Dr. John Bindernagel, a professional wildlife biologist, uses a series of colorful graphs to explain why evidence for the sasquatch as an extant North American mammal has been largely ignored or dismissed by his scientific colleagues, and why the subject has been treated as scientifically taboo. He explains why his recent interest regarding the “mystery” of the sasquatch is not whether or not it exists (he is convinced it does, based on the available evidence) but why relevant scientists are unwilling to scrutinize this evidence. His colorful graphs and concise quotes illustrate some of the obstacles confronting a scientist attempting to attract the attention of his or her scientific colleagues and peers to what is largely perceived as a far-fetched discovery claim. He explains why the prolonged discovery process regarding the discovery of the North American sasquatch provides a fascinating look into the philosophy of science, a discipline which may sound boring but which can be very exciting as a long-resisted scientific discovery, such as the sasquatch, continues to unfold.
Renee B
I found this lecture fascinating. Dr. Bendernagel is one of my favorites on the subject of bigfoot. While I don’t disagree with his reasons as to why the scientific community is so resistant to bigfoots reality I feel there is a baser reason for their skepticism…money. Scientists are beholden to too many government agencies and their lovely grant money. A government that appears to want to keep bigfoot secret is not going to fund research into proving their existance.
Paul W
Renee B, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Scott P
I get so infuriated and discouraged when you see or hear these scientific “experts” who’ve never ventured out of their lab, that completely decimate the evidence as, hallucinations or mis identified animals…. It takes a strong will and a strong back to bear the weight of ridicule. I have the utmost respect for those willing to hang it on the line.
Scott A
Good point Renee B!
I think that scientists have no right to conclude that Sasquatch does not exist without using the scientific method to prove alternative explanations that require fewer assumptions.
Stating conclusions without doing experiments is not science, it’s assumption. And scientists who make assumptions without testing them should go find another line of work at a laboratory such as cleaning the laboratory bathroom. Then the custodial supervisor would need to remind them, “Don’t assume the bathroom is clean just because you don’t see anything. Clean it. Do the work.”
To do the necessary work to refute the existence of Sasquatch requires going out to sighting locations which takes time, MONEY (which would not come from the government), effort, gear, staying out in the field for a period of time, getting dirty, sweaty, developing an odor, needing to wash in a bucket or creek, living without the nice climate controlled laboratory with air conditioning and heat, cafeteria, Starbucks down the street and perhaps doing something more strenuous than moving beakers and test tubes. And then they would need to suffer the indignity of requesting guidance to locations from witnesses who, dread the thought, are not scientists therefore their intelligence and sensibility are questionable. (After all, they believe in Bigfoot.) Of course they do, they had a run-in with one!
And then the scientists need to perform an experiment to come up with the possible LOGICAL alternative explanation. However, it is not humanly possible because it is not human, a human in an ape costume, a wild bear, trained bear or a barrel of monkeys in a fur coat.
The least they could do is decline opportunities to appear in documentaries on the subject where they state their conclusions based on their assumptions according to what science knows. I do not care how much knowledge they have if they do not use imagination (which is more important than knowledge) to come up with a hypothesis and then get out there and do the work.
Scott A
Well stated Scott P. and Renee B. I agree with both of you.
Andrew O
Yep. That just about sums it up. It is a shame that scientists are so easily ‘corruptible’ in this way.
bill l
You got it right Renee.
Jonah N
Excellent comments Renee. Some of the best words I have heard about the Bigfoot Phenomenon, in decades.