Three two one, it's half I road a shoe stop in the field.
No far now floating around test seed, no sound floating around test see round
Bristo and Wilthy. Hey, folks, how are you nice to see everybody
here? Asp asp s A SPA sixty Charlotte, j Carolina Puerto, Craig
Roach, How are you guys doing? Nice to see you regulars back here.
This is the kind of an anniversary show, twenty fifth show. I've
made it this far and it's because of you guys. Thank you so much
for being here. As always, we're gonna go with all caps for questions,
lower caps to chat amongst yourself, my mo, mom? What else?
One more? One more live show, and then the show after that
will be pre recorded, because I'll do I'll be elsewhere. I'm doing some
important Bigfoot stuff. I'm happy to say, let's see what else? Thanks
to Doug and Alex Hicheck for all their support. Thanks to you guys for
all your support. And I guess you know today we're going to be talking
about reporting and how to basically increase the accuracy and scientific validity of your reports
that you take on expeditions. So the story today look a show over twenty
four. Thanks John, I appreciate that today we're going to be talking about
conducting debriefing interviews. By debriefing, I mean when you come back from an
evening expedition or a daytime expedition for that well, for that matter, things
to consider as if you're one of the people interviewing the people that have had
the Bigfoot experience, referring primarily to type A or Class A or Class B
sightings because those are the ones with increased potential for trauma, and following these
procedures will not only increase the accuracy of the reports that you take, but
I'll be talking about how to preserve them and how this whole process can help
prevent PTSD from developing overnight. Hey Eric, how are you, sir.
Nice to see you, buddy. I appreciate you being here. So,
as usually, I'm going to start with the story. I'm feeling that pressure
to bust through this, and now I got to realize I've got two hours
to bust through this, so I've got to kind of relax and slow my
pace here. As always, I'm going to start with a little bit of
a story, and this is one situation where I wish I could have everybody
raise their hands, because although I know some of my regulars quite well,
some of them I don't know quite well. And I really don't have much
of an appreciation for how many of you folks out there have actually been out
on an organized expedition. And when I wrote this, I wrote this book,
began Wroting is writing this book my second year into my expeditions, and
most of my expeditions have been done with BFRO Organization, Lorie Wade and Charlie
Jeez, I can't believe in blocking on Charlie's last name Charlie Raymond, And
of course I also go out with South Southeast Southeastern Sasquatchgating Organization and these although
in the book they were written primarily for large group investigations, these will work
with relatively small group investigations as well. So, given that I'm not sure
of the baseline of expedition experience, mostly my story today is going to be
a personal, personal information about my experiences in the typical format that you experience
on a BFRO expedition. And so usually a BFRO expedition runs a Thursday to
a Sunday. At least the ones that I've been on getting up there Thursday
by noon typically typically that's a three to four hour drive. So you're getting
I'm getting up, looking up my trailer, hitting the road pretty early,
and I got about three or four hour drive. Let me see something here,
Eric, I'm still trying to clearly connect the search for Bigfoot sidings regardless
of class and how significantly this connects to PTSD. Awesome question. So a
class A sighting, Eric, is when you got a clear visible sighting of
Bigfoot. And in a clear visible sighting of bigfoot, there is no doubt
that it's Bigfoot. It looks big like Bigfoot. You can see it clear
enough and close enough to be pretty sure or completely sure that it's not a
guy in a bigfoot outfit or an ape or a gorilla outfit. These can
occur anywhere from three hundred yards out from where you're standing. Two. I
think you know I've heard some literally some face to face sightings within a foot
of each other. But and yes, there are sometimes there are occasions and
reports where people have been abducted, been threatened, maybe even caused some physical
injury with Bigfoot. But when you're that close to this kind of apex predator.
It's not unusual or somebody to one have their fight flight mode kick in,
and oftentimes, especially on night ops, these can be kind of traumatized
sightings for more than a few people, and so with trauma, as you
know, frequently can come PTSD. A class B sighting is when you don't
necessarily see the Bigfoot clear. You might see an outline of bigfoot in the
night It looks unequivocally bigfoot, but given the darkness, it's difficult to see.
Your view might be obstructed by trees or some other obstacles. Also,
under class B sidings, you're going to have experiences like tree knocks, roars,
whoops, screams, finding footprints, casting footprints, and these for the
average researcher, I can think, I would think would be a little less
potentially traumatizing. But I've shared two of my own personal class B sightings and
they were, you know, they created a visceral experience. Let's just say
it that way. The fight flight kicked in. I wasn't traumatized per se,
but some fear kicks in, some anxiety, if you will, And
you know, depending on the person, their experience and the dramaticness if you
will, of the siding that can also create trauma. A Class C siding
is kind of hearing a secondhand story from somebody else. Okay, so you
know, most people who go on I think, not just speaking myself for
myself, but most people go on an expedition of having a Class A sighting
seeing bigfoot, knowing for oneself that bigfoot is real because you've seen them close
enough and distinct enough to have no doubt that this was a bigfoot that you
saw. So usually when you head off, When I head off in the
morning, of course I've got bigfoot on the brain, I'm a little wound
up. I'm a little excited. I'm thinking about bigfoot, hoping to have
a bigfoot experience. Typically arrive around midday on Thursday, say hello to folks,
meet some new folks, and the main goal then is to get your
camp set up and everything prepped. If you're using equipment, you're going to
put your batteries on your recorder or your flear or your camera on charge to
make sure it's fully charged for the night out, and just generally kind of
prepare yourself, prepare your camp, and chat with folks until about four o'clock.
That's typically when Laurie has her first group meeting, and in the group
meeting, she will kind of sit in a circle around typically at that point
a non burning campfire, unless it's a late fall winter kind of expedition,
in which case the campfire will be going to keep you warm, and she
would lay out some of the grand ground rules, some of the courtesies.
One of the things I repeatedly did did in my first couple sightings are not
first couple sightings first couple expeditions. You know, we're wearing headlamps, typically
red headlamps, and when you stop and talk to somebody and you look them
in the face, you're generally going to be shining your lamp right in their
face, and that makes things kind of rough to look at each other.
And so you want to either turn off your lamp in those situations or divert
the direct the light that's directly in the person's face up or down towards up
towards the sky, or down through the ground towards the ground. You know,
staying on the trail, staying staying with a group. When you go
out on night ops, no one ever wanders off alone. You always kind
of buddy up, and if somebody has to leave the little subgroup, they
don't go back to camp, or they don't walk by themselves. Somebody goes
back with them for safety's sake, and then we introduce ourselves around the circle.
Typically people talk a little bit about who they are and the expeditions and
any experiences that they've had in terms of expeditions. And you know, one
of the unique things I think about the BFRO expeditions I've been on, they
tend to be rather large. You could be talking a minimum of twenty twenty
five people up to fifty people in an expedition. That's a lot of folks,
a lot of folks. There's typically what Lori calls newbies newbies, meaning
it's a person that is on an expedition for their first time. And after
the introductions, there's also then typically a newbie meeting where some more details are
shared and discussed to make sure the newer folks get the importance of certain points
and the dos and domes. One of nice things about Louri's expeditions BFRO expeditions,
as well as Charlie Raymond's BFRO expeditions and his KBrO Kentucky Bigfoot Research Organization
expeditions is meals are provided Laurie's expeditions breakfast and dinner, and everybody's asked to
bring something to donate to a snack table, and so all those snacks are
put out onto the table for you to munch on as you see fit.
And mostly that's how people deal with their lunch using the snack table. And
this is kind of unusual with Louri and Charlie as the typical BFRO expeditions,
the leaders don't go out all out like these two folks do to provide meals.
Typically on a BFRO expedition, you're required to take care of your own
food. I think both Luri and Charlie find that it's easier when you provide
a meal to have a captive audience. To move on to the introduction for
night ops, after a break, people are already there. People are already
focused after a meal, and so after after dinner, Lori and her team
or Charlie and his team will have gone out either a week before or a
month before the expedition and scouted out the area. They use a big map
of the forest or the park that we're going to be squatching in and they
check it out ahead of time. One expedition in Tennessee, there were lots
of creeks or creeks as some people call them, and so on the one
location we had a we had to get across three maybe four creeks, two
that you couldn't hop across. And so for example, for people's safety,
ahead of time, Laurie had strung ropes from tree to tree across these creeks
and use some pallettes, some wooden pallets to construct some bridges so you could
walk across the creek without having to get your shoes wet. Especially in late
fall winter expeditions, getting your feet wet out at night can eventually get pretty
uncomfortable. So you know, these folks really go the extra mile to make
sure everybody's safe, make sure everybody's dry, you know, everything's in place
ahead of time. And also in that week there they're typically scouting for tracks,
looking for big foot signs so that they can can find a more or
less hot spot within the hotspots within the area. You can imagine if there's
a group of fifty people sending people out into the woods, if it's not
organized well, can be lead to quite the calamity. And so one of
the things I admire about what both these folks do is that group of fifty
is typically divided up into groups of four to six i'd say at averages five,
and so you go out in many groups, and each leader of the
mini group is typically risen to the status of an investigator. In BFRO,
you've got two static well, I guess three statuses nubie researcher and ve instigator,
and an investigator is kind of the top of the heap. Somebody who
has been on a lot of expeditions, have some experience with bigfoot. They're
going to be take the lead in the smaller groups in guiding people to these
areas, and so all that is coordinated after dinner. And when after that's
coordinated, you're you're assigned to a particular group with a particular investigator, and
that investigator will will then gather his sub his or her subgroup up and make
some plans about when they're gonna head out in their cars to get to their
spot, and you know, make sure everybody knows what to bring. You
know, typically you're going to bring I carry a night sack, and most
people do typically you're going to bring a chair. I've got a little mini
chair that I can sit down in that goes into my pack. You're gonna
want to bring some water, because it seems, interestingly enough, when it's
rainy, you're walking around in a gortex shell or a rubber shell, and
I find I sweat more on days when it's rainy and chilli than on moderate
kind of days. So bringing a change of clothes, or being able to
strip some of your layers off or add some layers, or the fight flight
experiences. Interestingly enough, Lorie does include a change of underwear in her nightpack
list because it happens times that when people's fight flight response kick in, they
may poop or pee themselves, and you don't want to walk around the rest
of the evening carrying that load, be it liquid or solid. Binoculars,
night vision cameras. I'm kind of anti tech. I don't like those things,
but people bring their own. I carry one piece of equipment besides extra
batteries and a chair, and that is a bard owl call. It's believed
that sasquatch will imitate bard owls to communicate with each other, and so I
carry a bard owl call with me, and I am not very skillful with
it, but it is. I've been shocked about how often I've let out
a bart owl call and start getting conversations going with other barn owls or goodness
only knows if it's a bigfoot or not. I keep hearing that when you
spend enough time out in the woods, you can kind of tell if you
hear bart bard owl call if it's kind of off, and if it's kind
of off or unusual in some way, that increases the likelihood that it could
be bigfoot. So you pack your night pack, you meet as at a
designated time. Typically you start heading out at about nine o'clock. So you're
heading out in the dark, and you go to the closest area to your
spot where you can park a vehicle safely and without getting stuck. And then
there's any way from a couple feet walk if you're going to be squatching out
of site close to the road, up to a three mile hike to get
to the location where you're going to do your primary investigations for the evening.
And you know Lourie and Lourie and Charlie they take pretty much all comers,
and so you've got people of various fitness levels. They take people with disabilities
who can't walk hardly at all, and they take people on the other end
of the continuum that could hike ten miles in a day if they need it
to, And so that kind of goes into considering what group you're going to
be a part in, and the investigators will know the distance or have a
good estimate of the distance you're going to need to hike to go to your
main squatching location. They also have backup spots as well if that doesn't bear
out or if that doesn't work out, Depending on the philosophy of the investigator,
you might hike to your location stealthy and quiet. Some believe just acting
natural, so in a normal voice, conversing with each other, not trying
to be stealthy at all. And there are some people, some investigators,
that find that the louder you are, the more rocous you are, the
more likely you are to catch the attention of the bigfoot. So you kind
of follow that lead. You kind of follow the lead of the primary investigator
during that walk to the specific location in which you're going to be doing your
investigation. Sometimes people will bring a fire long and once you get to your
destination, you'll start a fire. Other times the leader will choose not to
start a fire, and you kind of stay in this one general vicinity.
Most people mostly investigators, And of course the fires happen the colder it is,
generally, the more likely it is you're going to have a little fire
at your investigation area. But I think most investigators after the hike there generally
start with fifteen to twenty to thirty minutes of quiet, just to see if
your presence has captured the attention or drawn the attention of any bigfoots that are
coming to investigate you. Basically, and this was a fascinating concept to me
when I started doing this. You're making yourself the bigfoot bait. We try
to give them the high ground, so a real squatchy area, so to
speak, an area that looks like it has high bigfoot potential for activity.
Might include a ridge line with a stream running at the base, and you're
sitting at the bottom of that ridge line, giving the sasquatch the high ground
and their ability to look at you and monitor you and then decide whether they're
going to interact or not with you, and in what way they're going to
interact, so you'll hang out at that spot depending on whether you get any
activity hour and a half, two, three, four hours. If you're
getting lots of activity, you may never move on to the secondary or backup
spot for the night. If you're not getting a lot of activity. Again,
the investigators typically do have at least one, sometimes two backup spots to
check out. But when you're dealing with so many people in an investigation,
one of the important things to do is make sure you don't step on each
other when you're out at night. And by step on each other, I
mean that you know with fifty people that those ten groups that are out there,
smaller groups of five for example, they're not real close to each other.
And in the groups, one person is designated as the recorder and so,
and we carry walkie talkies with each other. One person, if not
more, has a walkie talkie in each group so you can communicate with other
groups. The recorder's job it's literally a little notepad that you can fit into
your pocket and a pencil. And if after half hour twenty minutes to half
hour you don't get any activity, depending on the group leader's preference, you
may begin to do some provocations and exactly what provocation you do and how frequently
you do it again is kind of guide it by the investigator in the group,
and those provocations can range from a loud imitating yell of a bigfoot to
a whoop, to a tree knock to stone claques, any kind of auditory
provocation in the hopes of getting the bigfoots attention. But at the time that
you decide to do a provocation, you will first go on the radio and
contact the other groups and let them know that you're going to do a whoop
in two minutes. And the importance of this again comes back to not wanting
to step on each other. If you're going to do a provocation, you
want the other groups to know you're going to do a provocation and exactly when
you're going to do a provocation, because you don't want that to be misinterpreted
as a bigfoot making that sound. You want everybody in the expedition to understand
that that's a human making that sound rather than a bigfoot, because you don't
want to mistake them. And so the recording individual will write down the exact
time that the provocation is made and exactly what the provocation was or is,
and then if there's any response, it's their job to also record the response
that comes as a result of the provocation. And so I think that's excellent
and making those kind of recordings and ensuring that everybody knows what everybody else is
doing, and if we're getting a response, we're not mistaking a provocation by
another group as a response. And I think that's good science for what it's
worth. As most of you guys know, I'm here promoting bringing more science
into investigations, and that's that documentation is very important. So depending on the
activity, you may stay in that location, you may move on. Typically
when you move on, you're hiking back to your vehicle, you're more focused
on getting from point A to point B. You're more goal directed. And
then you either move going to your next next spot, or if you've been
out and getting lots of activity in that one spot, you know you may
be heading directly back to camp. Typically when you head back to camp,
you may be the first group back, but you may not be, and
so all the other groups or a single group or nobody will be waiting there
for you to return to camp. And typically if you're in people start talking
about what they experienced in camp, and everybody kind of hangs out around the
fire until all the groups are in for that evening, and then you know,
spontaneous conversations erupt and people start talking about their experience. Eventually you go
to bed. The next morning, you wake up again on Laurie and I
think in Charlie's expeditions they serve breakfast, so you have breakfast, and then
after breakfast, you have what's known as a debriefing. And by debriefing,
what I mean is all the groups get together and one by one, the
groups stand up and they report their experiences. We did this in such and
such a time, and we got a tree knock back or we heard a
whoop within three minutes after our tree knock and that generates discussion around you know,
if other people heard at what other people heard, and you're basically comparing
notes with other groups. And again I think that that's awesome and that's a
good thing, and that goes on in that pattern. Thursday and the Friday,
Friday into Saturday, Saturday into Sunday, Sunday, not a big breakfast,
kind of just snacking. Do the final group debriefing and pack up and
had on your way. Very fun. You meet lots of good people.
I've never personally had a Class A, but I've had many Class bs,
two of which, as I said earlier, were quite unnerving. And you
know, you're never guaranteed a Class A or even a Class B encounter.
But I can't recall an expedition that I've been on. I've been on around
twenty between Charlie and Laurie. I can't recall an expedition where we didn't at
least have some Class B evidence come in on occasion Class A evidence. People
experience Class A signings. The last expedition I went out earlier in the year
with LORII, the group that she was in, most everybody experienced a Class
A signing. So there's no guarantee, but generally you're going to have some
kind of bigfoot experience, at least based on my experience. So that also
sounds well and good, and it is good. But what I want to
talk about today is I want to talk about how to hold on to that
information of the debriefings or of the interviews so that you can maintain the integrity
of the verbal evidence or written evidence that's there and basically, in this episode,
I'm going to be kind of outlining some suggested procedures to maintain the integrity
of that evidence, to conduct interviews in a specific way, and in doing
so, also minimize the chance of developing PTSD. Any questions from anyone before
we move on to the signe presentation. One of the nice things I'm hoping
with my extended interview or extended format here now we've got up to two hours
rather than the one hour, is give people more time to ask questions.
There are no dumb questions. I'm not gonna scoff at your question. I
may not even be able to answer your question. I'm you know, my
expertise lies in applying psychological science to this process. I am not an expert
in bigfoot, no doubt. In my audience there are people who have more
expertise in bigfoot, But like many researchers, I'm of the opinion that there
is no such thing as an expert in the field. Honestly, you know,
when I think of experts in the field, people's names like Jeff Meldrum
come up, Amy Boo comes up, Matt Moneymaker comes up, Bobo Fay
Cliff Barrackman. I mean, these are names that most of you folks are
going to are going to recognize if you've been interested in bigfoot for a while.
And John John A makes a good point the only dumb questions are the
ones that are unasked, and that I do truly believe that you can't learn
if you don't ask questions. Soon, let's see here, where are we
going to go from here? That's not it, that's not it. There
we go. So just a little graphic. We're talking interviews, debriefings,
and again let me emphasize just in case of what I'm told that not everybody
would appreciate what the word debriefing might even mean. And debriefing is just asking
questions and taking in information from individuals that had a Bigfoot experience, formally documenting
that information for the future and for any research that might come from that.
And so the title of my presentation tonight is a Sasquatch Reporting Accuracy Tutorial Procedures
to ensure and preserve accuracy aile Minimizing Potential PTSD. So I guess the first
obvious question is why the heck are you going to even bother to think about
that? Why do you want to be concerned about the reports people are just
reporting their experience. Well, I think one of the good things and good
policies, if you will, that BFRO has is that when you have a
bigfoot experience or a potential bigfoot experience, your first thing you do after that
experience is complete is you don't move to your next spot. You stay in
that location and you try and debunk the experience that you just had. What
just happened. Could that have been a landslide rather than a bluff jar?
Could that have been coyotes howling rather than a bigfoot howling? And so of
course when you're doing that debunking, you're conversing within your upgroup, and in
doing that conversing, on one hand, the best time to talk about that
is right after it happened, But on the other hand, that's also potentially
one of the worst times to do it because if it was kind of a
butt puckering experience, people's arousal levels are going to be up. They may
be experiencing trauma, and both increased arousal pass normal and trauma can distort people's
perception of what they just experienced. On one of my most exciting class be
encounters. We had a tree fall. It sounded like right on top of
us, but the tree never made it down to the fire road we were
on. And then you heard what sounded like other stones and logs rolling down
a steep hill and hitting either other stones or logs and becoming airborne. So
suddenly there would be silence, and then you'd hear it crashing in the leaves
and rolling some more, getting airborne, crashing and rolling, and we were
convinced that what was happening was a landslide. I don't think any of us
initially thought about a bigfoot. Well. When the tree fell, it was
like an explosion going off, and you know that. I think most people's
minds went to bigfoot immediately. But it had been raining hard the night before,
and so it was possible that the tree could have just fell fell in
the woods because of the drainage, could have just been at the right time
for that tree to fall. The force with which it fell and the explosive
nature with which it fell kind of suggested the possibility of the big Foot.
But you couldn't really rule out mother Nature coming into play there. So we
stood, we talked about what we experienced, and we stayed there for thirty
forty five minutes trying to figure out what happened. The only thing that happened
to us that at that time was a dust cloud of loam. If you've
ever smelled loam, it's very rich, kind of a pungent soil. A
dust cloud of loam came down on top of us, and loam has a
distinct kind of decaying smell about it. But we were all shocked, of
course, I mean, we were expecting rocks and trees to be coming down
at us, literally rolling down off the mountain onto the road in front of
us. But that never happened. So if that was scary enough for anyone
in the group, that could have set up a trauma cycle or for sure
whether I don't think anyone in our group was traumatized by that by the time
it was all said and done, But we all reacted with increased arousal and
increased stress. And in the instant that you're reacting that way, you're primed
for hypnosis. You're primed for something called called confabulation, your prime for developing
memory gaps. And what confabulation is is if you have a memory grap to
a traumatic or unnerving event and there's a blank spot in your memory. Our
brains themselves without us having to think to do it. We like to maintain
a state of equilibrium, an evenness about us. When you can't figure out
what happens, that's called dissonance. There's an inconsistency between your experience and what
you understand happening, and your brain will take can can take the wheel on
its own and fill in those blank spots to reduce that dissonance, whether what
your brain fills in is inaccurate memory or not. Also, over time,
the accuracy of a memory will fade. Memories can distort with time. Confabulation
and memory distort. The impact then of the data accuracy and any research that
you do based on that data. I kind of call this the fishermen phenomena.
I don't know how many people fish out there, but if you do
fish, and you've been fishing for a while, you know, by the
end of the night fishing a fish that was this big as time passes can
grow bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, and that's not well. Fishermen
are good liars, but that's not necessarily even lying in that situation. Sometimes
that can just be you know, a typical response because even in fishing,
if you've got a big fish on your arousal gets up, it can accelerate
your heart rate, the adrenaline starts flowing, and you know, it's not
uncommon for people to overestimate the size of their fish. And then again with
trauma or increased arousal, that kind of sets the stage for PTSD to develop
from a Class A or a class BE encounter. And the procedures we're about
to talk about will help minimize the potential development of PTSD from these events and
questions so far, So why bother? Is all those particular reasons? Again,
what we're striving for in all research, be it experiential research or scientific
research. We're striving for our data to be accurate and remain accurate. So
here we get into some suggestions to ensure and preserve report accuracy. And this
could kind of build on some other recent shows about photographs and films and do
they have any scientific value? And this would be in the timeframe of the
evening of a expedition. This would be when people are a diving back in
camp and you discover that either certain members in that group, subgroup, or
all the members in that group experienced a Class A or a Class B encounter.
No lie in land between the lakes. I was standing shoulder to shoulder
with Larry Stillwell, and we had designated, you know, I'm going to
scan to the left looking for any any sights or sounds a bigfoot, and
he was going to scan to the right. He saw a dark, large,
dark figure cross the road, probably twenty thirty feet from us, unmistakable,
its size, the speed at which it occurred, the gate that was
evidenced in this walking across the road. And I never got to see the
thing because I was looking to the left. So when you start taking a
report of people's experiences, number one, you want to film and or record
that report, and you want to do that in a private place away from
the rest of the crowd. Right when people come back is when a person's
memory is potentially the most accurate, but at the same time it's also the
most vulnerable to you. Confabulation again, your brain making things up for you
without you having to think about it or from talking about it the experience right
after it happened. So it's kind of a double edged sword. It could
be your memories could be potentially the most accurate, but they could also potentially
be the most skewed or inaccurate. And so I recommend that those interviews,
those stories are done with one or two members of the group have who have
been specifically trained in dealing with interviewing people about their experience. And getting back
to film or camera, you know, this is a time where, for
sure, you want to have a good video camera, but if you really
want to juice things up, you could have a regular camera requiring lighting,
but you almost might have like a flear or a thermal camera, because sometimes
as people tell these stories, they begin to relive them. And honestly,
I don't know, but with temperature sensitive cameras, you might be able to
record the changes in the person's body temperature. When we're under stress, our
blood flows away from our hands and our feet and our head to the core
of our body as we and so that's going to be the warmest part on
the human being's body. As we begin to relax and de stress from that
situation, our veins in our brain and in our hands and arms are going
to begin to expand and allow more blood to flow back to those areas.
That's just an idea. You may be able to pick up with that on
a thermal camera, you may not. I think it's a worthwhile thing to
investigate, and that could be a little study in and of itself. So
what other suggestions besides filming on the way back to base camp? And this
is a tough one. You want to minimize further discussion on the way,
whether it's when you're walking back to the car, or you're driving, or
you're arriving at base camp. And I'm not talking, don't talk at all,
sit in silence, but further discussion about the event and why is this?
I'm sure at some point in most of our lives, maybe in grade
school or junior high school, you played the old whisper down the alley game
where somebody whispers something into the very first person in line, and then they've
got to pass it on to the next person behind them, and then that
person passes it on to the next person behind him, and it goes so
on and so forth, from one person in the front all the way to
the person in the back. And if you recall doing this exercise, what
happens, more often than not, the message that was heard by the first
person and the message that was heard by the last person are quite dissimilar as
they got passed from one person to the next. And so just the process
of getting in conversation about the event, just something simple as that can begin
to distort the information and the accuracy of the report. I already talked about
when you're returning walking back to your car after an event, again, at
that point we're focused and we're goal directed. And if those are you who
are around when I did my show and hypnosis, the first step in hypnosis
is to narrow your focus of attention, then relaxation, and during those times
you're going to be more vulnerable to suggestion hypnotic influences. You don't have to
go into a deep trance with a watch waving in front of your face to
have a hypnotic suggestion be given or taken by your unconscious mind. And so
when we're walking back to the car after an event, in fact act,
we're taking one of the first steps narrowing your focus of attention. And depending
on how long you've been out, you may be physically tired at that point
and your body's starting to unwind and relax from the intensity of the encounter,
so you're you're more open to the possibility of suggestion then any questions. So
there are a couple other reasons why you want to minimize discussion. I've used
the fancy scientific phrase of regression to the mean, but generally what happens is,
in a group of four, you may have four different experiences of what
people perceived in that event, and the more we talk talk about that amongst
ourselves, the stories then begin to confirm and narrow down, so that we
begin to lose diverging details of the story as we're trying to make sense of
that event that just happened. And that's called regression to the mean and statistics.
Basically, it's a form of bias whereby we begin to lose details and
begin to confirm conform excuse me to kind of a group process those diverging details.
In that kind of situation, the observations, the information, they lose
their value and strength of importance through that kind of confirmation bias, hypnotic influences,
social suggestion, conformity, or confabulation. And while that's going on,
the accuracy of your data you're losing it. It's getting downgraded because the stories
are gradually going to become less diverse and more similar in nature. Craig Roach
and I at this last expedition with BFRO we were just talking about this last
week. We had Craig's car backed up in a little cul de sac or
a little turnaround area, and we heard a tree push. We were both
sitting there with our windows rolled down. He was in the driver's seat.
I was in the passenger seat, and a tree pushed down or fall down,
or whatever you want to call it happened, and we, you know,
did you hear that? Yeah? What did you hear? Just between
him and I, we had two different stories of what we just heard.
Was it one tree crashing in into another into another? Did a total of
three trees fall? Was it more than three? Was it less than three?
Even though we were sitting side by side when we experienced that, And
as it turns out, when we went back to the debriefing the next day,
another group heard that, but they thought they heard gunshots. So this
makes me want to revisit this point of the difference between sensation and perception.
When you reach down and pick up a hot log that you can't see is
hot because there's no fire blazing on it, and you pick it up thinking
it's cool, but it's still hot from the fire. That pain signal,
that electrochemical single signal when your hand touches that hot wood, travels up your
arm, through your arm, into your spinal cord, up around your neck,
and eventually registers on your brain. The millisecond that before that registers on
your brain, that's called sensation, The millisecond that that registers on your brain
that's called perception. Perception is not a pure experience of sensation, because how
we perceive things is determined by our life experience. You can we we had
a little bit of a sadistic Scout leader when I was a kid growing up,
and we would do this torture scenario where we would have somebody take their
shirt off and put their fire to the back, to the back, their
back to the fire, and let their back get hotter and hotter. That
could feel the flames on their back, but behind them we would have a
cooler of ice and ice water, and as the person got more and more
freaked about the possibility of you know, their back burning up, somebody would
take a big couple glasses of that water and pour them on the back of
that person's back that ice water, and that person experienced that as if they
were being branded or it was hot, they were being touched by the fire.
So a purely cold sensation can be misinterpreted as a hot sensation. And
that practice finally stopped when one person that that was done to began to develop
welts on their stomach or on their back as if they had been touched by
a hot iron. Their body actually interpreted that as fire and had that histamine
reaction, and the person's skin got red and bubbled up a little bit.
So the point being, as we're talking, we're going from the pure sensation
of what we experienced, and we begin talking about what we perceived, and
everybody know, two people perceive the same thing in the same way, and
so again there's another potential for the accuracy of your data to get downgraded.
Then when you get back to the camp, that downgraded information gets shared by
the group, and that then further contaminates the accuracy of your experience. Is
this makeing sense, guys? If the information doesn't get downgraded or fall by
the wayside, oftentimes it'll get strengthened. The people are so sure that it
actually happened this way, that they begin to develop what I call righteousness bias.
I'm right, you know, Craig might have heard it this way,
but I'm so certain about how I heard it that it had to happen this
way. We get cocky and increasingly certain are more certain about what it was
that happened. And again, when you develop that righteousness bias, I'm right
again, that's contaminating the accuracy of your final data set. Another thing that
can happen, especially in larger groups, is the strength of a person's personality.
Just through the sheer force of their personality or through their popularity and their
group, their version of the story becomes the final version, whether that's most
accurate or not. Thank you, ASPA sixty. I'm going to put that
up if you don't mind, certainly, doctor John, very helpful. We
can all be delusional at times, based and biased on our own reality tunnels.
Yeah, we perceive things through our own glasses, and not everybody's wearing
the same glasses to filter our realities through, even when we're talking consensus reality.
Awesome point, ASPA sixty. Thank you, So here we go.
Here we go with now more suggestions of procedures to employ in your debriefing to
increase the accuracy. Keep in mind we're already video and or audio taping the
interview. If you're in a group with multiple people who go out together,
you want to develop some standardized debriefing interviews so that if two people of the
four in the group had an experience, one debriefer or interviewer takes one person
to one location, another interviewer takes the other to the other location, and
they simultaneous hear the story and interview the story. Okay, but if one
of the interviewers is asking questions in a different way in a different order compared
to the other person who's interviewing the other person, there's no standard criteria for
the flow of the interview, and that in and of itself can potentially distort
the accuracy of your interview. So if you develop a standardized debriefing interview that
each interview follows, that interview is going to become standardized and increasing reliable in
that process, and your data therefore will become more reliable. And you want
not only validity in your reports. Validity is when are you interviewing about what
you think you're interviewing. Are you interviewing about a bigfoot experience? Reliability is
are you repeatedly interviewing about the same thing from one time to another to another.
So by having a standardized interview in place that all the people doing the
interview or debriefing us, you increase the reliability of the interview, and therefore
you increase the reliability of the reporting that you get. You want to do
the debriefing as soon as possible. Don't delay doing that interview when somebody walks
into camp. Now, this can be a real practical challenge, honestly,
and I appreciate that, because you know people are coming into camp anywhere from
two o'clock to four o'clock in the morning, and a lot of people are
just ready for bed. But you want to do it before people go to
bed that night, if at all possible. One, it increases the accuracy
of the story as people recall it. Number Two, it minimizes the distortion
by further uncontrolled conversations. People just staying around waiting for the next group to
come in, and they start talking about the conversations between each other, and
other groups start. Other group members start asking questions that can contaminate that data,
which is one of the reasons why science doesn't consider anecdotal data strong science.
And more importantly, from my perspective as a psychologist, if you let
people go to sleep and they've had a traumatic experience, they may have traumatic
dreams, and those dreams may be an accurate recollection of the trauma that they
experienced, or if they develop memory blanks or blocks, again that process of
confabulation, the brain making up its own story and filling in that blank so
that dissonance or discomfort is decreased, and that increases the likelihood then of PTSDs
setting in. You know, if you study psychology and you study being a
therapist, as I have, the old adage, once you get bucked off
a whole, it's important to get right back on that horse as soon as
you can, and that's kind of the foundation for anxiety counseling and anxiety therapy.
The longer you delay facing that traumatic event, the deeper that anxiety and
that drama digs its claws into you, and the more difficult it becomes to
deal with that anxiety, and the more resilient anxiety that you experience. One
of my good friends, Legacy nicely. Dog training kind of came in late,
and yet, Jessica, the part of what you missed is you want
to do video and audio recording of people's stories as they come in, because
that creates a record of the data that you're collecting, and it's kind of
an immutable record because it's recorded. And I didn't mention this, but if
you get that record it later on when somebody talks about it, if you
record that talk, then you can look and monitor and compare the two stories
to see if that fish or that bigfoot is getting bigger or smaller, or
whether other details about the story are dropping out as the story is retold.
Hope that makes sense to you. Again, I've already talked about videotaping or
audiotaping all tellings or interviews of the story, and I just kind of describe
what we're talking about. So, as I've said before, Jessica knows a
whole lot about behavioralism. She's a world class dog trainer and uses behavioral techniques
in training dogs. And I always get confused about what the clever hands effect
is because we don't use that phrase in psychology. But you're setting up a
standardized set of questions, and that is in an attempt to minimize distortion of
the information you get simply as a result of variability and how the questions are
asked or the order that they're asked. If that answers your question, So
I think it's the answer is yes. Every time we talk about the clever
hands effect, I can remember what it was, and you're clarifying that it's
unknown cues that lead the person to answer what we want. Yeah, your
questions become kind of a demand effect, or the way you ask your questions
demands or suggests a certain answer to the person to the person answering the question.
Eric, if you don't mind, I'm going to put your comment up.
I'm not getting it. Immutable data from self report isn't that anecdotal and
hence it's not empirically driven data. We had this discussion about my thoughts about
the empirical myth yes this, you know earlier I said that anecdotal data is
the is the weakest form of scientific data. Scientists don't like it. If
we were able to prove bigfoots bigfoots existence through anecdotes, we would have had
it proven, you know, forty five fifty years ago. But what these
suggestions are. The suggestions I'm providing here, Eric, are to make that
data less mutable or less likely to change, or if there is a change
in the data, that can be tracked or monitored, and add some empiricism
to the data itself. If that makes any sense to you, thanks,
In doing the interview, you're basically just using good counseling and therapy skills.
The first pass at the story, you just allow them to tell their story
the first time, completely and uninterrupted, let them get it off their chest,
don't keep interrupting them in the middle of it. You then ask them
to tell their story again. But during this second telling you can ask questions,
but make sure those questions are non leading and open ended questions. Non
leading like, well, you know the first time you told well an example,
a leading question would be, you know, the first time you told
the story, you didn't mention anything about the face. Did you notice anything
interesting about the face or the eyes or the eyes red or green? Or
you know? Those are leading questions and they're not open ended questions. Open
ended questions. The point of an open ended question is to get the person
to spontaneously elaborate with more details. Close ended questions reduce the number of details
you get and you get less information. So an example of an open ended
question after the person tells their story the first time would be, you know,
tell me more about that story, or tell me anything else you might
remember about that story. You're not directing them to your own biases about Bigfoot.
Well you know what color was the hair, or what color were the
eyes or how long were the arms? Those are direct and leading questions,
and they're not open ended questions. Now we're moving on to the thirds,
and Jessica, you have no reason to apologize, but Bud, now we're
moving on to the third telling. And each of these tellings are video and
or audio taped, because through each of these recordings, the person can either
come up with more detail or those details can fall by the wayside. And
so that's the importance of having this information video and or audio record it so
that you can can compare the stories and how they might change over time.
And this is going to increase the integrity of the data. You're going to
get a sense for what are the accurate and most accurate details this story.
So we're going to do a third telling of the of the experiences story as
a group in front of the larger expedition expedition group debriefers in an under interrupted
fashion, so you know, after your designated interviews or debriefers, let the
person get it off their chest. Then they ask questions in a non leading
and open ended way. You have them, for a third time tell the
story in front of the larger expedition group, but as they did the very
first time, just letting them get it off their chest, uninterrupted. And
then the fourth telling of the story, again it's in front of the larger
expedition group, but now there's a free for all, free for all questioning
by anyone else in that larger group. But again, I'm sorry, my
butt's hurtin today Again it's still being recorded because now people are going to come
in with their leading questions, They're going to come in with their own bias
questions and ask people about specific things about the Bigfoot. And by recording that,
that's going to allow you to compare it to the three other tellings that
you have and see if there's any embellishment going on as the story gets told
time and time and time and time again. Question here isn't the same?
Is it? The same debrief for each time. Well, if you've got
if Jessica, if you've got a group of four or five people going out
and you only have one designated debriefer, and all four or five of those
people have that experience, and with the designated debriefer, you've got to hear
the story first one unfettered by any questions, and then a second time asking
non leading and open ended questions. It's going to take you a long time
to do that for four or five people. And so depending on the size
of the expedition group that you're going out on, you may want to train
anywhere from three to four people within the group to do these debriefings when it
goes to the larger group. Yes, the third telling and the fourth telling
are moderated by that debriefing team. Okay, we'll see you later, John,
thanks for coming, buddy. So you want it to be of the
same group of people, but in large groups, just having one designated and
trained debriefer is going to extend this process too much any other questions. But
to further answer your question, Yeah, for that one person, the same
debriefer does the first story unfit records the first interview unfettered, then the second
telling with questions, and then they're present also for the third and the fourth
telling. Okay, well, good night to you, say P sixty ASPA
sixty. Thanks for attending. I appreciate it very much and I'm honored.
Finally, chain of custody issues. And I think my next show, since
my next show will be the last one before I record the show after that
pre record it, I think my next show is probably going to tackle the
Melby Ketchum study because this is one of the issues, the scientific issues that
I have with that study, and I think, well, I'll save that
for the next shown. Anyway, one of the important factors in any kind
of scientist or experiential research is you've got to establish a chain of custody.
What does that mean? That means who gets the data, who does the
recordings and interviews, and who then is responsible for holding, storing and securing
those interviews, Who then controls people's right or ability to access those recordings.
All that, all those considerations are called chain of custody of the data,
be it in scientific research or experiential research. So it should be one and
only one person being made responsible for maintaining the security of these video and audio
tapes. Too many cooks spoil the pot. Mate to use a cooking metaphor,
but you know, when you're cooking a meal and everybody and their mothers
start coming in and adding their touches, the dish isn't going to taste like
you want it to. It isn't going to maintain its flavor integrity. And
that's why you want one and only one person to be responsible for maintaining the
security of the video or audio tapes. That person themselves establishes policies and procedures
for data examination and research. It's not just hey, bub, I'm gonna
go grab John's tape from last night. I'll get it back to you.
Whenever things can be audio taped over, things can accidentally be erased. Lots
of things can happen when somebody who's outside that person who's mainly responsible, checks
one out. So there should be a checkout and a check in protocol.
There should be policies and procedures about whether those tapes can be copied or not,
and if they are copied, how many times and by whom. There
should be policies and procedures about the maintenance, distribution, and security of the
copies, policies and procedures. You know, if only one person is going
to maintain the chain of custody and somebody checks out that audio and video film
and they make their own copy, I would advise against allowing that person to
hold that copy. They need to return that copy back to the main person
who is responsible for chain of custody. The more copies that are out there
something, the more those copies can be diluted and manipulated and changed until you're
looking at something different or listening to something different from the original. If the
individual who wants to check it out wants to do research on that particular recording,
there needs to be some research standards about what kind of research they're going
to do and how they're going to do it. Let's see Eric's point.
Though anecdotal could possibly possibly try and set up the same scenario and see if
the same thing happens, couldn't that be a probability of the same experience becoming
quantitative? Eric? Let me go back to Eric's point, I'm not getting
it immutable data from self report. Isn't that anecdotal and hence it's not empirically
driven data. I think Jessica. Yes and no. Some people say that
on one hand, if you've if you've heard one Bigfoot story, you hear
them all. You've heard them all because the themes and the general story do
run in common ways. And that's one of the ways because of those similarities
and parallels. One of the things that nobody talks about as a way to
elevate anecdotal data is to encode that data. You can encode the words used
and the scenarios described. And if you do that to every story encoded into
a numeric data set, then you can analyze those recordings for similarities and differences,
and that's a way to elevate and anecdotes scientific value. The flip side
is Bigfoot encounters are kind of random. You don't know if you're going to
experience one or when you're going to experience one. And as much as I
just was talking about how there are generally some similarities between stories, there are
also generally some differences between stories, and so you need to set up your
encoding system reducing words and scenarios down to numeric data. You've got to allow
for both the similarities and the differences. But yes, it then begins with
that quantitative analysis, with assigning numbers to it, and that data, you
know you're approaching scientific research. Basically. How far that gets you is you're
going to see if they fit the normal curve? Can you use what are
called parametric statistics. Parametric statistics are a fancy way of saying your data fits
the normal curve, that bell shaped curve for folks not familiar with that.
When you were going to grade school and the teacher gave a really hard test
and everybody in the class failed it, so the teacher comes as says to
you, we've got to grade it on the curve to make it fair.
The curve that they're referring to is the normal curve. Interestingly enough, though,
in doing that, the data itself really doesn't fit the normal curve.
Skewed because everybody the test was so hard that nobody passed it. The dumbkins
in class as well as the brightest kids in class didn't pass the test.
So that's what we would call skewed data. And what teachers would do,
at least in the high school that Eric and I went to, they would
they would force that data onto the normal curve so that somebody would eventually you
know there would be a passing grade and a failing grade or failing grade and
passing grades. But yes, anytime you can quantify, take your data from
words or situations down to numbers, and then analyze those numbers, you're adding
scientific value. You're not just balling the data or or making generalizations. You
can make informed answers, informed responses about that data. Research, modified database
maintenance. Yeah. So again, the same person that's holding the original recordings
also then becomes responsible for holding the recording the copies of the the data.
So this was more of a casual pace. Oops, this was more of
a casual pace to me. Ohno Another slide, why so many repetitions?
Why so immediately delays or avoidance delays in a avoidance of traumatic events facilitate increased
likelihood of PSD PTSD as. When you're a therapist working with someone the ultimate
that had an experience that is horrifying and fearful for them, the ultimate goal
is to help these people turn and face those fears and live through those fears
with more effective coping. And that's how you treat most anxiety disorders. The
natural thing for somebody to want to do when they've had that kind of experience
is to avoid it. It was unpleasant. I just want to forget about
it. The longer they forget about it or push it out, the more
likely and stronger their chances are of developing PTSD. And the stronger those chances
become of that PTSD being not are being resilient. It's not going to go
away. It's going to keep coming back. The repeated recitations through this procedure
that I've discussed in this show, that's getting those people on the right track.
To begin with, they're telling that story four times, so they're immediately
being exposed and re exposed and re exposed and re exposed to that event.
And as that re exposure happens, the PTSD or the trauma of that begins
to lose its power or its salience. Telling the experience in front of the
larger expedition allows for a few things to happen, normalizes it. Chances are
in that larger group there's going to be other people that have had similar experiences,
and that gives them an opportunity to share their experiences with the people who
just had it, and that kind of lets the people that just had it
know that they're not alone. This can be a normal thing when you're out
there looking for bigfoot. It also gives people a chance to offer and receive
support and empathy. It also uses the group process, the interactions of the
people in the group to identify possible missed information or embellished information. For that
much, and then it also increases the entire groups. The entire group expeditions
investment in the investigative process. You're in effect using the Hawthorn effect in a
positive way for those people who didn't attend shows on bias the Hawthorn effect.
A company was losing money and their productivity was down, and they hired a
consultant firm to come in and try and figure out why their productivity and production
were going down. Well, lo and behold. For the week or two
that they studied that company, the production went up. There were no deficits.
And that's called the Hawthorn effect, meaning just the process of observing a
group and their knowledge of that observation is likely to impact the group that's being
studied, and it's typically when you're dealing with production, it's increased production and
so by the entire group becoming more invested in this scientific investigative process. It's
going to benefit the group as a whole if that makes sense, and questions
and discussion, hopefully, guys, I usually don't get too many questions.
I've got my own hypotheses about why that is, but I'm not going to
get into those. But you know, I really want to encourage people to
ask questions. If I've said something that you don't get or isn't clear to
you, please ask me to clarify it, because the whole purpose of my
show is to educate and inform people about how we can use science and these
techniques to improve the quality of bigfoot research. And if I'm not getting my
point across or my message across, or I'm saying it was so many high
flute words that you're not understanding my point, I'm not accomplishing what I'm hoping
to through this podcast. So please, As I said earlier in the show,
there are no dumb questions. And now that we have this extended format,
we've got more time. It's twenty of we got you know, a
good fifteen minutes to ask questions. If there are questions, I'm not going
to beg or twist any further, beg or beg or twist arms any further.
But by all means, please if you don't understand something, or you
want me to elaborate on something or clarify something, now we've got the time
to do that. So any questions, I know, I'm just such an
effective teacher that tip. Everything's crystal clear. I'm just kidding. No questions,
Craig, you got any questions about it, you legacy, just post
it on What is that the one that you and Eric were just talking about
that I put up? Is this the one? There's always one that scures
up the normal curve. That's an interesting point, you know, And that's
an interesting point about one of the ways science is biased as well. When
you get a whole let's say you give a test to one hundred people and
you get a whole group of scores, sometimes you're going to have unusually high
scores and sometimes you're going to have unusually low scores, and those scores are
called outliers. An outlier is something so extreme in its score that it affects
the shape of that normal curve. It falls outside of the normal curve.
And when your data doesn't fit that bell shaped normal curve, you can't use
parametric statistics, you've got to use another form of statistics. And in fact,
despite all my years and God and it's gracious, I studied statistics in
my master's degree, and then I had a beginning statistics, intermediate statistics,
and advanced statistics. And then of course when you do your dissertation, you're
doing an experiment, and so you've got to use statistics in your dissertation.
I use them in my dissertation. And one of the things we do is
we just forget about we throw out those extremely high scores are those extremely low
scores. And to me, that's just a fascinating process because in fact,
what you're doing is you're throwing out data that doesn't fit the normal curve,
even though that's the reality of the data that you got. So you're kind
of forcing that normal curve into it onto it. And I think that's part
of what, you know, one of the false potential faults. There are
good reasons to do it, but I think it's important to understand that you're
kind of stacking the deck in your favor when those extreme bits of data get
thrown out. I don't know if that's what you were referring to. Jessica
or not. No, that's not it. Why don't you retype the question
if you don't mind? Yes, look, okay, let me find was
it. To Eric's point, though anecdotal could possibly could possibly try and set
up the same scenarios, saying I think I answered that one is that the
one see if the same thing happens, couldn't that begin a probability of the
same experience becoming quantitative? Yeah, I address that. I'm talking about how
the experiences are typically random, and that they share similarities as well as differences.
Jennifer Arnold, you post it one, Okay, let me find it,
Jennifer. Jennifer are question. Thank you, Jennifer. How would this
work with digital files that may not be on tapes? Well, you know,
in today's technology, you know, I think for the most part,
we've moved away from tapes. You know, mostly it's digitized CDs, although
you can still, I think, get cassette tapes. You can still buy
the very camera that was used to film the Patterson Gimlin film, and that
was on film. You know, I think this could be I think this
could be done on video and audio tapes are on digitized data. I think
that the the more simple you can keep it, the better. It's a
lot easier to manipulate a digital file than it is to manipulate a non digital
tape of the of the experience. So the whether it's digital or non digital,
I think what that speaks to and what can be influenced there is how
easily that data can be manipulated by somebody with mal intent. And that's why
it's really important to have for the person who has chain a custody of the
data to have checkout times and signatures and check back in and signatures, And
it might not even hurt to include a review process before or soon after that
tape is checked back in to compare it to the original. If you're getting
a copyback to try and capture people who are messing with your data, there
are people out there who unfortunately will do that thing. And so the medium
within which it's records speaks to how that data can be manipulated and influenced outside
of its original intent. I'm not sure, Jennifer, if that's answering your
question or not. It isn't let me know. I'm still hunting for Maybe
this is Jessica's I know that's maybe it's this one and we address that one.
Girl. I just maybe you rewrote it. No, I'm not sure
what other question Jessica you're referring to there, Jennifer. If that didn't answer
your question, by all means, please let me know other questions or thoughts
going once. Yes, look, Jessica, did I get the question you
were referring to? Was that Jennifer's question? And Jennifer, I'm sorry I
missed it. I'm glad that I found it. That was a good question,
Okay, any other questions if not, I'm going to thank you very
much for attending this. For me, at least, this was a much
less stressful show. I didn't feel pressured to rush through it, and I
was able to do it in a more slower and more elaborative pace, which
is rather nice for me, and I hope that made it a better show
for you guys as well, having a little bit more time. As always,
I'm going to ask you, guys, when you're doing your bi foot
research or whether it's just going through life, I'm going to ask you to
keep your mind's open, your boots on the ground, and keep your heart
with your higher power, God bless you and have a good evening. We'll
see you next Monday at six o'clock. Oh and by the way, check
out Check Please check out Doug high Check show this Wednesday. I'm going to
be one of a few people on that show, and we're going to kind
of have just a round table of discussion about kind of whatever comes up,
and or some of us are going to be telling some of our own personal
stories. It should be an interesting show. I'm really looking forward to that
and very honored that Doug is having me on for a second time. So
again, keep your minds open, your boots on the ground, and your
heart with your higher power. We'll see you on Wednesday. If not Wednesday,
next Monday, be safe. I'll see you on him from every reason.
Don't try to blame it all the seasons why you want to walk away.
Wn't we begay? Swear we had sothing songthing that was last baby has
a feeling that follow it with easy holler, I make steak. I'll let
try any truth tried. Was I a fool? I know somethtimes I may
wonder, but I would never leave asunder I'm thinking as good as what we
have, is it horrible? Scoot with the blood there hain't no inn and
you and I were made to last. Holling it CZ, how can we
make stage? I'm let try at, I'm now let try and China,
I'm now let God try. Have you had a change you hid? Can
we go back to the start? Oh Lord? Let go Hi. I
want to do it all with your bandmas side. If you're in me here
tonight, be ben to come along. I'll be your I'm sweet you only
no break bas Yeah,