Dr. John Bindernagel gave a presentation on May 3rd at the Washington State Capital Museum. His book was featured. A question about his sighting was asked after his presentation. He had VERY FEW WORDS. He had a sighting. The 'group' doing the 'documentary' work will release information later this year, perhaps during the autumn.

No further details were given.

This all smells like a carefully planned publcity stunt that will once again be more smoke than fire.

Indeed, Bindernagel's credibility meter is inching toward the red . . .

Why don't we back off on Dr. Bindernagel and see what is revealed in this video? You skeptics need to wait just like the the rest of us to see what this video reveals. I do not mind you being skeptical, but let's watch what we say about Dr. Bindernagel. He is a VERY credible individual, and would not get mixed up in something if he did not feel it was credible and legitimate. Let us reserve judgment until we actually see the video. Again, refer to my earlier post on this thread referring to Dr. B. being pragmatic and cautious. He is doing the right thing, and I admire him for it.

I have heard Dr. Binderanagel interviewed many times. He has been the "go to guy" for media in this neck of the woods for any sasquatch related story.
I do not find what he says to be credible at all.
He wants the world to believe that just because a couple of tracks he found convinced him that there exists an undiscovered giant hairy bi-pedal hominid walking around North America - then the world should be convinced as well.
Another romantic PhD. without any of the required discipline his discipline demands. IMHO.

What part of the applied scientific methodology in his book did you find "romantic" and unconvincing?
Dudlow

He said neither. What a terrible investigation.

Why?

Why not him? Why not you?

So what?

Hi

If i may, From the many many posts that have been posted about having to have an education, The constant bombardment about having to have a PHD to know and prove anything about what BF evidence is needed, now comes this ???

Peace
Tim

The same problems I had with it are no doubt the same problems the vast majority of reputable scientists have.
He makes the points B to Z with reasonable logic - but his starting point A is NOT reliable data. Therefore his jump from A to B be requires faith in A.
Faith in data is NOT considered credible from a scientific point of view. That has been discussed many times in many threads that you must be aware of.
In other words - he does NOT use acceptable scientific process to any reasonable scientific standard. If he did - there would be no need for a book. It would be a world famous paper reprinted in every reputable science periodical.
But it ain't - right? It's just another book making junk science claims with no more scientific credibility than anybody else's book.

You must not have been paying attention.
It is not the credentials - but what the credentials teach you about using proper processes.
If you do not use the proper processes to obtain a conclusion - your qualifications mean squat.
That's like a mechanic saying that he has seen a carb. that gets 200 mpg in a full sized GM pick-up. He's a mechanic - so it MUST be true - right? No need to check - you will just buy a thousand on his say so. Matter of fact - I can send you a thousand at a special price - just PM and I can tell you where to send the cheque.

Huh, Binderanagel, never heard of him.

For a minute I thought you meant Dr. Bindernagel who I've heard is a "good man" directly from some of my field partners who spent a few days in the bush with him in BC.

In all seriousness, pretty strong and unnecessary words rockinkt. Although Dr. Bindernagel is one of the few participants of this field I've yet to meet in person or interact with, I've followed this field for 28+ years and haven't seen this man unethically push a pro-existence or "romantic" agenda anywhere. He happens to be a credentialed scientist (just like the other scientists who don't believe it's possible these animal's exist).
He wrote a book based on collected eyewitness accounts and descriptions and continues on in the pursuit of these animals. The only lack of discipline he showed might just be that he let it slip about this possible event. People make mistakes.
For what it's worth, I also happen to know more about this particular event then I should (minus many details I'm sure) at this time and I have reason to believe it's likely a legitimate event and eventually others will know about it as well...... in time and possibly at someone else's discretion. Let's wait and see or as I like to say- "instead of wait, squatch in the meantime and then we'll see." Might as well kill the time, right?
And if it is the real deal, good for Dr. Bindernagel, he may've found out exactly what I did first-hand in 2007, these animals are real and most of us who pursue aren't wasting our time chasing a so-called "myth."

rockinkt said :
If it was really worthwhile evidence - it would be released asap with papers to follow for peer review.
>>Why?
Because that is what real scientists do. He is a real scientist - so he knows that is what the proper procedure is. To do anything less shows that he KNOWS that he has no real evidence that can pass any sort of scrutiny of his peers.
>>You saw that he said it's not his to necessarily do anything with, right? What do you know about the situation and circumstances to presume and assume what the correct thing to do is now and/or already? Let's speculate about some possibilities. What if the useless documentary is a process of documentation? What if other scientists are involved? What if there are other evidences and/or videos? What if it is an on-going situation? What if, what if, what if all? Wouldn't it be kind of rash to leap to conclusions that might not yet be warranted or fully substantiated or otherwise incomplete or that might threaten further efforts? Among other questions and factors we could probably come up with, aren't these enough to demonstrate that because something is not released asap, that hardly justifies the conclusion and/or assumption that the alleged evidence is not really worthwhile. That's reasonable, right? Why this obsessive need to immediately discount? Keep doing that and something will eventually bite you, but it won't matter. My opinion. Take it or leave it.

Hi

I know what you were saying, but who is to say what the proper processes are, You argue that no one seems to have them, who would be qualified enough for you to be satisfied, who knows how high the standard of proper processes is ?? Is there someone around to say he is the end point.....

Peace
Tim

If "Binderanagel" is a real scientist, he should be able to handle real critiques...... Hopefully he won't cry at the skepticism, but understand it.

All I can say regarding some of the insinuations on this thread is thank god there isn't as many premature ejaculations as there are premature negative assumptions or we wouldn't have a viable human population-----forget squatches.

The proper processes are well known and used everyday by tens of thousands of scientists around the world.
If you have been reading the threads - you know what those processes are.
The fact that the scientists who use the proper scientific processes are not believers is not my fault.





What if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow?
What if Bigfoot forms an army - without Charlton Heston - the Apes will rule the world.



All I can say is thank god there isn't as many premature meltdowns like you demonstrate when your "investigation" or your "organisation" is questioned".

I haven't said anything negative about Dr. Bindernagel. Of course, I haven't said anything positive about him, either.
He has sold a few bigfoot books. (Ok, I guess that was a positive statement.)

My point is that anytime there is supposed to be bigfoot caught on video, it is presented on YouTube, which means someone having a fun time with a crappy video that is not even good enough to call a hoax.

Or, we have someone come along to claim that there is supposed to be bigfoot caught on video, but they are just waiting to put it all together so that when they release it, they can make a bunch of money off of it. Which leads me to believe that they really haven't got a decent video of bigfoot .

How about we just have someone that caught bigfoot on video, present it as soon as possible, so that we can get the scientific ball rolling.

If it is not Dr. Bindernagel's call on how the documentation (i.e. video) is presented, that makes his involvement as a scientist in this matter useless.

And just proves that he is involved with folks that are trying to make money off of bigfoot.

We don't have proof there is a video except Dr. Bindernagel's word. For some that's good enough, for others not so. As for me, I'm going to be patient and tolerant until either the video comes out or somebody involved steps up and says there isn't one.

From the article

>>> It was about six feet tall and walked thru the backyard of the home where he was staying.Video will be released shortly by the people with whom he was staying, he says,hesitating.


How would you define that?

Interesting, I notice you didn't offer a laughable "meltdown" opinion in my report thread (which has nothing to do with this thread) just went in there and lurked, huh? Makes perfect sense your a little gun-shy seeing how many times I've bent you over publicly in the past on this and another forum and put you in your place in response to that big mouth of yours trying to always instigate trouble.

rockinkt,

Instead of just so cleverly side-stepping and dismissing my entirely legitimate and serious questions,
could you please put your self-exalted expert investigative abilities to practical use
and actually answer my direct questions please?

and edit to add:
Nice evasion longtabberPE. Why didn't you directly deal with my point which only directly addressed your point? Hmmm... why could that be? Did he say he had a video? No. Did he say it was in his backyard? No. Don't give me or us your semantical definition games, Mr. Most Expert Investigator.

My point?
The two here who have most recently and continuously seen fit to constantly exalt their own investigative expertise and abilities while disparaging and dismissing everyone else are also easily revealed to be mere men.

Well, this is a FIRST. I've had many things said about me here but EVASIVE? ( gotta admit dude, that one I never expected to hear- if anything, I'm one of the most point specific, detail oriented and DIRECT people here)

>>>could you please put your self-exalted expert investigative abilities to practical use

First of all, we arent "self exalted", we are REAL. Our "expert investigative abilities" are a FACT. ( see, we have the DEGREES, EXPERIENCE, CAREERS, COURT TIME , PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ) See, we didnt graduate BF University- we do this for REAL and made CAREERS out of it. With that said, who then is the "armchair" expert?

Jack, theres an old Klingon Proverb: The difference between talking s**t and telling it like it is- is in the capabilities and qualifications of the one doing the talking.

The truth is that the world of BF "investigation" is probably the single WORST example of the application of science and "investigative prowess" that exists on this planet. ( which is the reason its entire subject matter lies in ruin regarding credibility with the scientific community at large)

Rock has done nothing but simply tell it like it is. Its obvious he ( and I) have gotten EMOTIONAL responses but I have yet to see anyone shred and factually rebuke any point regarding investigation and factual analysis we have made. Thats the difference between live and Memorex when it comes to subject matter expertise and the normal outcome when someone QUALIFIED ( with real world credentials, not issued by the BFRO) critiques poor quality work.

>>>Why didn't you directly deal with my point which only directly addressed your point? Hmmm

what point? You didnt make one ( referring to me)- all you said was >>>He said neither. What a terrible investigation.
and I simply quoted the article.

>>>Did he say he had a video?

He said there was a video and in context with the article, it alludes to the incident. ( if it doesnt then the context of the article was poorly written so you need to take that up with the author)

>>>Did he say it was in his backyard? No

No, he did not say the video was in the back yard nor did I say he said that. I would think he had it in the house LOL ( and no he didnt say it was "his" backyard but rather the backyard of the house he was staying at)

>>>Don't give me or us your semantical definition games, Mr. Most Expert Investigator

Thats all you gave me to work with but worry not, I dont play games and no reservation whatsoever against sending you to school as soon as you pose a salient,logical and less vague one to work with.

>>>My point?
The two here who have most recently and continuously seen fit to constantly exalt their own investigative expertise and abilities while disparaging and dismissing everyone else are also easily revealed to be mere men.

Would you like some cheese? I'm sorry you dont like the points rock and I raise but it might be a more productive use of your time to channel your emotionally and smart assed nonsenical attempt at rebuke us personally and focus the points we raise and start addressing the reason there are so many flaws to begin with.

See, I'm not apologizing for knowing what I'm talking about and we ARE SME's so theres no "exalting" to it- it is what it is. The fact that you seem to not like the fact we know what we are talking about doesnt really factor into my decision making process. Its the same reason Doctors dont consult with receptionists regarding diagnosis and treatment of patients.

I hope this answer was much less "evasive" for you.

(this is not aimed at anyone in particular)
If nothing else I think John has earned the right to expect everyone to cut him a little slack here. I haven't spoken to him about this but it's looks to me like he prematurely disclosed something he shouldn't have because he doesn't have ultimate control over it. Can't blame the poor guy, when pressed, for getting a little excited about something like this after how many years of pursuit? I suggest we all take a deep breath and let this shake out before we crucify him.

-Apeman

Not to seem argumentative, Apeman, but just how does someone earn the right for others to cut them some slack in the bigfoot business?

How is it that some have earned the right to be taken at face value and others are grilled to well done?

I am just as patient as the next guy. I can wait and see what's gonna happen. I am just not holding my breath while I wait and see what happens.



Star Trek episode, please. I don't believe I have heard a Klingon say that.

Its not so much cutting slack with me ( thats not something I do) but he hasnt put it forth yet to evaluate. When that occurs, then I'll pull out the Ronco slicer/dicer.

>>>Star Trek episode, please. I don't believe I have heard a Klingon say that.

It wasnt an episode but in one of the TNG books I read thus non canon ( the franchise would done much better especially in the movies if they let those authors write the scripts- wouldnt have been as many turkeys LOL)

I'm more than willing to wait for some "real" evidence to come to light, especially from someone so dedicated to the "field" and held in such high esteem by so many. I'm patient.

My question, however, if I decide to take this bait, is what the heck has been done since this video was captured? A peer-reviewed article could have been written 10 times by now, so what's the real issue at hand? Money? Supporting evidence? My real suspicion is that there is no video. If Dr. Bindernagel hasn't convinced the people with rights to the video to publicize it, a few questions come to mind. Are they peers of his and simply unwilling to share something that doesn't constitute irrefutable (or close to it) proof? If so, why not just tell it like it is? Are they waiting for a payday? If so, why haven't they recieved it yet...residual effects of the (choke) Manitoba footage? Just how bad is this video anyway?

I can understand that Dr. Bindernagel may have become overeager or even overstepped his bounds, but it's hard to understand why the real "players" have not subsequently come forward to justify the wait time. What in the world could they possibly have been doing (since January at the latest)? Are they waiting for Morgoth to develop better clarification capabilities? If so, this is already dead in the water. Maybe longtabber and rockin were a little quick to pull the trigger on this one, but I am really starting to doubt that they will ultimately be wrong (and I say that after reading many threads in which they were heavily involved and with much respect for their input).

That all being said, I'll be following this thread and eating plenty of popcorn while I do so...seriously. I got 45 bags of popcorn this last Christmas; they've been gone since March.

I agree. Dr. John hasn't given anyone any reason to start slinging mud, he simply made a statement about something he was/is apparently involved in. As usual, because whatever is on the video hasn't been made readily available, the cries of him being "non-scientific" and other such nonsense come pouring out of certain keyboards.

OMG, it's been almost 4 1/2 months since Dr. John made the statement about this video! Gosh, so much time! That must mean that the group he was involved with is up to no good. I'm mean, if they won't let us, the bigfoot WORLD see the video, they must have something up their sleeve! Surely you don't think they would be trying to follow up and make sure their documentation is in order...do you? Naw, that would be scientific and we have all been told enough times lately that anyone involved with investigating bigfoot just doesn't have what it take to go THERE!

Good grief, if the video and the documentation is not released fast enough, there's bitching about it. If it's released too quickly, the same people will scream about the lack of science and bitch yet again. As my sweet Mother would say, "You couldn't please some people if you hung them with a gold rope".



Who is the WE you've come to talk about so much?



OK, nevermind.

That's what I would like to believe and why I'll continue to follow the story. Trancparency equals credibility in my mind, however, and I just find it hard to provide a reasonable excuse for the lack of transparency thus far from those who are really in control of said video. Maybe their process will become more transparent in the future, but right now I just don't get it.

4 1/2 months might not be that long, but if "their" obligations didn't stop them from obtaining the video, what obligations have held "them" up for so long? I would think a couple of months would be sufficient to get one's documentation in order...even if you're like me and can't get a thank you note or birthday wish out until the event has passed. Even a simple, "forget the 'bigfoot world'; it wil be submitted for scientific review this year" would be cool with me.

edited to clarify...

Very well said Apeman

Look, the guy obviously made a mistake (it's hard to fathom but human beings are capable of doing this) by letting it slip about this incident. If I didn't know what I do about this event, I would still have a hard time rationalizing the argument that Bindernagel devised a plan to purposely let something slip in an interview to get everybody worked up and "believing in bigfoot" because of his credentials and relatively good-standing with researchers/enthusiasts (and I'm sure many colleagues who may disagree on the bigfoot subject, but respect him as just that, a fellow colleague) only to ultimately disappoint everybody and ruin his good name.
Makes perfect sense right? In Hollywood maybe.

On the flip side and getting back to real life, I have no idea the quality of the supposed video, what it actually shows or when we will see it. If it turns out to be nothing or absolutely worthless, then by all means sharks, go ahead and feed until your big belly is nice and full.
In the interim, what's the point of getting so worked up as to accuse a decent educated man (you don't even know personally) of being an undisciplined "romantic" who's attempting to shove the reality of bigfoots down everybody's throat? Actually now that I think about it, I can think of two reasons why one would attempt to do this - one is to try and appear knowledgeable and bold and a lifelong student of the "scientific standard" and emphasize to your general audience, who you feel superior too, that no one better try and "pull the wool over your eyes" (as if anyone here really cares), the other is just to get a reaction out of people you figure may be sensitive to your comments and sit back and watch the beehive stir after you kick it (another attention-grabbing ploy).
I think in this case, it's safe to give Bindernagel or anyone who hasn't proven to be a con-artist or unreliable person, the benefit of the doubt and forgive him for the slip tongue and see what he's got when it's time. You have to wait to see it anyway, might as well save the negative energy for when he disappoints you, then, just think, you can really let him have it good------and you'll get a lot of attention!


And no offense Py, although I absolutely agree you shouldn't hold your breath for anything, I disagree that people should feel compelled to openly show their respective evidence immedietely to get the "scientific ball rolling" for anybody---unless they go around openly bragging about it and actually expect to be taken seriously or unless they have a fresh body- which is endgame anyway (even that should be a well-thought-out process).
Here's an example or two I can think of off the top of my head. You get footage tomorrow in an area you may've been invited in (on a condition- as an example) or an area that may yield better evidence with a continued effort. I doubt you'd compromise that location and make it public immedietely because enquiring minds want to know and feel entitled to know simply because they are interested parties and are fans of the subject? I would argue that it would be irresponsible to do that and if it's me, I having my ducks in a row to not waste anybody else's valuable time and make sure I wasn't duped with my own reputation and credibility on the line.
I can think of many examples, scenarios and variables that make sense not immedietely sharing the "Patty-like" film I get tomorrow with the scientific and bigfoot communities.

No Jay, it's not that the group involved was up to no good, it's that we've seen this type of hype before. The Skookum cast, for example. It's been what, seven and a half YEARS, and there still hasn't been anything scientific published by bigfoot advocates.

How about that breaking news from Pine Ridge? Norway House, Manitoba? Honobia, Oaklahoma? etc. etc. etc.

Personally, I don't get excited over pronouncements like this anymore. I used to. Oy vey, I used to think it was only a matter of days, weeks, or months before the big hairy guy would be positively identified. That was years ago, and history has rapped me on the knuckles enough times already thanks.

I find it rather curious that a wildlife biologist who's been chasing bigfoot for years, and not afraid to write about it, finally catches a glimpse of one and is unable to talk about it. I didn't think science worked that way.

RayG

RayG

You make some really good points and I understand your frustration as your absolutely right, most of these things never pan out and we all end up disappointed. can't blame you there.
I even wonder sometimes if I didn't have the 2007 in the field I did complete with personal confirmation, what would I be thinking around now? Would I even be as excited about this subject and be involved as I'll now be the rest of my life and I was prior to 2004 before I started having some real doubts before stepping out in the field.
Just hang in there and kind of file this one away and don't expect too much, this one may really end up surprising you I hope so, you and I may not always agree but I think your a good, sharp guy and deserve to hopefully be blown away soon.

Likely just my opinion, but if you're going to publicly make a claim about a video, a sighting or any form of evidence and then renege a few sentences later ( according to the article ) by claiming it's not yours to discuss, perhaps nothing should have been said in the first place.

Bart, we are not talking about someone showing their evidence immediately. How long has it been since the kind Dr. let it slip that he had a sighting and there is video evidence? The article about it came out at the end of January. The event certainly happened sometime before that. So, I don't think anybody is showing their evidence immediately in this case.





Nobody's talking about giving up the location? And if it is an on going research area, I wouldn't suggest that they do.

That is good to know, because when the dust settles, you are not likely to receive any slack your self.

Actually your right Py, I apologize, I didn't mean to insinuate you meant immedietely.
In reality and in hindsight it sounds like we're on the same page.
Although if this is genuine footage, it's going to show what it's going to show and it doesn't matter if it's yesterday, today or two years from now imo. Regardless of the popular perception of Dr. Bindernagel (speaking in the sense the man has some credibility as far as the majority of the "bigfoot community" is concerned) I think we all agree for this or any footage to have value it will have to stand on its own.
As far as know, it supposedly happened sometime in 2007 and your guess is as good as mine what the actual hold-up is. The examples I used were just that, examples and or variables that I could envision causing a lengthy delay. I can think of quite a few more.
In the interim, I don't think anyone should be jumping for joy and bragging to your friends and family the end to this mystery is coming just yet based on what Bindernagel slipped out and may have, but I don't think the Dr. deserves to be bashed apart either because he made the statement (by accident) and most people know probably 5% of the facts and I may happen to know 10%. The best thing we can do as researchers is not count on anything and just keep pushing forward and hopefully get more footages to fight about...I mean evaluate

Maybe so ...but it's goshdarn FUN!

Gosh, it has been such a long time since I last checked in on the BFF I thought I'd just see if I have any messages from my friends here who are serious about BF research.

I saw this thread about Dr. Bindernagle, and since I have heard him speak I wanted to check it out.

I see that the premature judgements, which were the norm when I was last here, are still the norm.

The film hasn't even been released yet so we really don't know if it is film or video or digital recording or Blue Ray, or High Definition, or or or or..... good grief.

So what has this organization been doing all this time? they sure haven't been checking with the BFF to make sure they do everything exactly properly according to it's rules and regulations, but then the BFF doesn't even follow it's own rules so why should the BFF expect others to follow them? Just because someone says that they should?

I wish that some who have promised not to hold their breath would try it for once - remember it has been mentioned that the earliest we would see anything is this coming fall.

As I mentioned, I've heard Dr. Bindernagel speak as well as answer questions after his presentation. I would defer to his observations over and above any forum. If it all turns out to be some form of trickery, he will be the first to admit it which is more than can be said for many others.

I will be looking forward to whatever and whenever it is that Dr. Bindernagel was refering to, in the mein time, pre judgers keep pre judging everything, nay sayers keep nay saying, psuedo investigators, keep psuedo investigating that which you have not seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted.

Oh, by the way, even though it has been stated several times, some seem to have missed it. Dr. Bindernagel is not in posession of this film, Dr. Bindernagel is not performing any analysis of this film, Dr. Bindernagel is not in charge of those who do posses the film so the releasing of the film is not up to him.

I've never gotten any before and as I'm certain you know better than I that when the adverse side starts questioning- theres never any slack.

I will remind you that it is very poor form to make these sorts of snide remarks about the forum and the way it is run. If you have a problem with ANY post, then you should report it, not bitch about the forum publicly.

The BFF is a forum, nothing more, nothing less - it does not have its own investigators, nor does it 'investigate' - it is just somewhere for people to talk.

If you have a problem with the way the forum is run, then either make constructive suggestions, or keep quiet - we simply won't tolerate snide remarks like yours.

I have some questions for everyone that thinks that in this case Bindernagel should be "cut some slack" regarding the video.

What if it was someone else making the same claim. Would that make a difference?

What if I or someone else stated publicly that they had or had seen a video that convinced them of the reality of a Bigfoot, but nearly 6 months later, you had not seen it or heard much about it , despite the other claim that it would be released soon?

Would you be as lackadaisical regarding the time frame from mention of alleged video to at least knowing the story behind it if not seeing it for yourself with not even an explanation as to why? And at what point would you begin to write it off as another hype-fest with no substance behind it?

So, in other words, Dr. Bindernagle knows as much about this film as the rest of us.



Well, if Dr. Bindernagel:......."is not in posession of this film, Dr. Bindernagel is not performing any analysis of this film, Dr. Bindernagel is not in charge of those who do posses the film so the releasing of the film is not up to him.".....then Dr. Bindernagel obviously can't determine if "it turns out to be some form of trickery", can he?


Do you proof read your posts before you hit the "Add Reply" button?

I guess that depends on what the definition of 'soon' is.

If Dr. Bindernagel is having the video carefully studied under forensic conditions before it is released, then I'd say fair enough, he should be cut some slack.

If however the video is simply being used for a TV show, then I think we should at least be told when the TV is likely to air - I understand that this can take some time, and again, I understand the reasons for delay, but frankly, I will be very disappointed with Bindernagel if this goes to TV without serious study.

The third possibility is that Bindernagel has no control over this video whatsoever, and there are others who are deciding what to do with it - if that is the case, then I feel sorry for Bindernagel, but also a little embarrassed that a man of his intelligence would put himself into that situation.

I suspect that the third possibility is what has happened here, and that Bindernagel has no control over the video - if that is the case, then there is no reason why he shouldn't simply say so.

I guess I just worry sometimes that we are going to 'poo-poo' at the wrong time and something that could settle this once and for all is going to slip by. It doesn't matter that this was Dr. Bindernagle, it could be anyone that's involved with this. I don't think we should cut him any slack so to speak, but I do think we may be jumping the gun with our demands to put up or shut up. If he doesn't have control over what happens with this supposed video, then getting upset and starting the accusations against him just frustrates me. But, that's today, and tomorrow I may feel differently. At least the damn thing hasn't been thrown up on YouTube with a catchy song to go with it.

As Ray said, we have been told that the proof is just around the corner so many other times, about so many other things. Yes, it's frustrating as heck and that's why I don't really put any hope in much of anything any more. I don't get excited about this much any more either. No matter what is on the video, if we ever get to see it, it won't make one lick of difference. We need a body.

JMO

Just guessing here that it will show when the 2nd season of Monsterquest starts.

My guess is the Bindernagel event will land in the same pile of nonsense as every other supposed Bigfoot video. If it was any good, and by good I mean close, clear, and of substantial duration its keepers would have already had it in the media. An irrefutably good video shown ahead of a book would be the perfect thing to prime the pump for massive book sales.

I saw a clip of Bindernagel with some casts and those casts were different from everything else that's been uncovered. With such a variety of casts there is the implication that there are several species of these things out there. It’s hard enough to accept one species let alone 3 or 4.

Also if the good Doctor is involved with an organization that's pulling the strings with this who’s to say that the "organization" didn't orchestrate a hoax on Dr. B as a means of cementing an air of credibility to the whole thing.

From the original article linked at the start of this thread:
Emphasis mine.

He didn't say he saw a video, he said he saw a bigfoot.

He said video will be released. It is safe to assume he also saw video. That video may or may not be the same as his sighting.

The "project" is not his to discuss or release. Obviously then, he was brought in. Forgive him if, in his excitement at the privelege of his own visual confirmation, he realized that he let a little slip that he knows he shouldn't have. That he was then a little "agitated and upset" might imply there was some required and/or enforced silence to some extent. You take it however you wish, but that to me does not spell "red flag" and merit skeptical criticism, but implies truthfulness.

Btw, longtabber, I'm guessing that you have calmed down from your emotional projection and condescension by now, so could you perhaps answer the points I made in response to rockinkt, with whom you agreed, and which neither of you have actually addressed, as to why video not being released asap does not necessarily indicate that the evidence is not really worthwhile. Thanks.

Theres no emotion in stating facts as they are and there was no condescending to it. It simply is what it is.

So, for continuity, I'll post Rocks statements and your subsequent question and give you "my" answer with the understanding that altho we are pretty much along the same conceptual line- we often differ on specifics.

1) If it was really worthwhile evidence - it would be released asap with papers to follow for peer review.Why?

If and when a BF is "proven"- that will be a significant discovery even as far as the discovery of the century. ( I dont personally ascribe to the thought that it will turn the world on its ear but it will be of extreme value and importance) Evidence of this nature isnt put forth in a documentary ( at this point, this "evidence" needs to be quantified as something capable of proving a point- not anecdotal) or other format. Said evidence is then reviewed, along with experiments etc and then presented to whatever applicable organizations for acceptance by whatever governing body applies. Thats just the way its done.

So, if this evidence ( after it passed whatever testing thats applicable) is capable of "proof" then publishing is the next appropriate step- if its not then its just another footprint.

2)I have heard Dr. Binderanagel interviewed many times. He has been the "go to guy" for media in this neck of the woods for any sasquatch related story.Why not him? Why not you?

Dont know what you mean there.

3)I do not find what he says to be credible at all.So what?

The only thing I've read was from his webpage and after reading that- I dont find him very credible either.

4)You saw that he said it's not his to necessarily do anything with, right? What do you know about the situation and circumstances to presume and assume what the correct thing to do is now and/or already?

The "right thing" to do is already predicated by process and procedure- its pretty much a no brainer. The only time situation and circumstance plays in is doing the validation and pre publishing admin stuff. ( this is assuming I'm understanding what you are asking)

5)What if the useless documentary is a process of documentation?

Then, other than a record- it serves little other purpose and thats hardly worth the hoopla for a "how to" video

6)What if other scientists are involved? What if there are other evidences and/or videos? What if it is an on-going situation? What if, what if, what if all?

Technically, that would fall under the same event "umbrella"-( I deal with this all the time) You can have an incremental/phased revelation plan or the whole ball of wax. Either way, the end is the same.

7) Wouldn't it be kind of rash to leap to conclusions that might not yet be warranted or fully substantiated or otherwise incomplete or that might threaten further efforts?

agreed and scroll up- I said I was content to wait and see ( which is separate from my personal thoughts on what the likely outcome will be)

8) Among other questions and factors we could probably come up with, aren't these enough to demonstrate that because something is not released asap, that hardly justifies the conclusion and/or assumption that the alleged evidence is not really worthwhile. That's reasonable, right? Why this obsessive need to immediately discount?

I dont disagree

Hopefully I covered every point you raised- if I didnt it was an accidental omission- not "evasiveness"

Well at lest he has more working knowledge since he has seen it and we haven't




Read carefully, I did not say that Dr. Bindernagel can or cannot determine if it turns out to be some form of trickery.. I said that if it turns out to be that ..... others will no doubt be the ones to determine the film's validity. If those others, whoever they may be conclusively determine it to be trickery, then Dr. Bindernagel being the man that he is will step up and admit to what it truly is, like I said, unlike some who would just side step or try to bury it under the rug and deny, deny, deny.....