Thursday, March 10, 2016

After Hours With Special Bigfoot Guest Dr. John Bindernagel Part 2

From After Hours with Rictor Riolo:

There are very few living legends in the world of Bigfooting and Dr. John Bindernagel is one of them. On this episode of After Hours we ask, is Bigfoot's habitat being threatened? Has Dr. Bindernagel seen a Bigfoot? Will Dr. Bindernagel's life long work be affirmed by his scientific colleagues? What is his advice for the next generation of Bigfooters? We have science, and then we have scientists. But you will always have After Hours with Rictor!


  1. Replies
    1. ^ is probably what you have instead of brain matter

    2. 2:47

      Your too fvckin stupid too get it

    3. hahahahaha...... You spelled "your" wrong and also "too" wrong. Now who is to stupid to get it?

    4. ^ yes but you`re a turd





    6. If you want a debate, post an argument.

    7. Diarrhea

      Usually, a bout of diarrhea only lasts a few days, going away on its own without any treatment. “However, severe diarrhea, diarrhea that lasts more than a few days, or prolonged episodes of diarrhea are reasons to see a doctor, as they could indicate something more serious.

      Dr Mathew Johnson.

    8. tham Trump fella fer da constitushun he shure is
      we heers voting fer Trump
      caws he bein ans amurkin

  2. i thought john bindernagel was dead

  3. Let's see/think about it folks and think about it, this guy(J Bindernagel)and among others a live and deceased have spent basically ALL their life stating and looking that Sasquatch exists and NOT one has come up with definitive proof of their (Sasquatch) existence. Come on folks,do YOU really believe that Sasquatch does exist. Me, I did at one time,but now lean to the non-exist side of the fence........

    1. 'Islam hates us': Trump makes another controversial anti-Muslim remark and tells Anderson Cooper that the Iraq invasion was the 'worst decision in US history'

    2. 10:06... And for all those researchers' time spent... There is every source of evidence that one would expect from a living, breathing creature leaving it's sign on the environment, just short of a modern type specimen.

      "Let's see/think about it folks and think about it..." Hmmm, yes... If something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave evidence, and there has not been a single consorted effort by mainstream science to track what is commonly known as Sasquatch... Yet we have physical, biological, video and audio evidence.

      Do you really believe that for 70% of the country that is wilderness, for the thousands of years of cultural references, of contemporary reports, and then physical evidence in support... That there is nothing to what people are reporting? That's a far bigger leap of faith.

    3. I will make my comment back to you short and brief,your totally wrong friend in your thinking.No need for a reply as we can go back and forth with this till the cows come home(so to speak) as it's just my opinion as yours is yours. Good day friend.........

    4. "There is every source of evidence that one would expect from a living, breathing creature leaving it's sign on the environment,"

      Don't you mean apart from definitive tracks, confirmed hair, scat, DNA, etc. because we haven't got any of that either.

      All "evidence" for bigfoot is blurry, sketchy, or anecdotal. At best.

      I think it's time bigfoot "researchers" stepped up and did something about that.

    5. Yepppers,-NO definitive- proof from professional and or weekend researchers as usual after ALLLLLLLLLLL these years.........

    6. 12:05... It's unfortunate that your mere opinion has no bearing on the actual state of evidence.

      12:08... To hoax species traits in convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many in he world do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, somehow allocate these to the exact yard of where someone can find them out of hundreds of miles of wilderness, and then fool multiple forensic experts. These cannot be hoaxed, are repeatable scientific evidence and are as definitive as you can handle.

      Audio recordings that became the subject of a year-long University based engineering study, with the results determined that the vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges, that the recordings were spontaneous at the time of recording with no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed... Cannot be hoaxed, and are as definitive as you can handle.

      Over a dozen unknown primate hair samples, verified by multiple camps of primatologists, all morphologically uniform and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure, found around sightings and tracks... Cannot be faked. And are as definitive as you can handle.

      You see, people like you NEED the evidence for "Bigfoot" to be blurry and anecdotal, but the truth is you either don't know the first thing about the actual state of evidence, are agenda ridden against the actual state of evidence, or are too stupid to understand the actual state of evidence.

    7. 12:31... "Definitive" being a body, does not make the the evidence go away.

    8. ^ what evidence is that then ?

      no "evidence" has yet been shown to PROVE bigfoot is real

    9. OBAMA -
      I have been blamed by Republicans for a lot of things, but being blamed for their primaries and who they're selecting for their party is novel,' he said today at a press conference.

    10. 12:58... Actually... It's proving that something that has the same anatomy, morphology as what is being reported is indeed leaving it's sign on the environment. Sure, you need a body to PROVE that Sasquatch exists... But Occam's Razor says all that evidence pointing to the same phenomena is what it is... And you still don't get to sleep too well.

      Let go of the denial... It'll eat away at you.

    11. Again with the dermals?

      Weren't you just saying that you never say tracks are proof of bigfoot? And yet here you are again claiming they are. Aren't you afraid of whiplash with all that flip flopping you do?

    12. I'm sorry Einstein... But can you please extract the precise part of my comment where I have claimed that dermals are proof? I know you usually need an adult to walk you through the meaning of comments, but stop putting your shortcomings off on others.

      Due to the profound nature of what this subject implies, nothing will ever do but a body to convince so many people who are in denial. But that doesn't mean there is solid evidence, and if you don't like the idea of dermals being just that... Grow up, be accountable for your claims and prove it.

  4. I have to say this episode of After Hours is a bit weak. It's only 22 minutes, and once you cut out all the credits etc., it's really only 17 minutes of real material, and some of that, the DNA collection kit, has already been published.

    A quarter of an hour of new footage does not a full episode make. Rictor should have just included it with the previous episode for one long, complete interview with John Bindernagel. As it is, this felt more like an afterthought than After Hours.

    1. I have to say this episode of After Hours isn't as good as this episode of Open all hours xx

    2. probably due to there not being a lot of evidence -

      can only fill a show with so-many farts and bluster

    3. Darling... You're not clever enough to understand that evidence. The only make-believe is you thinking otherwise.

    4. RectumRiolo entire channel sucks. Clickbait whore.

    5. Thank you for making the show. And for trying to inject a little sanity into the three ring circus that is online bigfooting.

      I hope the criticism is constructive.

      Is there a set release date yet for the season premier of Off the Rictor?

    6. There goes Rictor following his own comments with anonymous comments. We know it is you fluffing your self before you masturbate goober. Your not fooling anyone dumbasss

    7. What is it with bigfoot believers and their asinine conspiracy theories for everything? Especially asinine conspiracy theories that make no sense whatsoever.

      If Mr. Riolo was pretending to be anonymous talking to himself, he'd have answered my question about when season two of Off the Rictor is starting. A good producer never misses a chance for promotion like that.

      Next you'll be telling me his posts and mine have the same "unhoaxable dermal ridges" or some such nonsense.

    8. What a cry baby... People like you like to push around the lie that the only evidence is blurry photos and anecdotes... Pseudoscepticism 101. Like a proper little fundie, you can't think for yourself. Like I said... If you firmly believe that dermals are nonsense, prove it or continue to get your religion burned.

      The majority of people don't promote the idea of a conspiracy. I personally think that the government know just as much as we do, and it would be embarrassing if the military, who are meant to protect the public, were to admit they can't catch one of these things. Conspiracies are difficult to prove and tarnish any real science behind the subject... However, if you think the idea is outside of the realms of possibility, you're either too young to watch the news and the repercussions of what a particular owl did to a portion of the economy of the PNW, or just a little try-hard like most people realise you to be, and as honest as snake oil salesman.

    9. Were we talking to you? No.

      Don't you know it's rude to interrupt.

      But since you don't know how to behave, but insist in inserting your drivel into everything, I see you are still confused by that whole "burden of proof" thing.

      And clinging desperately to that whole "cannot be hoaxed" fallacy as well.

      Some children never learn.

    10. Well I'm talking to you...

      In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have repeatably scientific, forensic evidence (cannot be hoaxed) to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

    11. It's funny every time you use the word "fallacy".

    12. If you're going to interrupt and try to talk to me, at least have something interesting to say. Not just more of this "cannot be hoaxed" crap. And attempts to use ancient fables as evidence. By that flawed logic the tooth fairy is real. And then there are your ridiculous false claims about human specimens. And your sad appeals to authority. And not even good authorities at that.

      Also "evidence of disproof"? Really? That's not how science, or the burden of proof, works.

      And even if it did, I don't need to produce any silly "evidence for disproof" because you don't have any evidence whatsoever.

      You have no specimen. You have no hair samples. You have no DNA. You have no tracks. You have no artifacts. You have nothing.

      Because everything you try to claim as "evidence" for bigfoot either turns out not to be what you claim it is (because you don't know any better) or not provable (in any sense of that word) as genuine. Human skulls are not bigfoot skulls. The hair samples always turned out to be something else. The same goes for the DNA. Tracks can be misinterpreted or faked, and are, including tracks with your precious "dermal ridges". And your "thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports" are easily nothing more than lies, misidentification, and fairy tales.

      And again with this "cannot be hoaxed" garbage. You cannot make that claim any more than I can make the claim that bigfoot doesn't exist. All you can actually claim is that you personally, and unsurprisingly, don't know how to hoax it. You might as well make the claim that piltdown man "cannot be hoaxed".

      But heres the rub: while you persist in the "cannot be hoaxed" fallacy, I do not make the mistake of saying bigfoot doesn't exist.

      Maybe it does. I don't know. And neither do you.

      All I'm saying is you can't claim it does exist because you don't have any proof of it. None whatsoever.

      GO GET SOME.

    13. "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
      - Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

      ... And nobody is seeing the tooth fairy, let alone there being physical and bioligical evidence for it. If the evidence doesn't stand up, prove it! You are not special, you are not outside of that which you demand. I have scientists verifying evidence... That's not an appeal to authority, that's how science works dear boy, and to suggest that anyone bringing forward a positive take on the evidence is not trustworthy without bringing so much as a case against that is a supression of evidence fallacy. Let's be honest though... I'm being crafty, because nobody expects YOU to bring anything substantial against the evidence those scientists endorse. Merely preaching and praying and putting it in writing that I have no evidence, doesn't get you closer to your god. Grow up, take responsibility for your claims and do something about it.

      Unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;
      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes
      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermals verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to an unknown primate leaving its sign. Even though we don't prove anything by this, we have reason to be encouraged and are warranted in persuing the research, whilst it is here we can draw on principles like Occam's Razor in a heuristical sense for the broader picture of what's going on.

    14. Burden of proof used by psuedosceptics like you is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument (intelligence). This merely allows pseudosceptics who proclaim this argument to specify what they would accept as evidence and ultimately proof. Arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown, and a way to move the goal posts endlessly.

      "Because everything you try to claim as "evidence" for bigfoot either turns out not to be what you claim it is (because you don't know any better) or not provable (in any sense of that word) as genuine."
      ... Prove it. Show me where this has occurred. Reeling off scenarios that haven't occurred doesn't help, it's just a bit weird. Demonstrate where my ideas have fallen flat. I know your own angle better than you do. I've spent far longer testing my own ideas than what lazy sods like you have ever cared to... None of it stands up. You don't understand the requirements of repeatable evidence, don't know how to recognise them, nor the requirements of falsifiable scienific evidence. The best you've got is chronic denial to it's existence in regards to this subject. It's like talking to a ten year old who keeps telling mom he's scared of the monster under his bed. His imagination takes over any alluding to reality.

      "Human skulls are not bigfoot skulls."
      ... And are we to listen to someone in you who doesn't recognise Sasquatch to even be a credible creature? Someone who's idea of an argument against the idea, is to reels off "facts" that in the end support my ideas? Someone who fails so miserably at proving what is allegedly so obvious? Sasquatch are ancient human... They look like ancient humans. What's more, is their DNA is human.

    15. "Tracks can be misinterpreted or faked, and are, including tracks with your precious "dermal ridges". And your "thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports" are easily nothing more than lies, misidentification, and fairy tales."
      ... Yes... According to you, for thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of lyers all out to get your money. These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what an ape looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too! Whole cultures have arisen out of these "fairy tails", whilst there's absolutely no way in hell their can be anything but misidentification as an explanation for multiple cultures reporting the same thing... Forget instances where multiple people see the same thing at the same time, eh?

      "And again with this "cannot be hoaxed" garbage. You cannot make that claim any more than I can make the claim that bigfoot doesn't exist. All you can actually claim is that you personally, and unsurprisingly, don't know how to hoax it. You might as well make the claim that piltdown man "cannot be hoaxed"."
      ... Sorry! This is how you test evidence, it's called falsifiability. To hoax convincing biological dermals that are primate in origin but different enough to have species traits across samples, one would have to have a knowledge of all human primate and non-human primate dermals (that not many people on the planet do), and then have less than a lottery win's chance of faking the exact same biological idea, place these impressions in the middle of nowhere and somehow predict to the exact yard out of miles and miles of wilderness that they'll be found, and THEN fool multiple forensic experts. That is a far greater leap of faith to believe, as opposed to these traits being legitimate in line with the amount of reliable people are reporting them. You test this evidence against casting artefacts and biological traits of primates. If it holds up against these sources, then it cannot be hoaxed. Sorry... That's just the way it is. Don't like it? That's our burden. That's not my fallacy, that's your biggest problem.

      You don't know if "Bigfoot" exists, yet you "know so well that the evidence is none existent"... Considering you don't present a decent case against the evidence, isn't that a bit of a capitulation? I can claim it exists, because though I cannot appease the demands of small minded people who find the idea impossible, I can at least lean upon the evidence that wouldn't be there is relict hominids didn't exist.

    16. There you go with your silly straw men again.

      And again with "cannot be hoaxed" when you should be admitting that you simply don't know how it could be hoaxed. Which is pretty pathetic since it's been explained to you multiple times.

      Oh, what the hell, I'll say it again: Fake tracks made by human (primate) hands can have human (primate) fingerprints (dermal ridges) on them in a pattern that corresponds to no known primate because no real primate has a random jumbled pattern of garbled human fingerprints on its feet. So dermal ridges are not only hoaxable, but hoaxable by accident.

      And now you're going to make the same tired argument that all boils dowen to "nuh uh - unhoaxable" because you cannot admit the truth.

    17. Your "methods" for hoaxing dermal ridges does not stand up to scientific scrutiny... Does not stand up to the methods of falsification, because there is repeatable traits across States and decades, in samples found in the middle of nowhere.

      "Q&A with Dr. Meldrum about this article;

      Q: The article mentions a track that Chilcutt determined was fake. What is the origin of that track?
      A: The "fake" element was overstated by the reporters. It was one of Freeman's casts from Elk Wallow (if memory serves me, but I will check the location name).

      There was evidence of contamination by human fingerprints in the toe region. The question remains whether this was intentional or not. There seems to be a natural inclination to touch tracks, brush away debris, or even embellish an indistinct spot. One of the toes clearly had a triple strike, in that the core pattern of a fingertip (human appearing ridge texture) was repeated down the length of the toe. This may have been done by Freeman or any of the numerous other individuals who examined the tracks prior to their casting. What the reporter failed to mention was that along the margins of the foot there were examples of the distinct coarse textured ridges trending parallel to the margins of the foot! So it is not unreasonable to conclude that a legitimate footprint was literally "touched up" in the toe region."

      You see? It's easy for an expert of many decades to differentiate between human primate and non-human primate dermals, and in fact HAS been the case many times. And the cast referenced up top isn't even within the two examples of traits that have transcended States and decades. Who the **** are you and your imaginary credentials to tell an expert what's what? You haven't even looked at the evidence yourself, you insufferable ignorant.

      And who has a "random jumbled pattern"? What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? There are definitive species traits that are consistent across different samples. There is no confusion, only experts that know what they're talking about...

      And then there's you.

  5. I post as myself bitch. Not only do i play with balls, I have a pair, which alas, you do not. Snap.