Five four three two one zero. It's half eye road, a shoe stop
in field, no far now, floating around to see round, floning around,
t see Hello, Brest job will Ja Wilsey, Hey, Hey,
Hey, hello folks. How are you tonight? Hello Charlotte, Jay Hanger
one, Nice to see you, mister, mister t in Tennessee. Awesome,
nice, nice, you could make it. John Ayres, Thank you,
Craig Roach, researcher extraordinaire, Uncle Bones. Who else we got here
tonight? May be it? Sharon, Nice to see you, Eric Sell,
Thank you, buddy for showing up. Appreciate you, and I appreciate
all you guys tuning in to my show. I look forward to it every
week. Jennifer Arnold, thank you very much. As as always, if
you haven't subscribed, please subscribe. If I'm saying something you like during the
show, like it, hit notifications, share, whatever you want to do
to spread the word. I see Bristol is in the audience as well.
Hello. Tonight, We're hopefully going to wrap up the segments on bias and
we're going to be taking a look at some variety of definitions and hopefully spend
the most of our time on the b f R O classification system. If
you're not familiar with it, it's a good guide. Doesn't get us to
reality, as Charlotte, Jay and I were talking about a little in a
few minutes ago, but it provides us a guideline or a yardstick that we
can use to try and be as objective as possible. To start the show,
I'm going to revisit a story many of you regular followers have heard multiple
times, and I'm going to truncate it because it can be a long story
and I want to include one other story in the presentation tonight. So the
story I'm going to refocus this on for this show that this encounter, B
encounter I would call it contained so many important concepts that I keep and that's
why I keep coming back to it. But this is the one where I
was in a group of four Mark Ogilebye, Dan Kegley, who I call
mister Braveheart in my book, and myself and George Wrigley, and we were
hiking up and hiking back down towards on a fire road above a midway camp
where there were four people observing, and there were two other groups out and
as we were about one hundred yards from the steep path where you would take
that steep path back down to the cabin. We had a tree explode and
it sounded like it was exploding right on top of us. Was either a
tree break or a tree fall. Sounded more like a complete tree fall.
And three of us scattered like cockroaches when you when you turn on the lights.
But one of us, Dan Kegley, and this is why I call
him braveheart. He just kind of pivoted on his heels and reached for his
k bar, facing up slope and was ready to take on whatever was coming.
After the tree fell. It sounded like a landslide was coming down on
top of us, And I mean I was looking for the rocks and the
trees to come down, but lo and behold, nothing hit the forest road
we were on. And as we were trying to debunk it figure what was
going on, I looked uphill with my red light and I saw some dust
settling. And just before I saw the dust settling, I smelled that strong
smell of loam. We tried to debunk it, we couldn't. We couldn't
find any other sign. We started heading down that last one hundred yards till
we got to the to the steep slope down to the cabin, and they
radioed up to us from the cabin, are you guys on the steep slope
coming down? Are you on the fire forest road? Well, we're on
the forest road. So we got to the steep slope started heading down it
maybe twenty thirty yards and they radiod us again, are you guys on the
steep slope or are in the forest road coming down? And at that point
we were kind of agitated that they kept bothering us, and we said,
why are you asking? Well, when you were up on the forest road,
we saw some red lights lagging behind you, guys, and now those
red lights seemed to be following you down the steep slope. So we all
pivoted and looked up, and of course we couldn't see anything. Got down
to the cabin to rest before we went down the rest of the mountain back
to our base camp, and as we're sitting there, we saw a red
light kind of just what looked like a red light just kind of pop out
behind a tree and pop back in, pop out the other side, pop
back in, and a couple people pointed out out at this point. There
were sixteen of us at the midway camp, and everybody saw it, and
for about twenty to thirty minutes, not just one red light or one eye
eye glow if you will, if it was a bigfoot, but throughout the
whole path there were multiple peepers going on, peeping out from behind a tree,
peeping back in, peeping out, peeping back in. And we were
all just amazed at this, and we stayed watching it until that activity stopped.
Next morning, we had aspirations of heading back up to look for sign.
We had marked the spot where this happened with two sticks making an X
standing vertically in the ground. We shoved the sticks down on the ground,
but us being of the old not old men, but I was the oldest.
But we were pretty beat up, We were pretty tired. It was
a pretty good hike up and back, and a young buck by the name
of he said, block on his name. I'm sorry. He deserves a
lot of credit, and I keep walking on his name every time I tell
this story. He fresh out of the out of the army, he hikes
up to the spot we told him were to look for the for the the
x'es and uh couldn't find. He walked up there and lo and behold,
found a footprint. He ran back down to base camp, got one of
the guys who is most, who was most had the greatest facility with casting,
and they made a cast. And so while they were letting the cast
set up, they were looking around finding found another partial print that they couldn't
cast on the forest road. And then they looked at the downside edge of
the forest road and there was a partial print right on the side of the
forest road. And they looked up the next to the tree where the print
was, and there was a bark tear about fifteen foot up on the up
on the tree, and it was a fresh bark tear. And when they
looked out over the edge about eight foot down, it plateaued off and they
counted thirty five to forty juvenile footprints down there. They didn't want to take
the risk and try up to go down and cast them. And so I'm
going to revisit this story when we talk about causality versus correlation versus coincidence.
Eric, my good friend, asked a pretty good, pretty good question,
do you have any explanation for the red eyes? I think either last show
or the show before it. When we talked about after image, if you
want to be the ultimate skeptical skeptic, you might just write that off to
after images. We're walking around with red lights, we look up, you're
going to get the after image of the red lights. But this was happening
in so many locations on that steep path where we just came came down that
that really didn't seem like a plausible explanation. Some people say they their eyes
will reflect the light that is put on them. So we're putting red light
on them, they're going to reflect reflect red light back. You put white
light back on them, they're going to reflect white light back. I don't
know that we're going to have an actual explanation before we really get and I'm
not promoting kill phenomena or kill philosophy, but until we can study their visual
system, well, I think before we can really answer that. One of
the growing trends, and I think it's an important trend to discuss in the
field, however, is that there's a difference between eyeshine and eye glow.
Eye shine looking more like a reflection seeing red eyes, where a lot of
people report eye glow and an eye glow. It's almost as if their eyes
are generating their own light and projecting that light from their eyes onto the ground
or wherever they're looking. And so it's hard to have a scientific explanation for
that beyond saying that people consistently report the same two kinds of experiences, an
eye glow which seems more or an eye shine that seems more reflective, and
an eye glow that looks like it's they're almost generating their own red light from
their eyes. I wish I had a better answer for you, Eric,
but that's as much as we can understand at this point. So thank you
for that question. So let's pick up with the slides. We're going to
cover a few more definitions that I haven't discussed. Confabulation when there's a blank
in your memory system, be it from a neurologic condition like a stroke or
a brain injury, or many of the dementing diseases, if it eats away
the right cells in your either in your visual cortex or on the in the
visual nerves. Going back to your cortex, I'm sorry, I'm stuck on.
I'm stuck on. Eyeshine. The trauma can in in neurologic conditions,
there's damage to the memory centers of the brain. I'm sorry. And in
encounters, not necessarily even traumatic encounters, but it's more common in traumatic encounters
people will have memory blocks or empty memory spaces where they remember up to a
certain point and then they have no memory until hours or days later. And
the important thing to understand about the concept of confabulation is whether it's due to
a neurologic condition or a traumatic condition, or just over arousal from any kind
of experience, whether it's traumatic or not. It can be associated with memory
blocks or memory gaps, if you will, loss of memory, and that
creates, if you recall, we discuss something called cognitive dissonance, our brain's
got to kind of reconcile why is it that we can't remember that? And
that creates kind of an imbalance in our memory system. And again, in
both neurologic and traumatic or almost traumatic conditions where this memory gap exists, it's
not uncommon for the brain to fill in that memory gap. For us.
This is one of the reasons why hypnotic induced testimony is not allowed in courts.
Number one, the hypnotherapist or hypnotists themselves can make suggestions that can fill
in those memory blanks. But even if you're the best hypnotherapist in the world
and you don't do any suggesting that would cause one to fill in that memory
gap, the brain will sometimes take care of itself under hypnosis. Doesn't need
hypnosis to do it, but it can do it under hypnosis and create memories
that may or may not be accurate. They may or may not be accurate
memories, and that's called confabulation, talked about it in neurologic. In effect,
the brain makes something up information, memories, images, sounds to reduce
that dissonance, the discomfort due to inconsistency in recollations, recollections, or behaviors
associated with the blank spots and consciousness. Now we're going we could spend a
whole show on this next one, and I'm going to treat it kind of
lightly here, but it very well in the future may pop up as an
entire show because the understanding of the difference between coincidence, correlation, and causality
is imperative. If you're going to go out into the woods and look for
bigfoot, people automatically want to go to causality. Bigfoot caused that, but
it could just be a coincidence, or it could be a correlation, so
a correlation. A coincidence is defined by Miriam's Dictionary as the act or condition
of coinciding, as well as the occurrence of events that happen at the same
time by accident but seem to have some connection. There seems to be a
connection or a relationship between two things, but in reality they just randomly occurred
together. The most common example of this, I think it seems like baseball
players are very superstitious, and they wear a certain pair of shorts and they
pitch a no hitter or they win a game. Well, then they keep
wearing those shorts, and as a for a while, they keep winning games.
So they think there's a relationship between the underwear that they wear and whether
they win games or not. But it's just a totally random, unconnected thing.
I am gonna I failed to remind us in the beginning. If you
want to, if you want a post that will grab my eye, put
it in caps Planet four twelve. I'm yours because I know a little bit
about you and your experience. I hope you don't mind me putting it up,
but obviously, doc if you have an event like I did when I
was fourteen, there were four of us, so that's not something that is
taken into consideration. Well, that's one of the things that would help help
us tease out and rule out just a coincidence. You know, when multiple
people see it, it's less likely to be a coincidence. And maybe Eric
can remember the diagnostic name for this. There is a type of delusion,
however, that is shared by multiple people where they've come to believe certain things,
and it can happen in small groups or large groups. But delusion being
a false idea that is maintained in the face of contradictory information. And I'm
not Planet four twelve. I am in no way suggesting that this is an
explanation for your event. I rewatched that event. For those of you who
don't know Planet four twelve. He had a dog man encounter that is very
harrowing, and I would encourage you to look it up. I'm sure it's
posted on his page on four to twelve, and he's been interviewed by a
variety of people about this, and it is one of the most incredible encounters
that I have ever heard, and it was definitely a life threatening encounter.
So in your case, you know, I don't think you four guys had
a simultaneous delusion. I I you know, I think you know you're you're
following it up there towards causality rather than even correlation based on your story,
if that makes any sense to you. Hello, Aspa sixty, Hello John
Ayres, I don't know if I caught you. Yeah, Matt emitg is
planet four twelve, And I encourage you all to check out one of his
interviews about this event because it is incredible and a harrowing kind of experience for
sure. Moving on to correlation. Correlation is defined as webster by Webster's as
a relationship existing between phenomen or things, between phenomena or things, or between
mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together
in a way that's not expected on the basis of chance alone. So this
isn't just an accident. There's a relationship going on here, Charlotte, Jay,
thank you for that. It's all fall I'm not good with French fall
adou is the kind of group the group delusion that it can occur, and
that's actually in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Good work, Charlotte Jay.
I appreciate that very much. So in a correlation, there is a connection.
There is a relationship between these two events. The example are like to
use here mostly because I was It took me a while to realize this,
but I thought, well, the professor astes, is there a causal relationship
between rising temperatures or is it a correlational relationship between rising temperatures? And I'm
sitting there thinking, well, you know, as temperatures increase, ice cream
begins to melt, so there must be a causal relationship between ice cream melting
and temperatures rising. Well, it took me a while to see the light,
but the fact of the nature is rising temperatures do not cause ice cream
to melt. For a causal relationship and ship you have to have a one
hundred percent correlation, so that every time one variable changes, the variable that
it influences changes in either the same or the opposite direction. So I thought,
surely there's a causal relationship in In fact, though, if you think
about it, if the ice cream is frozen at minus thirty degrees fahrenheit,
as that temperature warms up, it rises from minus thirty degrees fahrenheit to minus
twenty degrees fahrenheit to minus ten degrees fahrenheit. You know what, it's still
frozen. So there is not a causal relationship between rising temperatures and ice cream
melting when it's out of a freezer, of course, until you get a
above thirty two degrees fahrenheit. I believe that's zero degrees celsius. Then as
the temperature goes up the ice cream, the ice cream melts, but before
that there's no melting going on. So it's a co relationship. The way
to understand correlation is it's a co relationship. The two variables are related to
each other. Got another question, another good one, John, Would any
of those delusions ever show in signs of PTSD. It would be where like
if all four people had a traumatizing experience and they all experienced it at the
same time. Yes, it's possible if they developed what I would call a
severe PTSD, that they could as a group develop that delusion, but it
would have to be severe PTSD and that that delusion. Darlette, Jay,
what was it again? Oh? I wanted to take another stab at the
French but it could potentially because folks who get severe PTSD can become delusional,
they can hallucinate, but that's generally a pretty extreme case. I hope that
answers your question. The big c causality and this is what we need.
This is what we're about in Bigfoot. We're trying to prove Bigfoot exists.
So the kind of the current norm in the field is we go out and
we look for bigfoot sign we look for footprints, we look for we listen
for whoops or howls or grunts, any kind of vocalization that Bigfoot might put
out, and you know, tree knocks. So keeping in mind that causality
means one hundred percent relationship, I would ask you to ask yourself, is
there a causal relationship between tree knocks and Bigfoot? Because we're using tree knocks
as evidence that Bigfoot exists. Keep in mind that's why we're focused on it.
We hear a tree knock, we rule out other things that could be
creating that sound, and if nothing else explains it, then we say Bigfoot.
Well, do tree knocks cause our tree nocks caused by Bigfoot? Or
if we do a tree knock and we get a tree dock back? Did
our knock cause Bigfoot to make a knock back? Well, one of the
things we already know from experiential research is there's not a causal relationship between tree
knocks and bigfoot. Even after we eliminate all the other possible variables, it's
not a causal relationship. Why is that? I'm going to pull up this
question because it's a good time in timeliness? Does it always have to be
one hundred percent? And he mo allowed more allowed? Well, so for
causality you need one hundred percent relationship if you want to rely on experiential variables
to prove the existence of bigfoot. I guess theoretically there could be greater than
one hundred percent relationship in that sometimes bigfoots initiate the knox themselves. But we
already know from oh legacy nicely trained dogs. Hey, how are you my
friend? Good question. I'm glad you're here, Thank you very much.
So. The reason we know that tree knocks are not a causal relationship,
that there's not a causal relationship between us making a tree knock and a tree
nck coming back to us is because every time we make a knock, do
we get a knock back. No, we don't. Sometimes we get knocks
back, sometimes we don't. Simply, given the fact that we don't get
a knock for knock return, that eliminates it being one hundred percent statistical relationship.
Because there are frequent times where you make a knock and a bigfoot doesn't
knock back. They may then respond to a claque, a stone clack,
They may respond to some other things, but they also don't respond one hundred
percent to those other things. So we already know tree knocks don't cause bigfoot
to knock back one hundred percent. And therefore this is why in getting science
to accept Bigfoot's existence, when we cite things like footprints or tree knocks,
we get kind of scoffed at because there's not one hundred percent relationship between those
kinds of evidence and Bigfoot. Let's go back to my story of what I
call the landslide story. It was either a landslide or a bluff charge in
my opinion, But is it did Bigfoot cause that next morning when when Jason
Mixon, thank you, Jason Mixon went up there and cast that print,
he found that print there. Now, given the shape and size and the
identifying characteristics. I saw that. I saw that that print and it was
eight I believe eighteen inches long and eight or nine inches wide, and you
could see every bone in the foot. You could see the the mid tarsal
break on the cast, and you could see the dermal ridges on the cast.
So it meant most you know, the criteria that we have for a
genuine big foot print. But can we say if if it wasn't that good
of a print, can we say, based on the experience that we had
that we know that that bigfoot caused that print that night, we can say
there's a correlation there, but we can't necessarily say bigfoot caused it because we
didn't see bigfoot cause it, and so we're deducing. I think it's a
reasonable deduction that bigfoot caused it, But in terms of being able to say
with scientific certainty that bigfoot caused it, we can't what would what would be
a causal relationship. Every time we know of bigfoot's in the area, we
find a footprint. Again, if you've been out in the woods, you
know that bigfoots can be in the area, and you can go and never
ever find a footprint. So there's not one hundred percent relation, and this
is why I'm i'd wrote my book, and this is why I'm sitting here
talking to you. Experiential research like we do is absolutely necessary and it's important,
but those kind of experiences will not be accepted by science as proof that
Bigfoot exists because there aren't those one hundred percent relationships out there. They're just
aren't. So the only other way to prove a causal relationship is to do
experimentation. And again in the back half of my book, if you're a
really dedicated reader, I talk about experimental design and statistics because that's the best
thing. It's not a perfect thing, but it's the best thing that I
know of and most people can point to to prove a causal relationship using a
specific experimental design and then statistically analyzing it. In your statistical analysis, the
statistics will tell you the probability of random error, and your your you can
your experiment. Experimental design then is used to minimize systematic what's called systematic error.
Systematic error being errors that you would expect to influence your experiment, and
so you control for those through your experimental design. At this point, I'm
gonna I thought legacy had another margin of error. I'm not sure what you
mean by margining of air. Just to plug for Legacy Legacy Nicely. She
is an awesome dog trainer, and we got into a debate over the behavioral
sciences as they relate to dog training, and we have become very good friends.
We chat pretty regularly, and she probably at this point she probably knows
statistics better than I. I'm not sure though, what you're asking about when
you say margin of error, So I'm going to ask you to clarify that
and come back to you. But if you need a good dog trainer,
check out Legacy Nicely trained dogs. She really knows her stuff. She's trained
police, caneines and the whole nine yards and now works with clients with quote
regular dogs. As it were. John brings up a good question, would
nots work best? I can't disprove you, John, but I'm going to
challenge that a little bit in my own experience. Sometimes there are going to
be times where a subtle stone clack might work better than a full blown wood
knock. Other times the full blown wood knock works. Sometimes neither of those
kind of work, And they're responding to vocalizations, and certainly a very interesting
certainly a very interesting study would do to do a regional study on that where
using a counterbalance design you start with you start with a would knock, wait
for a response, record whether you got one or not. Then do a
stone clack, wait for a response, cord it whether you got it or
not. Then do a whoop, wait for a response or not. Then
to eliminate order effects or delayed responses, you go to your next spot.
But instead of making that would knock first, you make your stone clack first,
then your vocalization, then the wood knock. You go to your next
spot, you do the vocalization first, then the tree knock, then the
stone clack, then your next spot. You're back to the same order wood
knock, stone clack, whoop or call. So in that way, that's
an example of systematic error that I was referring to earlier. If you make
a wood knock and you don't wait long enough, it may be a laid
response, So you got to put some time in between the wood knock and
the stone clack. But if you make a wood knock and you allow time
and then you do a stone clock clack, and you immediately get a stone
clack, back then you got to wait. Then you move on to the
whoop, and that's called counterbalancing, because you're alternating the order of your intervention,
if you will, the tree knock, the stone clack, and the
whoop, and you're trying to determine which of these are more likely to provoke
a response from Bigfoot. And I'd be willing it's just a hypothesis on my
part. My squatching has been in the Southeastern United States, but I bet
you there may be some regional variants. I know, even within this Southeastern
United States, there are variations to that. Going to going to one location
in Georgia, they seem to like wood knocks. Going to another region in
Tennessee, wood knocks just didn't seem to work, but stone clacks did,
so I'm suspicious there may be some regional variations, but certainly wood knock's a
good place to start. And of course, those of us who are familiar
with the Bigfoot field, you're also familiar with the debate as to whether this
is even whether it's even a you're using wood or not. Some people believe
that they're using their lips, their teeth, using their hands to provide it
like a megaphone effect. Jeff Meldrum points out that great apes have a vestige
bellow in there in their body, and they use that vestige bellow to create
some of their sounds. So there are a lot of variables to rule out.
John, what are you saying, stone clack back? I say that?
Okay, moving on, Wow, Okay. I hate to do it
this fast, because this is very important. I gave those examples sightings BFIRO
reporting system. They've got a three tier classification system, Class A, B
and C. Given just an important note, a given witness might be very
credible, could have honestly misinterpreted something that was seen, found, or heard.
Thus, for the most part, the circumstances of the incident determine the
potential for misinterpretation and therefore the classification of the report. Class A. Class
A reports involve clear sightings. Clear needs to be emphasized here, Guy in
circumstances where misinterpretation of the animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. For
example, there are several footprint cases that are very well documented. These are
considered Class A reports because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out.
Thus, the potential for misinterpretation is very low, and why can it be
ruled out? Number one to the size of the feet, signs of mid
tarsal brain dermal ridges. And if you ever have to, if you ever
have to take a footprint in snow, guys, you need some hair spray
and hair spray the print before you put any casting material down there, and
you'll you won't melt the snow. But the other thing to look for in
big footprints, if you see more than one, is they don't they're kind
of central in their stride. They don't alternate from side to side. Obviously,
they're not quite a straight line, but they're in a little bit of
a straight line compared to human footprints and other animal footprints, where there's clearly
a right side or a left side. In cereal or series of big footprints,
you can still tell right from left, obviously, but they're going to
be pretty close together, unlike in human and other prints where there's a great
amount of left to right right space. Class B incidents where a possible saskatch
was observed at a great distance or in poor lighting conditions, and incidents in
any other circumstrance stance that did not afford a clear view of the subject are
considered Class B reports. For example, credible reports where nothing was seen but
distinct characteristics of sounds of sasquatches were heard are always considered Class B reports and
never Class A, even in the even in most cases compelling sound only cases.
This is because the lack of a visual element raises a much greater potential
for misidentification of sounds. And you know, I think in my title I
talked about objectivity again, and these are guidelines and rules or lessons to think
about as you're trying to evaluate whether you've got bigfoot sign a Class A,
a Class B, or a class C encounter. We're not going to get
perfect objectivity, but anything we can do to eliminate other variables or bring in
variables that are consistent with our target species are going to increase the likelihood of
a correct identification and classification. Use magic shell ice cream syrup in the snow.
It will make the chocolate cast turns hard. When it's called are you
are you serious? John? I have never heard that. I'm not sure
you make so many jokes, buddy. I'm not sure if you're making a
joke or you're being factual. There I would love to hear whether that that's
just a joke or factual. It's certainly interesting. So I was in the
woods, standing shoulder to shoulder with another experienced bigfooter, and to make a
long story short, he saw a dark figure that he felt was undoubtedly a
big foot across the street. I didn't see it. I was visually oriented
in a completely different deck direction than he was, even though we were standing
shoulder to shoulder. Okay, so John, that was a joke or not?
Ristal Ristal saying he did that as a kid or she I'm not sure
what gender you are. We were standing shoulders shoulder, looking off at different
directions. He saw a dark shape go across the road. I don't I'm
sorry, I don't actually remember whether any I don't think anyone else saw it.
There were two or three others in our group, and they were looking
elsewhere. Now is that a class A or is that a Class B sighting?
It's it's a tough one because he clearly saw that dark shape. We
couldn't find any footprints, though, so what are the chances of misidentification?
You know, this was before dog Man became all the rage, and now
you know you see that kind of shape crossing the road. Momentarily, I
think we'd have to rule out, you know, in the depth of the
night, they may have or appear to have similar profiles, although Matt can
tell us more about that, I'm sure than I can imagine. Or was
it a Class B? The sasquatch was observed in poor lighting conditions, and
the incidents or incidents in any other circumstance that did not afford a clear view
is considered a Class B something to think about, and then Class C.
Oh let's see Class B. Class B reports are not considered less credible or
less important than Class A reports. Both types are deemed credible enough by the
b f R to show to the public. For example, one of the
best documented reports ever received by the BFRO as a Class B report from Trinity,
California. It involved very credible witness who backpacked into a remote area that
has a history of sasquatch related instances. He described various occurrences around his camp
that night that were strongly suspected to be sasquatch related. The report is still
considered Class B though because there were no clear visual observations to confirm what was
heard outside the tent. So today I was surfing the internet and you see
this question come up often, have you seen a bigfoot? Have you actually
seen a bigfoot? And on the surface, that seems like a simple question,
but when you think about these different these different variations, there are different
degrees of seeing a bigfoot. Is it a Class A sighting? Is it
a Class B sighting? So you know people always respond yeah, I saw
it, or no idea or but the people who were responding yes, I've
seen one, they need to think about was that a Class A or a
Class B sighting? Because there are different degrees of seeing a bigfoot? Class
C the most most secondhand reports or any third hand reports or stories with untraceable
sources are considered Class C. Basically they're just telling a story. Those reports
are kept in the BFR archives, but are rarely stick publicly in this database.
The exceptions are of published are locally documented instances before nineteen fifty eight,
before the word bigfoot entered the American vocabulary, and sightings mentioned in a non
tabloid newspaper and magazine. So again, this isn't the holy grail, but
it's one set of guidelines. As far as I can as far as I
know, the only structured set of guidelines out there for classifying bigfoot sightings.
And even if you don't care whether it was a Class A or a Class
B siding, just reading I find just reading through these criteria get me thinking
about things and get me help my reasoning as I'm trying to sort through the
evidence. So I think it's a pretty deal plug for my boss, Doug
Hicheck. He's got a set of guidelines that are for videos and if you
get so many red flags, I think there are like twenty criteria and if
you get so many red flags, it's a faked video. If you have
below so many red flags, it's a genuine video. And I'm sure Doug
would be happy to share that with y'all at some point. I'm hoping to
get his permission to make that one of my episodes to discuss it, because
it's very fascinating and he reports very good validity and reliability with his criteria,
maybe setting up similar criteria. Well, I don't know about the rest of
you guys, but I am so sick of bl blob squatches. It's kind
of turned me off to even looking at pictures. So many people are putting
up blob squatches where you know, even after they circle the photograph where they
see the Bigfoot, many people can't see it. And of course in our
last episode we talked about paradolia, where you know, if you've got a
picture, you can see things that aren't there because of the shadows and the
surrounding environment. Though doctor John buying that book of yours for Christmas, well,
thank you, that's nice. Yeah, I'll do whatever I can to
to sign it. Who's saying they're buying it? Yeah, ASPA sixty,
Yeah, especially for you ASPA sixty, mister and missus a SPA sixty.
I don't know if it's both you guys watching or not, but I'd be
happy to to like get one for you, sign it and then get it
shipped out to you for sure. Any questions, I make the point down
here, just keep in mind that these reports by BFRO are taken and written
down. Words are symbols. They're not the actual experience, and I think
I think that's nicely, nicely an important thing to think about. We're still
dealing with symbols. It's not the actual consensus reality itself. So this is
the summary which I'll go through real quit from the entire presentation, which usually
only takes me an hour and a half when I present it live. One
of the big gaps is between science and the experiential researchers. Another big gap
is between the flesh and blood camp and the WU camp. I believe that
we've got to be open to it. All these dichotomies have created hard feelings
and big gaps within the community, but we need both types of research.
We need the phenomenological evidence because without it, we wouldn't know where to begin
the scientific experimentation. So the experiential evidence is the foundation upon which we've got
to build the scientific structure or framework. And in this last side, I
go back to what you'll find on the BFRO website, and I'm just gonna
for the purposes of time, go to the quotes. Well, no,
I'm not. The use of subjective evaluation is what separates the legal perspective of
witness testimony from the scientific perspective. Witness reports are considered anecdotal evidence, as
are experiential Bigfoot expeditions. I will note, mainly because they are not testable.
Yet many scientists are wise enough to understand that anecdotal evidence always precede it
and leads to the collection of scientific evidence. Again, yet many scientists are
wise enough to understand that anecdotal evidence always proceed precede it, and leads to
the collection of scientific evidence. In the history of science, scientific evidence has
never been collected or even pursued until there has been enough anecdotal or indirect evidence
at hand to merit an effort to collect testable evidence. Thus, without the
collection and evaluation of anecdotal evidence or indirect evidence, there would be no scientific
discoveries at all. This is the intrinsic relationship between the two types of evidence.
Citing reports by themselves are not scientific evidence. Even a class A sighting
is not scientific evidence, but they lead us to the scientific evidence. And
I think that's one of the hardest lessons in pills to swallow in the community,
is that if you had a bigfoot citing class A clear, no doubt
about it, it's bigfoot, that should be evidence to the scientific community.
Unfortunately it's not. We've got to do experimentation out in the field if we're
going to be able to prove it to the scientific community. I think we're
going to wrap it up at that point I'm not sure what's on tap for
next week. To be honest with you all, I've got a few things
kicking around in my head, thinking about going to evidence and looking at the
legal evidence and building a bridge from it into bigfoot evidence qualitative versus quantitative evidence.
And that's kind of what we're talking about here. So I want to
thank you all for attending subscribe. If you haven't like, spread the word,
shareppreciate it. I appreciate you all very much, and as is my
habit, I'm going to ask you to keep an open mind, keep your
boots on the ground, and your heart with your higher power. Good Night,
I'll see you on in wrong reason. Don't try to blame it all
the season? Why you want to walk away? One? We begain sweet?
We have song something that would lay baby has a feeling? La following
was easy? How do I make steak? I'm never let try an InTru
tried? Was I a fool? I know sometime bunny wonder, but I
would never leave a sunder. I'm thinking, as good as what we have,
is it overble w school is worth the flood? There hain't no inn
I'm you and I We're made to last. Fling it s S. How
can we make steak? I'm never let go trya I'm now left try and
I l y I'm never try. Have you had a change your part?
Can we go back to the start? Oh Lord, let me go,
you Hida, let go. I want to do it all with you by
my side. If you're in need me here to night, be pare to
come along. I'll be your I'm sweet. You don't you know old guys