot sighting in the countryside of British Columbia?

There are limits to what I will consider. Amazing cryptid large primates in suburban garages of Canberra aren’t one of them.

If that makes me ‘unscientific’ then so be it. I don’t claim to be a scientist in the first place. I’m just me. No more, no less.

Oh come off it.

A ‘crypid’ animal wouldn’t stay a ‘cryptid’ and uncatalogued for very long if it turned up in suburban garages. What evidence is there to back this assertion up? It’s called common logic and common sense.

There is a big difference between accepting a cryptid sighting in a remote and seldom visited location compared to a suburban house garage. In this sense the ‘context’ is completely different and there is little correlation between the two, otherwise what next? Do we have to equally consider sasquatch sightings at a bus stop?

Pulease!!

Which could account for some encounters that – at least as to the possible cryptic source – aren’t hallucinations.

Not that this can be proven at present. But the anecdotal evidence for it (including, apparently, the unreasoning-fear reaction) appears not inconsequential, being reported in conjunction with other frequently reported earmarks of encounter.

I just don’t think that hallucination, or hoax, or any other false positive, can be considered significant discreditors of the volume and depth of the evidence. Not, that is, unless a significant number of false positives can be proven on followup of evidence that looks promising. Which doesn’t seem to be happening.

And yes, that there could be an unaccounted-for primate in Oz is starting to me at least to seem less and less farfetched. It could be.

Infrasound is interesting in that it has been shown in several studies to produce a wide variety of both physical and psychological effects in humans. Some of the effects include feelings of fear, sorrow, panic, anxiety, depression, and nausea, among others. It also can produce rather convincing hallucinations, since the eye operates at a level of around 18Hz and can be disrupted by the lower frequencies.

Adding to this hallucinagenic effect is that since the person recieving the infrasound cannot actually hear the sound producing the symptoms, they may be more likely to start filling in the blanks of what they expect to see, driven by the brain’s need to try to make some sense out of the inexplicable feedback.

Infrasound isn’t exclusive to man made sources either. Many natural sources abound, such as atmospheric phenomena such as storms, earthquakes, waves, wind interacting with certain structures, volcanic activity, and many others. Some places may even act as sort of natural amplifiers of infrasound, producing these sounds at higher levels. This could explain the otherwordly qualities of some mystical sites, and even the increased numbers of sightings reports found in certain areas. Many animals also use infrasound for a wide range of purposes. Elephants use it to communicate, birds use it in migrations, and tigers produce it in their roars, which may explain why the sound can cause such a deep dread in those that hear it.

The feelings of dread or unease produced by certain infrasound frequencies are so well known that they have sometimes been exploited in some music in order to instill these feelings in listeners.

Many Yowie sightings, and indeed Sasquatch sightings, are often precluded by, or go hand in hand with a profound feeling of unease or dread. Witnesses often report things like feeling sudden fear or having their hair stand up on end, all effects also associated with infrasound. Many Yowie sightings are concentrated into certain areas that may also be high level sources of infrasound, and there are sightings that have occurred during unusual weather activity, which is also a known source of potential infrasound.

Now before anyone here starts railing on me, let me state that I am by no means dismissing all such accounts as the workings of infrasound. Far from it. I am only trying to illustrate that it it is indeed a known factor in hallucinations and other psychological and physical effects, and so may be at work in some accounts. I’m saying that hallucinations should not be entirely dismissed as a possible factor in some cases

The effects of infrasound are not a result of skeptics grasping at straws, but rather have been demonstrably shown to be quite real. This is not something that can be swept under the rug and scoffed at either, and I would be remiss in looking at these things equally from all angles if I didn’t at least look at the possible effects of this phenomena on some sightings reports.

In short, while not a total explanation by any means, I feel that hallucinations as a possible factor in some sightings is a possibility.

Sort of cut the end of the sentence off there. Sorry about that.