On the 31st of August, 2014, I started a discussion on a mysteries forum entitled Yowie: Bridging the Believer-Skeptic Divide: Can it be done? with the aim of documenting “my progress (or lack thereof) in bridging the believer-skeptic divide within the Yowie-research community.”
In early February, 2017, I attended the Australian Cryptozoological Research Organisation (ACRO – now defunct) event at Jimna, Queensland, and met some other Yowie enthusiasts and had a lovely time.
At the end of 2018 I also attended the Australian Yowie Project’s (AYP – formerly the Australian Ape Project) “Town Hall Meeting” (copied from the TV show Finding Bigfoot) at Nana Glenn, NSW. I met some of the same and some more Yowie enthusiast, and also had a lovely time. A breakthrough had been made when the AYP host informally promised future collaboration with me – particularly in-the-field. Finally, I would get to see and experience exactly what these Yowie researchers were – would I see the Yowie or would I remain unconvinced?
Then COVID-19 happened and is still happening.
In my part of the world it meant lock downs and restrictions on activities and gatherings. When I hadn’t heard from the host of AYP
in over a year I decided to make contact via email. My reception was frosty, to say the least. I couldn’t figure out why nor were
any explanations forthcoming when I asked.
Since that time nothing has changed. People in the Yowie-research world who were previously
friendly in person have become hostile over social media. Today, as of the 31st of March, 2021, nearly 7 years after beginning the
quest to unite Yowie-research with scepticism I acknowledge that I have failed. The believer-skeptic divide remains a chasm when it
comes to the Yowie. However, now I think that I have uncovered the reason for their hostility – my criticisms over a particular piece
of Yowie evidence: the photograph of the supposed “tree-sitter Yowie” which was subsequently made into an impressive 3-dimensional
bust.
To be clear, I have no problem with the 2nd step of the process -- from an “enhanced close-up”
to 3-dimensional bust. I think that the bust is an amazing creation – a first of its kind from the world of Yowie-research. The process
was reasonably well documented and the finished product seems reasonably accurate. Good job.
The problem, however, lies in the 1st
step of the process – from untouched original to enhanced close-up. How did a close-up of an out-of-focus ambiguous shape in the background
of the original picture become a recognisable face complete with eyes and visible gritted teeth?
Well, after his speech at Nana Glenn, the AYP host admitted that the program he used to enhance the untouched original picture was AfterFocus. That sounds like something that may somehow sharpen a picture’s focus after being taken but a quick online search revealed
that it does no such thing. AfterFocus creates an added blur around a selected area of focus. It does not sharpen or enhance what
is already there.
Note that the “Smart focus” referred only helps the user to quickly identify the prime subject of interest before adding background
blur. It does not enhance or sharpen the subject’s clarity.
So, the question remains: How did a close-up of an
out-of-focus ambiguous shape in the background of the original picture become a recognisable face complete with eyes and teeth? Particularly
when the program used to “enhance” the ambiguous subject only adds blur instead of creating sharper focus? I don’t know. It seems
suspicious – like someone is taking the Mickey.
However, if the process was legitimate then all AYP has to do is replicate it – applyAfterFocus to the original picture while documenting step-by-step exactly what modifications were made. Until that point, deliberate
fabrication is the most likely explanation.
While the 3-D bust of the Yowie is the fantastic creation (by artist Buck Buckingham)
from an innovative approach it is a work of fiction rather than a true representation of what was witnessed on that particular day
back in 2014. All it would take to prove this wrong is for AYP to replicate the process and document how it was done -- a step that
perhaps should have been included from the beginning instead of being simply glossed over.
So, fellow Yowie-researchers, do not be
angry at me for challenging the validity of this much-admired piece of Yowie evidence. Raise your game instead. Attempting to accurately
depict witness reports is a positive step but it remains to be shown exactly how the “face” was created in the first place. Finally,
be thankful that someone is taking your claims and evidence seriously enough to investigate them in a bit more depth.
There are supposedly 3 pictures in the “tree sitter” sequence which shed greater light on the original.
The 2nd pic of the sequence was not released by AYP due to it being “too blurred to be used.”
The third pic (left) in the sequence
taken 15 seconds after the 1st pic and 10m closer to the apparent subject:
Below: this time with labels to identify how
AYP interpret it:
I have to admit that I find the AYP commentary to be highly sensational and imaginative but in no way representative of the what is depicted in the photographic evidence itself. Unfortunately, this is not a stand-alone instance. Further examples of supposed Yowie photographs from AYP show a similar pattern of pareidolia + imaginative storytelling are on the right. Apparently,AfterFocus was applied to all of AYP's supposed Yowie photographs but it only worked on the original "tree sitter" pic. Hopefully, a demonstration will be forthcoming.
Note: click pics to go to original links.