Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Saru

Jane Goodall 'fascinated' by Bigfoot

63 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

That is why I started with "If he really said that, then he is not to be taken seriously."

I will stand by my comment that if he really said " "could not have been faked and were definetly made by a living animal", I would not take him seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that you have no clue concerning the forensic technology that could enable him to make such a statement. You're still thick, I'll add pig headed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that you have no clue concerning the forensic technology that could enable him to make such a statement. You're still thick, I'll add pig headed.

Now it's on to name-calling? Nice :passifier:

If disagreeing with a man who said what you claimed he said is pig headed, then I'm guilty as charged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctorate who specializes in in the foot structure of primates

Is there much of a job market for that degree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hmm... I understand your point. Thanks for sharing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there much of a job market for that degree?

From wikipedia:

D. Jeffrey Meldrum (born 1958) is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Meldrum is an expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates.[1]

http://en.wikipedia....Jeffrey_Meldrum

Given those credentials there probably is not too many people that could be a better judge of wether a foot print was authentic or not.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From wikipedia:

D. Jeffrey Meldrum (born 1958) is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Meldrum is an expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates.[1]

http://en.wikipedia....Jeffrey_Meldrum

Given those credentials there probably is not too many people that could be a better judge of wether a foot print was authentic or not.

This is the same Dr. Meldrum who in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science reckons the impression made by a Wallace-stomper is also an authentic Bigfoot print:

meldrumfakefeet.jpg

... and that an elk lay is from a Bigfoot's butt:

skookumcomparison.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same Dr. Meldrum who in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science reckons the impression made by a Wallace-stomper is also an authentic Bigfoot print:

... and that an elk lay is from a Bigfoot's butt:

Prove it.

edited to add on the amazon review page one of the reviews points out how Meldrum called B.S. on the Williams prints so your entire post is nothing but a lie. What motivation do you have for inventing complete crap and knowingly post it as fact?

But neat pictures. Thanks for your completely useless contribution to the discussion, now go away

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same Dr. Meldrum who in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science reckons the impression made by a Wallace-stomper is also an authentic Bigfoot print:

meldrumfakefeet.jpg

... and that an elk lay is from a Bigfoot's butt:

skookumcomparison.jpg

Of course this guy wrote a book. That kind of explains why he continues to make comments about the possibility of bigfoot.

NightWalker, I did read many reviews of his book and several mentioned a spot of a resting elk as being where a bigfoot rolled in mud. An elks buttprint being from a female bigfoot. Strange sounds.....bigfoot. There were also many people who said that he said that no-one would go through this much trouble to fake something. According to others, he continuousely bashes other scientists because they do not open their mind to the possibility.

He may be a great scientist, but my feeling is that he is full of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You read many reviews of this book like you listened to the interview. I did read many reviews of this book and I say you're full of feces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You read many reviews of this book like you listened to the interview. I did read many reviews of this book and I say you're full of feces.

To each their own. I did a search for info on this book. While there are many people who support him, there are many people who question him. You can go on and believe if you want. I choose not to until solid evidence is presented.

I'm surprised that you get offended when someone doesn't blindly believe a guy who wrote a book about bigfoot being real. If he wrote a book about leprechauns being real, I wouldn't believe him either.

I have no problem with those who believe in bigfoot. Different strokes for different folks. It's when they try to push bogus evidence on others to prove their point that bugs me.

Edited by Myles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it.

It's in his book, dude - look it up (the actual book rather than simply the reviews). Meldrum also reckons the casts from prolific hoaxer Paul Freeman are legit (perhaps only SOME were faked) and has yet to recant on the Elk-lay/Bigfoot-butt cast...

Of course this guy wrote a book. That kind of explains why he continues to make comments about the possibility of bigfoot.

NightWalker, I did read many reviews of his book and several mentioned a spot of a resting elk as being where a bigfoot rolled in mud. An elks buttprint being from a female bigfoot. Strange sounds.....bigfoot. There were also many people who said that he said that no-one would go through this much trouble to fake something. According to others, he continuousely bashes other scientists because they do not open their mind to the possibility.

He may be a great scientist, but my feeling is that he is full of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?

Meldrum gets fame and $$$ well beyond his standing as an associate-professor for riding the Bigfoot bandwagon and like his predecessor, Grover Krantz, is also Mormon which sometimes equates Cain with Bigfoot (so Bigfoot may be more about Prophet than profit, if you know what I mean...).

It is also worth considering the long history of people (including eminent scientists) being taken in by deception. Recall how Ivan Sanderson (the guy who coined the term "cryptozoology") was taken in by those ridiculous giant penguin footprints. It has happened before, it is happening now, and it will happen again - why should one lone associate-professor be immune to that very human trait? Being taken in is much more likely when the deception meets one's pre-existing expectations and beliefs and, given the popularity of Bigfoot on the international stage, it is perhaps surprising that more scientists haven't been taken in...

Perhaps that old Sherpa saying is true: "There is a Yeti in the back of everyone’s mind; only the blessed are not haunted by it."

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they've recently discovered (correct me if I'm wrong) a new species of apes that were undetected for years on end. So I mean if one species of apes can go undetected for so many years then it is possible bigfoot could be real as well. And these animals had no known dna left behind, no bodies, no evidence of them being there aside from legends; until they were spotted one day. I had heard about a hair being found for the Yeti but I don't remember ever hearing anything back from that. So I highly doubt they found out anything. It could be possible; you really never know. It'd be very exciting as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they've recently discovered (correct me if I'm wrong) a new species of apes that were undetected for years on end. So I mean if one species of apes can go undetected for so many years then it is possible bigfoot could be real as well. And these animals had no known dna left behind, no bodies, no evidence of them being there aside from legends; until they were spotted one day. I had heard about a hair being found for the Yeti but I don't remember ever hearing anything back from that. So I highly doubt they found out anything. It could be possible; you really never know. It'd be very exciting as well!

Scientists discover new species of monkey in Congo

A team of scientists has identified a new species of monkey in central Africa that had been known to the locals simply as lesula, a medium-sized, slender animal that looks similar to an owl-faced monkey that was already known to scientists.

Scientists began investigating in June 2007, when researchers saw a young female monkey of unknown species at the home of a school director.

The new monkey was not quite similar to the clearly owl-faced Cercopithecus hamlyni, but researchers say the two are close relatives.

The new findings prove the two monkeys are different species, even though to local hunters they might look similar. A lesula, for example, has "significantly larger incisors, upper and lower second molars ... "

Infamous 'yeti finger' flunks DNA test

A finger long claimed to be from a yeti, once revered in a monastery in Nepal and taken in the 1950s by a Bigfoot researcher, has been identified after decades of mystery. Turns out, it's just a regular old human finger...

There is also this to look forward to: Bigfoot & Yeti DNA Study Gets Serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they've recently discovered (correct me if I'm wrong) a new species of apes that were undetected for years on end. So I mean if one species of apes can go undetected for so many years then it is possible bigfoot could be real as well. And these animals had no known dna left behind, no bodies, no evidence of them being there aside from legends; until they were spotted one day. I had heard about a hair being found for the Yeti but I don't remember ever hearing anything back from that. So I highly doubt they found out anything. It could be possible; you really never know. It'd be very exciting as well!

You mean this ape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

There was a thread here about the ape (they had one in a zoo):

http://www.unexplain...15#entry2989365

It appears to be a chimp the size of a human, but with UNchimp like habits.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually while researching this topic I found an old Coast to Coast a.m. interview with Dr. Meldrum where he classifies the the skookum body cast as intriging but states that he can't definetly classify it as sasquatch. If he states something else in his book I never read it. But what I did read on one of the amazon reader reviews was that it exposes the hoaxes by the Wallace family, although I never heard it was by a family, I only remember reading about one guy admitting he'd been hoaxing prints for years.

edited to add that a google search of all of those key words leads to this thread and another one on randi.org that won't open for me, possibly because I'm on my work computer. The other links found by that search don't mention the body cast.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the subject is Jane Goodall, not Meldrum.

I think she's a bit like me, never seen one, don't know if they exist or not, however, every now and then I see something that makes me wonder. There is not one bit of hard evidence but when I take all the bits and pieces together and look at them then I can't say there isn't something that people are seeing. What that something is I can't say......because I haven't seen it. Jane Goodall, is a highly respected field researcher and someone I'd consider to be an expert on primates. If she's "fascinated" by Bigfoot then she has that right. It doesn't mean she's ready to mount up an expedition to go study it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol okay since i live here at the ass end of the ozarks down here we got "skunkape" might be couisns to big foot maybe not any way a few years ago for ****s and giggles i called the arkansas game and fish and asked say if wile i was out in the woods hunting white tail deer or what ever and happened across a "big foot" and if say i happen to shoot it then what? the game and fish person told me..."if you shoot it out of season your poaching and can go to jail for that now since there is no real hunting season for "bigfoot" you'd probley be safe of that but being how big foot has fur it could be said to be under fur bears hunting season in whitch its not a year around hunt ..now add in the fact it might be a humanoid then if you deliberatly hunt and kill a big foot you could possabily be fined even charges with attempted murder or manslaughter ..in this case however..there is too many verables depending on who you ask and under what conditions the situlation has arrived there on" okay short and to the point...personaly if i'm out in the woods i dont care what or if a big foot is hanging around let that hairy beasty try to steal my dinner yes i'll shoot its ass my bullets are not racest and being at the top of the food chain yeah any thing under human can be eatable even if you have to add a lot more garlick or salt and pepper! just my thoughts,not that it realy matters but i shoot big foot then i swear i'll clean the cammra shutter lencs before i take the pic that way there will not be any blurred pics lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evidences are just too strong to ignore.

for one, one scientist proved that all known bigfoot prints make a bell curve, showing that the datum, for the most part, are quite real. an outcome like that could not happen if the prints were made randomly by fakers.

voice recordings of some unknown beast letting out several horrifyingly loud screaches were studied and found that no known indigenous creature could have made such a screach. the closest animal they could find to try to match the sound was from a primate.

evidences lke these are strong, too strong to ignore.

to me, the witness identification also has to be taken serioulsy. there may be some fakers but all it takes is ONE to be telling the truth and bigfoot would then have to exist. and many many indigenous indian tribes in the US have an oral tradition of the "big hairy man" that go back many many years. that is one of the most convincing arguments, to me. ppl are so unwilling to take indigenous ppl's word for anything yet they appear to be quite reliable, in the long run. the local legend of the silverback in Africa is one such example. Westerners would not take their word for it, of course.

so, anyway, the fun continues. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for one, one scientist proved that all known bigfoot prints make a bell curve, showing that the datum, for the most part, are quite real. an outcome like that could not happen if the prints were made randomly by fakers.

voice recordings of some unknown beast letting out several horrifyingly loud screaches were studied and found that no known indigenous creature could have made such a screach. the closest animal they could find to try to match the sound was from a primate.

evidences lke these are strong, too strong to ignore.

Sources? If the evidence is too good to ignore then may we examine it?

to me, the witness identification also has to be taken serioulsy. there may be some fakers but all it takes is ONE to be telling the truth and bigfoot would then have to exist.

Perhaps we should look at it in a different way: If one person IS telling the truth about Bigfoot then what are all the others doing? Why are so many mistaken and/or faking it?

and many many indigenous indian tribes in the US have an oral tradition of the "big hairy man" that go back many many years. that is one of the most convincing arguments, to me. ppl are so unwilling to take indigenous ppl's word for anything yet they appear to be quite reliable, in the long run. the local legend of the silverback in Africa is one such example. Westerners would not take their word for it, of course.

The trouble is that EVERY culture (including our own) has one or more wild-/hairy-man types in their stories and folklore. Is their any culture anywhere that doesn't? This is perhaps the most convincing argument in illustrating the universal humanness of the Bigfoot phenomenon rather than as some external-biological mystery.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.