Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bubo.
Speaker 2: These guys are your favorites, so like to subscribe and
Speaker 2: raid it five star Sho.
Speaker 1: And Me.
Speaker 2: On Yesterday and listening watching Lima always keep its watching.
Speaker 1: And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman and James Bubo Fay.
Speaker 2: Greetings, Bobo. Anything good going on? Anything you want to share?
Speaker 3: Well, I still haven't had my found my phone for
Speaker 3: over a week. I'm going back up their final shot today.
Speaker 3: Paul's got a metal detector actually at his house. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna go grab and my buddy always gonna go up
Speaker 3: there with me and we're gonna go metal detect for it.
Speaker 2: You know what is funny is you having lost your phone.
Speaker 2: I haven't noticed a difference in my ability to get
Speaker 2: a hold of you.
Speaker 3: Really. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I just email you now and you tend to get back.
Speaker 2: So I mean, how's that you don't need that phone?
Speaker 3: Well, because I can type better on the computer. So
Speaker 3: if that's the problem is a lot of times I'll
Speaker 3: look at email, then I don't answer. I think I'm
Speaker 3: going to answer, like when I get back on the computer,
Speaker 3: then I don't. I don't get on the computer for
Speaker 3: a while. And then I forget or whatever. But yeah,
Speaker 3: but I'm on the computer. I can just type real easily,
Speaker 3: so that's when I do it. Oh yeah, yeah, maybe
Speaker 3: that's fast. Nothing to do with it. Well, anyway, I
Speaker 3: hope you find your phone.
Speaker 2: Man. That kind of sucks and it beat expensive thing
Speaker 2: to replace, of course, but.
Speaker 3: I know, dude, Plus all the photo I mean, that's
Speaker 3: the main thing is I thought at all I have
Speaker 3: an automatic backup, and I couldn't find it. There's stuff
Speaker 3: that I like, the last six months of pictures. I
Speaker 3: couldn't find the oh the pictures of the field. Right.
Speaker 2: I just got back from the Blues man. It was
Speaker 2: a pretty good trip.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah.
Speaker 2: I was only out for a couple of nights too.
Speaker 2: I had to cut the weekend short because when I
Speaker 2: was out there, people started showing up, thinking what's going on.
Speaker 2: Then I realized, oh yeah, yeah, Labor day, Labor Day weekend.
Speaker 2: I got to get out of here. Man, everybody's gonna
Speaker 2: come up. And then I found out on the way
Speaker 2: out from this other guy who is coming up. I
Speaker 2: spoke to He's driving his truck up and we met
Speaker 2: on a very narrow road and I had to back
Speaker 2: up a couple of hundred yards until his place, you know,
Speaker 2: and so he stopped and we talked for a minute.
Speaker 2: I also didn't know that I was driving out on
Speaker 2: Friday because all the people were showing up. Apparently Saturday
Speaker 2: was the opening day of Elk season. So it's like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: we got to get out of here now before everybody
Speaker 2: shows up, because the Elk season in the Blues is
Speaker 2: really good. Yeah, anyway, I got out. But so I
Speaker 2: just spent a couple of nights out there. But man,
Speaker 2: what a what a great trip? I think squatchy Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: yeah for sure. But you know, other than that too,
Speaker 2: like historical stuff, you know, like I reconnected with Dar Addington,
Speaker 2: a legend. She's a she's a legend. She's not only
Speaker 2: just amazing as a person, but like she she was
Speaker 2: hanging out with and big footing with John Mayenzinsky and stuff.
Speaker 2: It's like and people say, I don't know who Dar
Speaker 2: Addington is. She can't be anybody important. Yeah, okay, ask
Speaker 2: John Maynzinsky about her. You know, like there's nobody in
Speaker 2: the big foot field that doesn't respect John Minezinski and
Speaker 2: he sings her praises. So yeah, Dar's just a legend. Man,
Speaker 2: she's so cool, and she knew John before she started
Speaker 2: big footing. Turns out that they were both goat packers.
Speaker 3: So yeah.
Speaker 2: So I hung out with Dar for an afternoon, which
Speaker 2: is awesome, and then to go do some work with
Speaker 2: her next spring about her Coyotie grove tracks that are
Speaker 2: detailed in Michael Freeman's excellent book. Went out that night.
Speaker 2: You know, I came in and out of town several times,
Speaker 2: so I dropped by Dar's house and hung out with her,
Speaker 2: and then we went up that night and spent the
Speaker 2: night at deduct, you know the side of the Paul
Speaker 2: Freeman d duck footage. So I took two really good
Speaker 2: three D scans of the entire foot entire footage site
Speaker 2: and also the entire stretch because I did it last year,
Speaker 2: but I made some mistakes. It was my first three
Speaker 2: D scan of an area outside, so I learned a
Speaker 2: lot from doing it wrong. I learned mostly from my mistakes,
Speaker 2: it seems, so I'm learning a lot all the time.
Speaker 2: And then I went and did two scans not only
Speaker 2: just where Paul, from where Paul was standing to where
Speaker 2: the animal walked. Initially, as I walked in front of
Speaker 2: that fir tree, but also a longer set from down
Speaker 2: by the pond all the way up past that area.
Speaker 2: So I got two really really decent quality three D
Speaker 2: scans of the area. I'm not sure what I'm going
Speaker 2: to use that for yet, but I've got some ideas.
Speaker 2: Nothing bigfooty, well something. That night was kind of weird. Actually,
Speaker 2: at some point we decided to do some knocks because
Speaker 2: there was nobody around, and we went for a walks.
Speaker 2: We found, you know, lots of animal tracks in general,
Speaker 2: you know, mostly deer, a lot of deer and elk there,
Speaker 2: tons and tons and tons. But that night I went
Speaker 2: to go do a knock and you know, so I
Speaker 2: was walking like hundred and fifty yards from camp in
Speaker 2: the dark. And as I was walking away, like my
Speaker 2: Nico was there. My friend Nico, he is also the
Speaker 2: manager for the NABC young guy tracker. I left him
Speaker 2: at camp and I was walking out towards this tree,
Speaker 2: this one lone tree out there to do a knock.
Speaker 2: And about halfway between the camp and the tree, I
Speaker 2: hear Nico walking behind me, right. I said, oh, he
Speaker 2: got up and left or whatever, and then I'm over
Speaker 2: by the tree knocking. I did one or two knocks,
Speaker 2: and then I walked back and I saw I don't
Speaker 2: see Nico. And then I get back to camp and
Speaker 2: he's in campg oh, all right, But it turns out
Speaker 2: he never left. He never actually even got up from
Speaker 2: where he was sitting, so I don't know what was
Speaker 2: behind me. I thought that was a little weird. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying it was a bigfoot. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 2: a bear. I'm not saying it's anything. Maybe I just
Speaker 2: heard something, you know, scraping the gravel or whatever, but
Speaker 2: a shirt. I fully expected him to be standing in
Speaker 2: the dark about halfway between camp and where that tree
Speaker 2: was from what I heard. But that's not even the
Speaker 2: cool stuff. That's just something weird that happened that I
Speaker 2: just remembered as I was telling you. So that was
Speaker 2: on whatever night, the Wednesday night, I think it was Thursday.
Speaker 2: I went back into town and I met up with
Speaker 2: another historic bigfooter, a guy named Brian Smith. Brian Smith
Speaker 2: was a very common name back in the probably late
Speaker 2: nineties early two thousands in bigfootland. Brian Smith was probably
Speaker 2: best known for the Cuterville, Idaho cast from two thousand
Speaker 2: and one. That's probably his biggest mark speak. But he's
Speaker 2: a witness. He investigated a ton of reports. He was
Speaker 2: out there with Wes Summerlin mostly. He met Paul Freeman
Speaker 2: one time, he said, but didn't really hang out with
Speaker 2: him so much. He's he hung out a lot with
Speaker 2: Wes Summerlin and Bill Lowry. I met him at a
Speaker 2: burger place in Walla, Wallet and I laughed because the
Speaker 2: name of the burger place is f U Burger. Huh,
Speaker 2: and like they have all these play on words and
Speaker 2: slightly prophanic sort of inclinations and all there. It was
Speaker 2: a great place, a solid burger. I'll tell you, if
Speaker 2: you ever around, go to f you Burger. It was
Speaker 2: really really good. But yeah, so I interviewed him and
Speaker 2: recorded the interview. So I'm gonna get one of my
Speaker 2: volunteers to transcribe that interview, probably get him on the
Speaker 2: podcast at some point too. He's a great speaker and
Speaker 2: has so much to share. Super interesting guy. But forget
Speaker 2: about that. I mean, the new Bigfoot stuff is really
Speaker 2: really cool and I enjoy doing it. But talk about
Speaker 2: a great guest today.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, we got a new guest coming on. So
Speaker 3: when I discovered several months ago and I'm surprised hasn't
Speaker 3: gotten more popular because she has a really cool data
Speaker 3: As a matter of fact, she's running a project called
Speaker 3: the Sasqua Sasquatch Data Project, and I've found some interesting
Speaker 3: stuff on there. And I know you're numbers were both numbers, guys,
Speaker 3: all three of us, And yeah, and she's all about
Speaker 3: the number. She's a data cruncher, kind of a math nerd,
Speaker 3: which is exactly what we need. So welcome to the
Speaker 3: show Terrestrial.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 5: I'm so excited to be here, and just thank you
Speaker 5: guys so much for inviting me.
Speaker 2: Oh, our pleasure, our pleasure. And I do have to admit,
Speaker 2: and I'm sorry to say this, I didn't know anything
Speaker 2: about what was going on. I've heard some whispers in
Speaker 2: the background or whatever that there's a woman out there
Speaker 2: doing great data work. But I figured it'll across my
Speaker 2: plate when it needs to, and I guess it finally did.
Speaker 2: So I didn't even know you existed. So I think
Speaker 2: in one way it's going to be great because Bobo
Speaker 2: and even Matt they know about what you're doing. They've
Speaker 2: been paying some attention and whatnot. But I am completely new.
Speaker 2: I mean, of course I was forwarded your paper and
Speaker 2: I'm looking at your website right now. But this is
Speaker 2: my first exposure to all this, and I think that's
Speaker 2: going to be the case for a lot of our
Speaker 2: listeners as well. So I think that's going to be
Speaker 2: beneficial as as a gateway between you and our listeners,
Speaker 2: because I don't know much about what's going on. So
Speaker 2: tell me, I guess, tell us about what's going on.
Speaker 2: What are you into? This looks fascinating.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So my main interest with the whole bigfoot thing
Speaker 5: is the data analysis and statistical analysis part. Essentially, what
Speaker 5: I'm doing is going through bigfoot witness reports and putting
Speaker 5: them into a format that's optimized for data analysis.
Speaker 4: So essentially I just have.
Speaker 5: Like a giant spreadsheet of bigfoot witness reports and what
Speaker 5: I've done is basically taken out the useful bits and
Speaker 5: put this put them into this structured format. So that's
Speaker 5: essentially what I'm doing. The goal is to have a
Speaker 5: resource that sasquatch, you know, researchers can use for whatever
Speaker 5: kind of investigations they want to do.
Speaker 4: To data.
Speaker 5: But I think at the core of it, that's what
Speaker 5: I'm trying to do. I'm also trying to, I guess,
Speaker 5: change the narrative a little bit too on what we say,
Speaker 5: like within the Bigfoot field, like making sure that we
Speaker 5: actually have numbers and data and information to back up
Speaker 5: whatever our ideas are regarding sasquatch.
Speaker 4: So I guess, in a nutshell, that's what I'm doing.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's a not only a noble mission,
Speaker 2: but it's also very much needed. Years ago, I was
Speaker 2: having a conversation with doctor Annata Karris about various sasquatch things,
Speaker 2: and you know, she's interested in the subject, she's not
Speaker 2: convinced they're real. Then she was asking me questions and
Speaker 2: I was telling her what I thought and whatever, and
Speaker 2: she kept challenging me, which I thought was fantastic. I
Speaker 2: do like to be challenged on my assumptions, I guess.
Speaker 2: And she pointed out that a lot of the things
Speaker 2: that I thought I knew about sasquatches were actually just
Speaker 2: assumptions because I didn't have data to back them up.
Speaker 2: And that's why I'm always banging the drum on the
Speaker 2: podcast and in the museum and my regular life. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: so you think that sasquatch which are responsible for this
Speaker 2: or that, or whether it be stick structures or even
Speaker 2: Knox for that matter, show me the data, like why
Speaker 2: do you think that? And it seems like every time
Speaker 2: I do a public presentation of some sort I end
Speaker 2: up kind of brating the audience in some sort of way.
Speaker 2: It's like, Oh, you think that, but most of you
Speaker 2: are basing that on gut feelings instead of actual data.
Speaker 2: Show me a sighting report of them making a TP
Speaker 2: stick structure, for example, and you can't, basically, So I
Speaker 2: therefore have become very skeptical in the community I think
Speaker 2: in general, and not of sasquatches, but of what people claim.
Speaker 2: And I'm doubting or at least questioning, I should say,
Speaker 2: I think it's a better word. I'm questioning these quote
Speaker 2: unquote givens of Bigfoot. They do this, they're this smart,
Speaker 2: they don't do that, all that kind of stuff, the
Speaker 2: things they like, the things they don't because the data
Speaker 2: is lacking. And so I think the project like yours
Speaker 2: is much needed for a level headed and sober talk
Speaker 2: about questions.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's kind of the side that I'm coming at
Speaker 5: it from, too, is like we have so many things
Speaker 5: that get said and have just kind of been constantly
Speaker 5: perpetuated throughout the big Foot community for decades, but there's
Speaker 5: really not much to back up whatever that idea is.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I'm definitely very much so trying to at
Speaker 5: least provide that resource and then also maintain a very
Speaker 5: neutral stance on things. Just kind of like showcase what
Speaker 5: the data is saying, showcase the different patterns, and you know,
Speaker 5: give some options from both like an ecological, biological or
Speaker 5: you know, even humanistic side of things as to you know,
Speaker 5: what the patterns could be showcasing. Really it's up to interpretation.
Speaker 5: But yeah, I definitely am trying to at least drive
Speaker 5: home that idea that like this is you know, actually,
Speaker 5: at least for what I have access to, this is
Speaker 5: what the data is saying. Here are some options. But
Speaker 5: also I try not to really pick a side on anything.
Speaker 5: I try to try to stay neutral.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and numbers are very neutral, I think, and in
Speaker 2: general I think if the numbers indicate something is probably real,
Speaker 2: then it probably is real. And you know, you're also
Speaker 2: making new ground here. The only other person I'm aware
Speaker 2: of that's in a pretty good job that got some
Speaker 2: attention and published something was doctor Henry Fahrenbach. Of course,
Speaker 2: with the size scaling statistic paper that he wrote and
Speaker 2: I think is still available on the BFRO website. I
Speaker 2: think Matt is that true.
Speaker 1: It is, and that's a great paper. There's also a
Speaker 1: great paper by King at All that I think was
Speaker 1: there was a lot of contribution from Richard Greenwell that
Speaker 1: studied Green's database, John Green's database statistically. That's really good.
Speaker 1: That came out a few years ago. So I'll linked
Speaker 1: that in the show notes as well. But I was
Speaker 1: fortunate enough to speak to Terrestrial recently, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think it'd be good for the audience to sort
Speaker 1: of explain to them maybe a bit about your professional
Speaker 1: background and qualifications. You know, I learned so much about
Speaker 1: your project and what you were doing through the lens
Speaker 1: of your background and experience. I think that would be
Speaker 1: great for people to learn about.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So I have a Bachelor's of Science from the Georgia
Speaker 5: Institute of Technology or Georgia Tech, and I studied Earth
Speaker 5: and atmospheric sciences while I was there, but more so
Speaker 5: like planetary science.
Speaker 4: I'm a big like space.
Speaker 5: Nerd, so my degree was very much so tailored towards that.
Speaker 5: But while I was at Georgia Tech, I had a
Speaker 5: really cool opportunity to work on a NASA mission called
Speaker 5: the Dawn Mission, and I did that for about three years.
Speaker 4: So through that experience, it really.
Speaker 5: Opened my eyes as to the level of research that's
Speaker 5: required to make you know, contributions to just your field
Speaker 5: or science in general. And I also had just really
Speaker 5: I had a really great professor that I was working
Speaker 5: under who was like, you know, working on this mission,
Speaker 5: and she really she basically gave me a really great
Speaker 5: opportunity to lead this team of undergrads in this research
Speaker 5: that we were doing on regarding the dwarf planet series,
Speaker 5: and I was really given a lot of uh like
Speaker 5: freedom and liberties to kind of take the project how
Speaker 5: I wanted to, but I also was expected to research
Speaker 5: at you know, a certain level so that we could
Speaker 5: get papers published and contribute to the team and whatnot.
Speaker 5: So that experience working on Dawn really has created the
Speaker 5: foundation of what I'm trying to create with the Sasquatch
Speaker 5: Data project. I've definitely taken a lot of the things
Speaker 5: that I learned from that experience and a lot of
Speaker 5: the research methodologies that we used, and I'm trying to
Speaker 5: apply that to you know, the sasquatch topic.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 2: Bobo will be right back after these messages. But were
Speaker 2: you starting to notice a thinning hair? Who me maybe
Speaker 2: a little a little hair left or a little thinning
Speaker 2: hair both. Well, I've got good news for you. Bobo
Speaker 2: Hymns offers access to prescription treatments for regrowing hair and
Speaker 2: as little as three to six months, so you can
Speaker 2: see a fuller head of hair like Bobo in the
Speaker 2: old days by fall.
Speaker 3: That'd be nice having a fresh fall crop to harvest.
Speaker 2: So Sweet Hymns offers convenient access to a range of
Speaker 2: prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients at work, including choose
Speaker 2: oral medication, serums and sprays.
Speaker 3: Yep, doctors trust this stuff. It's been clinically proven. It's
Speaker 3: got ingredients like finesteride an oxidil, and that stuff can
Speaker 3: stop hair loss and we go hair in as little
Speaker 3: as three to six months.
Speaker 2: You can get started from the comfort of your own home, cave,
Speaker 2: motor home, or wherever you happen to be by filling
Speaker 2: out an intake form and a medical provider will determine
Speaker 2: if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment
Speaker 2: is sent directly to you for free.
Speaker 3: The process is one hundred online, which means getting started
Speaker 3: has never been more convenient, and even if sasquats can
Speaker 3: do it, it's so easy.
Speaker 2: No insurance is needed and one low price covers everything
Speaker 2: from treatments to ongoing care. Plus treatment options start at
Speaker 2: just thirty five dollars a month. Start your free online
Speaker 2: visit today at hymns dot com slash beyond.
Speaker 3: That's hims dot com slash beyond for personalized hair loss treatment.
Speaker 2: Options hymns dot com slash beyond.
Speaker 1: Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and
Speaker 1: oral monoxidil and finasteride.
Speaker 3: Prescription required.
Speaker 1: See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information.
Speaker 3: You took on some topics that we've talked about the
Speaker 3: community for years and years, and like Matt was saying,
Speaker 3: like there's people who have done work with John Green's
Speaker 3: data and PFRO data, but I like, like you took
Speaker 3: on some like obvious ones that you know, seeing the
Speaker 3: numbers is interesting, like the whole thing about size, like
Speaker 3: Bergmann's law applying to sasquatch, like the ones in the southeast,
Speaker 3: the skunk apes are smaller, and the ones in the
Speaker 3: west Northwest are bigger, uh, you know, up north especially,
Speaker 3: and that the ones in the south were meaner, more aggressive,
Speaker 3: and the ones in the northwest are more passive, and
Speaker 3: your data, like, you know, just those assumptions got you know, dismissed.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that's a that's definitely part of the basis
Speaker 5: of what I'm trying to do. And you know, and
Speaker 5: all of this too is kind of preliminary because I'm
Speaker 5: still working on going through all of the BFRO reports
Speaker 5: and you know, things definitely can change over time. I'm
Speaker 5: very open to that, very open to being wrong too
Speaker 5: about my interpretation of the data at different points. But
Speaker 5: it is important to note that, you know, if we
Speaker 5: are looking at things regionally, I've basically gotten the southern
Speaker 5: and the western regions done, uh for reports, Like you know,
Speaker 5: these things that have been said for so long are
Speaker 5: not necessarily reflect and the data, and I think it's
Speaker 5: really important to start acknowledging that. And instead of that,
Speaker 5: I guess bumming us out, like making us excited that
Speaker 5: there's new questions to be asked, right, there's more information
Speaker 5: to be and to be learned and to be brought
Speaker 5: to light, and that's been admittedly one of the most
Speaker 5: fun parts about this is seeing like which things hold
Speaker 5: up when you start running the numbers and which just
Speaker 5: kind of fall apart.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you hit upon something that's really interesting
Speaker 2: that I've noticed in the Bigfoot community for a long time.
Speaker 2: In these sacred cows that get slaughtered every once in
Speaker 2: a while. You seem to like that, and I love it.
Speaker 2: I absolutely love it. And some of my sacred cows
Speaker 2: have been slaughtered mercilessly over the years. And I think
Speaker 2: that a lot of people don't like that. They're uncomfortable
Speaker 2: with their assumptions being incorrect. They're uncomfortable with maybe having
Speaker 2: to admit their in some sort of way. But it
Speaker 2: seems to me or even uncomfortable thinking that they don't
Speaker 2: know something. I know several Bigfooters that seem to have
Speaker 2: an answer for everything, and there's no way they could
Speaker 2: know that sort of stuff, but they they've got it
Speaker 2: in their head, right. And it's not just big Footers.
Speaker 2: I mean that's and then everything that's in you know,
Speaker 2: politics or religion or economics or any any subject. People
Speaker 2: think these things and they hold on to them very
Speaker 2: very tightly. But what so many people don't keep in mind,
Speaker 2: I think at least, is that you kind of have
Speaker 2: to be wrong to grow. You kind of have to
Speaker 2: not know things in order to learn. You know, a
Speaker 2: container is only useful if it's empty, so to speak.
Speaker 2: You can't put anything in there if it's already full
Speaker 2: of stuff, you know. I think I'm a pretty decent
Speaker 2: example of it, because I'm on television, you know, saying
Speaker 2: that the London tracks are real and they're not. I
Speaker 2: learned after the TV show actually been aired, through my
Speaker 2: own experimentation and research, that these things are almost they
Speaker 2: are certainly fake prints, you know. But today there's even
Speaker 2: people out there today that still think they're real. And
Speaker 2: one person even suggested that the a real Sasquatch made
Speaker 2: its own footprints look like fake stompers in order to
Speaker 2: fool me. So there's a lot of ridiculous straws being
Speaker 2: grasped at, I think. But to admit one is wrong,
Speaker 2: or to learn that, like your sacred cow has been slaughtered,
Speaker 2: that that maybe they don't do these things that you
Speaker 2: thought they did, that's an important step in growth and
Speaker 2: learning about this subject.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely, yeah, it is. It is one of my
Speaker 5: favorite things to do, like just to be honest, like
Speaker 5: I love I love challenging these ideas and and even
Speaker 5: challenging my own ideas, like you know, I form my
Speaker 5: own hypotheses about things and then it turns out I'm
Speaker 5: totally wrong.
Speaker 4: But it's good to know.
Speaker 5: And like you said, that's exactly how you learn, and
Speaker 5: that's how we you know, create a solid foundation to
Speaker 5: uncover potentially something even cooler. You know, it forces us
Speaker 5: to ask better questions, I think when we start seeing
Speaker 5: these things not necessarily pan out like how we want
Speaker 5: them to. So yeah, that's definitely one of my main
Speaker 5: interests with this. And I really love taking like people's
Speaker 5: questions and whatnot and then just going into the data
Speaker 5: set and seeing if you know, the seeing how the
Speaker 5: answer kind of falls, and seeing if the ideas behind
Speaker 5: it are potentially supported or not.
Speaker 3: One of the studies you did was on skull shape
Speaker 3: Are they rounded or are they chronical? And I was thinking
Speaker 3: like that that was that was a good because we
Speaker 3: talk about like the big males having like the psychomatic
Speaker 3: arches and the saginal crest, and you know, we have
Speaker 3: this like kind of images in our mind and you
Speaker 3: kind of went through and broke that all down. I
Speaker 3: thought that was great. But another thing I thought would
Speaker 3: be interesting was that a lot of these I've read
Speaker 3: reports of the people have done I went to sketches
Speaker 3: to when the sketch artist you know, does the drawing
Speaker 3: of the subject they saw. You know, it'd be interesting
Speaker 3: to see of those drawings of the sketches, which ones
Speaker 3: have conical or non conical, like you know, dome shape
Speaker 3: or what do you call it again, domed or is
Speaker 3: that say, is that the word you used?
Speaker 4: Yeah, just like well the headshapes. It was kind of interesting.
Speaker 5: They actually fell into four different categories, which was kind
Speaker 5: of unexpected. It was conical, domed, round, and then square,
Speaker 5: which that one was.
Speaker 4: Kind of interesting.
Speaker 5: But yeah, that was one of the I just ran
Speaker 5: those numbers the other day actually, or a couple of
Speaker 5: weeks ago, and that was something that surprised me because
Speaker 5: it's often said that like the conical head, that's like
Speaker 5: the iconic you know, feature of a legitimate sasquatch sighting. Right,
Speaker 5: Conical heads are more so reported over rounded heads, but
Speaker 5: rounded heads make up you know, a significant part of Yeah,
Speaker 5: it was like it was like almost half yeah, like
Speaker 5: forty percent of sighting reports. And there's a couple of
Speaker 5: different ways to take that too. It's like, well, you know,
Speaker 5: to a human witness whose brain is conditioned on you know,
Speaker 5: more human features, which is a rounded head, are folks
Speaker 5: just not bringing up the head shape because it's not
Speaker 5: odd so it doesn't stick out to them, so therefore
Speaker 5: they don't mention it.
Speaker 4: Or where like.
Speaker 5: A more conical head, like you know, a gorilla or
Speaker 5: something that's more notable. So our folks just like bringing
Speaker 5: that up more? Or is it really you know, this
Speaker 5: like roughly sixty forty split on head shapes and like
Speaker 5: to go back to like the idea that the conical
Speaker 5: head shape could be like a sexually dimorphic trait. You know,
Speaker 5: I ran numbers and again this is all you know.
Speaker 5: It could change, but as things stand right now, there's
Speaker 5: really no difference in the height estimates or the body
Speaker 5: builds of sasquatches between like conical heads and rounded heads.
Speaker 5: Their average heights were exactly the same, and the body builds,
Speaker 5: like whether they were more muscular and large or more
Speaker 5: lenky and lean.
Speaker 4: They didn't differ.
Speaker 5: So it's just looking at these things are it's just
Speaker 5: so interesting to me. And obviously we can't draw any
Speaker 5: like definitive conclusions from this, but it's worth at least
Speaker 5: discussing and bringing to light that things might not be
Speaker 5: laying out as we had envisioned.
Speaker 3: I didn't really make myself clear on that I was saying.
Speaker 3: What I was trying to say was that it'd be
Speaker 3: interesting to you know, get all these because there's been
Speaker 3: a lot of compositive sketches about like you know, like
Speaker 3: you know, skilled artists doing what just you know, drawing
Speaker 3: a drawing of what the person says they saw. It'd
Speaker 3: be interesting to you know, just from the drawings go
Speaker 3: by and you know, analyze which is fits those shape
Speaker 3: shaped heads and then go back and compare if they
Speaker 3: mentioned the reporter not head shape, or you know, like uh,
Speaker 3: it'd be another way to kind of get factor in
Speaker 3: the human the human factor, like the how the human
Speaker 3: perception enters the equation because someone might say, you know,
Speaker 3: I just said, like they don't mention anying about the
Speaker 3: head of them, and they do the drawing, it's obvious
Speaker 3: got to pronounce conical head or or the opposite. You know,
Speaker 3: it just kind of seemed to see what people mentioned
Speaker 3: and then what comes out in drawings, you know. Yeah, No, that.
Speaker 5: Would be interesting to kind of compare like, yeah, what
Speaker 5: the witness thought to bring up when they were talking
Speaker 5: potentially with like the follow up investigator versus what they
Speaker 5: mentioned with the sketch artists. Yeah, you could probably do
Speaker 5: like an entire study on that in itself, just from
Speaker 5: a purely like a psychological standpoint, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because I think there is a I think there
Speaker 3: is a sexually dimorphic difference between the males and the females.
Speaker 3: I mean, the females seemed to be shorter, squattier, you know,
Speaker 3: more brick shaped, and the males I got that pronounced
Speaker 3: you know a lot of them got that pronounced V.
Speaker 3: Upper body you know, like the broad, broad shoulders, more
Speaker 3: tapered down, whereas the female seemed to be more like,
Speaker 3: you know, just all the way down, you know, stocky.
Speaker 2: Well that's that's a thing, right. So, have you done
Speaker 2: any work on where the sex of the animal was clear,
Speaker 2: you know, some genitalia or breast or something like that
Speaker 2: was visible with body shape? Is there any correlation or
Speaker 2: anything that you've explored in that realm as far as your.
Speaker 5: Data so as things stand right now, I really don't
Speaker 5: have enough data to look into that. So far, I've
Speaker 5: I've gone through just over twenty five hundred reports now
Speaker 5: and literally less than five of them actually mentioned like
Speaker 5: a definitive sex of the Sasquatch. And unfortunately that's not
Speaker 5: enough to you know, do any kind of analysis on.
Speaker 4: So I really can't I really can't say right now.
Speaker 5: But you know, maybe as I go through more reports
Speaker 5: that might come up, or I might you know, have
Speaker 5: a large enough sample size to look into it. But
Speaker 5: it is definitely something I'm interested in is start, you know,
Speaker 5: to make those are to start looking into those different
Speaker 5: features and see if there is kind of any kind
Speaker 5: of correlation. But as things stand right now, I unfortunately
Speaker 5: cannot do that.
Speaker 3: You'll eventually find out that is the case.
Speaker 4: I guess we'll find out.
Speaker 2: We'll see you'll eventually find out that Bilbo is correct.
Speaker 2: From a statistical perspective, how many reports do you need
Speaker 2: to have a meaningful data set to get to the
Speaker 2: bottom of us? They think, so some of these answers
Speaker 2: are to these questions we're asking might just start coming
Speaker 2: into focus. It's clearly the Bigfoot data. Even though there's
Speaker 2: you know, thousands of reports, it's still pretty slim. So
Speaker 2: how many do you actually need to get something meaningful?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so it kind of depends on these statistical tests
Speaker 5: that you're running and the analysis that you're trying to do.
Speaker 5: But typically if you have anywhere from thirty to fifty
Speaker 5: data points per category, like that will give you a
Speaker 5: pretty solid idea of what you're working with. I think,
Speaker 5: you know, for some statistical tests, you really only need
Speaker 5: if I'm remembering correctly, like five data points. But you know,
Speaker 5: for me to feel comfortable or even moderately confident in
Speaker 5: what I'm saying, I really like to shoot for like
Speaker 5: thirty to fifty data point range. And you know, you
Speaker 5: touched on something pretty interesting, which is that, Yeah, most
Speaker 5: of the reports that I go through, they honestly don't
Speaker 5: contain that much information. And I think that was one
Speaker 5: of the most surprising things to me when I started
Speaker 5: like looking into this and I started trying to pull
Speaker 5: out information from the reports with how much there wasn't
Speaker 5: Like there weren't in.
Speaker 4: The majority of reports.
Speaker 5: There's really not a ton of information that you can
Speaker 5: draw out of them. Just for example, like I've gone
Speaker 5: through so many Class A siding reports that don't even
Speaker 5: have like a hair color mentioned.
Speaker 3: That's probably the most easy. That's probably the most documented one,
Speaker 3: I'd imagine, isn't it hair color?
Speaker 5: Yes, hair color is one of the most documented features.
Speaker 5: I would follow that up with probably height, but hair color,
Speaker 5: if anything, usually is reported. But I mean, it's it's
Speaker 5: honestly surprising how many reports don't even you know, just
Speaker 5: mentioned that the hike can get a little tricky, because
Speaker 5: obviously that's extremely subjective, like you know, as you know,
Speaker 5: people aren't super great at estimating heights or distances of things.
Speaker 5: But yeah, it's it's honestly surprising at how much is
Speaker 5: it mentioned. And also just to give like a little
Speaker 5: example too, Like in my data set, I'm trying to
Speaker 5: keep up with one hundred and eighty different variables. So basically,
Speaker 5: any question that you can ask about bigfoot witness reports,
Speaker 5: I'm trying to have a column or a variable to
Speaker 5: answer it. And these things range from like environmental variables
Speaker 5: to physical behavior or physical traits, witness information as well
Speaker 5: like ages and occupations and things and fear levels you know,
Speaker 5: sasquatch behaviors, footprint information if that's included as well, and
Speaker 5: definitely for the majority of reports, I can't pulling out,
Speaker 5: you know, one hundred and eighty columns worth of information,
Speaker 5: but there's still stuff there that you can look into
Speaker 5: for sure.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo.
Speaker 2: We'll be right back after these messages. Well, you know,
Speaker 2: I was forwarded your paper Beyond Random Chance Multivariate analysis
Speaker 2: of Sasquatch Witness reports with lunar, seasonal and psychological data.
Speaker 2: I'm clearly looking at it right now because I can't remember,
Speaker 2: but it looks like it's published on your website, so
Speaker 2: other people can go read it, and of course the
Speaker 2: website once again at Sasquatch Data Project dot com. But
Speaker 2: one of the things I was impressed about then I
Speaker 2: just had. I've done one quick read through of it.
Speaker 3: I need to.
Speaker 2: I'm the kind of reader that needs to read things
Speaker 2: two or three times to really digest it, to settle
Speaker 2: in and sit well with me. So I've only had
Speaker 2: one quick read through of it, and I apologize for that.
Speaker 2: But one of the things I was impressed with is
Speaker 2: the psychological aspect of your work here looking at the
Speaker 2: you know, the mindset, so to speak, of the witness
Speaker 2: during the reports. And how that might factor into things,
Speaker 2: because the only other, really the other main source for
Speaker 2: any psychological data is are levely and talented producer here
Speaker 2: Matt Pruitt and his book and the Phenomenal Sasquatch. He
Speaker 2: addresses a lot of psychology that's almost even the premise
Speaker 2: of his book. You know, our sasquatch is a psychological
Speaker 2: phenomenon or a physical one. But you're addressing this, I
Speaker 2: think goes along ways as well, because I've been ranting.
Speaker 2: I've found over the years that people are just so
Speaker 2: incredibly unreliable in estimates of numbers like heights and distances
Speaker 2: and weights, And it's not their own, it's not their
Speaker 2: fault or anything like that. Just that's something that people
Speaker 2: aren't good at for the most part. And you take
Speaker 2: into consideration height estimates versus fear levels. Tell us a
Speaker 2: little bit about that work and what you found.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So that's actually one of my favorite things that
Speaker 5: I've ever looked into, because another facet of this whole
Speaker 5: thing that I'm so interested in is trying to look
Speaker 5: at almost like backdoor ways to either you know, to
Speaker 5: kind of like and this is my own bias, but
Speaker 5: supporting that you know, this is an animal, this is
Speaker 5: a thing that exists, right, So what are things that
Speaker 5: we can look at that would be extremely difficult to
Speaker 5: hoax over decades and over a large geographic span. So
Speaker 5: the fear height analysis essentially I categorized witness fear into
Speaker 5: a couple different categories mild, moderate, elevated, and extreme, and
Speaker 5: then I looked at the heighth estimates that they gave
Speaker 5: to the sasquatch during their sighting. And I only use
Speaker 5: Class A sightings for most of like ninety nine percent
Speaker 5: of my research that I do, so these are only
Speaker 5: for Class A sightings and only when a fear level
Speaker 5: and a height for the sasquatch was given. And I
Speaker 5: really like this analysis too because you know, it's not
Speaker 5: necessarily about having an accurate height measurement. It doesn't really matter,
Speaker 5: you know, what the final number is. It's more so
Speaker 5: about the differences between the heights between fear groups. So
Speaker 5: what I found was as fear level goes up, so
Speaker 5: did the average height of the sasquatch overall, and the
Speaker 5: difference between the mild fear group and the elevated and
Speaker 5: extreme fear group estimated heights was significant.
Speaker 4: So that was really interesting.
Speaker 5: Essentially, the mild fear group had an average of six
Speaker 5: point eight feet, the moderate was I believe seven point three,
Speaker 5: elevated had like a seven point eight average, and then
Speaker 5: the extreme fear group had a seven point seven foot average.
Speaker 5: Something that's not included in the paper, but it's kind
Speaker 5: of interesting too, is that if you're looking at estimated
Speaker 5: heights over eight and a half feet, eighty percent of
Speaker 5: those reports fall into these elevated and extreme fear groups.
Speaker 5: So that in itself is also really interesting.
Speaker 3: Or it could be people there's extra scare becus of
Speaker 3: thing's so freaking big.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, and that's the other part of it too, right,
Speaker 5: that's really interesting. It's like, there's so many different ways
Speaker 5: you could look at this. It's either, you know, a
Speaker 5: larger animal elicits a larger fear response, or you know,
Speaker 5: it could be it could be this thing called fear
Speaker 5: and do size distortion, where you know, essentially, when you're
Speaker 5: really freaked out, you can perceive things as larger than
Speaker 5: they actually are and in some cases of to thirty percent,
Speaker 5: which is crazy, especially when you're talking about such large heights.
Speaker 5: So you know, yeah, there's a couple of different ways
Speaker 5: you can look at it. And that's honestly part of
Speaker 5: what's so fun about these investigations because it's like, I
Speaker 5: don't know what's causing these trends.
Speaker 3: What about distance distances?
Speaker 5: You know, I haven't looked into I haven't really done
Speaker 5: a lot with distances, so I'm not not sure.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that'd be like people that run
Speaker 3: into one like on a trail and like I literally
Speaker 3: steps out from behind a bush or a tree or something,
Speaker 3: it's literally fifteen feet in front of When they look up,
Speaker 3: those people like crap their pants. Yeah, you're one hundred
Speaker 3: yards away and you're in a car on the highway.
Speaker 3: You know, you can't catch you like you're it could
Speaker 3: be like a big one or whatever size, and you're
Speaker 3: not going to be nearly scared. You know. It's there's
Speaker 3: a I know you take all this into an account
Speaker 3: because I watch your videos and i'd be like that,
Speaker 3: like that's kind of like you know, like I'll kind
Speaker 3: of question like your results or what your findings from
Speaker 3: what just from my personal experiences is what I've read
Speaker 3: over the years. And I read your paper, I was like,
Speaker 3: oh my god, this is this is deep. I didn't
Speaker 3: I didn't realize it was I was trying to figure
Speaker 3: out the equations, like I can't even figure it, Like
Speaker 3: I'm not like a math major, but I was. I
Speaker 3: was pretty impressed with how in depth it goes.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, I try to. So there's kind of two
Speaker 5: sides to my research. There's a paper side and like
Speaker 5: the more in depth side, which I really enjoy, which is,
Speaker 5: you know, I try to take you as deep as
Speaker 5: I can go into the math, into the science and
Speaker 5: the reasoning behind like what I'm doing and the steps
Speaker 5: that I'm taking to get to these places. And then
Speaker 5: there's like a social media side where you can't go
Speaker 5: really as in depth as what I'm actually doing behind
Speaker 5: the scenes. So I will say that, like pretty much
Speaker 5: everything I put out, there's way more work that goes
Speaker 5: into it than what I you know, make known, at
Speaker 5: least on social media, because there's only so much time
Speaker 5: you can say, and most folks aren't really too interested
Speaker 5: in like learning about all the equations and stuff. But yeah,
Speaker 5: I definitely I love to do those deep dives, and
Speaker 5: I love to write up my findings in a more
Speaker 5: structured paper format and whatnot. But and also to go
Speaker 5: back to your distant stuff. I haven't looked at how
Speaker 5: distance plays into fear level, but it is on my
Speaker 5: list of things to do.
Speaker 3: Let us know what you find out.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, absolutely will.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk about the lunar aspect of your paper
Speaker 2: as well, because you address those statistics and come to
Speaker 2: some conclusions. For years and years and years, I've been
Speaker 2: told by other people, and I've never really thought either
Speaker 2: way that sasquatches are less active during moon full moons
Speaker 2: and this and that because they like sneaking, and they
Speaker 2: had all these sort of reasons, and I never really
Speaker 2: put much stock in it any way, because to me,
Speaker 2: the animals are out there no matter what the moon is,
Speaker 2: They've got to be doing something, and so I never
Speaker 2: really thought that, you know, it mattered very much other
Speaker 2: than humans can see better during full moons. But you
Speaker 2: have some interesting findings, and I even read in there
Speaker 2: that you have eliminated the visibility aspect to some degree
Speaker 2: in your findings. So talk about that for a while
Speaker 2: if you will.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So, actually this is the question, Like, this is the
Speaker 5: component that actually made me want to start the sasquatch
Speaker 5: data project because I had heard the statement right that
Speaker 5: like the moon phases influence behaviors, and I realized, I'm like, well,
Speaker 5: you know, it would be really interesting, it would be
Speaker 5: really interesting to look at that, and it'd be pretty easy.
Speaker 5: Like all you need is a is a complete date
Speaker 5: of the siding and then you can calculate the moon
Speaker 5: illumination percentage for that date.
Speaker 4: So yeah, Essentially, what I found is that sighting.
Speaker 5: Reports significantly increase in the upper lunar illumination conditions, so
Speaker 5: meaning between eighty and one hundred percent, that's when things
Speaker 5: kind of peak. And that difference in siting report frequency
Speaker 5: between these upper moon illumination conditions and the lower are significant.
Speaker 5: So something's you know, something's going on. Essentially. You know,
Speaker 5: you can look at this from a couple different ways,
Speaker 5: like a couple different standpoints. If you want to look
Speaker 5: at it from like an animal point of view, this actually,
Speaker 5: you know, it does mirror what we see in other
Speaker 5: If you want to assume sasquatches are nocturnal, it does
Speaker 5: mirror other nocturnal predator behaviors and that they increase their
Speaker 5: activities during new and full moons. During full moons, prey
Speaker 5: have actually learned that nocturnal predators, you know, in particular,
Speaker 5: they can see better under full moon conditions, so they
Speaker 5: have been documented to decrease their activities anywhere from forty
Speaker 5: to seventy percent during these times, and predators have figured
Speaker 5: this out, so they're having to take more time to
Speaker 5: hunt because they aren't finding as much prey. They're also
Speaker 5: using this time to stake out territory, find mates, that
Speaker 5: kind of thing. So that's interesting in itself. On the
Speaker 5: flip side, from like a more human aspect, I suppose
Speaker 5: humans have been documented as being more also more active,
Speaker 5: or staying awake longer during full moons. If I'm remembering correctly,
Speaker 5: it's really only like forty five minutes to an hour
Speaker 5: longer or something. But you know, we don't know that
Speaker 5: could make a difference in siding reports or at least
Speaker 5: the frequency of sighting reports. And also, yeah, like you said,
Speaker 5: someone did a study on how well humans can see
Speaker 5: at night and they were comparing, like, you know, does
Speaker 5: a full moon significantly increase our visual acuity? And it
Speaker 5: turns out that it probably doesn't. The difference and illumination
Speaker 5: between a new and a full moon only differs by
Speaker 5: about one order of magnitude, and it's not really enough
Speaker 5: to make a huge difference for humans to be able
Speaker 5: to see better see.
Speaker 3: I disagree. I just I know it's like you got
Speaker 3: stats on that, but it's like, I think there's there's
Speaker 3: other factors, Like it's what kind of canopy is there
Speaker 3: around you? You know, And there's no doubt that if
Speaker 3: you got more of a canopy, the full moon makes
Speaker 3: a huge difference what you can see around your camp
Speaker 3: at night. And I know that they say that's only
Speaker 3: one order of magnitude difference, but that's still that's quite
Speaker 3: a bit.
Speaker 2: I think, Well, well, let me ask you this real fast.
Speaker 2: When you say one order of magnitude, I am also well,
Speaker 2: I mean, you're way more pro than I am, But
Speaker 2: I am an amateur astronomer, and I've got pretty nice
Speaker 2: telescope and all that kind of stuff, And so I know,
Speaker 2: at least I seem to remember that a magnitude isn't
Speaker 2: that an exponential measurement? So one order of magnitude isn't
Speaker 2: that an exponential increase?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So a new moon hangs around point zero three looks,
Speaker 5: and a full moon hangs around like zero point two
Speaker 5: six lucks, which are both well under the threshold of
Speaker 5: humans being able to see well. I think, like in
Speaker 5: a movie theater, the average is if I'm not mistaken, like,
Speaker 5: it's no lower than three or four looks. So yeah,
Speaker 5: like it is one order of magnitude. But for our
Speaker 5: eyes and how you know, our eyes aren't adapted to
Speaker 5: see in the dark, you know, or not nocturnal. It's
Speaker 5: at least in that study, they found it really didn't
Speaker 5: make a big difference in a person's ability to see.
Speaker 5: And you know, this is another situation where I'm like
Speaker 5: it if I read a paper where like they find
Speaker 5: it actually is enough.
Speaker 4: That's cool too.
Speaker 5: But one of the potential explanations for that too is
Speaker 5: that when you have a really bright object like a
Speaker 5: full moon against a dark background, it can make it
Speaker 5: appear brighter than it actually is.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I don't know that.
Speaker 5: It was just an interesting, interesting study that I found
Speaker 5: that I wanted to include because I had often heard that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think. I think what I've said a lot
Speaker 3: about the full moon is that they don't come into
Speaker 3: like the researcher, like if you're doing knocks and calls whatever,
Speaker 3: they don't come in nearly as close when there's a
Speaker 3: full moon, Like I don't think that affects our other activities,
Speaker 3: or maybe it affects our activities like what they're doing
Speaker 3: because they got they got obviously better night vision than
Speaker 3: we do. So if full moon could be a lot
Speaker 3: brighter for them than us, whatever, But I think when
Speaker 3: I don't know as far as when I talk about
Speaker 3: the activity at full I mean as far as them
Speaker 3: coming close to camp. Whenever I've had them come close
Speaker 3: to count, there's been like a third of a moon
Speaker 3: or less.
Speaker 4: Oh that's interesting.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, there is somewhat of an increase in
Speaker 5: siding reports under new moon conditions, like from zero to
Speaker 5: twenty percent, but when you're looking at which this is
Speaker 5: kind of interesting in itself too, because sighting reports do
Speaker 5: kind of follow the trends of the moon phases, where
Speaker 5: you know, the moon spends more time in the extreme
Speaker 5: phases versus the middle. So there is like, there is
Speaker 5: an increase in sighting reports during new moon phases, but
Speaker 5: it's not enough to be significant when you're comparing it
Speaker 5: to what we like, what you would expect based on
Speaker 5: just how much time the moon spends in those phases
Speaker 5: in general. It would be interesting though, to look at again,
Speaker 5: like distances, particularly with witnesses who are like camping or
Speaker 5: hiking or something, and compare that to the boon phases,
Speaker 5: it would be that would be an interesting one.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 2: Bobo will be right back after these messages. Well, I
Speaker 2: have to assume that the data for the moon work
Speaker 2: that you've been doing is based on nocturnal sightings, first
Speaker 2: of all, but maybe it's not. I don't know. And
Speaker 2: also these sightings that are in the database, they aren't
Speaker 2: got to keep in mind that they're not necessarily observations,
Speaker 2: or maybe they are, they're not necessarily at least it's
Speaker 2: not clear to me that it is not necessarily observations
Speaker 2: of a sasquatch using only moonlight as illumination. The flashlights
Speaker 2: or car headlights and that sort of thing are probably involved.
Speaker 2: So what it seems to me, at least from my
Speaker 2: quick read through, what seems to be pointed out here
Speaker 2: is that sasquatches are more active during those times. Is
Speaker 2: that correct? Am I in my on to something? Or
Speaker 2: you smell when I'm stepping in here?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So for this particular investigation, something else that's this.
Speaker 5: This whole paper like was just pretty cool in my
Speaker 5: you know, personal opinion, because like, there's so many different
Speaker 5: ways you can take this. But so, yeah, the moon
Speaker 5: phases actually don't depend on the time of day. So
Speaker 5: that was something else that was interesting that cropped up
Speaker 5: from this, Like, no matter the time of day, we
Speaker 5: see the same trend in citing frequency, So that in
Speaker 5: itself was interesting. Not really sure what to.
Speaker 4: Make of that.
Speaker 5: But also, you know, I hesitate to say that these
Speaker 5: increases in siding reports are due to increased activity because
Speaker 5: at the end of the day, we don't know, because
Speaker 5: it could be more human reasons, you know that we're
Speaker 5: seeing these increases in citing reports. So yeah, it's just
Speaker 5: there's there's a lot of different ways you can take it.
Speaker 4: But I guess did I answer your question. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: What I hear coming out is that science and data
Speaker 2: crunching like this, like the stuff that you're doing basically
Speaker 2: doesn't give us good answers necessarily. It gives interesting results,
Speaker 2: but not answers. But what it does do is generate
Speaker 2: some really fascinating questions.
Speaker 5: Yes, yeap, I would totally agree with that statement. Yeah,
Speaker 5: like we can't make definitive conclusions. What we can do
Speaker 5: is ye draw really interesting patterns and potential information from things.
Speaker 5: And also part of that is like I'm just in general,
Speaker 5: like very careful with how I word things and how
Speaker 5: I kind of approach things, just to.
Speaker 4: Try and eliminate like potential bias that.
Speaker 5: I might put into things, because you know, to be honest,
Speaker 5: when I'm looking at data and when I'm looking into
Speaker 5: these things, I do kind of form ideas in my
Speaker 5: head of you know, what I think the causes of
Speaker 5: these patterns are. But when it comes to like papers
Speaker 5: and that kind of thing, you have to be very neutral.
Speaker 1: One of the things I wanted to ask you about
Speaker 1: is if you had tried to cross reference anything with
Speaker 1: the salunar charts or salunar tables. I guess the other
Speaker 1: thing that would be difficult beyond that to Bobo's earlier
Speaker 1: point is that you know, moon phases and visibility are
Speaker 1: not intricately leaked because they don't account for weather data,
Speaker 1: which would probably be a lot harder to get a
Speaker 1: hold of accurately, because you could have a full moon
Speaker 1: and a very very thick cloud cover and still be
Speaker 1: left with no visibility. So even though the moon phase
Speaker 1: is such and animals might be active influenced by that
Speaker 1: moon phase. It doesn't necessarily mean that human witnesses are
Speaker 1: going to be able to see better.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so that's another thing that I hadn't taken into
Speaker 5: account with this paper. I've since added very thorough or
Speaker 5: extensive weather data to the data set, so that would
Speaker 5: actually be really cool to revisit is actually look at
Speaker 5: like what the weather was on those days, at least
Speaker 5: for the encounters where I was able to derive some
Speaker 5: kind of moon illumination from. But yeah, I haven't to
Speaker 5: go back to your first question, there does seem to be, yes,
Speaker 5: some kind of correlation between animal behaviors and the lunar phases.
Speaker 5: I haven't looked at the table that you mentioned, but
Speaker 5: I do reference a couple of different papers in my
Speaker 5: paper that we're talking especially about like black bears and
Speaker 5: different other nocturnal predators as well, and how their activity
Speaker 5: is affected by potentially the moon phases and the illumination conditions.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'll send over some of that data because there are
Speaker 1: plenty of people in the outdoor space, anglers and hunters specifically,
Speaker 1: who use those as almost like predictive tools as to
Speaker 1: when to go hunting and I've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: really interesting anecdotal support for that, and I've experienced some
Speaker 1: of it myself, and then you know, it's a whole
Speaker 1: nother conversation. I don't want to derail it. But there
Speaker 1: was someone years ago, as part of another project, who
Speaker 1: would clued me into this and sent some peer reviewed
Speaker 1: papers showing that there was a positive correlation. And he
Speaker 1: also said, take this data set, go through all the
Speaker 1: reports that you firmly think have validity and cross check
Speaker 1: them against these charts. And everyone that I looked at
Speaker 1: was in a predicted period of like peak animal activity,
Speaker 1: and so I was like, h I think there's something
Speaker 1: to this. Like it was kind of at first I thought, ah,
Speaker 1: this is a little wooy, But I changed my tune
Speaker 1: pretty quickly in terms of being proven wrong. So I'll
Speaker 1: send over that information.
Speaker 4: No, that's really interesting.
Speaker 2: The last aspect of your paper, that is the seasonal
Speaker 2: data that you took into consideration and the patterns that
Speaker 2: you looked at there. Of course, this is done very
Speaker 2: early on in the game. John Green did that with
Speaker 2: his data back in the day and found out what
Speaker 2: one would expect. Really, sightings seemed to peak in or
Speaker 2: July August, the July ish pretty much and they drop
Speaker 2: off in January February. And John Green I remember writing
Speaker 2: something effective like that's almost certainly a human factor. Now
Speaker 2: you've you've found that a summer is was it second
Speaker 2: place to fall or is it about the same? I
Speaker 2: don't remember which, And the winter and spring of all
Speaker 2: things were the lowest. So can you talk about what
Speaker 2: your your findings were, your methods and findings and your
Speaker 2: thoughts on that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so summer and fall had definitely the most siding reports,
Speaker 5: their frequencies were the highest, and then there is a
Speaker 5: huge drop off in the winter in the spring. So
Speaker 5: again there's a couple of different ways to look at this.
Speaker 5: You know, animal activities do increase during the summer in
Speaker 5: the fall, whether it's for foraging reasons, you know, different
Speaker 5: running seasons come into play in the fall, or I
Speaker 5: think it's juvenile black bears they actually start separating from
Speaker 5: their mothers during the spring, and they'll increase their ranges
Speaker 5: and whatnot, and so all of these things basically increase
Speaker 5: the chance that a human has some kind of interaction
Speaker 5: with the animals because they're expanding the rages that they're
Speaker 5: becoming way more active and.
Speaker 4: That kind of thing.
Speaker 5: So you know, if you want to look at things
Speaker 5: from an animal perspective, there's that to potentially support the
Speaker 5: increase during the summer in the fall. On the other side, yeah,
Speaker 5: humans are way more active in the summer in the fall.
Speaker 5: You know, they're camping, they're hiking, they're hunting in the fall.
Speaker 5: I think I even reference to paper in there talking
Speaker 5: about how humans are more likely to be in more
Speaker 5: remote areas during the fall, Like there's a significant increase
Speaker 5: in human presence, you know, therefore increasing your chances to
Speaker 5: have an encounter with anomalist phenomena or you know, an
Speaker 5: animal you didn't quite expect. And you know there's other
Speaker 5: aspects too, like in the fall, they found that you
Speaker 5: can see up to six percent further into a forest
Speaker 5: because of the lack of leaves, you know, again increasing
Speaker 5: your chances of having some kind of sighting. So those
Speaker 5: those things were pretty interesting and honestly expected. I wasn't
Speaker 5: really surprised by the increase in siding reports. What did
Speaker 5: surprise me? And I've thought about this a lot more
Speaker 5: since I published this paper, But actually, the decrease in
Speaker 5: siding reports during the spring is really interesting because, oh yeah,
Speaker 5: because you would think from like in the animal perspective,
Speaker 5: you know, that's when they kind of wake up in
Speaker 5: a sense, they're becoming way more active and trying to
Speaker 5: recoup all the last calories and whatnot from winter, and
Speaker 5: they're becoming just way more active after wintertime. And then
Speaker 5: you know, also humans are becoming more active and going
Speaker 5: outside more. So that was that's become one of the
Speaker 5: biggest questions for me, and I don't have an answer
Speaker 5: for that one. Like I don't really know why there's
Speaker 5: such a big decrease in siding reports during the springtime,
Speaker 5: but it's just one of those things.
Speaker 4: It's really interesting.
Speaker 2: Well, I would think that during winter and spring it
Speaker 2: must be weather related in some sort of way, at
Speaker 2: least from the human side of things, because these areas
Speaker 2: are are difficult to get into, certainly during the winter
Speaker 2: and in springtime. You know, I know that your data
Speaker 2: mostly focuses on this southeast and the Pacific Coast states
Speaker 2: and out here in the Pacific Northwest. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: a sloppy, wet, muddy mess out there for most of spring.
Speaker 2: It's difficult to get out there, and you have to
Speaker 2: be a hard headed stubborn jerk like myself to force
Speaker 2: yourself out into those areas to try to even see
Speaker 2: a sasquatch or find footprints or do that kind of thing.
Speaker 2: But does your finding suggest that there's more to it
Speaker 2: than just the human aspect of can't get to those
Speaker 2: spots in those times a.
Speaker 5: Year, I think for the springtime, Yes, suddenly I do
Speaker 5: think that there's there's something going on that I don't know.
Speaker 5: I just I haven't found either enough information on or
Speaker 5: I haven't you know, dug deep enough into some papers
Speaker 5: to find out like what could be causing this in
Speaker 5: the winter time, you know, I definitely think that it's
Speaker 5: probably a human thing where yeah, like humans aren't going
Speaker 5: into these more remote areas the weather's gross, are just
Speaker 5: staying inside more and whatnot. But again that's where I'm not,
Speaker 5: you know, I'm not really sure if I can give
Speaker 5: a give a good answer for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for my own work, I mean, I find about
Speaker 2: I find more stuff during non summer months, and of
Speaker 2: course I'm trying to see an animal, of course, but uh,
Speaker 2: I don't, you know, for whatever that's worth. But I
Speaker 2: do find footprints. I find a good, pretty good number
Speaker 2: of footprints and winter, late fall and up to early
Speaker 2: spring are the best times because you can actually see
Speaker 2: the ground, and I do find a fair amount of
Speaker 2: prints during those times, so it doesn't seem and of
Speaker 2: course I don't have the data to back me up.
Speaker 2: I wish I did, but it seems to me that
Speaker 2: they're still out there doing their thing during those months,
Speaker 2: and I don't see any indication of hibernation or topea
Speaker 2: or anything like that. Winter seems to be very very good,
Speaker 2: at least in my areas. So it was an interesting find,
Speaker 2: and again I look forward to rereading your paper several
Speaker 2: times to really digest it.
Speaker 5: I definitely don't think that they're going anywhere during these times,
Speaker 5: especially during the winter. Like I am pretty firmly on
Speaker 5: the side that it's probably like more of a human thing.
Speaker 5: But you know, that's part of what's so interesting about
Speaker 5: this work is that it might bring up some surprises,
Speaker 5: and you know, until we can build upon it, and
Speaker 5: until I go through more data as well, so you know,
Speaker 5: just to bring in another side of things that it
Speaker 5: could be as using. The majority of my data set
Speaker 5: is from the BFR, so that already kind of introduces
Speaker 5: some bias because it's all of the public reports, so
Speaker 5: it's you know, you're basing this information on you know,
Speaker 5: first of all, presence only data, So we only have
Speaker 5: data on when someone actually experienced something and then felt
Speaker 5: compelled enough to report it to someone and then it
Speaker 5: had to be followed up on and then published. So
Speaker 5: there's a couple of different layers that make this kind
Speaker 5: of tricky as well. So you know, for all we know, too,
Speaker 5: it could be some kind of bias that's also influencing this,
Speaker 5: maybe for some reason, like spring and winter reports, you know,
Speaker 5: they are publishing more of for whatever reason. So yeah,
Speaker 5: that's where it's also important that at some point got
Speaker 5: to do this, bring in more data sets, in more
Speaker 5: different you know, more different data sets into my data set,
Speaker 5: so that we can have a more well rounded point
Speaker 5: of view of the information that we're looking at.
Speaker 2: Would raw, uninvestigated reports be more useful then if I
Speaker 2: if the filter of an investigator taking the time to
Speaker 2: call the person and talk to them, write up a
Speaker 2: report and publish it, and would raw reports be have
Speaker 2: a different value to you than investigated reports.
Speaker 5: That's a really good question. I would say it really depends.
Speaker 5: It really depends on the source of where those raw
Speaker 5: reports are coming from right now, at least as things stand,
Speaker 5: at least from looking at reports like purely from the BFO,
Speaker 5: I do prefer reports that have been followed up on
Speaker 5: and at least you know, contact was made with the
Speaker 5: witness and you know they kind of passed a first check.
Speaker 5: But you know, it would be interesting to see how
Speaker 5: those reports compare to the raw report worts, because that,
Speaker 5: you know, in itself, could give us some indication of
Speaker 5: how different like it without having that filter, Like are
Speaker 5: these reports just inherently different? Are there things that are
Speaker 5: just different between the two, things that are mentioned or
Speaker 5: not mentioned that either you know, make it through or
Speaker 5: don't make it through that filter. So, yeah, that's a
Speaker 5: that's an interesting question, and I haven't really thought about
Speaker 5: that before, but I would I guess I would say
Speaker 5: right now, it.
Speaker 4: Would depend on the source of the raw reports.
Speaker 3: I'm sure people would like to hear what you actually found,
Speaker 3: Like as far as a hair color, I was looking
Speaker 3: at some of the notes I took on that is
Speaker 3: that like dark, you compared the South versus the West.
Speaker 3: I think there was eighteen or nineteen states involved, and
Speaker 3: like for dark in the West, there was twenty two percent.
Speaker 3: In the South that was thirteen percent, and in red
Speaker 3: brown it was nine point two percent in the West
Speaker 3: and sixteen point eight percent in the South. And white
Speaker 3: it was one point four six percent in the West
Speaker 3: and five point six percent in the South. And gray
Speaker 3: was two point four to three percent in the West
Speaker 3: and eight point three percent in the South. Of all
Speaker 3: the dead I saw you collect, that was the most
Speaker 3: divergent because so many other ones line up so well together.
Speaker 3: But that was the biggest of the five subjects that
Speaker 3: you covered that I saw. I thought that was pretty interesting,
Speaker 3: Like that was the biggest difference was coloration between the
Speaker 3: South and the West as opposed to track size, height
Speaker 3: estimates and aggressiveness and all that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So the regional differences and at least physical characteristics
Speaker 5: is something that I'm particularly interested in. I love looking
Speaker 5: at the data and seeing if there are actually regional differences,
Speaker 5: and with the hair colors in particular, there are at
Speaker 5: least as how things are reported. So like you said,
Speaker 5: like in the South we have more where we have
Speaker 5: an increased frequency of reports of red, brown, gray, white,
Speaker 5: and I think blonde too, And those differences and frequencies
Speaker 5: are statistically significant when you're you know, comparing them to
Speaker 5: the Western regions. You know, that's interesting in itself because
Speaker 5: especially when you start looking at things in a more
Speaker 5: like granular way, I guess, because you start to see
Speaker 5: these like clusters of hair colors, especially for the white
Speaker 5: and the gray like reports.
Speaker 4: I remember that in Alabama.
Speaker 5: There's like a couple of little clusters where there's a
Speaker 5: notable increase of citing reports of white hair colored sasquatches.
Speaker 3: What.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And so it's funny because like I didn't even
Speaker 5: know that was a thing until after I found that,
Speaker 5: And I'm like, well, there you go. That explained that,
Speaker 5: like this is a thing that's known in that region.
Speaker 5: But yeah, the hair colors are pretty interesting. I'm not
Speaker 5: sure why there's such a differ diference. I will say,
Speaker 5: like I have heard throughout the years that the South
Speaker 5: does have more like red or red brown sasquatches, and
Speaker 5: it leaves out the data stands right now that is
Speaker 5: supported that claim. But I thought it was interesting the
Speaker 5: gray and the white hair color was interesting that there
Speaker 5: was so many more in the South versus the Western states.
Speaker 3: If you guys Oklahoma, do other area, like what was
Speaker 3: you guys saw what do you have eight or ten
Speaker 3: individuals you guys have identified or something like that, and
Speaker 3: there was a couple of gray ones. You know.
Speaker 1: I didn't have any sightings there. But it really just depends.
Speaker 1: I don't think you could arrive at the number that
Speaker 1: I would estimate is much smaller than that, because what
Speaker 1: one person calls cinnamon red and another person calls light
Speaker 1: brown might be exactly the same color, you know, and
Speaker 1: so and then if individuals change over time. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that I think is interesting is that
Speaker 1: there is a sort of like a rule or a law,
Speaker 1: and the name of it escapes me right now. That
Speaker 1: has to do with the color of plumage or pelage
Speaker 1: of a given species in its distribution over latitudes, and
Speaker 1: a lot of it has to do with relative heat
Speaker 1: and sunlight distribution, because obviously, if you're an animal of
Speaker 1: a certain size and you have a lot of internal heat,
Speaker 1: you know, giganto thermy that applies to very large animals, well,
Speaker 1: it's not very beneficial to be dark colored as an adult,
Speaker 1: you know, with large mass in a place that's very hot,
Speaker 1: that gets a lot of sun. It would be more
Speaker 1: beneficial to have lighter coloration, so that you're reflecting more
Speaker 1: of the sun's light rather than absorbing it, and then
Speaker 1: vice versa. If you're in a northern climate where you know,
Speaker 1: you don't get a whole lot of direct sunlight year
Speaker 1: round because the winters are long and a little bit
Speaker 1: more brutal, it would be more advantageous, especially for individuals
Speaker 1: of a certain age or size, to be of that
Speaker 1: darker coloration, so they are absorbing more of the heat
Speaker 1: from the sun during the day. And that seems to
Speaker 1: be sort of like present in that north south distribution,
Speaker 1: which I think we could kind of look at as
Speaker 1: a east west because usually we're talking like southeast versus northwest,
Speaker 1: so there's still a south component. But in area X, yeah,
Speaker 1: there were multiple sightings of like one particularly large gray individual.
Speaker 1: Out of all of those in my memory, there was
Speaker 1: one siding where one member saw what he believed to
Speaker 1: be two pairs of legs. He only saw him basically
Speaker 1: from the waist down and brush two pairs of gray legs,
Speaker 1: grayish you know, slate gray legs. And so that's where
Speaker 1: the idea that oh, maybe there's more than one of
Speaker 1: these you know, larger gray ones around, but no one
Speaker 1: had like a clear sighting of like two gray ones
Speaker 1: from the waist up or you know, head to toe
Speaker 1: or anything like that.
Speaker 3: I know, I know in the Northwest and like Northwest
Speaker 3: territories in Yukon and Alaska, that black is like about
Speaker 3: eighty percent of all the sightings. So that makes sense too,
Speaker 3: you know, And then we need to restrially go crunch
Speaker 3: to that data to tell us if that's what the
Speaker 3: real number is. But she's think there's a lot more
Speaker 3: black ones up there. Then another interesting thing he had
Speaker 3: in there was aggressive encount and only seven percent of
Speaker 3: the cases you found were aggressive, and only one percent
Speaker 3: or less involved chest beating, car shaking, those types of
Speaker 3: those type of things. And it was for aggressive you
Speaker 3: had seven point nine percent of encounters in the South
Speaker 3: and five point four percent in the West. I was
Speaker 3: expecting this. The highest percent for aggressive encounters was fishing
Speaker 3: at sixteen percent, because that's kind of what we've always
Speaker 3: imagined was that was fishing seem to get the most
Speaker 3: aggressive encounters because I guess with aggressive, like you know,
Speaker 3: it includes rock throwing, like you know, throwing pine cones
Speaker 3: or like a fishermen, I think they know things being
Speaker 3: thrown a lot more because it plops in the water
Speaker 3: in front of you, like they throw stuff in the
Speaker 3: water around the fishermen, you know. And I think that
Speaker 3: that accounts for like the aggressive why that was stuck
Speaker 3: out so much higher in the aggressive account.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So, yeah, the aggression thing was something that I had
Speaker 5: heard about, Like just I heard of folks say that,
Speaker 5: you know, the saf squashes in the South are more
Speaker 5: aggressive than anywhere else in the United States. And at
Speaker 5: least for how you know things are reported, there are
Speaker 5: more reports of general aggression or intimidation behaviors reported in
Speaker 5: the South. And I do like to say too, the
Speaker 5: like encounters that are explicitly aggressive, like you know, bluff
Speaker 5: charges or the witness genuinely felt like they were in danger,
Speaker 5: they make up, you know, less than five percent of reports,
Speaker 5: because that's something I get asked about too, is like,
Speaker 5: you know, are they are they going to hurt you?
Speaker 5: And to which you know, I can say, I don't know,
Speaker 5: but at least you know, the reports we do have.
Speaker 5: That's the stat on that. But yeah, so, so in
Speaker 5: the South they are expressing at least aggressive behaviors more
Speaker 5: frequently than those in the West. And it does include
Speaker 5: things like object throwing, tree shaking, bluff charges, stuff like that.
Speaker 5: But the number of reports where the sasquatch was like,
Speaker 5: you know, trying to harm the witness in some way,
Speaker 5: you know, like legitimately is very very low, at least
Speaker 5: how they're reported, and that, you know, in that in
Speaker 5: itself could be due to well, maybe the witness, you know,
Speaker 5: doesn't want to report something like that because it was
Speaker 5: you know traumatic or you know, really difficult for them
Speaker 5: to talk about. So we might we probably don't have
Speaker 5: all the data on those kinds of reports. And yeah,
Speaker 5: so so we do. We do see aggression at least
Speaker 5: more frequently in the South, but that definitely still happens.
Speaker 3: In the West. You know.
Speaker 2: I've got some questions about that sort of thing, and
Speaker 2: I also want to know a little bit more about
Speaker 2: your personal journey into the world of Bigfoot as well,
Speaker 2: and I think we should continue that compstation over on
Speaker 2: the members side, So we'd love to have you join
Speaker 2: us over there, of course, and I think you're doing
Speaker 2: fantastic work. And I want to thank you for joining
Speaker 2: us for the public side of our podcast before we
Speaker 2: go over to the members. So thank you so much,
Speaker 2: not only for coming on the podcast and spending time
Speaker 2: with us, but also from freeing us from our own
Speaker 2: assumptions by using data.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no problem.
Speaker 5: I'm I just appreciate you guys so much for having
Speaker 5: me on. I love love talking about this stuff. And
Speaker 5: I don't think I got to mention this, but you
Speaker 5: guys had such a huge influence on you know, me
Speaker 5: even pursuing this project and just being interested in Sasquatch
Speaker 5: in general. So I honestly just feel really humbled to
Speaker 5: be talking to you guys.
Speaker 2: So it's our fault.
Speaker 3: Wow, thank you. Yeah, I want to say thank you, Yeah,
Speaker 3: thank you, thank you for coming on the show, but
Speaker 3: way more important, thank you, huge, huge, thank you for
Speaker 3: doing this for us. Would be statistically, you know, boring,
Speaker 3: you know, just I wouldn't want to do it. But
Speaker 3: I'm so glad you're doing it. I'm sure everyone else
Speaker 3: is too, So thank you. Treasure that you can follow
Speaker 3: Tresha on Instagram and face. She's on all of them.
Speaker 3: She's got some interesting things on there. It's not so technical.
Speaker 3: If you go to our videos and stuff, it's really entertaining.
Speaker 3: She presents it clearly and easy to understand. So, okay,
Speaker 3: we're going to go join her now at the Patreon section.
Speaker 3: So until next week, y'all, keep it squatchy.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
Speaker 2: If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
Speaker 2: us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
Speaker 2: at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Speaker 2: Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's an N in the middle,
Speaker 2: and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Speaker 2: Bigfoot and Beyond
Speaker 1: Who Talk Too.