Comments on: New Yowie Photo: Racism & Fakery Again

By: Yowie

Yowie — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 04:46:30 +0000

Coming from Australia myself

Black fella means black man. The aboriginal people call us white fella’s and we call them black fella’s. There is NO RACISM whatsoever about this.

Is anyone offended here when they are called white or a white man/women or a white fella? Anyone at all?

The aboriginal people welcome us to call them black fella’s, and for heavens sakes, our prime minister and just about everyone on tv refers to them at some time or another as black fella’s.

Its not a racial slur, its just a point of fact. If a cat is white its a white cat, if a cat is black its a black cat end of story.

From your argument, you are saying we are racist for calling them black fella’s when every aboriginal calls us white fellas, so who are you actually calling racist?

Political correctness has just gone absolutely crazy and when in this country we aren’t allowed to have Santa walking down the street saying Ho Ho Ho anymore because it sounds like hes calling women Hoe Hoe Hoe, you know its people like those above who look too much into things and take everything out of context.

Thank you very much, goodbye.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:14:07 +0000

I put up a picture of grass by a river that is easily 7-8 feet tall and still there’s a problem? If you want to talk about scale, I think you need to look at the fur/hair.
It looks in proportion to a large creature- not a little toy dinosaur model.
Now I think the anatomy looks suspect too but, it is an odd angle. And I’ve read reports that say the creature has huge shoulders, no neck and a proportionately small looking head…So with these in mind this picture gains more respect. I still think it could be a guy in a costume tho. Maybe the same guy in Crooks film-he has the same paunchyness. I DO NOT think it’s a little model.

By: Alligator

Alligator — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:52:28 +0000

The fakery of this photo has long been well established by ardent crytptozoologists so I am a little surprised at what seems to be defense of it by some. For example, look at the duckweed (Lemna minor) on the water. Considering this hominid is supposed to be 7 – 8 feet tall, that’s awfully big duckweed. Also the body proportions are out of whack and quite frankly, it just looks like a model stuck next to a creek bank. Look at the water – calm, not roiled where it is standing. It seems pretty obvious. It looks like the pictures we used to take of toy dinosaurs in a “natural” setting as kids.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:21:25 +0000

Picture of giant grass by river.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:06:49 +0000

I don’t see any Acorn, nor am I impressed by the size of the grass blades. I’ve been in swampy areas next to rivers and lakes with huge wild grass. I’m not sure what it’s called but it is easily a few feet long.
I think the head on the critter looks too small and the shoulders look as if they are padded or something. But, the angle of it looking up at the photographer could have caused this to look funny.

The light/reflections on the water look very consistent with the morning mists I’ve seen on rivers and ponds while out fishing. Especially in small inlets off of rivers where the water has gathered and gotten fairly deep.

Furthermore, Anytime Ben Radford says something is a hoax it makes me think it might NOT be.

His reasoning’s are usually as flimsy as the cardboard cut-out he swam around with in Lake Champlain that one time.

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:02:02 +0000

I’ve talked to a few model-making friends of mine about how hard it would be for a person to make one of these things from scratch. The answer: easy.

This thing could’ve started life as a G.I. Joe.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:02:38 +0000

The photo that is in black and white is being used by the hoaxers in Australia, which obviously is a b&w version of the color one from the USA known as the Wild Creek photo. “Yowie” and “Australia” are not even part of the equation here, so to state that “there are no trees in Australia with 4 foot long leaves” makes no sense to even mention, does it?

By: crapple

crapple — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:43:16 +0000

I dont like posting more than once in a row on here, but there was something I had missed:

look at the algae- it would have to be considerably larger than any known species, each algae would have to be the size of a baseball

there is also what appears to be a acorn to the right and behind the “yowie”, which would also have to be abnormally large to match the picture

By: crapple

crapple — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:31:37 +0000

if you look to the left of it, there is a leaf, which proves it false.

that leaf would have to be about 3-4 feet long to match up with the “yowie” in the picture, and I am very sure there are no trees in australia with 4 foot long leaves similar to that.

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:05:35 +0000

Has anybody ever showed this pic to Hollywood gorilla experts Rick Baker and Bob Burns yet?