Full Version: Dr. John Bindernagel has his own Sasquatch Sighting
hmmm should i agree or disagree with the above replys im thinking oh well updates as they continue i think... thanks bill
Just a thought -
It might be that someone was taking advantage of the fact that a scientist was there with them - He did say that the figure was 6ft tall not say 8 or 9ft tall.
Maybe Mr. Bindernagel had trust in this person or group, this combined with a person who has a very strong desire to see a bigfoot...... once discovered it could result in some backpeddling but usually spells doom for credibility, at least for those of us that care ie.. people who believe bigfoot exists.
hope not
It might be that someone was taking advantage of the fact that a scientist was there with them - He did say that the figure was 6ft tall not say 8 or 9ft tall.
Maybe Mr. Bindernagel had trust in this person or group, this combined with a person who has a very strong desire to see a bigfoot...... once discovered it could result in some backpeddling but usually spells doom for credibility, at least for those of us that care ie.. people who believe bigfoot exists.
hope not
QUOTE(3footthick @ Nov 2 2008, 06:54 PM) 
Just a thought -
It might be that someone was taking advantage of the fact that a scientist was there with them - He did say that the figure was 6ft tall not say 8 or 9ft tall.
Maybe Mr. Bindernagel had trust in this person or group, this combined with a person who has a very strong desire to see a bigfoot...... once discovered it could result in some backpeddling but usually spells doom for credibility, at least for those of us that care ie.. people who believe bigfoot exists.
hope not
It might be that someone was taking advantage of the fact that a scientist was there with them - He did say that the figure was 6ft tall not say 8 or 9ft tall.
Maybe Mr. Bindernagel had trust in this person or group, this combined with a person who has a very strong desire to see a bigfoot...... once discovered it could result in some backpeddling but usually spells doom for credibility, at least for those of us that care ie.. people who believe bigfoot exists.
hope not
If true- that doesnt speak very well or highly of the good Dr.
He ( Bindernagle) has stated he saw a BF and has "belief' in whatever is going on. He has put his name on it.
Now, its time to produce
Right now the 3 leading 'scientists" in the world of BF are akin to 3 flat tires on a van stuck in the mud
absolutely
hey longtabber im sure john bindernagel will tell us in time of this possible footage all in good time 
updates as they continue...
updates as they continue...
QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 2 2008, 07:05 PM)
Right now the 3 leading 'scientists" in the world of BF are akin to 3 flat tires on a van stuck in the mud
Nice analogy- I couldn't agree more!
Hi
Everyone needs a tow truck once in a while
Peace
Tim
Everyone needs a tow truck once in a while
Peace
Tim
hey redrat interesting above reply indeedy.. LMAO.. good morning. bill 
QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 2 2008, 07:05 PM)
Right now the 3 leading 'scientists" in the world of BF are akin to 3 flat tires on a van stuck in the mud
Harsh but so true, unfortunately..
QUOTE(Bobby Orangeboom @ Nov 4 2008, 09:07 AM)
Harsh but so true, unfortunately..
Yes, but not a problem for bigfoot proponents.
If bigfoots are real, then we don't need some complex analysis by some so-called experts to convince us of that fact. All we need is reliable, physical evidence that almost anyone in the right place at the right time would be in the position to provide.
In the meantime, place no particular merit in what anyone - no matter what letters they have after their name or how nice they were when you met them at such-and-such conference - has to say about their analysis concluding there must be real bigfoots out there. Let the evidence be your guide.
Rule of thumb: If it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince you that something is a good piece of evidence, then it's a lousy piece of evidence.
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Nov 4 2008, 10:30 AM)
Yes, but not a problem for bigfoot proponents.
If bigfoots are real, then we don't need some complex analysis by some so-called experts to convince us of that fact. All we need is reliable, physical evidence that almost anyone in the right place at the right time would be in the position to provide.
In the meantime, place no particular merit in what anyone - no matter what letters they have after their name or how nice they were when you met them at such-and-such conference - has to say about their analysis concluding there must be real bigfoots out there. Let the evidence be your guide.
Rule of thumb: If it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince you that something is a good piece of evidence, then it's a lousy piece of evidence.
If bigfoots are real, then we don't need some complex analysis by some so-called experts to convince us of that fact. All we need is reliable, physical evidence that almost anyone in the right place at the right time would be in the position to provide.
In the meantime, place no particular merit in what anyone - no matter what letters they have after their name or how nice they were when you met them at such-and-such conference - has to say about their analysis concluding there must be real bigfoots out there. Let the evidence be your guide.
Rule of thumb: If it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince you that something is a good piece of evidence, then it's a lousy piece of evidence.
WORD
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Nov 4 2008, 07:30 AM)
Yes, but not a problem for bigfoot proponents.
If bigfoots are real, then we don't need some complex analysis by some so-called experts to convince us of that fact. All we need is reliable, physical evidence that almost anyone in the right place at the right time would be in the position to provide.
In the meantime, place no particular merit in what anyone - no matter what letters they have after their name or how nice they were when you met them at such-and-such conference - has to say about their analysis concluding there must be real bigfoots out there. Let the evidence be your guide.
Rule of thumb: If it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince you that something is a good piece of evidence, then it's a lousy piece of evidence.
If bigfoots are real, then we don't need some complex analysis by some so-called experts to convince us of that fact. All we need is reliable, physical evidence that almost anyone in the right place at the right time would be in the position to provide.
In the meantime, place no particular merit in what anyone - no matter what letters they have after their name or how nice they were when you met them at such-and-such conference - has to say about their analysis concluding there must be real bigfoots out there. Let the evidence be your guide.
Rule of thumb: If it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince you that something is a good piece of evidence, then it's a lousy piece of evidence.
Sas,
I couldn't have said it better. The mystery of bigfoot calls for the skill of vetting allegation, not the rear-view focus of scientists. Even with all the high-powered tools of scientific analysis, you are dead in the water if you can't recognize and collect evidence. Most people, including scientists, probably aren't familiar with the varieties of evidence that spring from thorough vetting. Instead, they usually over-analyze a report based on a limited statement or a single photograph from the convenience their desktop.
It's a difficult topic to research amongst scientific peers, I'm sure. If your doing any real work on the subject, It is a careful balancing act to keep your credibility - I would think. If your credibility is going anywhere, it's probably going down! At least at this point in the game.
QUOTE(HOLDMYBEER @ Nov 4 2008, 08:36 AM)
Sas,
I couldn't have said it better. The mystery of bigfoot calls for the skill of vetting allegation, not the rear-view focus of scientists. Even with all the high-powered tools of scientific analysis, you are dead in the water if you can't recognize and collect evidence. Most people, including scientists, probably aren't familiar with the varieties of evidence that spring from thorough vetting. Instead, they usually over-analyze a report based on a limited statement or a single photograph from the convenience their desktop.
I couldn't have said it better. The mystery of bigfoot calls for the skill of vetting allegation, not the rear-view focus of scientists. Even with all the high-powered tools of scientific analysis, you are dead in the water if you can't recognize and collect evidence. Most people, including scientists, probably aren't familiar with the varieties of evidence that spring from thorough vetting. Instead, they usually over-analyze a report based on a limited statement or a single photograph from the convenience their desktop.
my bold
Excellent observation.
Bindernagle should come forward and tell what he is allowed to under any agreement with the group he was with. He depends on the BF community to keep his books and web site going and right now the community is bringing his credibility into question. As far as the tapes I disagree that they must be shown, I would like to see them but they are owned by the group or individual who shot it. If they are putting together a documentry or show based around a 30 second clip, then yes I would expect alot of production time to fill an hour of air time. I look at Bindernagle through different eyes. For me he has credibility because he has a PHD and believes in Bigfoot, to others he is an absolute quack because he has a PHD and believes in bigfoot.
Eventually, the thread title may need to be changed to "Not good news for science."
everyone why all the negtive replys about john bindernagel it should postive & nuteral replys about him. until at least this filmfootage is released to the public & the bigfoot community. updates as they continue.. good evening bill 
Hi
Mr Bindernagel i am sure is not losing any sleep over the thread Bill, He will keep on going along with the rest of the folks in the fore front of big footing that have spoken out of excitement or personal experiance, They have a never ending quest to find the direction of truth sometimes without certainty, To study any and all presented evidence, View and have all selected photos and vids undergo the best available scientific tests, Try and prove there individual beliefs in the existence of BF, Spending family time and money, Risking it all, So They can be bathed in stardom and reap the rewards of financial freedom studying a subject that very few believe in, Welcome to the Bigfoot forums, We think there might be a Sasquatch in the catalog of animals
Peace
Tim
Mr Bindernagel i am sure is not losing any sleep over the thread Bill, He will keep on going along with the rest of the folks in the fore front of big footing that have spoken out of excitement or personal experiance, They have a never ending quest to find the direction of truth sometimes without certainty, To study any and all presented evidence, View and have all selected photos and vids undergo the best available scientific tests, Try and prove there individual beliefs in the existence of BF, Spending family time and money, Risking it all, So They can be bathed in stardom and reap the rewards of financial freedom studying a subject that very few believe in, Welcome to the Bigfoot forums, We think there might be a Sasquatch in the catalog of animals
Peace
Tim
although some would probably say 
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Nov 4 2008, 08:30 AM)
Rule of thumb: If it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince you that something is a good piece of evidence, then it's a lousy piece of evidence.
So does that also mean if it takes the opinion of a PhD to convince me Bindernagel and Meldrum are bad scientists, then they're probably good scientists?
QUOTE(RedRatSnake @ Nov 6 2008, 04:50 AM)
Hi
Mr Bindernagel i am sure is not losing any sleep over the thread Bill, He will keep on going along with the rest of the folks in the fore front of big footing that have spoken out of excitement or personal experiance, They have a never ending quest to find the direction of truth sometimes without certainty, To study any and all presented evidence, View and have all selected photos and vids undergo the best available scientific tests, Try and prove there individual beliefs in the existence of BF, Spending family time and money, Risking it all, So They can be bathed in stardom and reap the rewards of financial freedom studying a subject that very few believe in, Welcome to the Bigfoot forums, We think there might be a Sasquatch in the catalog of animals
Peace
Tim
Mr Bindernagel i am sure is not losing any sleep over the thread Bill, He will keep on going along with the rest of the folks in the fore front of big footing that have spoken out of excitement or personal experiance, They have a never ending quest to find the direction of truth sometimes without certainty, To study any and all presented evidence, View and have all selected photos and vids undergo the best available scientific tests, Try and prove there individual beliefs in the existence of BF, Spending family time and money, Risking it all, So They can be bathed in stardom and reap the rewards of financial freedom studying a subject that very few believe in, Welcome to the Bigfoot forums, We think there might be a Sasquatch in the catalog of animals
Peace
Tim
hey redrat your probley right but still people should still be more nuteral with comments about john bindernagel or his filmfootage. updates as they continue.. good morning. bill
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Nov 6 2008, 08:08 AM)
hey redrat your probley right but still people should still be more nuteral with comments about john bindernagel or his filmfootage. updates as they continue.. good morning. bill
Hmmm, I was thinking...
One of the biggest, if not THE biggest problem with serious, hardcore FG/Sasquatch research is funding, their really doesn't seen to be any funding, and almost all of the people(90 something percent I would guess!) who devote their time and life to it do it for free, because it is what they do, it is important. And it is a very expensive mission, you have to be in dangerous, dangerous, DANGEROUS, territory for months with state-of-the-art technology at your disposal, searching every crack, crevice, and cave available(Snakes, Bears, Bats, Spiders anyone?) We aren't looking for a damn bird, were looking for something that is better at what it is doing than humans are...And IMO that is surviving!
So the good Doctor Bindernagel and others involved in this Documentary project are spending this rare thing called money-used-for-bigfoot-research to make it, and maybe they are thinking what I am thinking...If you can make this project convincing enough, with real footage and even the most minor details and evidence, put together in a painfully detailed and professional manner, maybe, MAYBE, you will get that well deserved funding...Money is not important, it's just paper, it's the things it buys that we have to have! And if this Documentary has your name, reputation, and label on it and it succeeds, then HAWT DANG your doing good
But if it fails, its Game over man....Game over! What if the video is a hoax fabricated by the Good(I will call him good until proven otherwise!) Doctor? He gets flushed, permanently.Thats my take on it!
hey xion wow.... thats a very powerful above comment indeed. im sure john bindernagel will keep the bigfoot community posted somehow in months ahead i think. updates as they continue. thanks bill
thats a very powerful above comment indeed. im sure john bindernagel will keep the bigfoot community posted somehow in months ahead i think. updates as they continue. thanks bill
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Nov 15 2008, 05:41 PM)
hey xion wow.... thats a very powerful above comment indeed. im sure john bindernagel will keep the bigfoot community posted somehow in months ahead i think. updates as they continue. thanks bill
thats a very powerful above comment indeed. im sure john bindernagel will keep the bigfoot community posted somehow in months ahead i think. updates as they continue. thanks billI believe that the less we hear from the crew for a while the better. I say this because they are very very busy men in Kentucky I am sure! To busy to be doing anything else, their livlihoods are at stake as are their reputations. If even one of them succumed to a hoax(Either being hoaxed or hoaxing!) it would be the end of them all Imo.
QUOTE(XionComrade @ Nov 16 2008, 12:15 AM)
I believe that the less we hear from the crew for a while the better. I say this because they are very very busy men in Kentucky I am sure! To busy to be doing anything else, their livlihoods are at stake as are their reputations. If even one of them succumed to a hoax(Either being hoaxed or hoaxing!) it would be the end of them all Imo.
hi xion i think the filmfootage being talked about was in northeast somewhere not kentucky. good above reply i think... thanks bill
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Nov 15 2008, 08:30 PM)
hi xion i think the filmfootage being talked about was in northeast somewhere not kentucky. good above reply i think... thanks bill
Thanks Bill
Yes this year and last their have been many...many reasonable sightings. IMO for some reason these giants are moving through Kentucky in groves compared to other states in Eastern USA. And man what a place for them to be, I used to ride through Kentucky as a driver helper, didn't have to drive so I got to look alot. The driver I was with had seen and worked beside many a black bear delivering to restaurants and such! They say that the more black bear their are in a area the better your chances are for a Sasquatch being their too, they seem to like bears(Whether that is good for the bears or not, who knows
). That entire state is covered, simply covered, in thick forest. I had never seen trees so thick for so far coming out of VA and TN! You have mountains as much as trees it seems sometimes, but most of them are only half mountains due to strip mining :/One thing I have taken notice of this phenomina is how few of them are seen in North Carolina, almost none compared to most other states O.o I guess the further west you go the thicker their population gets.
One theory I have is that they used to all be in Canada and the far West of America. When settlers came through and wrecked so much of it they all dispersed and spread out, moving Eastwards. IMO Whenever I look at a sightings map it looks like a tidal wave of notes hits California and Western Canada and ends its path thinning out Eastwards. As a matter of fact their aren't a whole lot of sightings in VA either
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, their may be hundreds of thousands in North Carolina, just noone ever sees them. And it is still possible they are not real, but I think we have outgrown that stage, it is no longer a matter of IF they are real but WHAT are they IMO!
hey xion your welcome for the undertandable above reply very informative too but updates as they continue sounds familer lmao... thanks bill
yes, I heard too that the footage was shot in Kentucky and I assume that this has something to do with the Kentucky Live Research Project. Has somebody an idea how the guys of KLRP can be reached?
The Kentucky Live Research Project is located at:http://www.theklrp.com/research.php
Dudlow
Edited to add: Although I'm not entirely sure, the KLRP may also be associated with the four live cameras set up on a rural Kentucky residential property which can be viewed below:
http://livingwithsasquatch.blogspot.com/
QUOTE(Dudlow @ Nov 16 2008, 03:04 PM)
yes, thank's but there's no possibility to contact them...
rofl this thread continuely amazes me everyday & night by goly for the last time lol i heard the filmfootage was the east coast somewhere... but updates as they continue i guess.. thanks bill
Hi Bill, where did hear that it was shot on the east coast?
hey sasquatch i heard from certain researchers that this filmfootage was from the eastcoast somewhere. again i guess we wait & be very patient. updates as they continue.. thanks bill
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=361
scroll down (about 3/4) and read, you'll get some very interesting new infos!
Conclusion: Not only Bindernagel but also Jeff Meldrum, the BFRO and a canadian mogul named Adrian Erickson are involved with this mysterious new footage!
scroll down (about 3/4) and read, you'll get some very interesting new infos!
Conclusion: Not only Bindernagel but also Jeff Meldrum, the BFRO and a canadian mogul named Adrian Erickson are involved with this mysterious new footage!
hey..sasquatch... 
very interesting replys indeed in that above blog link indeedy very heated opinions. keep me updated
very interesting replys indeed in that above blog link indeedy very heated opinions. keep me updated
QUOTE(Sasquat.ch @ Nov 18 2008, 12:59 PM)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=361
scroll down (about 3/4) and read, you'll get some very interesting new infos!
Conclusion: Not only Bindernagel but also Jeff Meldrum, the BFRO and a canadian mogul named Adrian Erickson are involved with this mysterious new footage!
scroll down (about 3/4) and read, you'll get some very interesting new infos!
Conclusion: Not only Bindernagel but also Jeff Meldrum, the BFRO and a canadian mogul named Adrian Erickson are involved with this mysterious new footage!
Consider the source. All talk, no production. SSDD
QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 18 2008, 04:20 PM)
Consider the source. All talk, no production. SSDD
For the record, I too have heard that Meldrum and Bindernagle are invloved in this project, and that their are 5 clips of these creatures including Bindernagle's. But that's just the rumors I have heard. No sources at all, sometimes you just hear things ya know
QUOTE(XionComrade @ Nov 18 2008, 05:56 PM)
For the record, I too have heard that Meldrum and Bindernagle are invloved in this project, and that their are 5 clips of these creatures including Bindernagle's. But that's just the rumors I have heard. No sources at all, sometimes you just hear things ya know
well, if past performance is any indicator of this one.................
Anyone who has been around awhile, has been paying attention and can add now has almost the whole picture.
So why would you, in your such an expert opinion, promptly and summarily dismiss the truth?
Not a very good investigation, Investigator. Too committed to your own position now or what?
So why would you, in your such an expert opinion, promptly and summarily dismiss the truth?
Not a very good investigation, Investigator. Too committed to your own position now or what?
QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Nov 18 2008, 11:14 PM)
Anyone who has been around awhile, has been paying attention and can add now has almost the whole picture.
So why would you, in your such an expert opinion, promptly and summarily dismiss the truth?
Not a very good investigation, Investigator. Too committed to your own position now or what?
So why would you, in your such an expert opinion, promptly and summarily dismiss the truth?
Not a very good investigation, Investigator. Too committed to your own position now or what?
what "truth" would that be?
>>>Too committed to your own position now or what?
I stand on every word I have said. Have you been able to shoot a hole in it yet?
What "new" information are you suspect of in your due consideration and examination?
QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Nov 18 2008, 11:46 PM)
What "new" information are you suspect of in your due consideration and examination?
some of MM's comments on another board. I'm asking around to see how much ( if any) fact there is in them.
As far as the rest, thats all out in the open and it is what it is
QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Nov 18 2008, 08:14 PM)
Anyone who has been around awhile, has been paying attention and can add now has almost the whole picture.
So why would you, in your such an expert opinion, promptly and summarily dismiss the truth?
Not a very good investigation, Investigator. Too committed to your own position now or what?
So why would you, in your such an expert opinion, promptly and summarily dismiss the truth?
Not a very good investigation, Investigator. Too committed to your own position now or what?
What "truth" are you talking about?
Here is a "truth":
Documentaries are just another way of saying "We have absolutely nothing in the way of valid evidence that can offer any scientific credibiltiy to our claims - but we sure think we can entice you into watching this thing so we can make money and get our face on TV"
hey rock wow.... interesting above opinion. thanks bill. updates as it continues.. 
Excerpts from link above:
Okay longtabber PE and rockinkt,
what from the above quoted do you find red flag worthy, troubling, unacceptable or likely to be less than truthful?
QUOTE
matt_moneymaker on 31 Aug 2008 at 12:43 pm
I was the very first person to get footage of a sasquatch with a surveillance camera. That happened in Kentucky in 2005. There are a few other clips from that location which will all be released, including the clip I obtained, in a documentary that is currently in production.
It’s a Canadian-run operation now, and the documentary has been slow to get going, but it is definitely going now. The main man producing the documentary, Canadian real estate mogul Adrian Erickson, is not going to just sit on that footage any longer, thankfully.
matt_moneymaker on 31 Aug 2008 at 7:14 pm
Decius writes:
“You expect us to believe that you haven’t released your footage since 2005, and that some major documentary is on its way.”
MM:
It’s not my footage anymore, nor has it been since 2005. I sold the rights to the Canadian who was putting more money into the project there. He’s got it now, and it’s going to be part of the documentary.
If I had kept that surveillance footage and released it prematurely, it would have surely led to interference with the effort on the property. Too many curious people would have come around.
It was best to let the project operate under the radar, and allow the story to be told in context of a single documentary with all the footage, and the story behind it.
Decius writes:
“OK, show us some evidence supporting this new outlandish claim of yours.”
MM:
I love it! … What a cliche, peanut gallery skeptic you are! To everything you say, “Prove it!”
So my mention of the documentary is an “outlandish claim”.
You’re saying I’m lying and there is no documentary in production, eh?
Or more precisely, it is not reality until I provide you (or this forum) with some proof of the upcoming documentary … When I do that, then my assertion of an upcoming documentary magically transforms from non-reality to reality … as if it wasn’t reality before I satisfied your arbitrary skepticism.
What will you have to say for yourself, and your assertion this day, when the documentary finally gets released? Will you admit you were wrong about that?
Nah, you won’t admit that you were wrong. You’ll just change your anonymous handle and pretend like you never said it was an “outlandish claim.”
The documentary is indeed in the works. They interviewed me for it, in Kentucky, two months ago. A Princeton Ph.D. ecologist (Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh) was brought in there in late 2005, and has now lived at the property for nearly three years, trying to study this family group that came around periodically.
And also during this two year period, Adrian Erickson brought over some other people for a visit, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and Dr. John Bindernagel (Canadian). When Bindernagel was there, he got to see a sasquatch, for the very first time in his life.
Bindernagel is another person who, like me, would have a hard time defining some criteria that would dissuade him from knowing what he saw with his own eyes.
Obviously Bindernagel was keenly aware, beforehand, of the possibility that the whole thing might be a set up. Anyone involved in this biz is continually on guard for that, whenever walking into a new situation. But peanut gallery skeptics like Decius somehow think they are the only ones who consider a possibility like that …
Bindernagel is a scientist … So instead of being a smug skeptic, and summarily concluding that it must be a set-up, without even checking it out … Bindernagel went there and saw for himself, and was very glad he did.
That’s one of the key differences between skeptics and scientists, it would appear. Perhaps I’m wrong but it seems that skeptics are only concerned with a rhetorical exercise, whereas scientists actually want to know the truth, so they will investigate things.
It is certainly *possible* that scat was found and collected there during that period. I don’t know for sure yet.The folks there stopped telling me details like that a while back, because they knew I wasn’t perfect at keeping the matter secret. However Meldrum has been openly mentioning the Kentucky project at the last few conferences he spoke at, so it isn’t very secret any more.
The people running the project thankfully took my advice on certain things. They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn’t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro.
Decius writes:
“Let me guess - you did, and the lab running the tests is about to release its ground-breaking findings in a few weeks time.”
MM: I don’t know if they have collected DNA there. Maybe. Maybe not. They do have at least five (5) clips of footage though, possibly more. And it is very interesting footage, to say the least. People will be talking about this footage for a long time. I strongly believe this footage is legit.
matt_moneymaker on 31 Aug 2008 at 8:20 pm
Bindernagel was asked to not disclose details about the KY project before the documentary was completed. I would have been very surprised if he had mentioned something about it on his web site. In person, he will tell you about it.
I was the very first person to get footage of a sasquatch with a surveillance camera. That happened in Kentucky in 2005. There are a few other clips from that location which will all be released, including the clip I obtained, in a documentary that is currently in production.
It’s a Canadian-run operation now, and the documentary has been slow to get going, but it is definitely going now. The main man producing the documentary, Canadian real estate mogul Adrian Erickson, is not going to just sit on that footage any longer, thankfully.
matt_moneymaker on 31 Aug 2008 at 7:14 pm
Decius writes:
“You expect us to believe that you haven’t released your footage since 2005, and that some major documentary is on its way.”
MM:
It’s not my footage anymore, nor has it been since 2005. I sold the rights to the Canadian who was putting more money into the project there. He’s got it now, and it’s going to be part of the documentary.
If I had kept that surveillance footage and released it prematurely, it would have surely led to interference with the effort on the property. Too many curious people would have come around.
It was best to let the project operate under the radar, and allow the story to be told in context of a single documentary with all the footage, and the story behind it.
Decius writes:
“OK, show us some evidence supporting this new outlandish claim of yours.”
MM:
I love it! … What a cliche, peanut gallery skeptic you are! To everything you say, “Prove it!”
So my mention of the documentary is an “outlandish claim”.
You’re saying I’m lying and there is no documentary in production, eh?
Or more precisely, it is not reality until I provide you (or this forum) with some proof of the upcoming documentary … When I do that, then my assertion of an upcoming documentary magically transforms from non-reality to reality … as if it wasn’t reality before I satisfied your arbitrary skepticism.
What will you have to say for yourself, and your assertion this day, when the documentary finally gets released? Will you admit you were wrong about that?
Nah, you won’t admit that you were wrong. You’ll just change your anonymous handle and pretend like you never said it was an “outlandish claim.”
The documentary is indeed in the works. They interviewed me for it, in Kentucky, two months ago. A Princeton Ph.D. ecologist (Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh) was brought in there in late 2005, and has now lived at the property for nearly three years, trying to study this family group that came around periodically.
And also during this two year period, Adrian Erickson brought over some other people for a visit, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and Dr. John Bindernagel (Canadian). When Bindernagel was there, he got to see a sasquatch, for the very first time in his life.
Bindernagel is another person who, like me, would have a hard time defining some criteria that would dissuade him from knowing what he saw with his own eyes.
Obviously Bindernagel was keenly aware, beforehand, of the possibility that the whole thing might be a set up. Anyone involved in this biz is continually on guard for that, whenever walking into a new situation. But peanut gallery skeptics like Decius somehow think they are the only ones who consider a possibility like that …
Bindernagel is a scientist … So instead of being a smug skeptic, and summarily concluding that it must be a set-up, without even checking it out … Bindernagel went there and saw for himself, and was very glad he did.
That’s one of the key differences between skeptics and scientists, it would appear. Perhaps I’m wrong but it seems that skeptics are only concerned with a rhetorical exercise, whereas scientists actually want to know the truth, so they will investigate things.
It is certainly *possible* that scat was found and collected there during that period. I don’t know for sure yet.The folks there stopped telling me details like that a while back, because they knew I wasn’t perfect at keeping the matter secret. However Meldrum has been openly mentioning the Kentucky project at the last few conferences he spoke at, so it isn’t very secret any more.
The people running the project thankfully took my advice on certain things. They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn’t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro.
Decius writes:
“Let me guess - you did, and the lab running the tests is about to release its ground-breaking findings in a few weeks time.”
MM: I don’t know if they have collected DNA there. Maybe. Maybe not. They do have at least five (5) clips of footage though, possibly more. And it is very interesting footage, to say the least. People will be talking about this footage for a long time. I strongly believe this footage is legit.
matt_moneymaker on 31 Aug 2008 at 8:20 pm
Bindernagel was asked to not disclose details about the KY project before the documentary was completed. I would have been very surprised if he had mentioned something about it on his web site. In person, he will tell you about it.
Okay longtabber PE and rockinkt,
what from the above quoted do you find red flag worthy, troubling, unacceptable or likely to be less than truthful?
QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Nov 21 2008, 10:32 PM)
what from the above quoted do you find red flag worthy, troubling, unacceptable or likely to be less than truthful?
You didn't ask me, but here's the red flags as I see 'em:
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ******* is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, ****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 21 2008, 11:38 PM)
You didn't ask me, but here's the red flags as I see 'em:
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ******* is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, *****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ******* is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, *****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
The force is strong with this one, it is.
QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 22 2008, 12:38 AM)
You didn't ask me, but here's the red flags as I see 'em:
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ***** is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, *****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ***** is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, *****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
Add to this, Does anyone find it funny that mr "moneymaker" always cons people into signing over rights to their vids to be posted in BFRO site, yet HIS VERY OWN "FIRST FOOTAGE OF A SASQUATCH" he sells out to someone else without a word of it on his very own website that totally bathes in the subject.
Interesting........
QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 21 2008, 09:38 PM)
You didn't ask me, but here's the red flags as I see 'em:
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ******* is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, *****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
1. original squatch footage captured by Moneymaker, creator of the pay-as-you-go bigfoot circus.
2. footage is turned over to real estate mogul instead of scientists.
3. real estate mogul is making a 'documentary' with alleged sasquatch footage.
4. Dr. ******* is trying to study the family group that came around periodically. Do, or do not, there is no try.
5. Scientist Bindernagel sees bigfoot but is unable to comment.
6. "They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn€™t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro." I hope he doesn't mean Bindernagel, *****, and Meldrum, because they're all bigfoot enthusiasts.
7. He strongly believes the footage is legit. Never mind his belief, what do the facts show?
RayG
Well done RayG!
The quote posted by ThisIsJack is nothing more than the typical BFRO/Moneymaker spin.
QUOTE(RiverRun @ Nov 21 2008, 10:15 PM)
Add to this, Does anyone find it funny that mr "moneymaker" always cons people into signing over rights to their vids to be posted in BFRO site, yet HIS VERY OWN "FIRST FOOTAGE OF A SASQUATCH" he sells out to someone else without a word of it on his very own website that totally bathes in the subject.
Interesting........
Interesting........
Moneymaker has always been just another huckster with a story to sell.
Sasquatch research - Moneymaker style - has become just another modern version of snake oil that is sold to the believers who never read the label or question the contents before they drink it down.
A lot of people don't buy it - but enough do as to make it worthwhile to continue the operation.
QUOTE
From the BFRO website:
Expedition Testimonials
Emailed to the BFRO after the May 2005 Redwoods expedition.
From ************
Dear Matt et al.,
I just wanted to thank you all for letting me participate in the Redwoods Expedition. I had a really amazing time. I was especially excited to be able to learn so much from other expedition members who have been doing this for some time.
I was quite surprised and impressed by how much the BFRO already knows about the biology of an animal that has received so little attention or recognition from the scientific community.
After going on this expedition with you all, I find it unbelievable that this subject has been ignored by so many professional scientists. I felt honored to have the opportunity to get some first-hand experience in investigating these animals with you.
It's unfortunate that my audio recorder decided to stop working the afternoon before I heard those interesting sounds! (I am sure they were made by no animal I know of...)
I'm planning to bring some better recording equipment on future expeditions, so hopefully I will be better prepared!
I look forward to joining you all in the Sierras ...
Best regards,
*********
Expedition Testimonials
Emailed to the BFRO after the May 2005 Redwoods expedition.
From ************
Dear Matt et al.,
I just wanted to thank you all for letting me participate in the Redwoods Expedition. I had a really amazing time. I was especially excited to be able to learn so much from other expedition members who have been doing this for some time.
I was quite surprised and impressed by how much the BFRO already knows about the biology of an animal that has received so little attention or recognition from the scientific community.
After going on this expedition with you all, I find it unbelievable that this subject has been ignored by so many professional scientists. I felt honored to have the opportunity to get some first-hand experience in investigating these animals with you.
It's unfortunate that my audio recorder decided to stop working the afternoon before I heard those interesting sounds! (I am sure they were made by no animal I know of...)
I'm planning to bring some better recording equipment on future expeditions, so hopefully I will be better prepared!
I look forward to joining you all in the Sierras ...
Best regards,
*********
my bolding/underlining
I was quite surprised and impressed by how much the BFRO already knows about the biology of an animal that has received so little attention or recognition from the scientific community.
I think a lot of people would be surprised that the BFRO knew ANYTHING about the biology of this animal. After all - they are just guessing. They have no valid evidence to show anybody.
After going on this expedition with you all, I find it unbelievable that this subject has been ignored by so many professional scientists. I felt honored to have the opportunity to get some first-hand experience in investigating these animals with you.
There you have it folks. One expedition - a little bit of story telling and some sounds she has not heard before - and BAM! - she is a believer and talks as if it has already been established to her professional standards - that of a PhD - that these animals do exist.
That a PhD would show such obvious gullibility is pretty sad. That you can obtain a PhD without the remotest idea of the scientific process and critical thinking is even worse.
But - it does speak to her inability to separate fact from fiction or wishful thinking.
There is no possible way I would ever take any statement or conclusion from her without a HUGE grain of salt.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.