John Bindernagel YouTube Channel

The John Bindernagel Wing is dedicated to another scientist who threw caution to the wind and accepted that Bigfoot was real.
Forum rules
This forum will sometimes contain copyrighted information, however, it is placed here under Title 17

Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Post Reply
MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:34 am

John Bindernagel YouTube Channel

Post by admin » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:37 pm

Briony Penn and John Bindernagel interview sasquatch eyewitnesses in Opitsaht and Tofino, BC in 2003: Eugene Charlie and Bert Tom in Opitsaht and Joe Martin in Tofino. This is an episode of the Enviro/mental television series hosted by Briony Penn.

How the philosophy of science sheds light upon this prolonged scientific discovery and resisted discovery claim: Thomas Kuhn’s insight regarding such discoveries as apt and helpful.

I discuss and illustrate how the unfolding discovery of the North American sasquatch (or bigfoot) is hindered by the absence of informed scientific comment, and its resulting treatment as almost exclusively a subject of entertainment. Consequently, it may have been inevitable that many members of the North American public—affirmed by scientists unaware of the evidence supporting the discovery claim--have dismissed the unfolding discovery as tabloid material and pseudoscience. A recent letter to the editor of a midwestern US newspaper provides an opportunity to address some widespread misconceptions.

The history of tracks and track casts is an integral part of the sasquatch discovery process. This video presents and discusses recently-acquired sasquatch track evidence from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, documented in photographs and as track casts.

A professional biologist updates his professional colleagues regarding the legitimacy and necessity of sasquatch research

This illustrated presentation was prepared in late 2016 and early 2017 for presentation at the 2017 annual conference of a society of British Columbia (Canada) biology professionals. I have been a member of this professional society since 1994, and have tried to adhere to its professional standards.

A similar paper was submitted for presentation at the 2013 annual conference. It was titled: The sasquatch in British Columbia: Are there moral and ethical obligations for biology professionals to examine the evidence for its existence? That paper was rejected.

Because a large amount of additional evidence has been documented and published since 2013, I submitted this second paper 3 years later. It was deferentially titled: The unfolding discovery of the North American sasquatch: understanding and addressing social and scientific deterrents to professional participation in the discovery process. I anticipated that it would be not just acceptable but welcomed for inclusion in the programme.

One reason for my optimism was the conference theme, titled, in part, Bridging social…and scientific worlds in professional biology.

Pointing out the necessity for increased involvement of biology professionals in sasquatch research appeared timely and relevant to the conference theme. Surely, I thought, my professional colleagues would be grateful to hear how far we have progressed in this unfolding discovery and understand the need for us to participate in this discovery process of special relevance to British Columbia. Indeed, BC sasquatch evidence has played a significant role in the discovery process to date, and continues to do so.

Consequently, I completed my presentation, which included over 80 illustrations, some prepared specifically for this paper.

Spoiler alert:

The conference gatekeepers decided to reject my paper on this subject, citing the sasquatch as subject of cryptozoology, a genre of investigation widely dismissed by most scientists as pseudoscience.

Because preparation of the paper was so advanced by the date of notification of rejection, I decided to record it and make it available on my website as a Research Video. As such, it provides an opportunity for my professional biology colleagues to hear and see what they missed: the perspective and research results of a professional colleague attempting to enlighten them regarding an admittedly controversial scientific discovery, and one which has admittedly been appropriated as a subject of entertainment.

My concern:

Among the consequences of continued unawareness of this evidence and its relevance to professional biology, is the unwillingness of British Columbia biology professionals to provide informed professional and scientific comment. This based on their inability to do so, a consequence of their continued unawareness of pertinent evidence. Such comment is required by—and deserved by—members of the public and collaborating amateur investigators.

Perhaps more importantly, the absence of such comment appears to affirm the sasquatch as a scientifically-taboo subject, not warranting our attention and scrutiny. I suggest that our professionalism and claims to professional responsibility are at stake. We biology professionals are being widely perceived as having abdicated our responsibility to become informed, and to consequently provide informed scientific comment on a subject of considerable interest and concern to members of the public. We need to do better, and, as this presentation illustrates, we can.

Although snow has often been considered a poor medium or substrate for registering animal tracks, clear mammal tracks can sometimes be observed in moist, shallow snow as illustrated in this research video. More importantly, snow ground cover provides a record of mammal trails or trackways, showing the sequential arrangement of foot placement and providing opportunities to measure both stride length and straddle (or trail width). Experienced trackers recognize that mammal trails (or trackways) can be just as important as individual tracks and often depend on them for identifying the mammal species responsible for the tracks and trackway. Not uncommonly, the characteristics of the trackway by itself may be sufficient to establish the identification of the mammal species responsible.

Seven examples of sasquatch trackways in snow are illustrated as a guide to identifying them and to differentiating sasquatch tracks and trackways from those of bears and humans. Attention is drawn to the consistency of the two most conspicuous features of the sasquatch trackway: the long stride length and the lack of straddle or trail width.

The tracks and trackway of a juvenile sasquatch in BC’s Coast Mountains documented by investigator Randy Brisson is noteworthy. This may be the first documentation of the trackway of a juvenile sasquatch. Similarly, the recent (February, 2017) documentation by investigator Paul Graves of a sasquatch trackway consisting of several hundred tracks in central Washington is significant. The exceptional length of the trackway is of obvious interest and importance (approximately 5184 feet or 0.98 miles). In addition, the several exceptional leaps (up to 13 feet) among the already long stride length (4 ½ to 6 feet) appears to corroborate a published 1851 published historical account, in which similarly long leaps (12 to 14 feet) were reported.

The absence of the sasquatch from North American mammal field guides is a powerful statement affirming that the sasquatch (or bigfoot) is not an existing North American mammal.

As such, it is an omission in need of correction. Its absence from such field guides effectively but erroneously limits the options or choices available for sasquatch eyewitnesses trying to identify a mammal observed more frequently than is commonly assumed. This omission denies sasquatch observers the option—or opportunity—to follow-up a sasquatch “sighting” with a legitimate possibility to confirm—or disconfirm—what was observed.

I alluded to this deficiency in my first book in 1998 and included there a draft of what a sasquatch field guide entry might look like. I included it, with minor modifications, again in my 2010 book.

My sense that the absence of such images was important in limiting the options or choice of sasquatch observers has been confirmed by Cornell University sociologist Thomas Gilovitch. His definition of “seemingly-fulfilled prophecies” appears to apply to this situation, as discussed in this video.

Having discussed and illustrated this shortcoming in my two books, I have introduced here why a more complete field guide entry for the sasquatch is necessary for inclusion in authoritative mammal field guides.

In this presentation, I have briefly described and illustrated the most conspicuous sasquatch physical features, comparing them with those of an upright bear. I have also described and illustrated the most common sasquatch foot shapes as revealed in tracks. Several examples of eyewitness drawings are included to illustrate the basis for the proposed field guide entry.

A detailed treatment of the anatomical features of the sasquatch, as described in eyewitness descriptions and depicted in eyewitness drawings, is the subject of a research video currently in preparation. Similarly, a detailed treatment of the sasquatch foot, as depicted in track photographs and track casts, is the subject of another research video currently in preparation.

A detailed treatment of the sasquatch trackway has already been completed as a research video titled Sasquatch tracks and trackways in snow, one of a series on this website.

Post Reply

Return to “The John Bindernagel Wing”

  • You do not have permission to post in chat.
@ admin « Tue 1:35 am »
Hey Yankeesearch, didn’t even know you were in chat, now you have the bug so bad you will have to keep going out to see another one. :)
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:56 am »
Anyway, as I stand before God, I did not make this up!
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:55 am »
Not saying it was Sq/BF/DM/Yeti... but it was strange. And I am locking my doors tonight for sure! :lol:
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:54 am »
And just I was turning away, I thought I heard snort -- which could have been deer or maybe cattle... but... I do not know.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:53 am »
I did not have the creepy feeling I normally get in these situations... so I really do not know what to make of it.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:53 am »
One detail I forgot to mention: the whoop had almost a human like talk after it on both occasions.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:52 am »
I walked back to the other side, and thought I heard a knock...
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:51 am »
Cattle about 1/8th mile away disappeared... and strangely at that location: it sounded like something banged the metal fence. Not loud... but never ever heard it before tonight.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:50 am »
Two whoops... and some deer scattering (they may have been scattering because of me).
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:50 am »
From 6:20 PM to maybe 6:45 PM CST
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:49 am »
I may have just had an encounter!
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:46 am »
Hi gang! I know it has been a long time...
@ BrianDriver « Sat 12:59 pm »
Good quality pics. How long were the cams out?
@ admin « Thu 9:09 pm »
Just to get the chat going, it’s going to take some time to move over all the data, but in the end, hope everyone likes the layout here.

Who is chatting

offline admin