THE "WATER BLACKFELLA PICTURE": Controversy continues

The controversy over this blasted picture continues. Dale Drinnon wrote this afternoon: "I am very much surprised to see that the reference article on the "Water Blackfella" (Formerly "Bigfoot") photo still accepts it as genuine, despite the blog posting that says it is a hoax.

It IS a hoax, it is a model and from the apparent scale, it is no more than a few inches tall: a toy. The wonder of it all is that it continues to circulate. "

I agree with Dale totally, of course it's a hoax. And it's not even a particulaarly good one. So I went back to the posting in question and re-read it. Its a matter of semantics, but David Lee seems of the same opinion as us. Yes, its a hoax, and the link was to another story purporting to be the source of it.

Now Neil Arnold has steeped into the fray, and he reckons it was in Strange Magazine years ago, but will be looking for the original source for us.

I am actually finding this fascinating, and can't wait to see what happens next

"WATER BLACKFELLA": The story behind the picture

I have already posted this as a comment to the story about the unlikely Australian semi-aquatic BHM, but upon reflection it is too important a story to leave as a mere footnote, so I am republishing it as a post proper.
David Lee commented on the post about the "Water Blackfella?". He writes:

"A color version of this image has been passed off as a bigfoot photo for over a decade now. It seems to have fallen off the radar lately because it took me awhile to google up an example of it.

See this article here for a brief story of the hoax. "

Thank you for that, David.

Water Blackfella?

http://cryptozoologynews.blogspot.com/2009/04/another-urban-myth.html

It is certainly a hoax, but this is not what is interesting about the recent story (see CFZ newslink above) about a semi aquatic Australian BHM.

The picture has been kicking around for well over a year. I first saw it described as an "almasty" from somewhere in Kazakhstan early last summer when I was looking for images that I could pinch to illustrate the then forthcoming Russian Almasty expedition.

Now it has turned up in Australia, and it is supposedly a hominid called the "Water Blackfella". Now I have never heard this term, and a Google search could only come up with the one instance of it being used. But two interesting things come to mind.
Firstly, although we know thatAustralia is as hidebound with political correctness as we are in the UK, as this recent story shows, but it is hard to imagine any regional paper in the UK using such a term, although - much to my surprise - according to Wikipedia (which is, one has to admit, not the best and unbiased source for factual material, but was all that we had available):

Blackfella (also spelled blackfellah, black fella, or black fellah) is an informal term used in Australian English to refer to Indigenous Australians. It derives from "black fellow," referring to their dark skin. It is generally considered to be a neutral term, and is used by both white and black Australians.

But the most important thing about this story is, that although I have never heard the term before, it is strikingly similar to a South American term "Negroes of the Water" used to describe malicious small humaniform entities, including some described in Charles Bowen's seminal 1969 book The Humanoids which is sadly out of print.

Despite its irritating obsession with the idea that any non-human humaniform creature has to be from outer space, and a dreadful cover, it is an absolutely marvellous book which I wholeheartedly recommend to you all.

However "Water Blackfella" and "Negroes of the Water"? Coincidence? Probably, but an interesting one.

GUEST BLOGGER JAN EDWARDS: Neanderthals

I don’t know if anyone here has read “Neanderthal” by John Darnton. It’s a novel, and like all good novels, the author has done a hell-of-a-lot of research in its production. I have only just started reading it, and it will take me a while, because I have 4 other books in various stages of being read (does anyone else do this?)

In its first few chapters, it poses the question What Happened to Neanderthal Man?
Was it a major geological/astrological happening? If so, how come Homo sapiens lived and thrived when Homo Neanderthalensis (or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, depending on whether you think he was a sub-species of modern man or a separate species) was lost.

The novel dips into the realm of Jurassic Park with the “shock revelation” that pockets of Neanderthal still live on in the high mountains and out-of-reach places in the world, and that some reports of Bigfoot and his kin are mislabeled Neanderthals.

So what DID happen to him? Did modern man engage in genocide/war with Neanderthal? Are we a product of interbreeding with him? Could we have killed all the males and bred with the females, as is common with warring parties? – after all, humans are a violent, sex-mad species.
And suppose.... just for one moment .... that the author is at least partially right, and that pockets of Neanderthal live on. How long before we send missionaries to convert them? How long before they are dragged screaming and kicking into the 21st century? Get their slot on prime time TV? How long before we trade them weapons for drugs, or whatever? Or am I just cynical?

RICHARD AND GRAHAM ON THE STARCHILD..

Richard: In so far as I can see there is no cause what so ever to associate the 'Star Child' skull with 'aliens'. For a start despite it's differences it is still too much like a human skull to be the product of another planet's evolution. I call this the Star Trek syndrome after the dull, huimanoid aliens in this un-imaginative series (not a patch on Dr Who with it's genuinlely alien looking aliens). The chances of anything evoloving on another biospher that looks remotly human are astronomical. Most of the public have a very Victorian view of evolution, that it is constantly trying to improve organisms and make them more intelligent. In this system man is at the zenith with the 'lower' creatures such as mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and so on beneath them.

Evolutions just dosn't work like that. It adapts organisms to best fit in with the enviroment at that perticular time and place not to human ideas of what is best. A case in point are suropod dinosaurs. As their necks grew longer it became harder for their harts to pump blood up to the brain. As an adaption their brains grew smaller so they needed less blood. This is an invertion of how the public expect evolution to work.

I think the Star Child skull is much more important than any 'little grey man'. It think it may be the skull of a rare and unkown form of homonid, an unkown relative of modern man, perhapse one adapted to a nocturnal existance. The recent discovery of Homo floresiensis in Indoneasia shows that this is far from imposable.

The new world is full of legends of small, hair covered creatures that go by many different names. In Guyana we heard many stories of a race of tiny homonids all across the country. We met many witnesses to these creatures.

I think that what we have here may be evidence for one of our closest relatives and that is far more exciting than twice told tales of flying saucers and alien 'gods' hybridizing with mankind.

Graham: Although I didn't then (and don't now) believe that the "Starchild Skull" is of extraterrestrial origin, I was still interested in attending Lloyd Pye's lecture on the subject. While Pye explained how the skull was found in a mine near Chihuahua, central Mexico, our eyes kept returning to the skull, on a nearby table. Pye then revealed that what we were seeing was a replica, the original being considered too valuable to cart around as a stage prop. So any hippies or mystics who were hoping to experience a "cosmic vibe" from touching a mysterious artefact were out of luck. The main thing I learned is not to use cigarettes as measuring references when taking photographs. A graduated ruler would look a lot more professional!