Today, I want to tell you about a journey that I've been on for
most of my life. Ever since I was a kid, I've heard tales
of bigfoot and wild men while spending time with my friends and family. As
I grew older and read more about the paranormal, my interest in encryptids and
other things strange only deepened. That's why I'm so excited to share with you
what I've personally become involved with the Untold Radio Network. The Untold Radio Network
is a live streaming podcast network that airs a new show every day across all
podcast platforms, YouTube, and more. They have eight different shows on all
sorts of exciting topics such as bigfoot, cryptids, UFOs, aliens, and
much more. I even have my own show called Weird Encounters, where I
talk about all things strange. This is more than just a podcast network.
It's a community that allows me to meet so many amazing people who share their
stories and experiences with strange. If you're interested in hearing more of these stories
and learning more about the paranormal and encryptids, make sure you check out the
Untold Radio Network for all kinds of exciting shows. It's free to subscribe.
So what are you waiting for visit www dot untold radionetwork dot com today.
Now, what are your reporting? I got a screen going on here.
Something just kid with my dog, something to kill your dog? My dog.
We're flying through there, over the tree. I don't know how it
did it? Okay, Damn, I'm really confused. All I saw was
my dog coming over the fence, and name was dead once you hit the
ground. I didn't see any cars. All I saw was my dog coming
over the fence. Sat, what are you reporting? We got some wonder
or something crawling around out here? Did you see what it was? It
was enough out here when I'm new to window now and I don't need anything,
I don't want to go outside. Point hello, hit the boddy out
here? What went on out there? I've thought of a bit of about
text nine. I don't know easy, I'm out there. Yeah, I'm
wking right, ahad, Oh, it's just you and me today, outstanding.
Yep. Paul had some snaffoo with child transportation or something, and Scott
is of course professionally hiking exactly right. So it's just you mean, it's
going to be, you know, very tender and sort of you know,
what's the word I'm looking for. I'm ruining it. I just ruined it.
Whatever the moment was that we had there, I've I've destroyed it.
But you thoroughly creeped me out. All right, let's just move on.
The last show was kind of different. I assume you had a chance to
listen to that at some point. I've listened to part of it. Yeah,
I haven't actually made it through all of it. I think I made
it through enough of it to be able to converse a pust list. Yeah,
So I thought we would continue the conversation. There are questions on the
Facebook feed that would be good to get to at some point. But I
feel like there's a lot to talk about with regard to this very X thing
still, so I figured we'd talk about that today, among other things.
So there's been a lot of reaction to shows that we put out, because
up until yesterday that was the extent of all the information that was coming out
around what the TVRC had done over the summer. There are some things that
I want to address just in general. There have been questions about motives,
the motivation of the TBRC for doing this and me personally, so I wanted
to sort of get to some of those things. The first thing that I
want to put an end to is this idea that I've actually seen this somebody
suggesting that I'm trying to get myself a television program or something like I'm trying
to pull a Matt Moneymaker and get myself a Bigfoot reality show. Yeah,
I'm not doing that. I would imagine that if I or anyone in the
TVRC was super interested in that, then we would have responded to the past
dozen or so inquiries from Finding Bigfoot that have wanted to engage the TBRC,
and in fact, every time they've come to us, we've declined participation in
that program. So I don't know what else to do except say I'm not
trying to get on TV. No one I know is trying to get on
TV, except to say it. But if I did get on TV,
Sam, I totally take you with me. Appreciate it. I'll warn you
now, I have a face for radio. Okay, there's a reason I'm
on a podcast and I'm not on TV, so I could use a sidekick.
I guess that is what I'm saying. You can do your bobo,
I'll do all the painful recreations for you. Excellent, all right, you're
you're my bobo. The other motivation that i've seen put out there is money,
that the TVRC is in it for the money, as if there was
money in Bigfoot. See exactly when you drag the bloody carcass of the Bigfoot
out of the woods with you, Ed McMahon will be standing there with the
giant novelty size check, you know, just like congratulations and handover. I
don't know some of money, I don't know. There is no money as
far as I can tell. In fact, we've reached out to the you
know, the James Randy Educational Foundation. They have this million dollar pro whatever
it is, for proof of some paranormal thing. So one of our members,
just on a lark reached out to them and said, you know,
if we bring in a dead Bigfoot, you know, is is that going
to get us the million dollars. A response was essentially no, it's not
paranormal. So there is no money in this as far as I can tell
from you know, a direct result of having a dead big tho, there's
no prize. There's no nothing like that. Now it's not to say that
the organization that does it may have an uptick in membership or have an uptick
in donations or something like that. I mean, I'll be perfectly upfront say
that the TBRC makes money in three different ways in this order. We make
money from membership dues. That's almost all the money we make is from membership
dues. We make money from our annual conference, which there will not be
one in twenty twelve, so there's no money coming in from that. Some
years we make a little money on that. They're having one or two years
in the past where we've made pretty good money on it, but usually it's
not a huge money maker. And then the third thing we do ask for
just public donations on our website, and I think we get those extraordinarily and
frequently. I mean, that's essentially there's not much money coming in that way.
So those are the three ways the TVRC makes money. Would the recognition
from bringing one in cause one of those three things to increase, probably,
But also understand that we are a tax exempt corporation. It's not the case
that we're going to be sort of taking this giant pile of filthy lucre and
dividing it amongst ourselves. I mean that the money has to go somewhere,
It has to be accounted for. If we do find ourselves having some financial
sort of uptake based on the fact that we've collected a specimen, then that
money would go back into our research. So it's not exactly the case we're
going to be able to make a lot of money on this. I honestly
don't know how you would make a lot of money off this. I suppose
you could sell your story, right, you could make a TV movie or
something. I don't know, but that's also probably not something that we're going
to be interested in doing. Money is not the motivation. The last motivation
that I've seen is in in fact, you know, it's even been bandied
about on the show by some people who are not present, is that,
you know, we just want it for the fame, you know, we
just want the recognition of being the ones to do it. I guess my
answer to that, you know, the more I thought about that, is
Yeah, it seems to me that humans in general seek recognition in what they
do. I mean, even Mother Teresa. I mean, she was awesome,
right, but I'm sure that Mother Teresa enjoyed hearing how awesome. She
was on occasion, she was doing it for the poor people, but you
know she had an ego, right, I mean, at the end of
the day, I'm sure she said, oh no, no, I do
it for the poor. And I'm sure she was being sincere because she was
doing it for the poor. But at the same time, if you're going
to be someone like Mother Teresa, you enjoy the recognition. Right. If
you're Jonas Sack, you enjoy the recognition. Albert Einstein was a media whore.
That's not saying that anything Albert Einstein ever did was worthless and all he
wanted to do was be on talk shows. That's not true. I mean
I don't even think they had talk shows back then. But what I'm saying
is he was everywhere in the media when he was alive, and he was
still a respected person in his field. Carl Sagan, same thing, total
media whore, right, But nobody's ever said, well, you know that,
Carl Sagan, he only ever wants to be on TV. I guess
I would say if the worst you can like sort of accuse someone who is
out there trying to collect a specimen is that they want their recognition, They
want to be recognized for making a contribution, for making a large discovery.
Absolutely, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's not the sole
motivation, not by a long shot. But it is a motivation because we
are just people, and people seek recognition. I think of the three accusations
that one's easily the weakest and the most disingenuous, because you're absolutely right.
I mean, anybody that goes out there and accomplishes something naturally wants to be
recognized for that accomplishment. I mean, like you said, that's just human
nature. Right now, you can take it to a level where it's worthy
of criticism. But if I put in a huge amount of time and effort
and sweat equity to achieve a goal and you come up and pat me on
the back and say, hey, good job, I'm not going to turn
around and say I don't want your your Oh no, no, no,
no, get away, don't look me like that. I'm gonna appreciate it.
And it's just like you said, it's human nature. And it seems
as though you can have multiple motivations, right you can be truly interested in
making a discovery for your field and also truly enjoy the recognition after the fact,
you know, once the discovery is made. You know, the one
thing that I've seen written about the TVRC on many of the different websites and
forums and Facebook and every world. I don't know exactly where I read this,
but somebody made the comment that the TVRC is pretty boring. In reality.
You don't go to their site if you want the spooky story. They
just go out there. They do their thing, They tell you what they
find. They don't do it in a very exciting way. There's a spectrum.
Right on one end, you're gonna have someone like Tom Buscardi, who
is nothing but showman hype and promotion and whatever he can get his hands on
and spin out. And then there's going to be other people who we don't
even know because they do this work totally in seclusion or totally below the radar
of the world. They may be do doing important things, and they may
be the one to actually do the documentation at the end of the day,
but we don't know who they are because they're on the other end of the
spectrum. But you know, somewhere on that end, not nearly as far
as that, but somewhere on that end, you have something like the TBRC.
I think my own personal opinion, and I think that all you have
to do is go to our website, read the things that have been written
there, and make the judgment for yourself. But I don't think we're certainly
not Biscardy esque. We're not even money maker esque, right, I mean,
we're not even anywhere near what that dude does. Well, whatever that's
I'm probably not the most disinterested third party when it comes to talking about that.
The easiest and the laziest way to attack somebody is to make them one
dimensional. You know, you only have one motive and that's attention, or
you only have one motive and that's money, or you have a member who
acts in such a way so all the members act exactly the same way.
For the longest time, one of the biggest criticisms against the BFRO has been
Matt moneymaker, as if he was every member of the BFRO. Yeah.
Now, I mean it's true, and anybody that knows anything about the BFR
knows it nat is he is the BFRO. But if you're a member of
that organization, it doesn't mean that you're a moneymaker. When people criticize it,
that's what they go after, and so a lot of good descent stand
up people they get railroaded by that same attack. And the same goes for
the TBRC. And I've seen it written online and other places where you know,
people attack the group by attributing one person's traits or that person's actions to
the entire group, and that's completely unfair, not only to the group,
but to that person. It's interesting because another thing I wanted to bring up
is that the James Randy Educational Foundation Forum that j ref for those in the
know I've had some interactions with them over the past week, occurs to me.
At some point I realized that they were not one dimensional. And this
is actually a problem I used to have when I was associated with the Bigfoot
Forms is that people would say the Bigfoot Forms is X, and it was
like, well, the Bigfoot Forms can't be X, because all the Bigfoot
Forms is a group of people talking. So if what you're saying is X,
may be what the most the loudest voice there is, or the person
you last read. But the Bigfoot Forms in and of itself does not have
a point of view, right. It does have a sort of a texture
to it. Then there are a certain type of Especially now, I think
that the diversity of people who post on the BFF is a little narrower than
it used to be, for good or for ill. I don't think it's
fair to say that any group, especially a group that is as amorphous as
a web forum, has a specific point of view, right Obviously, I
think the Bigfoot Forms leans towards heavily the fact that Bigfoot is real, and
something like the James Randy Education Foundation form is going to be leaning in the
exact opposite direction just as hard. But that isn't to say that there aren't
reasonable people or unreasonable people in both groups. I think that goes for all
organizations. I think that's exactly right. So anyway, we've had lots of
conversations answering a lot of questions on the BFF. I've now started to answer
questions on the j REF. I was hesitant because the level of smugness among
some of the people over there is. The snarkiness of the conversation on the
j REF is somewhat difficult to stomach on occasion. But I think we're at
least right now, at this moment, we're at a point where we're having
a reasonable conversation, and there's moderators in the thread who are sort of stripping
out the worst of the snarky smugness, so we'll see what happens. There
are some people in there who are quite concerned about the location and trying to
identify the location where we do our work, which if I was listening to
what I say from outside of me, I can't because I've been there and
I've experienced it. But I fully acknowledge, and I think I acknowledged that
what I say is almost unbelievable. I don't know that I myself would have
believed it several years ago, so I don't necessarily expect everyone hearing the sound
of my voice to believe me. You know, I have a reputation,
and you can weigh that against what I say and use that in any way
that you like. But at the end of the day, all we have
is claims. All we have is experiences. For the most part, it's
not surprising at it some people find it hard to believe. I do find
it troubling when people say that they want us to produce a body. Then
when it seems like we're close to being able to do that when the members
who are so inclined to do so are in a position to do that.
There seems to be quite a bit of worry on the skeptical side about what
that would mean. Well, obviously, since Bigfoot can't exist, then if
we see something in the bushes and we shoot at it and it's on two
legs, we're going to be killing somebody, because of course Bigfoot is not
real. You kind of expose the fact that they're not real skeptics in many
cases. You know, I'm not saying that none of them are, but
a lot of them aren't. And some of them who are held up as
paragons of reasonable skepticism in this field aren't because they don't believe that Bigfoot exists.
They're not actual skeptics. They won't modify their point of view, and
there's no way to get new information into their thought process a lie or a
hoax or whatever, because they've already cited that the animal we look for is
not real. I think that's a good point to make. When you go
to the point to where you say that this animal definitively does exist or definitively
does not exist, you're engaging in a belief system both ways. You can't
criticize someone for saying, okay, Bigfoot is real and then turn around immediately
and say, there's absolutely no way that Bigfoot is real. You are obviously
committing a hopes. That's just as definitive a statement with just as little evidence
to back it up. It's unfair to point that finger at someone and make
that accusation of, well, you're a creduloid because you believe in Bigfoot,
or you know you're obviously a hoax, or because you say you saw Bigfoot,
or because you say you have ongoing activity in an area. You can't
have it both ways. You can't make definitive statements yourself with no evidence and
then criticize others for making definitive statements that you say have no evidence. Right.
I've been pretty upfront to say that the experiences that I've had and the
things that I relate, I don't think rise to the level of proof.
I'm not going to suddenly start saying that, well, my stories are different,
because I'm saying them so clearly. You know, I'm completely believable.
I think I am totally believable, and I am obviously telling the truth.
But that doesn't mean that some guy off the street needs to necessarily believe me.
That's why many people within the TBRC believe we need to collect a specimen,
because what happens to you is just a story until you can bring out
evidence. Yesterday, the TBRC released some hair evidence. You know, we
collected a bunch of hairs. There was contact with the building. It was
the kind of contact that made us believe there may be hair evidence left on
the building. I'll just leave it at that. So we went out to
collect a bunch of hairs. We actually got a lot of hairs. We
looked at all of them under the microscope. Almost all of them appeared to
be raccoon, with the exception of one hair that we found, which let
me describe it correctly, because I meant to have this sitting in front of
me before I the show, and I didn't. So one of these hairs
we call it Sample six because that's the number it got. It's about six
inches long. It's kind of reddish brown. Under the microscope, we've found
that it has no madula, so there's no you know, core inside this
hair. It has an interesting root. It's kind of a bulbous root and
the tip of the hair is broken off and frayed in a very interesting way
that when we look at human hair, even though human hair also share some
of these same attributes, the end of this hair is interesting that human hair
typically doesn't end up looking like this. It splits, but this is frayed
like it's seen a lot of wear and tear. Soh this hair is very
interesting to us. It's just the one hair that we found. All the
other hairs that we found we've dismissed and they're gone, but this particular hair
fits into the profile of other hairs that have purported to have come from what
Apes, so this hair is of interest to us. We've collected the hair
of other long haired members who this hair could have come from, that it
doesn't match their hair, and again it looks pretty beat up as if it
hasn't been cared for in the same way that human hair is. So we
shared this information with Jeff Meldrum. He thought it was interesting as well.
So we've sent this hair off to Brian Sykes who is doing the DNA study
over there in Oxford, so this hair will be studied, will be analyzed
by him and the DNA will be extracted from this hair, and that's where
it is right now. I don't know what he's going to find. I
am very curious to see what he finds, because obviously, if it is
from a wood ape, then that will be some interesting DNA to look at.
Right I think it's really interesting that it's going to be included in that
study because there's been a lot of talk and chatter about it. I think
even the most ardent critic would have to sit back and say that in this
particular case, this is legitimate science. This isn't any kind of showmanship or
puffery or fakery. This is a real scientist doing real science, and to
get your possible evidence included in that is a big deal. It's entirely possible
this hair will come back any number of different ways, and we don't know
that it's from a wooded because we didn't see the woody leave it there.
It's entirely possible that it is, and it's possible that it isn't, So
there were at least opening ourselves up to finding out one way or the other.
There's another hair that we sent along too. At last year's conference,
we had on display well it's a dreadlock. It's this long piece of sort
of knotted hair. It looks like a dread but it's super long. It's
like, I don't know, or feet long or so. That isn't TBRC
property. That was brought to us by someone who we've had as an association
with for us to try to analyze and take a look at. So we
were able to collect some pieces of that and we've sent pieces of that hair
and it shows a lot of the same traits as the hair we collected off
the cabin. Well actually all the same traits as the hair we collected off
the cabin. So that hair is also going to Sykes. So now he's
got two samples from us to put in the study. So that's exciting.
We'll see what happens. So some of the questions and I'm going to go
to the Facebook page because one of the things that I don't think I was
very clear about on the show in wh which I related my experiences up,
there was one thing I wanted to comment on. You were talked about you
know, you haven't made the claim that your experiences are evidence that's true.
That was one of the first things I picked up on listening to Alton and
Paul Bowman, was you all go to great lengths to say we have experienced
this, and we're not going to back down and say otherwise. You know,
these things happened, and we saw them and we experienced them, but
we all fully recognize that this is not proof, right. You know,
I forget exactly how it was that Alton phrased it, but I mean he
literally put it out there to say, we know these things because these things
happened, but we also know that our knowing them doesn't make everyone else know
them, right. That's my own way of paraphrases. Yeah, but it's
true, and I think that's an important thing, and I think that adds
to the legitimacy of it. You know, I've had experiences and I've seen
things, but I'm not going to go out there and tell anyone that my
own personal experiences amount to squat you know, I've had my experiences on the
JIF, and that was something that I said from day one, and I've
said anywhere else that I've talked about it. It's such a strange position to
be put into when you know something happened, there's no doubt about it.
There's no mistaking it. You weren't asleep, you weren't under the influence.
You know, there's just no other way of getting around it. It happened,
but what it was was extraordinary, and you were almost left with a
burden that you have to carry because you know, on the one hand,
you know it was real and you know what happened, but you also know
that when you go out there into the greater wide world and relate this to
people, they're going to look at you like you're crazy, Which kind of
gets back to motivation. Why would the TBRC, Why would I tell these
stories except that I want people to hear them, knowing that there's going to
be people And on the j REF you can see this, you can read
it. It's not even between the lines. I mean, it's right there
in words. There's a lot of animosity towards people who have these experiences and
talk about them. It's almost like we're accused of having experiences, like our
crime is that this happened to us and we're telling people about it. There's
a lot of, you know, anger about that, which I really don't
understand. Again, we're not necessarily just coming out of the blue We're not
an unknown quantity. The TVRC has been on for a long time. I
mean I've been in this publicly in this field since two thousand and two,
So I don't really understand where a lot of the anger comes from. I
think it has to come from somewhere inside of them, more so than based
on anything we're saying, Well, we are making extraordinary claims. I totally
acknowledge that I'm only talking about the stuff that we've talked about. Right within
the group, we're constantly saying to each other like, this is incredible,
right, I mean, we fully acknowledge that it's incredible in every sense of
that word incredible. But all we're doing is saying what happened? Of course,
because you know, this is one of the questions I've answered again and
again on the JROUGH is like, well, how do you know there's big
put down there? Because I've seen them, right, We've seen them.
We've had multiple pretty clear sightings where you can see attributes of the body.
There's been a whole bunch of sort of fleeting glimpses that we call possible sightings
that we don't necessarily say were a siding. They could have been, but
we don't know for a fact, because all you could see was a blur
of color or something in the bushes. Mark McClerkin has seen the things back.
He's seen its ass and its legs. I mean, he says it
looks like the PGF subject. I mean, Daryl has seen an animal.
We could see the top of its pointy head, you know. And those
are just two of the examples, not the only two. That's the other
thing that there's a misperception out there that everything that we've said is everything that's
happened. That's not the case. There have been several sightings where you could
discern attributes of these animals' bodies. These are not fleeting glimpses. They're fast,
they happen quickly, but they have some detail behind them. How do
we know they're down there, well, because we've seen them. So now
we're making this claim that they're there because we've seen them and all this other
stuff has happened. Then sort of the hate machine starts churning in some people,
and I honestly don't understand where that comes from. Maybe that's the difference
between a quote unquote skeptic and someone who's not see it as skeptical, the
skeptical thing. I'm skeptical, right, I'm skeptical of the things that happen
to me and to our organization. I hate the fact the mantle of skepticism
has been taken up by people who have entirely closed minds, who do not
accept new information. They say, oh, I would love to be proven
wrong, But that's not true because if you say things to them, or
you try to bring something like this hair out that the hair has gotten remarkably
little attention on the j REF, which is interesting. You know, the
one piece of sort of physical evidence that we've brought out about on the j
REF. All they want to talk about is, you know, is the
cabin really as remote as you say it is? And how do you know
there aren't humans hoaxing you? Isn't it true that you haven't seen any foot
down there? I mean, all these kind of things that just demonstrate that
they don't know the facts that we put out there. It can be very
frustrating. So if you read it from a detached perspective, you know and
you don't, you don't invest yourself on either side of the argument. You
can see people constructing their own belief system. And it's another example of what
I was saying, where you can't criticize someone for making a definitive statement when
you turn right back around yourself and use your own definitive statement to attack them.
If you're building a belief and your argument is based upon a belief,
you don't talk about things that don't fit into that belief system. You tend
to focus on those things that support your belief. And so if your belief
is that there can be no Bigfoot, so obviously these people are lying,
then those are the things that you're going to bring into that conversation. You're
going to bring into you know, hoaxing and questioning locations and questioning aspects of
the story. In fairness, you should be very question and when someone comes
to you with an extraordinary claim, yes you should put all your energy and
all your thought into dissecting it. Right, But you get to a point
where you're not asking legitimate questions for the sake of knowledge. You're asking questions
in an attempt to buoy up a decision that you've already come to long ago.
One of the criticisms I had about the way he was treated was when
Ben Radford was speaking to him. He wasn't speaking to Scott's own experiences,
specifically what Scott was talking about. He was bringing up canned arguments that,
you know, the old chestnuts that are always brought up every time you start
to talk about something like Sasquatch. And I said then that, you know,
instead of bringing up these, you know, these canned arguments, he
should have been directly addressing Scott and Scott's experiences. You know, if you're
going to take somebody apart or try to get to the heart of the matter,
you need to do so not because your prop yourself up, but because
you want to know the truth one way or the other. And like you
said, skepticism should be about seeking that truth. That's how I would define
it skepticism. And I don't have a dictionary in front of me, but
skepticism should be not taking a position until there can be actual evidence or proof
that could push you in one way or the other. But a lot of
these guys sort of just sit behind this curtain of skepticism when in reality they're
not skeptical at all. They're just unbelievers. They're just like, they have
no possibility of accepting this short of us bringing a dead one out of the
bushes. Right. So in some of this stuff, I want to be
careful to not say exactly what their motivations are. But in some of these
cases, what I sense is like a real fear that we may be close
to doing this, that we may be close to exposing the fact that they're
wrong. A lot of these guys don't want to be wrong, you know,
they don't ever want to be wrong. It's strange to me that the
people who have been asking for the very thing that we seem to be close
to producing would suddenly be doing every thing they could to keep us from producing
the thing that they say they've wanted all this time. I do think it's
interesting that they've already positioned themselves with an argument for why they wouldn't pay out
the million dollar Challenge. Yeah, but you know, if you think about
it, they're right because the million dollar Challenge specifically deals with paranormal claims.
Well, if you bring in a wood ape or a sasquatch or whatever you
want to call it, there's nothing paranormal about that. That's a biological entity
exactly. And so it's it's easy to say that, but yeah, you're
right. I mean, I'm looking at the definition of skepticism right now,
and the very first line is an attitude of doubt or a disposition a method
of suspended judgment. Well, definitive statements like there is no sasquatch. That's
not doubt, right, that's not a suspended judge, and that's a statement
of fact. And I can find you dozens of examples in this one threat.
I don't even go anywhere else in the forum, right. You know,
there's multiple flat out assertions that bigfoot do not exist. That's not a
suspension of of judgment at all. To be fair, we've got the same
problem on our side of the fence, because you know, if these guys
are so far to the right that they can't even accept a brand new fact
in any little nook and cranny of their brain because they are completely locked solid
in what they believe, we've got the same exact problem on the other side,
where brains are too open and too accepting and too willing to take any
piece of information or any claim and accept that it's real. We've got problems
on both sides. What's frustrating to me is that I think there is a
true skeptical center that is not represented by either side, especially by most of
the people who claim to be skeptics. There is a true skeptical center to
say, you know, this is a piece of evidence, and we need
to ascertain whether or not it's true, ascertain what it represents. But that
isn't the case for a lot of people who claim to be skeptics. And
I think Ben Radford's a really good example. We've beat up on him on
the show lots of times. If you read what he writes, not what
he writes professionally, because he tries to keep that pretty open, but if
you read what he writes on Facebook, if you listen to how he's like
on Monster Talk, this is not a man looking for new information. This
is a man trying to just tell you how you're wrong fifteen different ways,
and stay tuned for more sasquatch Obasy will be right back after these messages.
That's not skepticism, and it's frustrating to me because I count myself as a
skeptic. Now, I'm a skeptic who has had experiences. I've been in
the woods and I've seen the friggin' apes, right, So there's only so
much skepticism I can bring to the entire concept of sasquatch. That doesn't mean
that every piece of information that comes to me now I'm going to accept because
I know personally that they're real. I'm still going to approach them skeptically.
And there are other subjects outside of Bigfoot that I'll approach skeptically. But I'm
not going to go so far as to say that, for example, ghosts
don't exist. I will say I have no idea what they are. And
I will say that there is actual phenomena that gets recorded. I don't know
where it comes from. I don't know what it means. And I think
that a lot of things that are said by people who go look for it
seem to be a bit presumptuous. Now you don't know that these are the
spirits of dead people, you know. It is one of the funny things
people make, these declarative statements about what this stuff is. We don't know
anything. So I will sit here skeptically and say that evidence that you collect
does not necessarily support the argument you make, but it is still evidence you
collect. So I will sit here and suspend my judgment until such time as
you can bring me something that's actually new or unique or in some way conclusive.
But that's different than just saying, well, ghosts are a bunch of
shit and people who look for them are stupid. Before I get torn to
shreds and accused of being this skeptic, bashing proponent, I am twice as
critical of the proponent side as I am the skeptical side, because I think
that you have to keep your own house in order before you can go and
criticize anybody else. Clean up your own backyard. We have that problem in
spades. We have people who, without any personal experiences or without any evidence,
will sit there and just say declaratively, sash Squatch exists absolutely. You
know, people who will believe every report they read. People who will believe
in evidence even after that evidence has been brought into quequestion, or or even
worse, once it's been refuted. I mean, there's evidence out there that's
been presented and debunked, thoroughly debunked, and yet people will still support it.
And that's just as bad. And we as skeptical for opponents. As
you said, it's our duty to try to more importantly, to be our
own stanchiest critics. One thing that I've warned about in the past and I
warn about it now is once you have something happen to you, it is
easy to get bigfoot itis. You can have an experience and it starts to
wear away at that skepticism. It happened to me, so obviously if somebody
else says it happened to them, it did, well, you can't be
that way. You still have to be skeptical. You still have to question
what's brought before you. Even though you personally know that they're real, it
doesn't mean that someone else isn't going to come along and lie to you.
I think that's a really good point that the big question you need to get
over is are they real? Do they exist or not? And once you
do that, this a tendency in some people let their guard down and become
much less to not analyze the stuff that's been put in front of them,
or not to take it quite as seriously or look into it as deeply as
they should, because the big question has been answered. Therefore everything else is
a little question. So it's important not to let that happen to you.
Once you quote unquote know, you need to understand that there's still quite a
bit of crap out there. The way that works with me personally is I
go to the BFF now to answer questions about what's happened over the summer,
what the TBRC is doing, and I see all these other threads. What
I find is that in the past I would have been interested to get in
on those threads perhaps, or at least to read what people were saying.
Now I don't care as much because it's different for me now than it was
then. You know, it's not quite as theoretical, and there are some
conversations that I just don't have any interest in expending brain cells on. It's
a hard thing to describe. But on the one hand, my interest is
sharper and more finely honed now. But at the same time, there's a
lot of stuff that I just I don't care about anymore, right Like,
honestly, I have no interest in trying to defend the PGF. You know,
I think it's real, But what's the point of talking about it anymore?
Who cares? Do you see what I'm saying? Am I making any
sense? Care less? I just want to put it out there as an
example, But so fine, Yah Memorial Day footage which I never really cared
about anyway. But where I find myself now, and I'm not going to
say it's like this to everybody, but where I find myself now, the
number of things that I actually care about in the field have gotten much smaller.
I would say that probably seventy or eighty percent of the stuff that gets
talked about I just couldn't care less about it anymore. But part of me
is like whatever you know, You guys talk about whatever you want with regard
to you know whether or not, I don't know. I can't even give
you a good example. On the one hand, I've just lost the stomach
for a lot of it. I mean, there is just so much hate
and animosity. You see these threads where people are, I mean, you
can just imagine them red faced as they pound away on the keyboard, just
wearing their keyboards out. For me, I have no desire at all to
be a part of any of that. On another level, there's some things
that, like you said, they just don't interest me. I mean,
I'm so far beyond things like the Freeman footage and the PGF. It has
no importance to me. I don't need need the pg I don't need the
Freeman footage, right, And I think for some people that's why they stay
in those subjects so deeply as they do. They need that particular thing to
support their ideas and support their belief dermal Ridges. There was a time when
that mattered to me because I was on the proponents side, and as a
proponent who at that point was desperate for proof and for evidence, that really
buoyed me up, that really supported my ideas and my beliefs. But now
so far removed from that doesn't carry any more weight for me. But there
are things, particularly things that I've experienced or things that I know others have
experienced who I believe, you know, when I see those things come up,
that really does catch my interest. Right at the same time, I
have to fight from becoming to my opic. I can just focus on those
things that I've experienced or that support my own experiences. I do have to
look outside that and look at things that can be critical or skeptical. Right.
Dan asked a question that multiple people have asked in one form or another,
and I'm just going to bring a piece of it. So many people
claiming to have had sightings of sasquatch. Could you perhaps talk about how with
so many people who were out there in the woods for the sole purpose of
attaining evidence of this creature were able to have numerous sightings and not get one
single picture of anything. You would think at least one would be prepared to
take action at such time. I think there's two things here. There's the
question of why are there no pictures of Bigfoot? And we've touched on this
in the show in the past. Taking a picture of a wild animal encounter
is difficult. Usually if you just stumble upon them. It happens very quickly,
and there's no way to get the camera up and on because cameras are
all electric and have to be turned on. The amount of time of the
encounter is not of sufficient duration to get a picture that would mean anything.
Also, you have to just get over the surprise of having the encounter to
begin with. My specific encounter, when we saw the things run up the
hill, just happened too quickly. I think even Mark mccluchin had a camera
either on him or near him, he didn't even think to grab it because
it happened so quickly. All I can say is that the typical profile of
an encounter period and the typical profile of the encounter in X are the same.
They happen at an unexpected time. They're typically over very quickly. We're
talking a matter of seconds. The longest encounter that I'm aware of that took
place from somebody on our team in X was actually fairly recently. It was
a situation where the animal was come upon. The entire sighting happened over the
course of several seconds, so theoretically it would have been long enough for someone
to take a picture, but that person did not have a camera on them.
In fact, had nothing on them, not a weapon or a camera
or anything that could have been used to collect a bestment, because they were
not expecting to come upon it. So in that case, the surprise of
the situation, even though the encounter happened over the course of several seconds,
they were not prepared for anything. And if they had turned and run off
to grab a camera or gun or a DNA dart or something like that and
come back, it would have been over. So what happens again, me
speaking for myself, I've made the decision a long time ago that unless I
am fully prepared to do something at the very moment it happens by some strange
happenstance of luck. I'm not going to waste the experience by trying to fumble
with a camera or pull my phone out, because the experience is incredibly rare
and it isn't going to last long enough, you know. And then there's
the part of me that says, and so what if we got a picture,
because chances are that picture would be dismissed. Right, It's not going
to be very good, and it will be dismissed. You know. It's
not an Olin Mills studio out there, and we're just waiting for the Bigfoot
to walk in front of the you know, modeled blue back ground so we
can get a senior picture. Is there? You are a shot? I
mean, it's so I don't want to. On the one hand, I
think it's a perfectly valid question, and it's the exact same kind of question
that I would have had prior to putting myself in the position to be able
to answer the question. I guess, so I don't want to belittle it.
I don't want to throw it out. But the reality is that these
encounters happen so quickly, the opportunity to do anything is very, very poor.
I've been talking to a lot of people about this recently, so I
may be incorrect about this, but it's like, well, why haven't you
shot one. It's like, all these encounters you talk about, it seems
incredible that you haven't been able to shoot one yet. Again, now I'm
not even taking a picture, right, You're asking me, why have I
not fired a deadly weapon at something? Well, because one of the very
first rules of firing a gun is know what you're shooting at right. And
again, if you're talking about something that happens extraordinarily quickly, by the time
you can make that judgment, the opportunity has often left. I would guess
that hunters have that situation all of the time. Many shots do you not
take versus the ones that you do take? And last year I saw a
lot of deer during deer season. I took three shots on all the deer
that I saw. There were numerous times when I let them walk because I
knew I wasn't close enough, I didn't have a clear enough shot right,
you know, I wasn't positioned correctly. I made the decision and I'll let
them go. I think a lot of this is from people who don't know
that. I'm not a hunter, but I've been around enough of them now
that I know what you're talking about. There's two things that people think who
don't who aren't around firearms and don't hunt a all guns are the same.
They're all powerful and every single gun, if you have a gun on you,
you can kill anything, which is not true because there's different calibers,
there's different types of guns, there's different kinds of loads, and there's different
kinds of animals. So just because you are armed does not mean that you
can kill something that you see. Secondarily to your point, the shot matters,
can I collect what I just saw? You know, when you see
something tearing away at you at thirty miles an hour up a mountain side,
even if you did hit it, chances are you're not going to be able
to get it right. And so if you're making that judgment call, more
often than not, the judgment call is to not fire. All I can
say is that's how it works. Going back to the photo thing, there's
an inverse relationship between the quality of photo you can get and your ability to
get a photo. If you really wanted to get that national geographic cover photo,
you need some serious photographic equipment, and a lot of cases that equipment
slows you down. It slows down your reaction time, it slows down you
know how quickly you can get on a subject. Then, depending on how
much it is it slows you down. You know, when you're lugging around
battery packs and big cameras and big telephoto lenses and things like that, that's
going to affect your mobility. Conversely, if you are nimble and light,
quick to react, chances are what you have with you is very poor quality.
Like you said, it's going to be a camera phone or a little
digital camera and you're not going to get the quality photo that's going to convince
anybody either way. That said, it is a legitimate criticism, and my
challenge would be to people out there, to the proponents and even to the
skeptics, crowdsource a solution. Put your collective ideas together. Find a way
where you can take someone and put them out there in the field and have
them be mobile and be able to be dynamic in that environment and at the
same time be capable of capturing a very fast, good quality photo. When
you figure out how to do it and make it economical, enough to that
fridge Bigfoot can actually afford it, then you're going to be talking. One
of the things that was talked about on the BFF GO programmers and multiple people
brought up cameras and these are the little wearable digital cameras that shoot in high
definition video, and those are great. I own two of them myself.
The TVRC has a couple of them. The challenge we've had with those cameras
is maintaining them. Is not is just sticking it on your body and going
out, because of course they have batteries. The batteries run out, the
cards fill up. You have to maintain them. You have to take care
of them. You have to keep the batteries charged. I did a reconnaissance
of the mountain side when we were replacing some cameras, and I had the
go pro going the whole time I was up there was out there about two
hours. By the time I got back, the card was almost full.
I had two batteries on that camera and they were essentially dead. So when
I got back, I was almost out of time. So that's two hours.
So that means I have to carry to cover normal daylight hours, I
have to have six batteries on me. I have to have multiple cards.
I have to then be able to recharge all those batteries, which turned out
to be kind of a challenge this past summer, we're looking into other ways
of doing that. I think you see shows like Destination Truth or even Finding
Bigfoot or Dirty Jobs with Mike Row and they're using these cameras and they seem
ubiquitous, and they seem to be always on, and they can be,
but they can also be a challenge to maintain and to use. So some
of our members have tried to use them with mixed results. Again, it
only matters if they can collect every single thing, and in some cases in
practice they're difficult to maintain, you know, twenty four to seven essentially,
So I mean, why don't you wear go pros? We do wear GoPros.
Not everyone has a go pro on them at all times. We don't
have enough for every single person. We certainly don't have enough batteries to go
around. You mentioned the manpower you have to put into using to go back
and actually review right all those hours of footage. Right now, we have
one and a half terabytes of data that have not been reviewed. That's from
audio recorders. That's from the plot Watcher time lapse cameras, that's from game
cams. That's how much stuff we're sitting on right now. That's just because
we have like eight of these Plotwatcher cameras that are shooting pictures every five seconds
or whatever it is, throughout the daylight hours. So these cameras are just
generating a massive amount of stuff that you have to look at. We may
have a picture of a way right now. We don't even know about it.
We probably don't, because you know, we've been out there looking to
take pictures for quite a long time and have never gotten anything. But that's
just a lot of crap. Man, that's a lot of stuff to go
through. How many eyeballs do you have and how much free time do they
have? And then you get into the problem of actually moving that data.
They had to ship me a hard drive so that I could take that data
and stick it on an FTP server, and now people have to download that
stuff. I mean, it's just moving this stuff around can be a challenge
in and of itself. I'm not saying that all of this and these are
excuses, right, I completely acknowledge that these are excuses. But they're also
valid excuses. The equipment is difficult to maintain. The equipment cannot be running
twenty four to seven, and even if it can be, when it can
be like some of the station ay cameras can be, then you're left with
an incredible amount of stuff you have to look at. We'll be looking at
this all winter long. I mean, I'm convinced that we will not.
Well. For instance, last year, when we found the audio of the
strange chattering sound like the samurai chatter quote unquote, we found that months after
the fact, you know, I think we found that not too long before
our conference, which was in October. We probably found that two months after
it had been recorded. So I understand the frustration that people have. You
know, you have all these experiences. Why aren't you shooting them? Why
aren't you taking pictures of them? And all I can say is that it
happens very quickly, and the technology doesn't always cooperate, and a lot of
our guys they don't want to mess with it. You know, we have
some guys who love to work with the technology and the electronics, and then
we have other guys who don't and don't want to have anything to do with
it, and that's just human nature. You can't expect everyone to have the
same level of comprehension or the same sort of willingness to deal with with the
gear. I don't think there was another question here that I wanted to answer
that I saw Ron man Reid says what is the best bigfoot bait? And
I would say right now that people are. My experience is they want to
see and interact with people. So I don't know if that's a good answer
or not. But I can't tell you like pancakes, I don't know if
I have pancakes. I have no idea about pancake. Believe when you were
just talking, one of the things that I was thinking about is one of
the charges is, you know, how do these things know what a camera
is? How do they perceive that you know that you're trying to photograph them
or you know you're trying to shoot them. I don't think that's necessarily the
case right. One thing that I've said for a long time, and it's
one thing that I kind of had passed down to me a while back and
found to be true myself, is that if you want to have your best
chance at activity if you think that you're close to one of these things,
or more than one of these things, and you really want to improve your
chances of experiencing something, you need to act like you are completely oblivious to
what is happening. And this is one of those things where I'm saying something
that I personally know to be true and have absolutely no way of backing up.
And I fully acknowledge that. But I'm firmly convinced that when activity begins,
the best thing you can do is to pretend that you're ignorant of it,
because effectively, what's happening is these things are trying to get a reaction
out of you, whether it's to gauge your numbers, to intimidate you,
or just to mess with you for the sheer sake of messing with you.
But I do know that there have been times where things have started to happen
around me, and the longer I could act like nothing was happening, the
more intense those interactions became. You know, when you get up and you
react to that, that activity stops. It doesn't matter if you're just getting
up to look or if you're getting up with a camera to try and take
a picture, or you're getting up with a gun to try and take a
specimen. They don't know that. All they know is that you are now
reacting, which means that you're aware of their presence, and the last thing
they want is for you to be able to come directly into contact with them,
so they immediately cease their activity. Yeah, I agree with that.
I don't want to give too much away of a particular case, but there
was somewhere I was at and there was ongoing activity at this area. It
became very clear, very quickly that the second you try to get out there
to see one of these things, or get out there with a camera,
you hit as good as guaranteed that nothing was going to happen. No,
for a skeptical person, it's very easy to say, well, if these
things are coming up to these cabins, why aren't you out there getting their
picture. Well, they're coming up to the cabin up to the point to
where you try to get the picture. It's very hard when you're in that
situation and you know that they're out there, You know these things are happening,
but the second you step outside the door, it's like they vaporize.
They just disappear in the thin air. Yeah, no, there's been.
This has been, So I'll open I'll lift the tent a little bit and
say that within the TBRC, there's been a lot of conversation about this,
the sort of like passive versus active approaches. I think where I'm settling in
on is that there's a value both approaches. But what I seem to favor,
and what I believe generates the most activity, is when you are more
passive. Because exactly what you say when you hear a don't jump up and
run over to every single one of them. I think that my own personal
opinion is that that reaction is what they want. I think they're looking to
interact in some way they are clearly not wanting to be, you know,
like they don't want you to walk up on them, right. But it's
the case that the more passive you are, I believe, based on what
we've seen, especially over this last summer, but even last year as well,
the more you just sort of sit there and let them come to you,
the closer they will get to you. And if you run after them,
I mean it's futile. You can't, you know, quote unquote catch
them. Because you're just not prepared to operate over the terrain the same way
they are. But I think you're exactly right. The biggest mistake I made
over the course of my time down the next this summer was when I saw
the eye shine in the trees on the mountain side and I yelled out about
it. I was super uncool about it, right, because I was really
surprised and I was pretty excited. But I should have been a lot cooler
about it. I should have just seen it and pretended like I didn't and
I used a very normal tone of voice. But I didn't. And I
think if I had any one thing to do over, I think that I
reacted the wrong way. If I had been a little cooler about it,
I think that would have gone down a different way. I think you're right.
I think that jumping up and running out after every sound that you hear
is a mistake. Now, I just said that because I'm being accused on
the j ref of being quote, you know, a afraid of the dark.
B I cower in the cabin. See, I don't understand that I
can use a flashlight in the dark d I don't use my night vision,
So there's this perception that we just sit in the cabin and shake when stuff
happens around. That's not the case. It is the case that we go
out and investigate sounds, that we attempt to discover the source of sounds.
It's an innumerable number of times that you hear something and you get up and
you move, and sometimes that movement also precipitates an interaction, not necessarily a
direct interaction. You know, in the case of the ones that we actually
witnessed, that entire scenario unrolled over the course of like an hour, and
it was because we were investigating sounds in one area that it's possible that another
group of them came a little closer to Kathy Strain when she was all by
herself. Now, I'm extrapolating what we saw. I don't know this to
be the case, but it is certainly not the case that anybody in the
TBRC is sitting in the cabin afraid to turn a light, afraid to use
a flashlight, afraid to go outside. Now, and I've spoken face to
face with bigfoot researchers quote unquote who tell me, oh, you can't go
outside your tent because if you do, they'll leave like, there's no way
I would go outside my tent to find out what that noise was. That
isn't how the TBRC works. You know, I'm not saying it's a crazy
extrapolation to say, well, you've heard other people say that, so the
TBRC must be the same way. That's not the case. We don't cower
in the cabin. I honestly don't prefer to be in the cabin. I
prefer to be out of the cabin because then you know where these sounds are
coming from. Right then you have a better idea of the distance, and
honestly, they don't get as close when you're house the cabin. But otherwise
I think I pretty much agree with you that playing it cool is oftentimes a
better strategy than otherwise. I wanted to address that because I just I was
reading that this morning that apparently I am afraid of the dark and hide into
the bed in the cabin. Big wuss, I am. I have a
big fat woss. There are people who are never going to put themselves in
a position to have an experience, and then there are people who do put
themselves in a position to have an experience. What I'm sensing now because I
am now firmly on the other side that I have been out there, I
have had an experience that some people, not everyone. I don't mean to
overgeneralize, but there are some people who get kind of cranky about it because
you don't produce a meaningful piece of evidence that they want. You know,
it's like you went out there and did this, and then you said this
thing happened, and you didn't bring back a picture that I want to see.
They have sort of like this, like they're entitled to the evidence.
I guess this gets back to what we were talking about earlier in whether or
not I would go for a can. If I put myself out in the
woods and I'm having an experience, the priority is for me, not for
anybody else. I want to have the experience that I'm having. If I
see something and I know it's going to be fleeting, I don't care about
some random guy on the Internet having a picture to look at. And that's
from both sides. That's from the proponent and the skeptical side. There are
people who are on the proponent side who, you know, if you're going
out in the woods, they fully expect that you come back and share every
single thing that you did with them, you know, and not because they're
taking part in any investigative effort. It's just strictly from a sense of entitlement.
You know, I need something new to look at, I need something
new to talk about or to buoy out my faith, and by God,
you better deliver it, like or the Discovery Channel or something like. It's
a yeah, exactly right. You know, there's a lot of things that
don't make it out there fair. A lot of it is just minutia.
How many times have you been out there and you experience it's something that's so
uncertain, that's debatable, that it's not even worth talking about, you know.
And then there are things that you don't mention because if you do,
you will be ridiculed. Things that you're just like, I cannot even believe
that just happened. And there is no way in hell I am ever going
to tell anybody about that, because as soon as that gets out there,
it's going to be like on some T shirt somewhere, right, So there's
no way. I'm on a personal level, there are things that I've shared
with other people that I truly regret sharing, you know, it doesn't change
the fact that it happened, and it doesn't change the fact that it's something
that I experienced. But I really regret sharing that because in those instances,
it was something that I was sharing with someone who had not experienced the same
thing and didn't have the same reference or perspective that I had on it.
You could really see the impact that it had. When you have someone who
you consider to be a friend and associate and you share something with them and
that person looks at you like your batshit crazy. That hurts. There's no
other way to put it right. It's made me more reluctant in some cases
to share certain things, not because I don't think I'll be believed or because
it somehow changes the reality of what happened. Absolutely I know exactly what you're
talking about. There's also the fact that telling your experiences is actually a lot
harder than not telling your experiences. Relating these stories and you know you said
this, but actually putting these things out there is so much harder than because
of the reaction you get from people who are not willing to do even the
tiniest bit of background understanding, right, They're not willing to do any kind
of studying at all of what you're saying. They just listen to some synopsis
of what you said and attack you forward. But going out there and putting
yourself out there takes a lot more effort than not and just sitting on your
stuff. And I don't say that that's not whining, that's not me claiming
any sort of special privilege. That's just me saying that I don't think that
until you do it, you can understand it. But putting yourself out there
and telling your friends, even just your friends and family. I'm not talking
about publicizing it for the entire Internet, but just putting yourself out there is
harder than just keeping it inside and never telling anybody what you've experienced except for
the people who experienced it with you. I want to get to these sounds
that we're going to play. I've already promised this on Facebook's these two sounds.
Then, because of the way we record the show, I'm not going
to be able to play them so that you can hear them. But I
think you've already heard them. I've listened to both of them, and I
have a couple of questions about one of them. So what I'm going to
do is I'm going to play this for myself right now to refresh my memory
and maybe saying you're going to hear it. The first thing you're going to
hear this is from a team who was just in x over labor day.
So I'll give you a quick scenario here. What happened is we had an
equipment retrieval team go in a couple of weeks ago. There was an encounter,
pretty significant encounter, so another team went in over labor day to follow
up on that. We're not used to having, you know, it isn't
like we have years and years of experience with this level of activity, but
based on last year of twenty eleven, we were not expecting there to be
much activity in the fall. But there has been this fall for whatever reason.
So a team went in last weekend to try to collect some evidence.
They had an audio recorder going. They had some very interesting things happened to
them, things that were on the one hand, both very familiar, but
on the other hand, very different and new. So the first thing I'm
going to play is a single rock throw. This is a rock that has
been thrown off the mountain side. You can hear it coming in through the
trees. You can hear it hit the roof, and then you can hear
it fall off an impact with the ground. So I'm going to play the
sound right now. So you've listened to that sound, and I've just played
it for everybody else. So yeah, yeah, there you go. I
mean, as I said, you can hear this sound. This is recorded
in the morning. If I'm correct about that, I think i am again.
You can hear this rock coming in. You can hear it impacting branches
on the way down. You can hear it hitting the roof of the cabin
with a very loud noise. You can hear it sort of bouncing off the
roof of the cabin, and you can hear a thumping on the ground.
I mean, this is one instance. It's probably one of the best recordings
of a rock impact that we have because you can hear the entire event.
You can hear the trajectory, the impact, the tumble, and the fall
of the ground all in one sort of neat package. Is that the one
you had a question about or is it the next time? No, No,
it was the other one. It was a comment you made about the
other one that got me thinking about some things. I'll let you play it
first and then the next sound. The whole file, the whole clip that
I have is eight minutes long. I'm not going to play the whole eight
minutes. But what this is within the group, we're sort of using the
shorthand, we're calling it rain. It's not rain, it's debris. It's
debris being thrown onto the cabin. Debris that consists of nuts and nut husks
and twigs and rocks. To us what it sounds like. And this is
open for interpretation because this is brand new behavior. We have never observed this
behavior before. But the team that was in there recorded on the recorder this
sound, this particular instance was the longest period of time that had happened.
So I'm going to play a little bit of this for you so you get
an idea of what it sounds like. Right now, stay tuned for more
sasquatch out to see. We'll be right back after these messages. So what's
incredible to me about this is that it goes on for such an extending period
of time. You listen to this noise and it went on for a really
long time. It sort of decreases envolumement, then increases. What happened this
morning while this was happening, one of our guys actually came out of the
cabin. They were asleep, right, It's early in the morning when this
happens. He came out of the cabin, was on the front porch,
which is opposite the side of the cabin. We believe that that's when he
went on the porch, but as soon as he went around the side of
the cabin on this particular morning, I think this was recorded the last morning
they were in there, so it would have been on Labor day. He
hears something animal moving in the brush away from him, so on the j
rough what I may hear is like, well, you hear this, why
don't you go out and do thing about it. In the case of this,
they went out each and every time they heard this. Somebody went outside
each time, and every time they went outside they heard something large in the
brush which is incredibly thick. They've heard them moving away and they move up
the slope. There's no way you can chase after them. This is not
possible. You're going to take my word for it. Someday, hopefully it'll
be a national park. You can come in there and try for yourself.
But right now, there's no way you're going to chase after these things.
If they're moving up the hill, you can't see it. You know.
Sometimes if you're lucky, you can see some bushes moving, but you don't
see the actual animal. What's really intriguing to me about this, and then
we'll get to Sam's question, is that it's brand new behavior that we have
not heard before. It is some kind of escalation of rock throwing. Whether
or not that means some people in the group think that maybe they're getting more
agitated. Some people in the group think that they're just trying to figure out
new ways to mix us up and get us to come out and play.
I don't know. All I know is that it's brand new behavior. It's
not behavior that we recorded before, and it's not behavior that anyone has ever
said to us that they've experienced before. I believe that's a completely true sameent.
It's certainly the first time we've ever gotten on audio. What was your
question, Sam, You made a comment about clearing the roof off to make
sure that what was up there was actually being deposited this way. Yeah,
it got me thinking. I have a friend who lives in southwest Arkansas,
and he's reported similar activity with rock throwing into brie throwing. He had commented
along the same lines that they would go out in the morning with a five
gallon bucket and walk the backside of their yard picking up these little rocks and
pebbles and things that have been thrown in, and then the very next day
it would be repeated, Yeah, for the people who are listening, how
much stuff are you talking about? Well, we've tried to recreate this,
and the amount, the volume of stuff you have to throw to make it
sound like this is incredible. I'm not even convinced that one individual could do
this. They would be just constantly churning their hands, scooping stuff up and
throwing it. So me it doesn't necessarily sound like a single individual, but
there is quite a bit of volume. I don't know the answer to that
specifically, because I have not heard our guys talk about how much of this
stuff was on the roof. I do know that they went up on the
roof. I do know that they cleared the roof. You know, we
would clear the roof of all stuff, and then in the next day or
a few days later, you would find a certain number of rocks that they're
half a dozen rocks, maybe more, of all sizes, some big ones,
some little ones. But you would find a collection of rocks. I
know there were teams that, you know, they would pull the rocks down
and they'd keep them, you know, because they're pretty cool souvenirs. There
was a thought at one point that we might be able to extract fingerprints or
some sort of dermal evidence off of them, but from what we've been told,
that's probably not the case, so we're not really exploring that option anymore.
It's also the case that a lot of these rocks, like you heard
in the first clip, that rock came in impacted and rolled off. So
there's a certain number of rocks that don't stay on the roof as well.
So as far as volume goes, I would say, you know a lot
more rocks than you would expect to be on your roof for no apparent reason,
but probably in the neighborhood of a dozen or so, depending on how
often you get up there to clear them off. The rock throwing happens all
the time. It's like every single night, every single morning, and you're
gonna get held in by rocks. Well, I'm glad to hear you mentioned
about you know that you had the conversation about testing the rocks for DNA or
fingerprints, because that's something that I'd seen someone bring up and honestly I didn't
know the answer to it. Well, what we've done and critics will take
this for what it's worth is, you know, our go to fingerprint guy
is you know the quote unquote Bigfoot fingerprint expert Jimmy chilcut Jimmy Chilcutt has said
to us that you're not going to get a fingerprint off a rock. I
mean, it's not going to happen. So that's what he's advised us.
So we've decided not to pursue that. Could you get DNA off of it?
It seems like of all the ways you could get DNA off of a
rock would be kind of dicey because God knows what else is on that rock,
right There could be bacteria on that rock when you touch the rock,
you know, if you're not wearing the right kind of gloves or whatever.
So DNA, I don't know if you could pull DNF off a rock like
that, it doesn't seem to me like it would be a very high quality
piece of evidence if you could, but it's possible you could. Our thought
was primarily around dermal ridges and could you get a fingerprint or something similar off
of a rock. And the best answer we've got is no. It might
be opening up a can of worms to mention it. But one thing I
can't help to think about is that particular activity, that rain of debris and
rocks and things. It's something that I've also heard mentioned in Poulter Gey's activity,
that debris rain on and I think specifically, and I may be crossing
my legends or whatever, but it seems like that was one of the things
that the bell which was alleged to have done, was to have hurled all
kinds of sticks and rocks onto the house and get the people in the vicinity.
Yeah, well there you go. On top of everything else. If
that place is haunted, then I'm done. It's over. I'm finished.
If there's a friggin witch and what apes, No, I'm not going for
that. I never signed up for that crap. I'm from the South and
we know better than the mess with the dead. So I'm glad I was
able to put that on the show. You know, I took it to
the to the powers that be over there. I'm kind of a power to
be, but you know, in this kind of case, I'm not going
to take advantage of my access, and I'm glad I was able to share
that. I'm sure there'll be a lot of conversation about it in certain quarters.
You know, there are people out there who are just absolutely convinced that
we're being hoaxed. And I guess that's the most charitable group of skeptics that
I can find. You know, they're not the ones who think we're stupid.
They're not the ones who necessarily say that we're afraid of the dark.
They're not the ones who say we are ourselves hoaxing. These are the ones
who say that we are the unwitting victims of human hoaxing. One of the
guys on the j REF, who also posts on the BFF, said that
we are quote unquote ripe for it because we want to experience it so badly.
This isn't going to help that because it sounds amazing and it is amazing,
but we can recreate it. So if I can recreate it, then
for one else career, so a human hoaxer, but just the idea that
someone would be there every time we go in there. I don't know,
go ahead, because I'm going to want one. I mean, that's a
legitimate thing to say. Sure, you know you're going out there, And
honestly, I think there are instances in the history of Bigfoot where people have
succumbed to exactly that. You know, they've wanted it to happen so bad
and they've put in so much time and so much effort into having an experience
that they've become gullible, or even worse, they get so desperate that they
begin to create it themselves in order to fulfill that need, you know,
either for their own benefit or to put one over on other people. But
it is something you have to be consciously aware of. You have to be
self aware of the fact that if you're going out there with this desire,
you have to be ready for the fact that there are going to be people
who would want to take advantage of it. Of course, is one of
the main reasons why we've tried not to put the location out there, because
if no one knows where you are, or relatively no one knows where you
are, then it would be difficult for them to hoaxe you. All I
can say in return to that is that if they're hoaxing us, this is
a scenario that we're operating under if the TBRC is being hoaxed. These are
a group of people who spent ninety days with us in X. We didn't
publish when we were going out there, so presumably this is an inside job
because we didn't tell anybody what date we were going to start, but we
had activity from the very beginning. This is a group of people who are
out there all the time with us. They operate with impunity over the terrain
there. They can move incredible speeds through the bush, up the hills,
across the rocks. They've somehow been able to wear costumes to make themselves appear
to be eight feet tall and half as wide. Right, they will be
okay wearing these big freeze and they have more than one obviously, because we've
seen animals of different size, different colors, different proportions. We've seen the
big gray one who's very thick and very solid and large. I think Mark
described it as a bull standing up like that big. Plus there's littler ones,
black ones, brown ones. So they've got multiple suits that they're wearing
out there. They're wearing these furry suits in the depths of summer in Oklahoma,
which is just brutally hot. I don't know how hot Hell is,
but I'm going to say it's pretty close to Oklahoma in this summer. Unbelievably
hot, just nasty. But not only are they wearing these these furry suits
with contraptions to make them appear very large, but they're doing it around people
who have said they're going to shoot one if they have the opportunity. I'm
not saying that it is absolutely impossible. The TBORC has never been hoxed.
What I'm saying is the fullness of the evidence that is coming out of X
over the course of time that it's happening, the fact that it will happen.
When we go in totally unscheduled, every single team had some kind of
activity. We had multiple people have sightings. Then we came in unannounced a
few weeks ago for a quick weekend trip and had activity as soon as we
showed up. And then the team was in over Labor Day weekend and had
more activity. So these guys never leave, they don't appear to live anywhere
because We've been all up and around that area is in there. There's no
structures close enough that they could be sort of with impunity coming in and out.
The closest houses are quite a ways away, So these folks obviously have
some kind of remote camp that we're unaware of. They're able to move much
better than we can. Like I said, they don't fear death because they're
wearing monkey suits around guys who are trying to shoot a big Harry biped it.
Just when you start to think about the idea that this could be a
human, you know, these are humans hoaxing us. It almost becomes harder
to believe than the idea that there are big Harry monkeys out there instead.
You know, it's similar to the PGF, the conspiracy scenario that gets spun
out to support a hoaxed PGF. To me anyway, oftentimes sounds more incredible
than what the PGF purports to be. And that's the same thing here.
Is it possible that we would be hoaxed at some point in our lives?
Yes, it's possible that would be hosted at some point in our lives.
Do I believe anything that we're experiencing an access is human hoaxing. Absolutely not.
It's just impossible to comprehend that it could be. Not because we're quote
unquote ripe for it, not because we're gullible, not because we want it
so bad, but because if you sit there and look at the claims of
experiences that we've had, it would be impossible, literally impossible, to imagine
a human being doing that, or any group of human beings doing that.
So if that's the case, either everything we're saying is true or we're lying.
Oh so it's gonna say, I mean, you know, obviously the
counter argument to that is that your claims are just claims, and the right
those are lies. We're making it out right, Which okay, that's that's
the lazy man's skepticismy, except for the fact that you know, we found
the hair. Maybe that hair alternated something, maybe it won't. It's just
a single little hairy We were out there for ninety days and the best piece
of physical evidence we know we have is a single hair. If psychs this
does the DNA analysis and it's something really interesting, then that would be fantastic.
But I'm withholding my anticipation until we hear what he has to say.
There's nothing I can say to someone who says, well, you're lying.
Okay, we're lying. You're right, But we had thirty people down there
for three months, and you know you can validate that. Call employers,
call spouses. I was gone from my home for more than seven days.
Do you think we're just going down there and like imagining up these great stories
and then coming out and telling them. It's entirely possible. I fully admit
that it is completely possible that we are a bunch of liars and that everything
we've said is a lie. But that's really the only other option to believing
us, So take that for what it's worth. I can't even have a
straight faced conversation about the hoaxing situation, because, again, if you think
about it for more than five seconds, it just becomes impossible to comprehend that
any group of people would be So who are these mystery people who are willing
to spend three months out there not doing the crazy shit we're doing that we
can find thirty people to spend time in the woods to look for these things.
These guys are doubling down on that. They're spending thirty days out in
the woods pretending to be bigfoot in ways that I can't even imagine how they
can do it, how they can look to be eight feet tall, how
they can move with that speed through that underbrush, up those hills and apparently
can get shot at and not worry about dying. Clearly, you're being hoaxed
by superheroes. I mean that's the only logical right collation. I actually said
that on j REF that any non Kryptonian human would would not do this.
I mean, Superman's out there in his guerrilla suit and he's just having a
good old time job. You got him, and maybe you got Captain America,
but you know that's Marvel versus DC. I don't know they would mix,
but you know, yes, people like that, people like that who
bullets will not harm, clearly are the ones who are are hoaxing us.
That's about all I got. I feel like all I did was bitch for
an hour and a half, and I guess glad I could be. I'm
glad we could pull this together. I'm just scanning through the questions that people
through out there. Matthew had a good question. He said, if Gigantapithecus
or parenthropis, if a fossil foot was found and it matched a track of
a supposed sasquatch. Do you think it would add to the credibility of some
tracks. That's a good question. One thing you have to keep in mind,
though, is you know, when you're talking about a track or an
impression, that track, it's not a mold of a foot. The best
way that I've heard it described is it's a record of an impact and what
that impact did to the ground. Obviously, you can do a pretty good
job of matching it up, and the more rigid the foot is, the
more closely that they'll match up. But I know, just from my own
personal testing and experimenting with my own foot, if I have a soft substrate
and I step into it that impression, there's a measurable difference in the size
and shape of that impression than my foot. It's not huge, but it's
quantifiable. When you're talking about something that's even bigger and more dynamic and probably
not taking a ginger step into some nice soft clay soil, it might become
harder. Do think though, that if you could construct that jack cannonpiscus foot
or that parent thrope's foot and come close to matching an allegend sasquatch track.
It would be interesting, but obviously the immediate counter argument to that would be,
well, someone went out there and found a parentropis model and used that
model to create their own fakefoot. I think that you know, a reasonably
open minded person would that would that would be an interesting find. I think
that it would be, you know, helpful, But I don't think it
necessarily solves anything. I mean, I think this for certain people, it
would add a lot of credibility to some tracks. For other people, it
would mean nothing. Unfortunately, I think that there's so much animosity around this
subject that I don't know that even that kind of a find would help all
that much. Now, if you found it north America, hell yeah,
you know. I think if you if you found that, or a tooth
or you know, any kind of bone, would be fantastic, even if
it wasn't a fossil. Obviously, if you found bones of that nature or
fossils of that nature in North America, that would be a very significant find.
I think. I think that would definitely ramp up the conversation. We're
going to do like a speed round here. Nathan said, we should talk
about bigfoot playing chicken at night on the road, which is incredible because if
people don't understand what he's talking about. The poor bastard who put on a
gilly suit and thought he was going to run across the road and scare people
and make them think they saw a bigfoot, and he got hit by two
cars and he got killed. And it's very, very sad. This is
an example of how serious it is to pretend to be a bigfoot. It's
just very sad. I got nothing else to say about it except that very
sad. That's tragic. Mark asks if I were a wood ape and knew
my way around an area and didn't want to attract attention, how would I
need or leave trail markers like rock stacks or stick structures? Why would I
need I guess he's saying, why would I need to leave? I don't
know I need to do that. Yeah, I don't know that they do
do that. That's an interesting topic. You know, I've seen some evidence
that I think can point in that direction. You know, of sasquatch using
those types of things to navigate, and it is a known primate behavior,
it is, But you know, I don't think that there's a great enough
body of evidence to say that they actually do that. Why should we wonder
why? Personally? If I was in that area and I was wanting to
avoid detection, that would be the ideal method for me. It's nonverbal.
The only people who are going to understand it are the people who have told
what it means. It's a perfect silent, coded way of delivering information.
Now we went this way, the smelly naked humans, they went that way,
So as far as communication, I think it'd be an excellent route.
Whether or not they do it, who knows. And I think, like
a lot of other things in this field, I think there's been a sort
of an over attribution of things that have been found in the wilderness to suggest
that they are doing it. Too many people look at perfectly normal tree formations
and say that they're not. Too many people find stacks of rocks that could
just as easily been stacked by people and say that they're from what A.
It's one of those things where it's entirely possible, as you point out,
it has been documented in other primates, but it's just impossible to know.
I think at this point Cliff had a good question. Somebody did drag a
body out of the woods. Where do you think the best place for the
body to go is? And then how would you go about presenting the results
to the world without everyone thinking it's another Georgia type hox. We'll get The
second part of that question is really simple. Just come out with it.
I mean, just if you've got the monkey baa, put it out there.
Don't say, you know, okay, on Monday, we're going to
make a big reveal, or we've got this earth shattering evidence that we will
slowly released to you over a period of time. Put that some bitch on
the table. When you release information, you release it. Yeah, exactly
right. You don't tease it. That's not a release. The only reason
you hype something is if it needs hyping. And that's something that I think
a lot of people need to keep in mind. If you're hyping something,
if you're slowly releasing information, or you're teasing the release of information, there
is a motive behind that action, and you really need to be taking a
long serious look at what that motivation is without disclosing what the tbrc's plans may
be. Because we've done a lot of thinking this is what I think,
and so some of this may be what the TBRC is going to do.
Some of this may be just what I personally think. I think what you
do is you find yourself an organization, a reputable organization, a museum or
a university, not a governmental agency probably, but you find yourself a reputable
organization that you will partner with to document the animal. And what that means
I can't tell you exactly, but document it in a way that would be
acceptable. And of course you've also brought in this third party, someone you
know. Again it's used your imagination, but there's some very fine museums in
the United States of America, some great colleges and universities, someone along the
lines of that you would want to bring in before you announced to anybody,
before you told anybody what you had, you'd bring them in and they would
help you document the animal. I think you would also, if it were
me doing it, would probably find a media contact to work with before it
was announced, to again document the story of the discovery and document the documentation
of the discovery, so that on the day that you announced and released,
there was a fully formed package of information that would go out with it.
So many as many questions as possible could be answered prior to them being asked.
If I were king of the world and I had this situation in front
of me, I would probably work it like that. Who would I work
with. I'm not going to say whether, you know, from the standpoint
of the organization or the media contact, but I would probably try to work
something like that up where you are. It's not just you and someone like
Thomas Cardy at a news conference. It's you and a dude from a museum
and another dude from a university, and they're going to answer questions too.
And then, oh, by the way, a dude from the New York
Times just wrote a ten thousand word story about it that you're gonna read on
their website. You know, whenever you go into a situation that calls for
an expert, you get an expert. You know, when you're accused of
a crime, you get a lawyer. You know, when you have a
scientific discovery, you get a scientist, and when that discovery needs to be
published, you get a publicist, and so on and so forth. You
don't want the Find of the Century looking like open Mic Night at the Total
Karaoke. Yeah, I wouldn't tell a soul personally until, like you said,
I had a package to deliver to the world. I don't want to
be that guy sitting there looking like a deer in the headlights behind a microphone
with a bunch of cameras pointed at me. I want to be prepared.
And it's entirely possible that the exact individuals involved in collecting this thing would not
be present at that conversation, and they may never be publicized ever, because
it doesn't really matter. What matters is the discovery and the documentation of the
discovery and what it means. So you would focus on that. Yeah,
But also I love that little piece of like simple Southern logic you have right
there that if you need an expert, you go get an expert. I
think that's perfect. If you've got the real deal, it's the real deal.
And that's that's another thing that people should keep in mind when they're weighing
these claims. If you've got something solid, and you've got something real and
something legitimate, it's going to stand on its own right. Well, even
some of the most ardent skeptics, they will be the first to tell you,
you know, if you come in with some good, solid legitimate DNA
or you come in with an arm or even some teeth, They're going to
be strong enough evidence to stand by themselves. They're not going to need to
be sold or hyped or built up or promoted. They're going to do all
that by themselves, just by the very nature of their existence and what they
represent. All you have to do is tell people about it, and everything
else will take care of itself. And it may not be pretty, you
know. That's the other thing I mean, I understand that as soon as
you open the gate of the corral, the cattle are going to do their
own thing, right, So the best you can do is make sure that
that initial introduction is as legitimate and tidy as possible. But even if it's
not, over the course of time, it will take care of itself if
what you have is the real deal is legitimate, right or Hey, who's
asked questions before? Now? Has the TVRC ever thought about performing an operation
such as persistence in other areas such as the Pacific Northwest? Let me just
say that we currently don't have the manpower to operate in more than one place.
We have more than we can deal with in X, So even if
we did know of a secondary location or tertiary location, we wouldn't able to
do a thing about it right now anyway, because we're completely consumed by what
we're doing in X right one of the logistics of just being one state removed.
Oh, it's got to be difficult enough. It would so Pacific Northwest.
No, we'd never do anyth Pacific Northwest because we wouldn't be able to
do it because it's hard. I mean, I drive from Minnesota to get
down to Oklahoma. That's an entire day's drive. That's like thirteen hour drive
or whatever it is for me. I mean that's a really big deal.
Even people in Texas are driving almost as far as I am from a time
perspective, when you factor in traffic and everything, and given Howe says,
you can drive for a day and a half and still be in Texas.
So it would be impossible for us to operate outside of the region that the
TBRC operates in, just from a logistical standpoint. Even if we did have
another location within our area, we do not have the manpower to take care
of it right now. The Cliff had a great question for Paul. Unfortunately,
I think Paul's probably the only one that's clotified to answer it. We
can pretend like we know the answer to this, but even a layman can
pretty easily tell if an image has been manipulated because of the ex Was it
the EXIF data? Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. Make sure I
got my acronym right. Yes. EXIF data is actually pretty tricky because what
a lot of people don't know is their camera phones. If you're using a
smartphone like an iPhone or an Android phone, it's entirely likely that the location
of that photo is being recorded on the photo. As you move that photo
around, that data doesn't go anywhere unless you actually manipulate the photo, which
is incredibly difficult. Right. It's hard to manipulate a photo and keep that
data intact. As far as I understand it, it will often travel with
the file until such time as that photo is in some way manipulated, and
then that that data is usually schluffed off in the process of that manipulation.
It's tricky stuff, that EXIF data, and it records all kinds of crap,
all kinds of stuff about a photo besides location. I've actually used the
EXIF data before when I've had an image, and I was unsure of when
I had taken it. I was actually going back and figuring out when,
when where that image was was originally produced. I have an app on my
computer that it's like a diary app, and when you add a photo to
it, it will automatically put the photo in the right day and time based
on the EXIF data. Wow. Yeah, it's kind of cool. All
right, thanks man, thanks for being there. Yeah, it was a
good times. Cool. Well, we'll see you next time. They say
you don't have a go, but you can't stay and I don't want to
feel world happen. SI. I trying to try that chart everything. Call
me ride back, right back, joy from me, joy staying right there,
come it right away still stas stasssssstaate stssnassstssssssst usedsts