Comments on: Yowie Photo

By: berrojas71

berrojas71 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:07:49 +0000

A very unprofessional investigation. A second photo shot under similar conditions could answer alot of questions. If Mr. Compton truly believes this to be a Yowie he should post evidence to support this, not just one photo that we can easily matrix. As much as I’d like to believe Mr. Compton’s claims I can not simply take his word for it.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:16:49 +0000

gkingdano:

Not so fast there, pardner. I educated myself; you can do the same. Start with these two sites (after you read everything that’s on here):

bfro.net
texasbigfoot.org

Those are two of the best sites out there (Matt Moneymaker notwithstanding) when it comes to the sasquatch and science.

They’ll answer all your questions. They’ve sure answered mine. All of the field biologists in North America could have seen a sasquatch while doing research. And as long as every single one of them comes back saying: I’ll never say a thing, because I might ruin my career….well, everybody will stay in the dark.

(Including the Fortune 500. )

Yet ANOTHER thing scoftics don’t think about. As long as biologists go out looking, specifically, for anything OTHER than the sasquatch, they won’t come back with any information ABOUT the sasquatch. Because human nature says so.

Lesson over; journey begun. Have fun.

By: gkingdano

gkingdano — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:57:41 +0000

TO DWA: Thanks for YOUR education. Can you lead me to ANY sites/photos of bigfoot living places that you say are out there? Also as you said Fortune 500 “knows gold” so if they are not after them they must not exist. Name ANY network, TV station Newspaper Talkshow , ETC that would NOT pay hundreds of thousands of $$$$$ for the EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!! Any “sports equipment” used would want to get in on the advertisement of that THEIR stuff helped bring it down and out to the real world. Trial lawyers would JUMP on the side of the person who bags one just for the world-wide Coverage ( and of course a “small” share of the $. Just because a lot of people “see” them does not make them real; Lots of people see trolls and fairies and stuff with any photos so they must be real too!!

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:18:15 +0000

Good points, DWA.

Could be a lot of things. Too indistinct.

Good discussion, though.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:45:58 +0000

“Tease shots” like this are doing nothing for the field. Have you ever seen a hard scientist, on a hard search, holding up a mini-shot of a photo for a mini-er shot of that photo? You don’t usually hear Peep One until the evidence is in and the verdict delivered on a new species. The exceptions prove the rule (in the old “test” sense of the word “prove”). But they are exceptions.

I cannot tell what that is. Nor apparently can anyone else. (We can’t, apparently, even agree on whether it’s a “giant” or a “mini” Yowie.) It is premature; the “announcement” is premature; the….well of COURSE. There’s always some want-to-believers out there who will pay cash money for something short of proof.

Maybe Mr. Compton can get an autograph trap out there so this Yowie can sign a photo. THAT’ll sell.

By: noobfun

noobfun — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:45:07 +0000

Koala with mange

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:44:22 +0000

couple things: 1) I must agree with most everyone. If this is a real photo, why hold it up to have someone take another picture of it? If it is an original (in the non-hoax way) then scan it in at extremely high resolution so we can study it. 2) this picture raises a few questions (if authentic) about what a Yowie actually looks like. Since I have been following any reports here (3 to 4 years now I believe) all photos that looked real enough usually had tall and skinny things. There was that one video by the sci-fi makeup artist that turned out to be a hoax–the “Yowie” in that was of some size (but that was a hoax). This picture the creature in question looks rather thick and hopefully is crossing a stream or something, otherwise it isn’t very tall. I can kinda see its left knee bent ( a little), but if this thing is on dry ground, then its waist is longer than its legs.

By: Kronprinz_adam

Kronprinz_adam — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:05:12 +0000

Great news!! And very well done, yowie researchers!
But I think we all want to take a closer look to the photo!!

By: Ouroborus Jay

Ouroborus Jay — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:09:11 +0000

In this day and age, how hard is it to scan a photo?

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:48:30 +0000

It should be pointed out that the book cover in Loren’s article shows the tall variety of yowie (around 8 to 10 feet) but the photograph by Paul seems to show the short variety (about 3 to 4 feet). They’re not the same thing.