My bad for not calling you back afterwards. For some reason, I forgot to add you to my phone book when you called me.

I meant to include comments by you in the story and in the heat of the deadline, I goofed up.

You are an invaluable source for journalists.

As for your other comments? She was informed that I would be asking about American primates as part of the interview.

As far as my technical skills as a videographer? I suck.

I will admit that my first impression was that she was skirting the subject to avoid being tarred with the ol’ pseudo-scientist brush. On reflection though, I doubt that Jane Goodall is uncertain of her stature or presumed legacy at this late stage in her career.

And even though she doesn’t give the impression of one who has delved too deeply into the evidence, her comments about a lack of “hide nor hair” seem to contradict previous comments about reviewing the DNA evidence at some earlier time. I find that curious. Her comments about a lack of a body is a legitimate question to ask, always, although there are valid zoological and sociological explanations for that absence (if it IS an absence we’re talking about). I think it rubbed me the wrong way because it is a glib, hackneyed point of which she certainly knows better.

My standard reply to someone who raises the “Habeas Corpus” question is always: “What you are really telling me is that you believe that if a Sasquatch specimen had ever been found, you would have been sure to have been notified of it, and the subsequent verification.” Would that the world was that knowable, although we seem to be moving that way, for now. But, for now, as a friend of mine always said, “It is indeed a small world…but I wouldn’t want to have to scrape and paint it.” Indeed.

Scientists. Can I suggest something?

When you are asked a question – ever, by anybody, anywhere, EVER – answer the question based upon your review of the evidence.

If you have not reviewed the evidence – in other words, if you are answering haw haw, because Mom and Dad told you Bigfoot ain’t real – say, “I await proof and wish the searchers luck.”

Then clam it. Remember what Lincoln said about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

(Hmmmm. There are some recent threads I could have used that line. Still could.)

Goodall is one of the few who has answered this question based on review of the evidence. There’s nothing wrong with the answer she gave Flatow.

There’s nothing wrong with either answer, really.

My problem is with people who both ask AND answer the question in ignorance of the evidence. I still have not heard a scientist make a negative pronouncement on this topic that passes the most basic sniff test that a pronouncement by a scientist should pass. If anyone is aware of one, I am all ears. But I personally have never heard nor read one.

Come on, folks, get acquainted with it. And answer based on what you think after you have done that, and not before. You owe it to science to do it right.

It gets beyond tiresome that credentialed scientists apply their science to the unknown; show how a large volume of extremely consistent observations square with, and even precede by decades, those we have made for similar animals we know about…and get the haw haw (hee haw would be better, given the impression they leave with me) from scientists who clearly haven’t done their homework, and frequently don’t even have any relevant academic knowledge.

The Goodalls of the world shouldn’t be pilloried for having open minds, something she might rightly be concerned about. Damn shame.

The hee-haw chorus is just getting really old.

Psychologically speaking, when you are not doing a CNN interview, or ABC, NBC, CBS type interview, but a Weird News interview, one would expect less professionalism from a reporter. A reporter from Weird News is not in the same caliber as a reporter from a major news center. Secondly, it’s not a local TV station or local newspaper, it’s Weird News. She was probably expecting this type of questioning. But when she was hit early in the interview with “normal questions”, that was probably the surprise or ambush for her because she was not expecting that. When it got to the BIgfoot question, she was probably thinking, oh, now we are doing what I thought we would be doing and smiled at the questioning. Simple really!

Everyone has an agenda. Jane probably only granted the interview to get some minor additional exposure about the bush meat problem. And the reporter knew this, got her comfortable and then asked his question for his editor. LOL They both knew each other’s agenda going into this interview or what could take place. Both were prepared.

So NO AMBUSH here!