Comments on: Bindernagel on Bigfoot

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:37:22 +0000

MattBille says:

“This gets one back into the dicey problem of deciding what footprints and what sightings are convincing enough to be used, with a minimum of doubt, as scientific evidence.”

Actually, there is no dicey problem here at all. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR ANY CRYPTID.

“Scientific evidence” is evidence accepted by the scientific mainstream as diagnostic of a known phenomenon. Okapi tracks in Virunga? The animal is there, after 50 years missing. Proof, period. Bear tracks? One went this way.

When the scientific mainstream accepts evidence of the sasquatch, that will be scientific evidence, i.e., proof. And not until then.

The dicey problem can be easily sidestepped, by a basic means I have espoused here many times.

Get into the field, and search, on recent data that clusters around means suggested by all the data that has come before.

Dicey problem solved.

By: bigbobo

bigbobo — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:41:48 +0000

Many people will not accept the possibility that a north american primate still exists. I know they do, I have seen one! And I am studying some very interesting evidence in northern Ontario.

By: DavidFredSneakers

DavidFredSneakers — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:26:53 +0000

One of Napier’s primary arguments was the “chimerical” nature of the subject, and I think it was Meldrum (?, don’t quote me) that pointed out his statement was made before the discovery of the”Lucy” fossils in the early 70’s, which had features then associated with both “humans” and “apes.”

That said, Matt is right as usual, though his argument is nonunique to Bindernagel, as the film is now the bedrock of most serious writings on the subject.

I think that Bindernagel’s attempt to build a sort of behavioral profile of the alleged animal has huge value to those who are actively searching for sasquatch. I understand he will soon be publishing another book on the subject?

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:31:32 +0000

Re: Heuvelmans and his antipathy towards the P/G footage.

My personal opinion is that Heuvelmans was upset that the P/G footage completely and utterly overshadowed his Minnesota Ice Man and couldn’t accept that the P/G footage went on and on gaining fame while his moment of ‘triumph’ was largely ignored and all but forgotten.

Just a theory of mine. He did seem to somewhat resent the P/G footage.

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:27:37 +0000

I’m going to see Dr. Bindernagel at the Washington State Capital Museum on May 3rd. should be very interesting.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:43:56 +0000

While I think Matt makes some valid points, I would merely like to point out that using the late primatologist John Napier’s and the late cryptozoologist Bernard Heuvelmans’ negative opinions about the Patterson-Gimlin footage is not a strong foundation against the film. Napier died in 1987, and really did not study Bigfoot beyond the 1970s. Heuvelmans, while dying more recently, doesn’t appear to have made an in-depth study of Bigfoot, instead leaving that for others to do.

I would submit that neither deeply examined the enhanced analysis of the footage that has occurred in the 21st century, frankly, because both were dead.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:34:19 +0000

My problem with Bindernagel’s generally excellent book is that his analysis of the animal relies so heavily on the Patterson-Gimlin film’s authenticity. If that is considered inauthentic, as Napier, Heuvelmans, and others opined, then a great deal of Bindernagle’s work has to be done over again.
This gets one back into the dicey problem of deciding what footprints and what sightings are convincing enough to be used, with a minimum of doubt, as scientific evidence. Bindernagel is much better qualified to make that judgment than most people, and yet it remains a matter much in dispute: I would wager that no two leading cryptozoologists have the same “top ten” list of “near-certain” evidence. (Someone should actually do a survey on that.)
Bindernagel’s approach of assuming the species’ reality and then studying its characteristics was original and has value, but it has not gotten us closer to proving the animal’s existence.