It's hot road, a ship stop in the field, No fear now,
floating around, test feed around, floating around, test feud and bridge Girl
again. Will see Hey guys, Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello to
all my regulars, including Troy Hensley, Charlotte, Jay Craig, Roach Researcher
Extraordinaire, ASPA sixty, John Ayres, who else we got here? I
also appreciate any new viewers that might be tuning in for the first time.
This is a Bigfoot show, probably like you've never experienced. If you're tuning
in for the first time, as usual, please put your questions in caps.
I think I got the putting your questions up figured out. Finally,
Hey Sharon, if you haven't subscribed, please subscribe, hit the likes share
talk up the show for me if you don't mind. I'm really looking forward
to this show. I'm going off script again today. When I say off
script, what I mean is most of the episodes in my show are based
on my book Psychological Horizons and Scientific Bigfoot Research, available on Amazon still until
the reprint shows up from Hanger One Publications, and it will be called Grasping
Sasquatch. It'll be a little different from my previous book, and it'll have
the I think they're called cro codes where you can go to the references and
experience some of the sites and sounds that are referenced in my book. But
I'm really excited about today's show because this is something that I gave very little
treatment to in my book, and so this is kind of has been a
learning experience for me. Ola Carolino Puerta. Carolino Puerta was a research assistant
of mine down in Mexico when I was down there teaching for just under a
year, and she was my primary research assistant for my dissertation many many years
ago, and without her, I would have not been able to finish my
dissertation. She's an awesome individual. Hello, Eric, how are you,
sir? Nice to see you. So, as I was saying, this
is a lot of this is new information for me because honestly, I've always
kind of frowned on tree structures and I'm still honestly pretty skeptical, but remain
open about glyphs. Glyphs being the sticks laid on the ground supposedly to communicate
certain things, many of which I'm not aware of. But we're not going
to get into glyphs today, but we are going to get into a lot
of the tree structures. As I don't have much experience with tree structures,
I'm taking a story that actually I saw online on Facebook and it was just
a very fascinating tree structure segment. In this segment, they were working with
a remote viewer. And for those of you who may not be aware of
what remote viewing is, it's the ability to kind of if you will leave
one's body or project project one's body and perceive other things going on in the
world in different locations from where the remote viewer themselves is. And this in
this episode that I watched, the remote viewer had a map of the mountain
area that they were investigating, and the goal was to find a concentrated area
of tree structures. And so she looked into onto the map and went into
a little meditative state, and on the map located an area where there was
a concentration of street tree structures. And then they followed her the map to
that location. And when they came upon that location, what they found was
incredible, just incredible. It was I can't really I'm totally guessing the square
footage of the area, but it was a relatively clear spot in the forest,
and again I didn't count the number of tree structures, but I've never
seen so many tree structures, either in person or on anyone else's video or
presentations on tree structures. There was just everything you could imagine. There,
tps, balancing trees. I think there was even one that's not included in
tonight's show, but it was kind of looked like a big dream catcher with
vines rope woven into a circle, and it was just an amazing display of
three structures that of course are attributed to Bigfoot. And I wish I had
a reference to send you to that page, but in fact I don't,
and I really wish I did. I also want to give a quick plugout
to Craig Roach Squatch one to two. He's just started up a Facebook channel
and he is, at least in the episode that I was able to watch,
dealing with some really fundamental questions about Bigfoot, things that a lot of
us take for granted, but things that also need to be scientifically investigated and
quantified. And I really encourage you to check out his new show and ASPA
sixty. She has just an awesome show on the untold radio network called down
South Anomalies. She lives in Sydney, Australia, and her show it's not
per se a Bigfoot show, it's I'm not sure how to characterize it.
It really defies characterization in that she deals, she and her husband deal with
so many different topics. I watched the one on music and dance and it
wasn't related at all to Bigfoot, and many of her episodes are not,
but nonetheless just a very, very very fascinating show, and I would encourage
you to check that out. Okay, on to the presentation tonight. As
I said, it is about tree structures, tree structures and experimental design.
As you guys are aware of, I'm trying to bring psychologic science to the
process of searching for Bigfoot. And you've seen a lot of treatments, no
doubt, over the years of tree structures. I'm starting with a very classic
TPE structure. Of course, one of the biggest issues with tree structures is
they many of them, not all of them, but many of them could
be constructed by human hands. And so one of the big debates and one
of the criticisms of tree structures is that it's hard to tell whether it's due
to bigfoot intervention or human intervention. And this is part of why I'm using
tree structures, and in particular I'm going to focus on tpe structures because they
can be relatively easily replicated by human beings, as this one here you see
could possibly towards the late middle of the show, we'll actually get into the
experimental design and it's my hope that you'll better understand through that part of the
discussion what psychology and psychological experimentation can bring to the table for us to be
able to identify bigfoot activity and separate it out from human activity. I hope
we get to it tonight at the end. If we don't, it'll certainly
be the next show. Yes, I should also shout out happy holidays to
everyone, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, any other non Christian face, however
you celebrate this time of the season. I wish you a happy holiday season.
So for your consideration, the only the eyes only see what the mind
is prepared to comprehend. Of course, you've heard many stories of many hunters
who have been hunting for thousands of years, forty fifty sixty years and they've
never seen Bigfoot. They've never seen signs of bigfoot, And I think on
one level, this quote applies to those folks. If you're not prepared and
you don't know what to look for, you're not going to see these structures.
You're not going to appreciate some of the phenomena, the bigfoot phenomena that
you may hear in the forest, and if you're not aware of bigfoot or
looking for bigfoot, you're likely attribute it to something else. And the second
state, the other thing that this statement applies to, it relates to my
bias of psychological science. And it's my hope that through this presentation, I'm
going to be preparing your mind to comprehend so that your eyes can see how
psychological science and experimentation could be a great resource in the hunt for Bigfoot.
And then Neil de Grasse, one of the biggest problems with the world today
is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear on
the grapevine just because it suits their worldview, not because it is actually true
or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that
it would not take much effort to establish the validity of most of these cases,
but people prefer reassurance to research. I have mentioned that I've kind of
pulled away from the Internet since starting this show, and I restrain myself from
commenting on and whether it's bigfoot made or man made, because basically we're using
logic and reasoning to attribute it to Bigfoot, and so it becomes a logical
debate, which really doesn't resolve anything because there's although tree structures can be awesome
evidence of Bigfoot, it's still often difficult to rule out a human influence.
So this is one of the new things that I ran across when I was
doing the research for this show, The Knocks Gigas study knocks Gega structures,
and I'm probably mispronouncing this gentleman's name. He has a book out where he
not only covers tree structures, but a wide variety of Bigfoot related phenomena hair
braiding on horses, she's different types of philosophies of Bigfoot. Just quite a
comprehensive book that I came across doing this research. So these things that I'm
about to read to you here or you may be reading already, are in
his words, he says, the research that I've conducted on BFR, Bigfoot
BFRO, Bigfoot Field Research organizations. Expeditions and with Native American researchers of Bigfoot
have given me insight into the structures and their unique characteristics. I have corroborated
evidence in that these structures exists in Sasquatch habitat from mountain regions of the Rockies
to the water wet webs of the Missouri and Mississippi. He didn't come completely
east apparently, and if you've been out in the east, be it northern
or southern regions, you will also see these trees structures. One of the
more common sy structures that are tree structures that I have witnessed myself are arches
sapling trees pulled over into an arch and held down by another tree, branch
or rock. Sometimes there are several trees arched over that, and I refer
to that as a double tree arch. These arches may be directional markers or
indicate ground burrows or cave and crast kars systems. I don't know what a
car system is in the area used by Sasquatch. There are hypothetical beliefs as
we do not know their intended meanings, and I think that's a. I'm
glad to see that he made that comment. You know, we're kind of
second getsing the meaning of them. Some of them seem very logical and send
a loud message when you see them. Others aren't so quite clear. X
structures are either suspended as floating x's with the ground support branches holding two branches
in an X fashion. They may also stand against trees with supports on the
ground around them to maintain an X configuration. Even whole trees have been documented
pulled into an X symbol. These structures may be a meeting place, as
X marks the spot. Barry Webster of the Omaha Reservation Research observed a large
mayo walk over and squat down below a tree structure at X. Quite a
few the X structures, And again, I am no expert in tree structures.
I'm not an expert in bigfoot. But how I've seen and interpreted the
X tree structure is when you're walking down a path and directly across or over
the path, you see an X structure, and to me, that's kind
of a keepout sign don't go here in my interpretation, but that's just one
man's interpretation. John Ayre is a good example I use. I have lived
hunted and in the woods a lot. There are bears all over. I
have only seen one in my fifty five years there there just got to be
in the right place at the right time, and I appreciate that comment.
I would add that while some of the tree structures that you may find on
the ground could be the influence of bears pushing down trees, when you see
some of this other stuff that I'm about to show you, when we get
through the different types, it'll be pretty obvious that these possibly can't be made
by bears. Thank you, John, awesome comment. Where are they there?
Stick structures are configured usually at the base of a tree. Many small
sticks are grouped together as if gathered there for a purpose. I believe the
juveniles of the clan make these as they are sentinels for the group during day
hours. And again keeping in mind that this is mister Knox speaking. Teepee
structures already showed you a picture that pretty self evident. They look like a
teepee, an Indian tepee. I've seen them in ravines, several tree sizes
sized logs holding each other at the top. In this manner. They come
in all sizes large and small. Blind shelters are usually built on a fallen
log or a tree, and have many placed or woven sticks and branches on
a log to make a shelter or blind. Asterisk structures. Wait till you
see the example I have of this. Are multiple branches grouped together, balanced
standing or on the ground, laid out in an asterisk shape. Balanced logs
and again got an excellent example of this, or tree branches woven between trees.
They sit even to the ground, but are suspended between trees or laid
on stumps lean to trees are positioned so that they are suspended by another tree.
They do not fall this way. That that do not fall this way.
They are brought from another location and positioned in this manner. If there's
a stump broken off right at the tree, then it probably fell this way.
Sasquatch will push trees over to intimidate others, though I've witnessed this many
times. Sasquatch will walk on trees and logs that are scattered about. Make
note of how they look on the ground or if they were carried there.
Do not push trees. They do not push trees into a creek or a
river. To gain access to drink water. That's interesting. That's an interesting
idea and I think probably has some validity. They will also place a tree
over a fence to cross the fence need Tree breaks are broken trees twisted at
the break that are not caused by wind damage. They may be directional markers
pointing the way. You can discern these types of breaks by looking around the
area and taking note of any other trees that might be broken by wind gusts.
Single tree breaks are common as you follow them through the woods. If
there are multiple tree breaks in the same area pointing in the same direction,
it's probably not related to sasquatch. It takes a picture to recognize. This
is one of the things that I've always wondered about with tree breaks, people
saying they point a direction one. I'm not sure how we know that.
But secondly, what direction is it pointing? Is the tip and where the
tree is broken from its main structure and then lands on the ground. Is
the direction of that top break pointing the direction or is it the direction the
tree is laid on to the grounds. The structures do appear to be worldwide,
many documented In Australia. We have photographs some awesome, awesome, thank
you. And then one I've never heard of before but probably have seen.
Superstructures I have termed large whole tree structures, typically created by the alpha male.
They may have a combination of structures like arches and woven elements connecting several
trees together. I have photographed these structures with four or more whole trees that
required many pictures to take in their totality. And again one of the he
doesn't mention glyphs in this list of tree structures. He also doesn't mention what
I earlier just described that looked kind of like a dream catcher, a woven
circle of vines. And the one that I saw was suspended between two trees,
and it was beautiful, beautifully raw. Troy, what about tree breaks
with a twist at the broken area, my friend, be patient and you
will be sated in the next few minutes. My friend John Ayres, I
always ask could I do this? If there are any objects bigger than I
can alone, I pay more attention to those. And I think that's a
very important point and one of the criteria that you need to look out to
look at to rule out human influence. Is it possible that a single human
or a group of humans could construct what you're seeing, and if they could,
you need to be very cautious about attributing it to Bigfoot in my opinion,
unless, of course, of course, you're doing some experiment's on that
structure. So here we have one. Somebody give me a thumbs up if
you can see this adequately. If you can't, I can go to full
screen to make it bigger. But if you see it, just give me
a thumbs up or say yeah, we can see it. But kind of
in the middle of the screen, about halfway halfway up the length of the
tree, you can see what looks like either a root system or a branch
system. Suspend it in the air any better, any better? So to
me, one of the important things to notice is the height that this massive
brand our root system is suspended upon. You'd have to be walking around in
the woods with a ladder, I think to do that. So in my
opinion, at least for what it's worth, that's pretty incredible. Here we've
got the famous doctor John Blah I'm blocking on his name, Bender Nagel,
thank you brain. And so this is kind of an interesting structure that he's
standing on and standing under, and that it's an arch, but it also
has the broken branch and the almost the beginnings of a tepee appearance. This
is one that just blew me away when I saw it. The picture on
the right, I guess this would qualify as an asterisk, But look at
the size of those logs forming that asterix and the trees that are bent over.
Look at the height how high that it up that is in the tree.
Diane Fowler, nature can do that? Are you? I agree?
If you're referring to the one that doctor bender Nagel is standing under, I'm
not sure how humans could do the one on the right, the asterisks without
some heavy equipment and evidence of heavy equipment getting in there, or evidence of
a lot of people having to use ropes and other things to hoist that up.
But you also make a very important point, which is that's one of
the primary rule outs you've got to consider. Could this could? And I
think again the one with doctor bendernago under, I think is an excellent example
of that. You know, could that have been from weather? Could that
have been man made? How was that formed? And you know, especially
with snow load on some of these thinner trees. They will bend those trees
quite easily if they get heavy snow, and then when the snow melts,
often the trees don't bounce back. Our high winds can knock down trees,
and so you've always got to look around your surroundings to make sure that you've
ruled out mother nature. In my opinion, this is doctor bender Nagle again,
with multiple small trees formed into an arch. So what does that mean?
Is that an entry way to a path to travel forward under? That's
one thing that comes to mind to me. I'm not sure what comes to
mind to the rest of you. I would have a hard time taking a
direction from that kind of arch beyond just moving forward under it. And if
you don't know doctor bender Nagle's name, you need to look it up and
get familiar with him. He's one of the oldies but goodies and has been
doing Bigfoot fieldwork research for quite a long time. Diane Fowler, I think
we've got to go back, and I don't mind going back. The picture
on the right has been made by manipulated with intelligence and opposing fingers. Sasquatch
for sure, you know, again, not knowing much about sasquatch, or
tree structures. It's hard for me to attribute that to any other creature in
the forest besides sasquatch. And again, if this were to be man made,
it would take a lot of people and a lot of equipment to make
on that make that intelligence. That's another show. I think intelligence, for
my bias, fits right in there with my comments in an earlier show about
curiosity. I think we've got to be careful about anthropomorphosizing Bigfoot and attributing human
qualities to Bigfoot, like intelligence or curiosity. It could be that they have
a natural instinct for this to do these things that's hardwired into their brain that
might not might not have anything to do with intelligence, but also may have
something to do with intelligence. Again, we're making an attribution about that one
way or another. Now that's not intelligence or yeah, that shows intelligence.
We're making an attribution about that without ever really being able to study the structure
and how it was made and observe a creature making that. And that's not
a criticism Diane of your comment. I just think we need to be careful
about anthropomorphosizing bigfoot skills. A lot of what we attribute to intelligence could very
well be a super instinctual ability in the forest. Again, another asterisk,
probably approaching a superstructure in my opinion, big big logs, big big parts
of trees. You can see lots of aspen trees or I don't know if
those are aspen or birch trees in the background, but you know some of
those aren't aspen or birch trees. They've been taken from elsewhere and integrate it
in from a different area, or at least an area immediately besides that.
Oops, sorry, not ready for me yet. This is from a Paradise
Hill. They call it a barricade. The top photo shows two cross logs
arranged as a possible barricade. The lower photo is enhanced to show the direction
of the trail since it has not been used for some time now. Earlier
I referred to X structures being used to block a path. This kind of
resembles that, but the ones that I've seen have been kind of vertical.
I'm right over a well worn path and to me, just screen, don't
go, don't go there. Paradise Hill nesting site. The left photo is
a southern elevation. Right photo is an eastern elevation. This possible nesting structure
is within two hundred yards of a tepiece structure. Photo credit to Sasquatch Tracker
twenty nineteen. Again, I don't know this. I'm just kind of free
associating. Doesn't look like a very comfortable nesting spot to me. That doesn't
mean it's not. I'm sure Sasquatch Tracker knows a lot more than I do.
But John Ayres is kind of making my point as well. I've you
know, I've seen pictures of bigfoot nests suspend it up in trees as well
as down the ground, I guess, so you know this could be nesting
structures, but this could also be either barricades or a blind as far as
I'm concerned. But again, we all have our own opinions and that's why
we need science. And here you go, I'm Troy. Notice the number
of twists in this tree. Notice the thickness of this tree. This is
not something a human. If you've ever tried to twist even a thinner tree
and break the bark in this fashion making twists, this is not something that
could easily be done by humans. Notice as well, that it's twisted and
broken over some barbed wire. I think that is an awesome picture of a
tree twist and a tree break. What are you saying like, don't go
through Troy says like, don't go through there. Yeah, that would be
one good way to interpret it. The sheer strength and force required to twist
a tree like that, frankly, to me, is pretty intimidated. Let's
see credit a twisted deciduous sapling. I guess it's a sapling. It looks
pretty thick for a sapling found in a valley farm on a farm known for
sasquatch activity in Ohio. Photo credit credit John Bendernagel and Bark Barcroft. Awesome,
awesome, Okay, now for the boring stuff. Now for the exciting,
really exciting stuff. This is exciting to me, It may not be
to others. Why do we use why should we use psychologic science to study
sasquatch? Why do we need psychologic science? We seem to be doing fine
on our own. We're doing fine on our own or in identifying sasquatch sign
but we're not doing fine on our own and getting science to accept that evidence.
So a phenomenon, what is a phenomenon or a phenomenon? A factor
situation that has observed to exist or happen, especially one whose causes or or
explanations is in question. A remarkable person, thing, or event. That's
from the Oxford Language Dictionary. And when you get right down to it,
that's what we're studying. When we go out into the woods. We're looking
at phenomena. A phenomenon is single, phenomena plural. Why psychologic science is
important is phenomena and phenomena. Phenomenon is what psychologic science studies. We can't
directly observe, measure, and analyze emotions, thoughts, or behaviors. We
can observe behaviors. We can't see emotions, we can't see thoughts. We
can, however, observe and measure and analyze the phenomena and behavioral manifestations of
thoughts, emotions, as well as other behaviors similar Really sasquatch is difficult to
directly observe and analyze. And now I'm not calling into question class A sightings.
They do happen, I have no doubt that they happen. But more
frequently, what you're going to experience when you go out in the woods on
an expedition or with some friends is you're going to observe Bigfoot phenomena. We
can directly observe and logically reason backslash analyze Sasquatch phenomena and their behavioral manifestations.
That's what we're doing with tree structures, especially the ones that are physically impossible
for humans to do. We're attributing that to Bigfoot, and we're using observation
and logical reasoning and analogy. Psychological science simply brings the scientific method and experimental
research and statistics to this process. So, and you've heard me say before
that the experiential experiential expeditions also need the scientific expeditions, and the scientific expeditions
need the experiential expeditions. The experiential expeditions are pouring the foundation for the house
of Bigfoot that scientific expeditions need to begin to construct. And so we need
each other because without each other, the science wouldn't know where to shine the
light and try and focus their experiments and their studies. And as we've seen
from the sixty plus year history of people really getting intent on studying Sasquatch,
that history goes a lot farther back than that, with the Native Americans and
such. But maybe those of European descent. I would say, you know,
that's been going on for a good sixty five years, and we've got
all kinds of evidence, yet it's not scientifically accept it. And Bigfoot's existence
is not scientifically accepted. And this is why I believe we need psychologic science,
because psychologic science uses the scientific method, and we bring numbers to the
table. The language of science is math and numbers, and I believe until
we start speaking that same language to the scientific community, we're going to continue
to try red water in attempting to prove the existence of Bigfoot only for one
so, we use a lot of reasoning. Reasoning is the process of using
existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations the main so
in doing so, we use inductive and deductive reasoning. I was a big
Sherlock Holmes fan as a kid, and of course, Sir author Connan Doyle
in those books I always talked about Sherlock using deductive reasoning. In fact,
it's more accurate to say that Sherlock Holmes used inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is
that, in other words, inductive reasoning moves from a specific observation to broad
generalizations so Sherlock would show up on the crime, the scene of the crime,
and observe all these things that other people missed, and then put all
those disparate observations small chunks together to figure out the criminal. Deductive reasoning works
the other way around. Both approaches are used in various types of research,
and it's not uncommon to combine them in your work. This diagram makes it
a little bit easier to understand. On the top, we've got inductive reasoning
specific observations, and then we look for that to be replicated, or we
look for a pattern in that, and then we draw a general conclusion.
Inductive reasoning has been the foundation for sasquatch research for a lot of years,
and I think that's probably why we're having trouble moving forward from that, because
it's prone and to bias, and bias runs rampant because we put our own
patterns of recognition on it and we draw our own general conclusions. Below deductive
reasoning and I'll contrast this with the scientific method in a second. Note that
it begins with an existing theory. I got a problem with that. I'm
not sure how accurate that is. But according to Scribber, you've got to
develop an existing theory, you formulate a hypothesis. It should be the other
way around. In my opinion, you should use your observations to formulate a
hypothesis, then collect data, analyze the data, and either reject or accept
the hypothesis. If you accept the hypothesis, when you repeat that over and
over again, you then develop a theory. So I don't like this particular
model in that they've got the theory on the front end, and as far
as I'm concerned, the theory should be part of the outcome on the back
end, as is displayed in this next picture. This scientific method, it
starts with observations, and those observations then guide us to form a question.
That question becomes a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that we want
to figure out, testable, falsifiable, predict future observations from a hypothesis.
When it's inaccurate, hypothesis, it's their specific parsimonious, fruitful, conservative,
and have a wide scope conservative. You don't want to take too creative a
leap in their hypothesis, Please shoot support. Okay, So you got your
observations, you form a question, You form your hypothesis. And then you
begin to test out your hypothesis. You test out with experiments, and there's
my bias. I think we need to bring more experiments to it, but
not a lot of people have the training and knowledge to do that. It's
not that tough. But again, if you haven't been exposed to it in
your mind, you're not going to be able to see how to do it.
But it can also include natural quasi experiments. Testing tends to be objective
and document document document. If you're not documenting specifics of your observations, you
are doing yourself a disfix disservice. Then we move over to results. The
results should be unambiguous and replicatable. The testing could involve, in my opinion,
experimental design and statistical analysis for you to get your results. If you
note that if you don't get the results you're expected, the blue line goes
back to testing, maybe you didn't give the proper test in your experimental design.
If you get your results you're looking for, you then move on to
conclusions. But if you're conclusions aren't born out, note the dot it line
goes all the way back to starting with a new hypothesis. This is not
something we're doing in bigfoot field work, we develop our theory. Back to
inductive reasoning, We get an observation, we have some pattern recognition, and
then we develop our theory and then confirmation bias kicks in and anytime we see
that pattern, we automatically attribute it to bigfoot as a general conclusion, which
may or may not be an accurate conclusion, and from that conclusion we develop
You know, it reinforces our theory. I'm going the wrong way, sorry,
guys. So experimental research, here's my bias, and boy, we're
running out of time. It's a scientific method of gathering data whereby one,
the one conducting the research, is able to manipulate the independent variable. Experimental
research psychology is the act of applying experimental research methods to the study of human
or in our case sasquatch behavior. So again you can see the scientific model
in this experimental research approach. You define your objectives and your variables. That
then leads to planning and designing your experiment or your research process. That then
leads to an experimental experimentation procedure that you then analyze. You interpret those results
and develop your conclusions, which leads to defining new objective and variables, and
this is all existing around a system under study. And here's my attempt at
creativity. So with regard to structures, for me, the big rule out
besides mother nature is could humans be contributing to or making these tree structures?
So what we're studying in the middle there is bigfoot tree structures. That's our
question. Can we parse out or can we isolate the influence of humans versus
bigfoot? So in this example, I'm going to just lay out a very
very simple experimental design. Let's say you go up into the woods and you
find a series of teepee structures. You'll measure out with a tape, measure
the area that ructures exist within, and take some measurements on the structure itself.
Obviously, for experimental purposes, you're probably going to want to start with
a small tepee structure. So you find the target bigfoot tree structures, you
can count how many there are in that defined area, and in this example
actually take it one step further. You can then replicate those tree structures in
a defined human area, and this is how we sort out human influence versus
bigfoot influence. We're going to find and oftentimes these structures exist in a relatively
remote area, not easily seen from although you can see them from the paved
roads. But so you want to identify an area in the woods where these
structures exist, where the only possible influence could be bigfoot. It's not likely
or it's highly unlikely that you're going to have an human influence. Then you
map out or you measure out an area where it's unlikely to have big fluence
in it and only the human influence now here. I'm talking about replicating those
tepee structures in the human error area, but you could also just keep the
human air area blank. You could leave it wide open. You then allow
time to pass and recount the number of tepee structures in the bigfoot area,
and count the number of tepe structures that show up in the human air the
area human area being the influence of humans the bigfoot area measuring bigfootness. You
don't have to see the bigfoot building them if you've picked an area that is
isolated, so you keep account over time, and then you just statistically analyze
the difference between the number of structures in the bigfoot area that pop up or
that are added to it. If you set up one to begin with,
and compare them, to compare the Bigfoot and the human error areas to each
other. And it's not just enough to count. You know, the bigfoot
ends up having ten tepee structures and the human area area only has two,
the one you initially set up and then somebody came along and add it one
just for fun. You've got to do a statistical analysis to find if that's
a significant difference between the bigfoot area and the human area. It's not enough
just to just count them and say, oh, well, there's a lot
more in the bigfoot area than there is in the human area. Therefore you
know bigfoot winds. That's a qualitative observation, but you need to move to
a quantitative result through your experimentation. Is there a statistically significant difference between the
two areas which one had the greatest increase the area where you're measuring bigfoot phenomena,
If it's bigfoot, it should have significantly more tpee structures, if you
will, than either the wide open area that didn't have any tpee structures or
where you just construct it one And you ask yourself, is it safe to
attribute structure building to bigfoot? Is this making sense? Guys? I hope
so so that actually I talked about two designs quickly. I've got a couple
other designs or a few other designs, some of which I don't like that
I have in the list because I do believe in respecting bigfoot structures and areas.
Some groups of bigfoot thinkers believe they could have spiritual value. Some structures
are associated with burial grounds. Okay, but we've talked about the number of
structures in a designated bigfoot area versus an empty or with one tepiece structure in
the area. The number of structures in a designated Bigfoot area versus the mimic
structured in the human error area. That's how That's where you set up your
little tpee in that area, how many square foot it is, and then
keep track of how many other pop up he becomes. The ones that I
don't like having on my list, but they kind of it kind of makes
sense to me. You could go into an area where there are multiple tpiece
structures, destroy one of those tpeece structures, come back in a week or
two weeks or a month, and see if it's rebuilt. The problem with
that design is one all the designs after this, you're destroying Bigfoot structures.
But the bigger problem with that is there's no control group. You got to
have a control group, which would be the human area. If you're going
going to parse out is this the bigfoot influence or is this human influence,
because if you don't have that human control, it could be researchers coming into
that area and reconstructing the TPE. So you need numbers from both the human
and the bigfoot area to control for the influence of humans in the bigfoot area.
Second study, destroyed or rebuilt, destroy or rebuilt within a Bigfoot area
versus destroyed rebuilt in human structures in a Bigfoot area. So you go into
a Bigfoot area and maybe you don't even have to destroy a bigfoot TPE structure,
just erect a human TPE structure, making sure you leave your sin on
it. I recommend against urinating on your TPE structure, but if you're handling
the wood with bare hands, you're gonna leave your scent there. And I
think bigfoot scent our ability to smell is probably much superior to ours, and
it would be interesting to see if the bigfoots destroy the ones with the human
scent on it and leave the ones intact. Again, here we're dealing with
both a bigfoot area and a human area, whether you know whether you destroy
one in a human error area or just build them in a human air area.
By comparing the pure human error area, the pure human phenomena, to
the pure bigfoot phenomena, you're able to parse out or isolate the bigfoot phenomena
from the human phenomena by running that statistical analysis and comparing those two. And
then the last variation can either destroy and see if it's rebuilt structures in a
designated bigfoot area and do the same in the human air area. It's my
hope that you understand that by using an area that's that the only phenomena that
could possibly be there are human related, and when you compare that to a
bigfoot area where the only phenomena possible there are a bigfoot phenomena, that in
compare hearing those two areas, you can isolate the bigfootness of that area versus
the humanity of that area. I'm hoping that makes sense, because I am
out of time, I had hope to spend time doing other ideas or questions,
and I guess I will ask you folks. Between now and my next
show, I'm open you know, this is probably one of my weakest areas.
I'm open to any other ideas or experimental designs. It's it's my hope
that through this presentation you can get a better appreciation for how bringing experimentation and
statistics to the Bigfoot search, we can actually begin to isolate Bigfoot from humanity
statistically and walk down that path of proving Bigfoot exists. As always, thank
you very much for your kind attention listening to my own biases. I hope
I've stimulated some thinking here. I'm going to wish you guys a happy holiday,
and I'm going to ask you to keep your boots, to keep your
mind open, your boots on the ground, and your heart with your higher
with your higher power, be safe, God bless you happy. Don't try
to play it on the season. Why you want to walk away? Wouldn't
we be gain sweart we had something something not least baby has a feeling las
following it for season. I don't want to make steak. I'll let you
try that in truth try Was I a fool out of sometime by wonder,
but I would never leave a sounder I'm thinking, as good as what we
have, is it overrule what's good as worth? Deplied, He there ain't
no deny, and you and I were making last falling it Ez, how
can we make a stake? I never let china, I never let go
try that. I'm not to let you try it. I'm now gone tried.
Have you had a change of hard? Can we go back to the
start? Oh? Now, let go? I don't let go, tied.
I want to do it all with you by my side. If you're
in need me here to night before, to come along, I'll be your
rat. Come sweet, You don't need no break backs.