I am spearheading a DNA inquiry. What we actually are calling it is a
study of morphologically unusual samples. We are looking at biological samples that appear to
be unusual. Samples are being found, and I hear these from folks who
largely know what they're looking at. They have samples of hair, for example,
that don't seem to look like any known species. And in fact,
some of these folks have really done some pretty rigorous analysis they've in terms of
looking at these things under a microscope. They have found that these specimens share
common features with one another, but again don't seem to match up with any
known North American species. This is Bigfoot Crossroads. I'm Matt, and I've
got a very special guest with me on this episode. I am joined by
Darby Orcutt of North Carolina State University, and Darby is spearheading a new Bigfoot
DNA inquiry. I guess is that what you would call it, Darby?
Yes, indeed, I am spearheading a DNA inquiry. What we actually are
calling it is a study of alleged morphologically unusual samples. And what that means
is we are looking at We are looking at biological samples that appear to be
unusual. And in the case how this relates to bigfoot the bigfoot community is
that they're our claims that samples are being found, and I hear these from
folks who are who largely know what they're looking at, that they have samples
of hair, for example, that don't seem to look like any known species.
And in fact, some of these folks have really done some pretty rigorous
analysis they've in terms of looking at these things under a microscope. They have
found that these specimens share common features with one another, but again don't seem
to match up with any known North American species. Well, that's an interesting
question, what is that? So we're looking at these unusual samples. Most
of the unusual samples that I presume will be looking at are alleged to be
or suspected to be sasquatch because these are the folks who are finding them.
These specimens are being found in conjunction with sighting reports and things like that.
So we are not per se looking for bigfoot. What we are doing is
that we are looking at We are looking at these unusual samples to determine what
they are. Now, certainly there is the possibility that hey, we could
discover a new species in North America. But that's just one of a whole
range of possibilities. But what I can tell you is this two things.
One, these are things worth looking at because they appear to be unusual.
There's something very there's something very interesting here to be found. Secondly, whatever
these samples are, they are something. So if somebody is saying, hey,
we have some evidence here, well, indeed, it's evidence we do.
We don't know at this stage what is evidence of, right, But
that's a really interesting question, and so that's what we're trying to determine.
I'm kind of familiar with the types of hair samples you're talking about. They've
been around for a while. I believe it was doctor or hen Or Ferrenbach
that first kind of brought these things to light. There's some very specific details
about the hairs themselves that don't seem to really match anything we know that's out
there in the woods, at least in North America. And so basically you're
taking these type samples or whatever other biological samples there are coming from I guess
bigfoot investigators or whoever, and trying to figure out where these hairs are coming
from exactly, since they don't appear to be any known hair samples compared to
you know, things like deer and bare mountain lions and such. Is that
the gist of it. Yeah, that's the idea, of course. The
first thing that we'll do is we'll look at them. We'll look at the
hair or or whatever the whatever the sample is, We'll look at it microscopically
ourselves to uh see if we share in that assessment. Um. And then
uh, for those that aren't easily identifiable as a as a known species,
well we'll move on to genetic testing. Uh. And yeah, I've talked
about hair because that's the those are the majority of the samples that are being
offered to us thus far. And that I hear that that that that people
have, UM. But the study is absolutely open to any any biological samples.
Uh. Let me let me back up to one thing that you said,
because you mentioned doctor Henter Farhrenbach. And doctor Farrenbach uh, for for
those who may not know the name, was very active in uh in looking
at particular really hair specimens, uh, microscopically back in the nineteen nineties and
the early two thousands. Um. And there are there is a lot of
uh sort of common knowledge or lore if you will, in the big Foot
community and especially around uh doctor Fehrenbach's hair analysis, because the idea is,
and I hear this repeated a lot, and and so you're in good company
that that doctor Farrenbach had had noted some particular features that that that he felt
distinguished sasquatch hair. Um. But that actually, I'll tell you the truth,
that actually is not true. UM. And I can say that with
confidence because in preparing for the study over the last several years, one of
the things that I did so I actually tracked down doctor Farrenbach. Uh.
He is he retired uh over twenty years ago. UM, but he is,
he is still around and I was able to to track him down.
In fact, I spoke with him on the phone as recently as last week.
UM. And he tells me, actually that that that that that's not
true that he did. He isn't one who said these are features of sasquatch
hair um. And in his estimation he said there there are in terms of
looking at um. For example, one of the pieces one of the pieces
that people say is though they have different scaling patterns. UH. Doctor Fehrenbach
says he doesn't think that scaling patterns distinguish sasquatch hair from the hair of of
of human beings UM. And he has a number of reasons for that.
He's probably looked at more uh probably more hair of all species, let alone
more alleged squatch here than than anyone UM and UH in his estimation, you
know that that that idea that there are certain features that that that you can
count on is not established. But that's something that we want to test with
a study. And he's really excited to see what comes of this study because
if we do find that, you know, there are certain hairs to certain
features that UM relate genetically to whatever species again, whether it's an unknown species
of you know that that might be sasquatch, or whether it's an unknown scaling
pattern uh found in black bears or whatever it may be. UM, he's
really interested to see, uh what what comes to the study. I did
not know that that's some really interesting information because you know, like you said,
myself along with many other people have attributed that information to him for many
many years. Yeah, it's funny. He retired. He retired from academia
a long time ago, and he actually has been outside of the Bigfoot community
now for I believe well over a decade, and so he's not really connected
with folks. In fact, when I was first trying to track him down
and looking for leads on where he might be, I was told again and
again that everyone was certain that he was dead. So he thought that was
kind of funny because he's actually very much alive and and still sharp. So
is there a particular catalyst that kind of kicked this off? Now, why
did you choose to do this now? Anything behind it? Or is it
just something that you've been wanting to do for a while. Well, it's
actually something that I've been working on for a while. A major, uh,
interdisciplinary scientific research project at a major university doesn't happen overnight, right,
So um, but I'll tell you I can give you the the the nutshell
version of how I became interested in this um was that I was my my
my role at NC State University. I've been on faculty there for over twenty
years now, and my primary faculty appointment is as a librarian, but not
practicing librarianship in the way that most people think of not checking out books to
people, not checking out books to people at all. But my my,
my major role on the campus internally to the campus is to help in putting
together and supporting interdisciplinary research teams, teams that include folks from multiple, multiple
disciplines, different fields of study to answer the sorts of questions that where it's
not a question that can only be answered from one narrow perspective. And so
that's something that I've been doing for many, many years at NC State.
I love that work. It's it's it's really great because I get to work
with really smart colleagues in all different kinds of fields, and I do a
lot of the work of interpreting between these fields, of making sure that the
research agendas of each of these these different researchers as being served as well as
that we're moving towards a goal together. And through one of these projects,
I actually got really interested in questions of how science draws its its boundaries,
why certain questions are, for lack of a better word, allowed in mainstream
science, and others are kind of shunned or stayed away from or considered fringe.
And I've been teaching from I've been teaching along the way as well,
and teaching courses about how science works. How science works, not just in
the way that it says it works, like hey, you do this and
follow this method, but how science works in our culture, how it fits
in with economic systems, how it fits in with the media, and every
which way that you can imagine. And so I envisioned at that point teaching
a course, and I started doing this. I was teaching a course that
I'm still teaching today. It's now a permanent course sidency state. But the
course is about science and these kind of fringe areas or these fields of study
that are on the edge or even considered outside of mainstream science. And that
was how I came to I came to the Sasquatch because I thought this was
an excellent example of a field where you would think, on the one hand,
that there would be kind a normal scientific approach, if you will,
to this question of you know, of of Bigfoot. But the picture in
the real world is much much more complex, of course, very muddy,
very muddy, indeed, very much so. And so uh, the Sasquatch
became a wonderful example to think about how the study of something could be in
or out in scientific circles or how those lines are drawn. And so that
was how I came to looking at these questions. And in fact, one
of the one of the folks in the the Bigfoot community, if you will,
that I got to know, fortunately never met in person, but spent
a lot of time on the phone with and really enjoyed um was doctor John
Bendernagle. And John was a PhD and wildlife biologist, and he it was
really interesting because he wrote a book, his second book was called The Discovery
of the Sasquatchum, and he was grappling with this question of he had all
this what he considered good evidence to show that this that that Sasquatch question was
a really interesting question, and yet he felt stymied in in being able to
present this evidence to the scientific community. And so that led him to in
that book really exploring the cultural aspects of science that we're leading to the question
being brushed aside, if you will, or ignored. On the flip side.
Here, I was coming from a place where I was wanting to teach,
and I was teaching about the cultural influence, the cultural influence on science
and so forth in that relationship, and then came to the question of sasquatch
as an example of that. So we used to laugh that we were sort
of ended up coming kind of a somewhat of the same place, but from
completely different directions. It was really something, uh, And so the so
one of the things that I really had been thinking about for for for quite
a few years was was what One of the things that I really tried to
try to do in the course is to have my students doing their own work
embodying how to study whatever strange topic. So they had some firsthand experience with
trying to take a scientific approach to looking at something that you know, a
lot of people might consider outside of science. So how do you do that?
So I wanted to do that for myself, of course, and so
I do that. I do. Actually, I'm involved with leading some research
and some a couple of strange areas, and sasquatch certainly being one of those.
And so when I started to look to say, you know, how
could I make a difference in our scientific understanding of the sasquatch question, I
said, well, I mean, in some ways I'm very well suited to
this based on my career. I'm good at putting together teams that can tackle
tough questions, and certainly the question of what accounts for the sasquatch phenomenon has
uh uh continued to be a really tough question. UM, And so I
thought, you know, this is something that I can do. But it
took me. It took me several years uh to really gather the right team
uh to uh to to put this together. And I also recognized in that
time that, uh, there have been a number of um, there's been
a let's put it this way, there's been an interesting relationship, but not
always a pleasant relationship between uh uh bigfoot investigators and uh folks who have been
attempting to uh do some sort of of DNA work in this area. Um,
They're been very few who have really attempted to to uh even look at
um, look at specimens genetic you know, genetically, and then beyond that,
there really hasn't been ah, a serious full academic study of this.
There've been some folks who looked at some things, you know, given their
opinions, done you know, individual analyzes, but in terms of in terms
of academic studies, really the only one that had happened happened previously was was
doctor psych study, but that was so small. I think in the final
publication, Uh, I think he had analyzed somewhere between a half and a
dozen samples from North America, which is of course nothing in the grand scheme
of things. How many samples are you hoping to analyze? Well, UM,
we'll see. UM. At this point, you know, certainly we
can't. We can't analyze more samples than are offered to us. And so
that's where I'm really hopeful that folks who have interesting samples will will step up.
UM. I know I've shared with you the online intake survey, and
so I hope you'll please put that in your show notes. Yeah, for
sure, for sure. UH. That's that's the first step is to fill
out that form, and it asks folks for information about what you have,
why you think it's interesting, UM, you know where when you found it,
some questions about the collection and the storage of that. UM. This
this form is really to help us in UM prioritizing which samples we're going to
begin with in the order that we'll move through them in UH. And the
sooner that folks can fill that out certainly the better, UM. Because if
you have a sample in hand now it's never going to get fresher than it
is right now, and we'll just we'll see. We haven't set you know,
folks have asked me. It's it's funny. In fact, the very
day that that that we launched this, people were asking me, well,
how long are you going to be running this for? I'm like, well,
we just launched. I mean, we haven't said a date. I
mean, I get it. Sometimes, you know people, sometimes scientists do
a limited study and they say we'll take samples for a month or whatever.
We're not doing that. This is this is open ended because we really want
to get the best and the most interesting samples that there are. Um As
you might expect, we're not going to run this project forever, but uh,
you know, we haven't. We're not worrying about setting an end date
at this stage in the game. We're more interested with getting good quality,
interesting samples to look at. So I can't give you a number as to
how many, uh we'll end up looking at. It really depends on again
how many how many good, potentially interesting samples are offered to us, because
that's uh, that's going to be what what what really drives this and keeps
us going so you're with North Carolina State? Yes, who all is involved
in this project? I mean you don't have to give people's specific names,
but it is an academic project. So is it just is it North Carolina
State sponsored for lack of better term, or are there other universities involved?
Is this just all your baby? Well, I am spearheading this, but
no, it is not just me. As I told you about my background,
my expertise is in bringing together the right people to really to really look
at things. So what I have is we have a core team, and
the core team led by myself but also includes two PhD's researchers in genetics and
genomics, one of whom especially has tremendous expertise in wildlife forensics. Um and
uh my our fourth faculty collaborator is a microscopist, meaning somebody who's an expert
at looking at things under the microscope. Um and uh and just I mean
has I won't even I could fan boy about his microscope because he's he's got
he's got um absolutely maybe the best equipment in the in in North America right
now. I mean I gotta say for doing like microscopiece. So uh now,
just amazing, amazing people. UH. And then UH we also have
UH PhD students in in in genetics as well. In each of my colleagues
labs with two lab they've run two different labs UM, and we have PhD
students in those labs who are also involved and really excited to be a part
of it. In addition to that, UM I actually have on deck a
whole host of folks both from NC State and from other universities. So the
core team is all NC State faculty UM, but I have on deck a
number of people who are ready to step in and join on the project if
and when we receive specimens that are interesting, specimens that are in their areas
of expertise. And so for example, just to give one example, you've
you've you've probably seen at some point you saw the TV show Bones. I'm
familiar with it. Yeah, I have our real life bones. UH.
She's she's an anthropolos. She's an anthropologist focused on uh osteology. So if
we get if we get bones, if we get teeth, she is ready
to hop in there and and uh and work on that and is just absolutely
absolutely amazing scholar and researcher. UM. I have again, a whole list
of folks in different areas, depending on what we might run into or what
gets offered to us. Uh. These these people, however, some of
them are staying in the closet until they actually have something they can contribute to
some of these additional folks. UM and yeah, but they're they're all very
very excited. So but it would depend on it would depend you'll, like
I say, it depends on what we receive. Um. I know that
we're I know that we have offers of of hair already, we've had offers
of um uh uh skin surface lipids, which are these um these are folks
are finding uh these large handprints on the glass of like vehicles or windows,
uh that look like look like large handprints. Uh. And so the idea
I think that that that they have is that this is a you know,
this is a sasquatch handprint, and it leaves behind a kind of a white
residue, a really greasy to do, which actually, uh is parallel to
what goulas we'll leave. So I've I've talked with zookeepers who who keep gorillas,
and they have to get in there and really really scrub to get these
handprints off of the enclosures. UM. So that's a material that's uh,
that's worth looking at. This is probably um lipids or it's basically a secretion
from the hand We have them ourselves. We have we have we have skin
surface lipids on our hands. Uh. It's just that ours aren't that pronounced
at all. Right, UM, but uh, you know, certain other
species of apes do have you know, you know, really different uh composition,
and you know, like say, gorillas leave handprints their enclosures in zoos.
So it's an interesting question again. I mean, this is this is
just fascinating stuff to look at. UM. Now beyond that, I would
love it if we're offered other types of things, if folks, uh,
if folks end up offering us bone, teeth, blood, you know whatever.
In fact, it's even an option to uh to uh uh offer to
submit an entire body. Uh. I mean yeah, for that person that's
been sitting on one this whole time, now's your opportunity to just drag her
on in. It is. And I mean the point being that, um,
you know, we we are hanging out the shingle, uh, that
we would like to look at these unusual samples, and we didn't want to.
Um, you know, it's it's funny. You know, my colleagues
at first, you know, they led a little bit when because I wrote
the initial draft of the intake form and I had that on their entire body,
and my colleagues you know, chuckled a little bit and they said,
you know, actually that is so smart because uh, you know, going
through and putting together a big study like this. UM. I think the
other thing that that the the uh, the unacknowledged work often that people don't
recognize is that with the university, there's a lot of paperwork. UM.
So I had to go through uh call the institutional Review board process, which
is essentially an ethics review uh in large part to make sure that we are
treating people, uh, we are treating people with respect and ethically and uh
so and that there are there are uh their security in place. So for
example, if folks would like to offer h offer um samples to the project,
they can do so. Uh you know, they can do so with
full credit, like hey, where we'll say, hey, this was a
sample found by this person who wants everybody to know that they found it.
Or you can choose, you know, or you can choose, on the
other extreme, to be completely anonymous. In other words, I want to
submit this sample, I want to get results from you, but I don't
want you to ever tell anybody that I was involved. And that's absolutely fine,
because that's where some people are. Everybody who contributes a sample that we
UH, that we ask them to submit and analyze, will receive results for
their sample. UM and UH. And again this is because because this is
an established study, there are protocols in place again to keep keep data private.
Needs to be kept private for example, too, whether you choose to
be identified or not. UM. We are not going to be disclosing any
specific locations where samples were found. We're going to ask for that information,
but we're not going to we're not going to share that beyond the core research
team. We certainly don't want to be in a position of you know,
sending uh, you know, sending folks to somebody's backyard, because the serious
are we so we're absolutely not doing that. You know, you know,
bigfooters are very distrusting, a lot of them borderline paranoid, if not all
the way across the border. And whenever it comes to the Bigfoot communities relationship,
with the scientific community. You know, there's a lot of doubt and
a lot of distrust, and I'm probably I'm pretty certain that there's some people
listening right now. Whenever this episode comes out, they're just going to be
like, why should I trust this guy who They're gonna even if they find
something, they're just going to cover it up. Is there any words that
you can give to maybe sway people's trust a little bit, to let them
know that this is on the up and up and that nothing is going to
be covered up or you know what I mean. I'm sure you've heard of
that before in the bigfoot world. Oh absolutely no. And I understand and
you know, and I guess you know, part of it is warranted based
on some of what's happened in the past, and that is really that's really
troubling to me. Um I what's what's so difficult with this is that there
have been and I know because I've talked to folks, there have been some
some individual scientists who, while very well meaning, have taken samples and lost
them or whatever. It happens a lot for some reason. Well I think
one of the reasons that what I will say that hopefully we'll put people at
ease. Is that part of why that has happened in the past is because
by and large, again, there there hasn't been a formal study that these
samples have been going into. Now they I can't really speak to the psych
study because that was a formal study, but that was in conjunction with a
media production. Um. This study is not so. UM. I'm sure
that I know already that there will be some media coverage of it, but
it is not. This is not for media production. I can tell you
that right now. UM. This is uh really stimming from my own curiosity.
UM. Because again the more I've the more I've looked at the more
I've looked at this area, the more I've found things to be curious about.
UM. And it is uh, it is really difficult. I mean,
how do you satisfy this curiosity when there's not data to do so with?
Right? Um, we don't have results of DNA studies. Again,
the individu usual academics who may have looked at samples in the past have given
their opinions on these things, and their opinions in many cases are expert opinions,
but they haven't necessarily released They haven't in any case released their data that
is required for peer review to actually take place right now. Again, in
fairness, none of them, other than psychs, no academic has has really
it's really set out to do a study. And I think that's that's the
interesting thing. I mean, uh, several years ago, and part of
my impetus for this was because a lot of sasquatch investigators were telling me,
oh, I've found this sample, and I think it's interesting. What lab
should I send it to? What commercial lab can I pay to analyze this
for me? And I really looked into that question, and one of the
things that I found was that I wasn't convinced. Let's put it this way,
I wasn't convinced that any lab, any commercial lab, was really equipped
to to be able to properly judge if something truly were an unknown species.
And beyond that, based on particularly a couple of lab reports that were shared
with me, where investigators had sent samples to labs, I wasn't convinced that
the labs were really doing their due diligence and properly even identifying these samples.
And that was troubling to me, and I thought, well, surely there
can be better, and so I really I set out to try to make
it better. So that's how we got to hear. I had folks,
uh several years ago who had samples and said, let me send you this,
let me send you this that, so that your folks can take a
look at it. And I was saying, no, wait, I don't
want to take anything until I have a formal study, until I have this
process set up, until you know, until this is really truly running.
And now we're at that point finally, um so now I can say to
folks, look, it's time. It's time to offer your samples for the
study. You will get results. I think for some folks they may or
may not be you know, the individual results that they may want to see,
but they will be the results of what their samples are. And I'm
really curious to see what we find. I'm really curious with these hairs,
for example, that seem to share these common features and don't look like known
species. What are those That's a really interesting question. So I just this
is finally, I think the chance to to be able to get some data
in order to in order to help to determine what might be going on let
me ask you a couple of things that I hear brought up repeatedly in the
bigfoot community. It's something that I've questioned myself. However, most of us
out there who have an interest in this subject are not scientists. We don't
really know how genetics work. We don't know how DNA works. We just
go by the articles that we read and you know, the television shows we
watch. One of those things is that several different people over the years have
reported that they've gotten results back that said human contamination, and that posed the
question, what if bigfoot is a type of human genetically? Yes, is
this something that could be determined or would it just be assumed that it was
contaminated? Great question, and I'm glad you asked that, because that is
a question that is going to remain unresolved until it's investigated. And yes,
that is absolutely something that we will be investigating. Uh. Yeah, you
know again, in some cases, I think certainly human contamination is a factor
and maybe a factor in and so certainly you know it would be you don't
want to assume that like, oh, if it said human contamination, maybe
it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't, but maybe it was as well. But
yeah, we definitely need to look at that. And so there are a
couple of things about that. One. Because of the expertise of my colleagues,
I'm less concerned with I'm really not I'm not concerned at all, honestly
with not being able to recognize when there's you know, when there's human contamination.
But also because that question has been raised, because that question is on
our radar, that is something that we're We're going to take those samples to
the next step in order to determine, Hey, is this human contamination coming
from humans who are collecting this or you know, as you say, is
there something more to this? We certainly are well aware of the possibility that
if there is a sasquatch species out there, that that species could be very
very close to Homo sapiens. In fact, quite frankly, as I set
out the parameters of this study, UM, we are even including the possibility
in our thinking that there could be that SA sasquatch, if you will,
could be a population of Homo sapiens, in other words, a type of
person. Um even you know, if that is the case, Um,
if the if the DNA samples are robust enough and you know, not not
terribly degraded, we will be able to determine whether that is a possibility.
Uh So, absolutely, I think it's it's a you know, I think
that it is a really good thing to me make sure that we're asking those
questions. We are very open and we have designed this study to be open
to the full range of possibility of what we might be looking at, because
it would I mean again if if if Sasquatch is an extant species, and
again it might be very very close to human. So we don't want to
assume, we don't want to assume that, oh, if we get close
enough to human, we can just stop looking right now. We need to
ask that question or else is going to continue to be an open question.
The other part to that is a lot of people talk about, well,
these DNA studies all look for results of known species, and since there's no
uh bigfoot DNA on file to compare it to, it just comes back as
contaminator or whatever through you know, throughout the results. Basically, so are
you, guys, I assume going to compare uh sample results. Let's just
say that you get several different samples that are good enough to actually be tested
genetically. Are you going to compare those results and see if they match well?
What we'll be doing is we'll be comparing those results to UH databases of
of of species and populations uh in order to in order to determine what these
what these samples are. UM. It's actually a common misconception that without having
a reference species, you can't identify a new species. That's actually wrong that
um. Uh. We we have had plenty of species um that have been
already identified in that manner. And the reason being is is that all life
on Earth, all life on Earth has DNA, and all life on Earth
UH shares uh commonalities in that DNA so UM. So In other words,
um, all all living species on this planet, from plants to humans.
Okay, are you know share some DNA? UM? You share something like
uh forty percent of of your DNA with with a heat alettus. You share
a lot more of your DNA uh with a chimpanzee. Okay um uh.
And and again as as you know, as the as the evolutionary tree branches
off U, there are different places where different things fit. So any any
sample okay is uh, provided that you know, provided the DNA isn't so
degraded that you can't test it. But any sample that you have is going
to fit somewhere on that tree of life. If you've got a sample of
you would notice this through microscopy. But if you had a sample of a
of a a small thread of wood for example, well, okay, you
could identify that as a tree and you could identify the species. Um So
whatever sample you have is going to fit in there somewhere. Now, it
would be possible, say, let's say that some of the common ideas of
what sasquatch might be. Let's say one of those happens to be correct.
Okay, Then finding samples of this previously unknown species would very clearly situate it
somewhere. It might be very very close to human, it might be closer
to chimpanzee, it might be a descendant of some people suggestive gibbons. Wherever
it is, though, it's going to fit squarely somewhere. So that's what's
interesting is if you find, if you find, if you find DNA that
that is a direct match for say a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees,
well then you know exactly where, you know exactly where that species diverged on
the on the evolutionary tree, and uh, you would probably suspect if we
found something like that that well that probably is what's fitting sasquatch reports, or
at least many sasquatch reports, right, I mean, or if a hair
was found in conjunction with a sighting and it you know again it's it's uh,
it's it seems to be share a common descend it with humans and chimpanzees.
Well, boom, there it is. That's that's probably it. Yeah,
example of that magnitude comes from anywhere in North America. You've got something
on your hands. Yeah, exactly. Now again I mean, uh,
you know again, I mean from a technical standpoint, Um, do you
know that that is the sample? You know, that sample is like you
know, quote unquote sasquatch. You know, well maybe not, but there's
probably not multiple species of unknown primates wandering around the same woods. Um,
but you know, of course, you know, there is always you know,
theoretically that possibility. There are some people that make a very nice living
off of that idea. Actually, but you know, but that's where you
know, obviously, with such a finding, eventually, uh, you know,
then the next step would be to try to document a living species,
uh in the wild. Um, but you would have done you know,
the the DNA study alone would have done the work of establishing establishing the existence
of a new species. If that's what this proves to be. Well,
let's just say you win the lottery, okay, and uh you get amazing
results that have never been seen before. You said if I hit the lottery.
I thought you meant if. At first, I thought you meant what
if I actually hit the lottery. Now let me put people at ease.
I hit the lottery. If I hit the lot No, no, no,
I did not at all. If I hit the lottery, it's a
study full time for me because because I'm so curious about this, I really
am. Uh uh And so uh yeah, it's not if I if I
hit the lottery, I'm not. I'm not checking out. If anything,
I'm I'm checking it all the more. Well, I meant that I was
just meaning the genetic watery. Let's just say that you found novel DNA.
Okay. Wouldn't that be an amazing result? I mean, hey, I'd
be happy. But then what happens after that? Well, that's a great
question. But let's say I mean I think, I think what happens after
that is really UM making sure you know, is establishing the species uh in
the wild, uh, documenting Uh yes that you know, Yes, yes,
that's really out there. I mean again, the DNA alone will be
enough to convince ninety nine percent of scientists that, yes, indeed, this
this species exists. If that's the finding, um, the uh as long
as we have you know, a long as we have you know, even
even just several matching samples from different locales, um, you know, I
think that that's enough to overwhelmingly convince the scientific community that, uh, there
the species is there. It will tell us an awful lot about the species,
at least genetically, but it will leave a lot of questions, UM,
because it will not It will not answer for us, um exactly um
exactly what the species looks like. It won't answer how the species behaves.
It won't answer, uh exactly where does it live? Uh? How many
are there? Uh you know? And I think you know, those are
all questions that really would require UM field research. But the field research would
be UM greatly enabled by the genetic information UM. And so yeah, so
I mean that would be the next step. UM I'm I'm already uh,
I'm already resigned to the fact that if that's, if that happens to be
a finding from this study, certainly my life changes, UM, because that
that that that that would be a you know, absolutely a full time commitment
to um uh to that type of study. UM. And I think too
that there's a lot there are a lot of questions uh for me that I've
thought about just a little bit about, you know, how to how to
make sure that a new species uh of any kind, but particularly if if
if it is indeed a new primate species, UM, how that how we
make sure that that that uh information UM gets out in a an ethical way,
in a way that won't harm the species UH. And so that those
those would be my real concerns from that point, I think it would be
I think it would be absolutely fascinating, UM. I certainly, I certainly
think it would probably capture the imagination of a lot of people to learn that
there was something like that out there in North America. And I think people,
um even more people would be curious about, uh be curious about that
is your project equipped to handle environmental DNA? We are at this point,
UM, we we are equipped in the sense that, yes, we have
the expertise to work with DNA, but at this stage that is not something
that we are actively looking to work with. And the reason for that is
is that well, I mean, the reason is that biological samples are a
much lower hanging fruit for for identifying species. DNA is a very tedious,
very expensive, and in the case of looking for potentially unknown species, really
a crapshoot in terms of being able to find what you're looking for. The
reality is is that if we, if if there were an unknown species of
whatever, even if it were just a different type of bear that we found
out in the woods, you know, finding it through a study of actual
samples, hair, bone, whatever, would then allow us to create primers
so that DNA work could be done far, far, faster, farm more
efficiently. I want to kind of finish off here with a question going back
to the distrust, you know and everything between the bigfoot community and the scientific
community. Do you have any ideas on being able to like bridge that gap?
I mean, whenever it comes to unexplained phenomenon in general. You know,
this seems to be your wheelhouse. How science can approach those topics and
everything. Yeah, how do we get the citizens scientists, you know,
the layman researcher out there on the same page as the scientists and being able
to present findings or get that interest to have the scientific community take a serious
look at this sort of thing. Yeah, well, you know, it's
a it's a process, and I think a lot of it, you know,
a lot of that process comes through trying to trying to understand one another.
I think we're at a point where in our in our culture at large,
where science has science has become part of the political football, and I
think that's really really unfortunate. Um. I think that people, um,
in the general public oftentimes don't understand that there is no like capital s science
if you will, U. And in fact, a lot of things that
you hear that science says this, and science says that is not actually coming
from science, scientists or the scientific community, UM, but is really coming
from uh, just other ordinary citizens who are are trying to align themselves in
a certain way. You know. It's interesting because you know, folks ask
me, you know, aren't scientists you know, really prejudiced against this question
and everything? And I'm like, well, no, not my experience.
I mean I certainly know, you know, I certainly know a few scientists
who think, oh, you know this, you know, they just roll
their eyes at the idea of bigfoot. And I don't want to suggest that
there are lots of scientists out there who are like, you know, spending
a lot of time thinking about because there certainly aren't. Um. But I
will say that there are a lot of scientists who recognize that this is an
area that really just hasn't been explored. UM. I have some, uh,
I will say, internationally renowned friends and colleagues who are scientists who privately
will say to me, I'm really excited to see what comes of your study's
really excited to find out what's going on here. Um. But they don't
say that publicly, um uh, because you know, there's you know,
there's a larger culture that's uh yeah, well, you know, makes them
makes them be a little circumspect about how hardly they support that. But but
you know, privately, I've had tremendous support from scientific colleagues, um,
and you know, in tremendous support from the university to you know, to
make sure that we you know them, you know, to enable this type
of research. But again, this type of research really done in a scientific
way. Now, the flip side of this is is that I do also
try to explain to my scientific colleagues how very important it is, and they're
really working towards this, not just at my university, but scientists generally worldwide
now have reached a point where they're really recognizing that they need to be engaging
with the questions that the public has. The days of you know, scientists
setting the entire research agenda and saying, oh, you know, this is
what we're going to look at, and this is what you should care about
and working with UM, working with the public only when they're uh, either
disseminating their result or when they want people to collect data. Those days are
gone, UM, And and I'm glad to see that there's a new generation
of scientists who really are wanting to UM, really are wanting to work with
people, really are wanting to UM have a dialogue with the public UM.
And so there's there's a tremendous opportunity I think, uh in the probably you
know, really in the next uh you know now for you know, at
least the next decade to really see UM science and the public come together.
You know, and again there's not one science, just like there's not one
in public. Um. But uh, you know, I think this is
something that's just really really important. I mean, scientists want to be working
on on questions that have relevance in the real world. I think the more
we can understand each other. And I mean that probably goes for everything in
our culture. We're we're really at a point now where there's just so much
I guess we might be best to just all that tribalism. That's something that
I see, you know, having worked in having worked across these worlds,
and with the engagement that I've had with the Bigfoot community in addition to the
scientific community. I mean, you know, it's it's interesting how quickly people
look for look for their differences with others instead of looking at their similarities.
For example, I mean, even with this study, you know, I
have a lot of people asking me questions, like, you know, assuming
that you know, for example, oh, you're doing you're doing a scientific
you know, you're doing a DNA study, so therefore, um, you
must align with like, you know, certain ideas in the Bigfoot community about
flesh and blood versus woo or whatever. And it's like you know, which
UM, you know, I think is interesting because I do have you know,
I do recognize that there are people who UM and it's not most people,
that there are people who tell some really bizarre accounts. I had a
conversation just this week, UM with a big Foot eye witness who had some
rather unusual elements to his story, you know, UM, and that's great.
I mean, you know, I listen to that, and I think
that that's I think that that's really interesting. UM. I don't know that
I can you know, I don't know that I can speak to UM what
it is that folks are experiencing when they have the sort of UM. I
guess you'd say those woo experiences. But UM, you know, but there's
I see, you know, from the outside looking in, I see this
disconnect in the Bigfoot community, and I think part of it is because people
are very invested in their particular um, their particular ideas. Yeah, UM,
I don't have any problem with somebody telling me, hey, this was
my experience, and yeah, maybe my experience seems really unusual. UM.
Where I where I find that UM people end up, you know, in
these tribes, is when they get to really interpreting what they what they're and
usually they're certain what their experiences mean. So you know, whether that's people
who say, well, I saw a sasquatch and I know that it's an
animal and not close to human at all. I mean, I don't know
quite how you'd know that from looking at something, But you know there are
people who have that, you know, very strong idea to people. You
know, I mean people who are certain that sasquatch is an alien or whatever
it. Maybe. You know, there's a lot of people with a lot
of certainties about things. And I think unfortunately part of why, part of
why that that exists is because there hasn't been scientific work done in this field,
by and large, not too much, and so we really don't have
the data to work with. We don't have of information about the sasquatch phenomenon
such that we can determine what's going on here. And so that's what we
need to be united and trying to fill in. Let's get some data and
for me, you know, DNA is certainly where that you know where that
can probably make the biggest difference. People have said for many, many years,
oh, you know, you need a body, you need a body,
and then science will take this seriously. But the reality is is that
you don't need a body anymore for science to take the idea seriously, not
if you have the DNA evidence. And in fact, the DNA evidence is
actually superior because you can imagine that if somebody did you know, somebody did
say, here's a body, I ran it over yesterday with my truck and
they produce a body, what's the first question that people are going to ask,
Well, what does the DNA say that it is. Yeah, that's
the biggest question out there. I'd really i'd really like to see folks united
in at least agreeing that that's a that's a good question that could that could
help get us to a point, you know, a common point of you
know, hey, let's we should all be excited to to find out to
find out more about that. I mean, you have the people who are
on the fence or in disbelief where something like this could prove that, hey,
these things really are out there, and then the people who are convinced,
uh due to having a siding or just whatever, this will answer the
question of what they actually are. So yeah, I think it's definitely something
that could get everybody on the same page in at least one aspect. Well,
I would hope so, I would hope so. But again, I
mean, I think if you look at our larger culture, you look at
the politics, you look at the country at large, getting us together,
it's kind of difficult. But I you know, that's but that's that's that's
where I am. I'd like, I'm very curious, and i'd like I'd
like to see anybody who is curious, um uh be along for the ride
with me. Well, Darby, I know you've been filling under the weather.
We've had problems connecting, but I'm so glad we were finally able to
make it happen. Thank you so much for joining me and sharing this information
and for all the work you're putting into this. I wish you the best
of luck. Man. I you know I'm one of those people blue Oh.
I want this to happen so bad and at least you've opened the door
for that possibility. So thank you. You know. I think if there's
anything else I can add, it would just be that at the end of
the day, this study is only going to be as good as the samples
that we get, and so this really is. This really is a collaborative
effort, and so I really hope that people who have these these quality,
interesting samples will make them available. This is the opportunity. If you've seen
something you can't explain, send me an email at Bigfootcrossroad at gmail dot com.
Check out bigfootcrossroads dot com for links to the social media, a contact
form to reach me. Everything you need all in one place. And if
you want to send a sample to Darby, I'll have that information for you
as well. And until next time, I remember there's something in the woods.