About how the Yowie could have come to Australia in a remote time period, you just have to look at where the old world primates were in abundance [Indonesia-more there than Africa even) and the so called “Hobbit”,(Flores Island) and where Meganthropus, which was a subspecies of the so extinct hominid species, Homo erectus (which is who Rex Gilroy believes the evidence shows to be the true Classical form of the Yowie) and Java man are situated in relation to Australia and the land-bridges that existed!

That the Aborigines have dot and cave art thousands of years ago depicting the Yowie -in many forms, shows that it is no myth of modern times.

Did Australia have a primate evolution (that just didn’t take off) or; did, but millions of years ago they just disappeared, or was there a separate evolution whereby the Yowie and the other truly gigantic forms survived into the Mega-fauna era of Aborigines/Kooris and they were either killed into extinction by the Aborigines fighting back against them-as there legends persist in stating, or that many of them just went deeper and deeper into Australia’s remote areas. Or Could the gigantic forms be evolved versions of Gigantopithecines and the Yowie evolved Versions of Java Man, or as the Aborigines stated they were always here.

If true this would explain why the Mega fauna went extinct, at such a short period after the Aborigines/Kooris came to Australia, where these gigantic forms and the human sized Yowie and the pygmies were the culprits of the extinction of much of the Mega fauna.

Australia has some of the worlds last unknown mountain forests, where hardly any non Aboriginal/Koori has ever trodden. Some of these areas where these sightings are, there is bush that in the middle of the day in blue skies no light penetrates the deep covering of trees.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that certain geographical limits do exist and that we should take the evidence accordingly. For instance, hairy hominid reports in Hawaii are not going to be high up on the scale of credibility. There are certain circumstances where we can pretty safely say that it is highly improbable.

I just think that we don’t understand enough about how Australia fits into the evolutionary past and distribution of primate and human life at this point to dismiss Yowie reports sight unseen.

Also, look at how convergent evolution has produced marsupials that resemble in many ways mammals found in other parts of the world. Perhaps something similar to primates, filling the same niches, could have cropped up in Australia at some point. It wouldn’t even necessarily have to be exactly like a large primate, just “primate-like,” to account for the Yowie phenomena. Regardless of the fossil record, we know how that goes, don’t we?

Too many mysteries, too many unanswered questions for me to dismiss Yowie reports completely.

I will say that you are very correct. Whereas finding sasquatch would shake up the world of biology, zoology, anthropology, and primatology, the discovery of an actual Yowie would turn it completely on its head and proceed to pile drive it into the ground.

But I’m interested in the possibilities all the same, and as long as Yowie evidence keeps popping up, I’ll wonder.

It doesn’t make sense to me. But I’m not sure the Aborigines do, given how they “have to” have gotten there and how the alleged time frame for that seems relatively brief given how well they have adapted to varied surroundings. Yet there it is. They are there, however and whenever it happened. And so is the yowie, if it’s real.

It seems to me that every time we find something new about humans in the fossil record, it pushes the complexity of human evolution up, and the timeline backwards. We may be making a lot of comfortable assumptions; and adding to those that there is no way a higher primate gets to Australia.

But there is the evidence. And you are right: drop it for the yowie, and you drop it for the sasquatch.

And there it is. One thing is for certain: the yowie will force a whole lot more rethinking of things long taken for granted than either the sasquatch or the yeti.

To be fair, the authors even acknowledge this issue, trying to present the facts and possible reasons in a rational way. Any way you cut it, though, it does seem a little far fetched that a primate of this type would be found in Australia. Nothing like that should be there. Yet the sightings reports and other evidence like “tree biting” and whatnot are stubbornly consistent and seem worthy of some consideration. Something is going on, for sure. Whether that is a large primate or not, I don’t know.

I suppose the implausibility of it is what attracts me somewhat. I am a sucker for biological anomalies (both with documented animals and cryptids), so the Yowie is fascinating to try and wrap my head around, to speculate about.

So while the sasquatch may be more plausible from a geographic and biological point of view, with the Yowie we are still left with tracks, sightings reports, and other circumstantial evidence that many times seem just as reliable as anything found for the sasquatch. It’s a conundrum to be sure.

Can we throw out that type of evidence? And if so, what does that mean for similar evidence concerning the sasquatch? Are we going to adopt an arbitrary system for accepting or denying evidence? I just wonder if it is really a good idea to dismiss the Yowie completely based on our perceived geographical limits, when something could be at work that we just do not understand yet. There may be factors at work that we just do not have a grasp of yet.

So am I skeptical? Yes, of course. Am I going to toss everything about the Yowie out of the window while keeping an open mind on similar evidence concerning the sasquatch? I don’t think that would be good idea. The case is open for me.

But.

Given that I have read a number of reports like this one; given that I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of how the Aborigines got to Oz, which in my opinion leaves the door open for numerous scenarios for primates in general getting there; and given my own frequently-stated assertion that one can never pronounce on the present based on the past, meaning please don’t talk about the fossil record until it is complete…well, the more I hear about this, the more intrigued I get, and the more I start to sneakingly suspect that the yowie may indeed be a primate.

Norman-uk: the “freeze” behavior with passing autos is a feature of many sasquatch reports.