62 replies to this topic

[Sundew]

Goodall would no doubt like to find a new primate species as primates have been her life's work, however wishing does not prove existence.

Again, I usually go back to the fact that we likely have corpses of all known animals in N. America as roadkill, including large and/or secretive ones: moose, deer, elk, black bear (and probably brown bear in Alaska), otters, skunk, bobcat, cougar, alligators, snakes and turtles of all kinds, even hawks and eagles. We know they exist AND we have bodies along the highway. If it walks, crawls or flies and doesn't understand what a highway or an automobile is, then eventually it WILL get run over. However, I suppose that if an animal is so afraid of man, lives in extremely remote areas or at high-altitude and/or is extremely rare it MIGHT escape such a fate. For example, you probably don't find any (or many) polar bears that have been run over, given their habitat. It would be ironic indeed if bigfoot's existence is proven by a "Harry and the Henderons" encounter with a car.

We may have had a near miss with the police dashboard cam "bigfoot" sighting in Georgia, unless that has proven to be a fake, I have not followed up on it.

[Crazydad72]

I Beleaved that they existed when i was a teenager and was conviced it was only a matter of time before a group was discovered somewhere. Now that im older and have read alot about them and the sighting and fakes i really do not think they do and that kinda makes me sad.

[OverSword]

Myles, on 03 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

defin
I disagree with many experts in many fields.
I don't believe bigfoot exists. Dr.Meldrum said they definitely do exist. I have a right to say I think he's wrong on the subject. Also there are many qualified experts that do not believe bigfoot exists.  I'm not alone.   Bigfoot believers find one qualified expert and rally around him.
It's Ok that he believes in bigfoot.  I don't like his statement.

He did not ever state they definetly exist.  I don't know why you would be so resistant to enjoying an interesting interview.  I myself think it's beyond all applyable logic to believe ET's are visiting us.  That doesn't keep me from watching Ancient Aliens, a pretty entertaining show.

The only reason I myself am open to the possibility of Sasquatch being an actual animal is because in 1978 I discovered prints while hiking with a friend.  You could tell these were not made by static fake feet because as it would go up steeper sections you could see variations in the toes as they would bend, actually behind the toes in a joint that doesn't really corescpond with human feet, and dig in for extra traction.  There were well over 100 tracks in soft mud all clear and easy to see.  Didn't have plaster of paris as we were just out for a short hike in some foothills, not hunting bigffoots.  You can believe they were made by a prankster but where we were walking there would be no reason to lay down fakes as we were well off of any regularly used trail, if you can call any trail around there regularly used back then.

[howdydodat]

So she hangs out with monkeys while reading about "bigfoot"... at least she acknowledges there is no evidence. Not sure why she bothers acknowledging the possibility of "bigfoot".

[howdydodat]

OverSword, on 03 October 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

I myself think it's beyond all applyable logic to believe ET's are visiting us.

More likely than a group of bigfoots hiding out in the woods. Unless they can live for 1,000 years, they have to mate to reproduce which means there would be multiple and we can't even find one. I'll take my chances on alien life that has technology to travel here blending in over giant bigfoods being smart enough to hide and never be seen. And no, I don't think there are aliens here. Wouldn't be surprised if there was life on another planet somewhere though.

[Junior Chubb]

Its always interesting when somebody who's opinion holds a bit of weight comes out with a Bigfoot related statement. I think this time round though the statement does more to highlight the problems the Chimpanzee is facing rather than bringing any substance to the Bigfoot debate, but maybe that is just what she intended...

or maybe it was just a passing comment after being questioned on the subject at a charity event.

[keninsc]

Myles, on 03 October 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

A blanket statement is not an intelligent remark when it comes to this topic.  Most people with a background of being with animals and a background in engineering can create fake footprints that could fool people.   He said "could not have been faked and were definetly made by a living animal".  This is a false statement.

He has been trumped.

Nope, there's what I called your ego on, don't run to another post and claim it's continuation. It makes you look silly and a little schizo.

Edited by keninsc, 03 October 2012 - 11:55 PM.

[U. N.Owen]

On similar lines to the original post: in 2009, on Live with Jonathan Ross (BBC television), the naturalist Sir Richard Attenborough was asked about the yeti.He replied that `very, very convincing footprints have been found....Nobody goes up 19,000 feet just to make a joke`.

The clip is easy to find on Youtube to those sufficiently interested.

In case North Americans members are not acquainted with Richard Attenborough (as he never seems to get a mention on these threads) then it might help if you think of him as the Carl Sagan of environmental science. He is iconic throughout Europe and much of the English speaking world.

I do accept that nothing is demonstrated by the fact that `mainstream` scientists sometimes say these sorts of things. Dr Allen Hyneck was an astronomer and championed U.FO's; Eric Braithwaite was a respected physicist who appeared on debates supporting the existence of ghosts .Eysenck the psychologist, believed in telepathy.Etcetera. Naturally, the believers will rally round them. Scientists are not  to be treated like priests, and can be right or wrong, just like the rest of us.

[Lava_Lady]

I so admire Jane Goodall, she is an amazing scientist and an even more amazing person.  

But, she, like most of us, are still waiting for more evidence.  I think I'd like for the creatures to remain a myth for their own safety.  

[Lava_Lady]

Lady Kasey, on 03 October 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

I don't think I would translate her fascination into being the one to champion the "cause" of Bigfoot. After all, how can you champion a cause whose existence has no proof? She even says herself that there's never been a hide or hair proven to belong to a bigfoot.

This is just old news that the NYDN has dug up to make fresh again. The link in the article about the same revelation during an NPR interview is six years old.

I don't think this article was  supposed to "champion the cause" of the Bigfoot phenomenon, it's more an article about the woman herself.  The title " Chimp expert Jane Goodall says she is ‘fascinated’ by Bigfoot" says it all.  The author does on to write more about her life and accomplishments.  There's not a lot about Bigfoot in the article. And the author does mention the PBS interview was "several years ago".  

[keninsc]

Lava_Lady, on 04 October 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I so admire Jane Goodall, she is an amazing scientist and an even more amazing person.  

But, she, like most of us, are still waiting for more evidence.  I think I'd like for the creatures to remain a myth for their own safety.  

Really? If you could prove they exist then you can get the Government to enact laws to protect them......and yes that means you'd have to provide a body or two for them to study and determine where they might fit on the old evolutionary tree. Just saying, proof of life and existence equals protection almost automatically.

I hold JG in very high regard and she's no different than most of us when it comes to having a thing for something that might well not exist at all. We've got our pet theories about various things. I'd like to think Bigfoots are real and living happily out in the forests of North America. No, there isn't any proof they do or ever have existed, but there are a lot of creatures who only recently have been proven to exist.

[Neognosis]

Quote

When she was working in Africa decades ago, Goodall said there were several million chimpanzees, but now there are only 300,000 spread out over 21 nations.

wow! How does Jane Goodall know that there WERE several million chimps, and now there are only 300,000? And how does she know that they are spread out over 21 nations?

Oh, right. Because chimpanzees are real, and therefore leave evidence of their numbers and whereabouts.

Bigfoot, not so much.

300,000... that sounds like a LOT of chimpanzees. But it's not, it's an extremely low number. One so low, that Jane Goodall tells us that such a low number indicates that they are very endangered.

So.... how many bigfeets would there have to be in order to have a viable species? Where do 300,000  bigfeets hide without leaving any evidence of their existence?

Oh, in that same vein, I used to go upland bird hunting. I haven't gone in decades, but I recently started shooting Sporting Clays. It made me think about going out for some pheasants this year.

If you get a license to hunt pheasants, you have to follow the rules and are only allowed to kill a certain amount. How is this amount determined? Well, wildlife biologists work with the Dept. of Env. Conservation to determine how many pheasants are living in a given county, and then they determine how many can be killed while keeping the population healthy and viable.

See, they have a decent rough estimate of how many pheasants (or grouse, or quail, etc) are out there, and what the impact of killing X number of them will have on the environment. Because they understand how each species fits into the environment and how their numbers have a ripple effect on the rest of the ecosystem.

It makes it pretty condemning that we see no evidence or environmental impact for a giant, 7 foot 500 lb ape though. We can measure the impact of a 1 1/2 lb bird, but not for a giant ape.

The reason why should be obvious.

Edited by Neognosis, 04 October 2012 - 12:06 PM.

[Myles]

keninsc, on 03 October 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Nope, there's what I called your ego on, don't run to another post and claim it's continuation. It makes you look silly and a little schizo.

It makes complete sense to remind you of the statement I disagree with.


"could not have been faked and were definetly made by a living animal"

[OverSword]

Myles, on 04 October 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

It makes complete sense to remind you of the statement I disagree with.


"could not have been faked and were definetly made by a living animal"

Actually you're quoting my memory from a podcast that I listned to 3 or 4 years ago.  If you want to know what the man with the doctorate who specializes in in the foot structure of primates said you'll just have to actually listen to the interview.  are you thick?

[Stardrive]

Myles, on 03 October 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

A blanket statement is not an intelligent remark when it comes to this topic.  Most people with a background of being with animals and a background in engineering can create fake footprints that could fool people.   He said "could not have been faked and were definetly made by a living animal".  This is a false statement.

He has been trumped.

I take that as a "they don't".