Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bubo. These guys
Speaker 1: are your favorites, so like to subscribe and raid it
Speaker 1: Lip starck s.
Speaker 2: And me.
Speaker 1: Grates on us today listening watch Limb always.
Speaker 3: Keep its watching.
Speaker 4: And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman and James Bubo Fay.
Speaker 5: It's been over two weeks with out of fun outs.
Speaker 5: The hope comes today, but well.
Speaker 3: Here we'll start the conversation with that. Then they'll be fun.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: People like to know your your woes, chaotic woes of
Speaker 3: Bobo WOBOs whobos. Oh we're recording. Indeed, Hey bobes, what's
Speaker 3: happened to man?
Speaker 2: Let your tough Cliff? Oh? Stuff?
Speaker 3: You know me? What about you? Matt? What about anything
Speaker 3: going over there? Matt Pruitt? How are you doing?
Speaker 2: Oh? I'm good.
Speaker 4: I was down in George for a few days. They're
Speaker 4: in squash country. It was also tourist season, so it
Speaker 4: was not quite as devoid of people, you know, when
Speaker 4: you're trying to get out and enjoyed nature rather than
Speaker 4: like crazy traffic and people cluttering up the streets. But
Speaker 4: it was a beautiful trip, nice visit. Always good to
Speaker 4: be back in North towarda.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I went out the last couple of nights with Bart.
Speaker 5: Didn't have anything happen, but it was cool just getting out.
Speaker 5: Beautiful that, you know, two thirds of the moon, real
Speaker 5: warm weather, even at night. It was still like in
Speaker 5: the sixties. Of those sixties, it was beautiful. But yeah,
Speaker 5: nothing to report.
Speaker 3: Yeah, of course, I just got off a week on
Speaker 3: the road. I was in Utah. Beautiful Vernal Utah, Holy smokes,
Speaker 3: what a pretty place that is for a really interesting event,
Speaker 3: interesting in weird ways too. It's called Phenomenon. I'll go
Speaker 3: into the details, of course in the members episode, but
Speaker 3: for now, just let it be known that if you're
Speaker 3: into UFOs and Skinwalker ranch stuff and the TV shows,
Speaker 3: and that's a wonderful event for you guys to go to.
Speaker 3: I would highly recommend it for anybody who in the
Speaker 3: deeply weird things go to Phenomicon in Vernal Utah. And
Speaker 3: my god, my biggest regret about the Vernal gig was
Speaker 3: that I didn't have an extra day or two because
Speaker 3: there's so much to do in Vernal Utah. It's in
Speaker 3: the middle of this big bowl shape thing, like the
Speaker 3: big bowl shaped valley, and there's dinosaur stuff everywhere. It's
Speaker 3: spitting distance, like thirty minutes from Dinosaur National Monument or
Speaker 3: whatever that's called. And I have a fossils I'm a
Speaker 3: dinosaur guy. I'm still a seven year old little boy.
Speaker 3: I mean, what seven year old boy or a girl
Speaker 3: doesn't live dinosaurs. I wish I just had more time.
Speaker 3: There's two or three museums in town, and it's just
Speaker 3: gorgeous there, absolutely gorgeous.
Speaker 2: Maybe next time.
Speaker 4: Is that pretty well attended because it's so far from anything.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's got to be at least a few
Speaker 4: hours from the airport in Salt Lake City, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: They flew me into Salt Lake City and it was
Speaker 3: a three hour drive to Vernal, Utah. So they rented
Speaker 3: me a car, which is really cool. By the way,
Speaker 3: I don't know much about cars, but hyund dice or
Speaker 3: whatever they're called. Snatas are pretty awesome. I rand one
Speaker 3: of those things that really slick car had a lot
Speaker 3: of fun in it. But anyway, yeah, it's a long
Speaker 3: ways from Salt Lake City. I guess they have a
Speaker 3: small local airstrip, but they didn't fly me into there,
Speaker 3: so it was a long drive and I really enjoyed it.
Speaker 3: It was just absolutely beautiful, you know, because Utah has
Speaker 3: that kind of red soil and it looks like, you know,
Speaker 3: coyote versus road runner territory, you know, with these maces
Speaker 3: all over the place, and it's just absolutely awesome. But
Speaker 3: to answer your question, it was sold out. Not only
Speaker 3: was it well attended, it was literally sold out in
Speaker 3: the in the convention center.
Speaker 4: See that's what I mean, because like how many local residents,
Speaker 4: like how many people are coming from Salt Lake City
Speaker 4: and or the surrounding towns, which all the towns are
Speaker 4: so small, so it seems like that kind of thing
Speaker 4: that most people fly in.
Speaker 3: A lot of people drove there, to be fair, I mean,
Speaker 3: just kind of a brief skim of my ever failing memory.
Speaker 3: The people I remember speaking to came from Colorado and
Speaker 3: Utah and Oregon and California. Some people from Las Vegas
Speaker 3: were there, so a lot of the surrounding states as
Speaker 3: well as a lot of locals from Salt Lake and
Speaker 3: places like that, or you know, Provo or wherever. But
Speaker 3: there were people from most states there, you know, because
Speaker 3: the MC of course pointed that out, like we were
Speaker 3: represented by X number of states and things and people
Speaker 3: from other countries were there as well. People were there
Speaker 3: from the UK and Denmark and other places. Yeah, it
Speaker 3: was a very well attended job or gig or event.
Speaker 2: I should say.
Speaker 3: From my perspective it's a job, but everybody else, you know,
Speaker 3: it's an event. So it was a cool event. It
Speaker 3: was neat and a lot of fun, weird stuff and
Speaker 3: ideas that I don't necessarily subscribe to but are fun
Speaker 3: to entertain, just as thought experiments, and it was great.
Speaker 3: I strongly recommend people who are into a variety of
Speaker 3: weird things to check it out. You'd probably really enjoy it.
Speaker 3: So now I'm back, I'm looking forward to trying to
Speaker 3: get out in the woods a little bit. It's been
Speaker 3: like two weeks, three weeks now since I've been out
Speaker 3: in the woods, and I think legitimately this is as long.
Speaker 3: It's not true. I was in the blues two weeks ago,
Speaker 3: but that's different than what I was thinking. But still
Speaker 3: two weeks getting the shakes, the shakes, oh yeah, exactly,
Speaker 3: the yeah, the yeah. I don't know as I call it,
Speaker 3: but I definitely am getting the shakes on that one. Withdrawals,
Speaker 3: the withdrawals, for sure, the yetty withdrawals but yeah, it's
Speaker 3: been a long time, like two weeks is probably as
Speaker 3: long as it's been in two years since I've been
Speaker 3: out to the woods. So I need to get out.
Speaker 3: Hopefully this week I can find some time. But being
Speaker 3: gone from Tuesday to Sunday last week, I'm drowning in
Speaker 3: things that are overdue and I should have done last week.
Speaker 3: So we'll see what I can get away with.
Speaker 4: How goes the search for your phone?
Speaker 2: Bobs?
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, your phone. I can't help, but notice there's
Speaker 3: been a lack of Bobo texts lately.
Speaker 5: It's been over two weeks now. I haven't had a phone.
Speaker 5: We found out where it was. I thought I lost it. Well,
Speaker 5: I think what happens. I think I was putting on
Speaker 5: my boots when I told you the guy watched up
Speaker 5: my truck here and like that sword thing.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, we talked about in the members section.
Speaker 5: So oh yeah, oh real quick for the audience, and
Speaker 5: I think he's gonna be listening to this. But you
Speaker 5: let this guy he self as he's a little bit
Speaker 5: of an odd character. Reported he's contacting the you guys
Speaker 5: you know through the through the show, saying hey, I
Speaker 5: got bigfoots up here. Outside of whill Creek. I'm serious,
Speaker 5: and like some of his stuff, I think he had
Speaker 5: he had like a traumatic experience and like he's got
Speaker 5: squashed on the brain. He's just been camping out there,
Speaker 5: not really camping, just living in his van and just
Speaker 5: like hanging out. And he's right below a really well
Speaker 5: known bigfoot spot. He didn't he didn't know at the time.
Speaker 5: He just picked it randomly. So yeah, we went out
Speaker 5: there and we've been him in town and he just
Speaker 5: uh kind of he looked he reminded me of Zach
Speaker 5: Gaffnaculis from The Hangover. He had like the same same look,
Speaker 5: same body, like same every It's not like a dead ringer,
Speaker 5: Like the face wasn't the exact same, but same, you know,
Speaker 5: bushy beard, hair kind of style and just.
Speaker 2: Kind of like his own trip.
Speaker 5: You know, he's got his Homer Simpson shirt on, and
Speaker 5: he gets out, he goes bolo and he just looks
Speaker 5: at me and gives me like a stern look and
Speaker 5: walks into the gas. Because we were parts waiting for
Speaker 5: him for a while out there at the Chevron and
Speaker 5: Whillow Creek and then he comes out and he just
Speaker 5: did he didn't even acknowledge us. So I got out
Speaker 5: of my truck and walked everyone it's going on. He
Speaker 5: was pumping some gas and he goes, we go out
Speaker 5: there here to introduce yourself, formerly introduced some tell all
Speaker 5: your credentials and every podcast and TV show you've ever
Speaker 5: been on, so they know who you are. I go
Speaker 5: all right, like all right, this is getting a little weird.
Speaker 5: And then we went and so then we followed him
Speaker 5: back up to where he was. He's out in there.
Speaker 5: He was out in the sticks. He was up real
Speaker 5: remote area, up pretty far. We get there at this
Speaker 5: point it's dark. We get out where show. He's showing
Speaker 5: us sort of some stuff happened off the main road
Speaker 5: where you went down this like old logging road out
Speaker 5: in the middle of nowhere, and we're getting our boots
Speaker 5: on and stuff like that. He comes walking up on us,
Speaker 5: like this guy's a trip man, Like yeah, he's kind
Speaker 5: of yeah, you know, he's kind of a different character.
Speaker 5: He comes walking up to us and he had this
Speaker 5: big sword thing, like machety sword looking thing with like
Speaker 5: look like at some medieval war weapon. He comes walking
Speaker 5: up with us in the dark, and I was like,
Speaker 5: oh geez, like what the hell is going on?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 5: And turned out he's a nice guy's you know, he
Speaker 5: just had he got stuck by a cougar. He had
Speaker 5: a cougar come up to him just getting uh in
Speaker 5: his van. He was sitting there at his van door.
Speaker 5: I think he was reading or something with the door open,
Speaker 5: and his cougar walked up like three four or five
Speaker 5: feet from him and just stared at him, and he
Speaker 5: scared him so bad, like he just wouldn't walk outside
Speaker 5: of his van without carrying this sword thing. But I
Speaker 5: didn't know that at the time. He just walks up
Speaker 5: with it on me and PAULI, and PAULI was like
Speaker 5: jumps back and that's when I always had my phone
Speaker 5: out to record audio. I guess I said it on
Speaker 5: the bumper, the back bumpers. I was at the back
Speaker 5: of the truck and as we were kind of shut
Speaker 5: going whoa, like that's that's kind of like I hope
Speaker 5: this guy just go crazy, you know, And he was cool.
Speaker 5: But yeah, I guess I put my phone down on
Speaker 5: the back bumper and then we walked around and say
Speaker 5: we looked for tracks where he'd had some stuff happen
Speaker 5: up there and where we heard some stuff. We were
Speaker 5: walking around with flashlights looking around and said, well, we'll
Speaker 5: come back in the daytime sometime. I want to blow
Speaker 5: up a bunch of tracks at night, like walk in
Speaker 5: and can't see something step on it. So we went
Speaker 5: down to where he'd been sleeping in his van and
Speaker 5: we got down there and I turned around and I
Speaker 5: backed up. It was, you know, it's like really steep,
Speaker 5: you know, steepid as out of those like it's just
Speaker 5: vertical canyon walls. I think what happened was when I
Speaker 5: backed up, I backed up, I could see my tailgate camera.
Speaker 5: When I was back up, I was my wheels were
Speaker 5: still on the flat ground, but my tailgate was over
Speaker 5: the edge, like it was already over the edge, like
Speaker 5: where it drops off and there's like a tree root
Speaker 5: in the ground there. And I bumped up over it
Speaker 5: and I kind of gunned it to come back over
Speaker 5: it like it truck bounced and I think it dropped
Speaker 5: and bounced off there. Because when we finally were able
Speaker 5: to pinpoint it because it didn't have a good reading
Speaker 5: on the GPS where it was exactly, then we would
Speaker 5: the coordinate where it was and get the GPS lined
Speaker 5: up because the GPS, for whatever reason on Apple phones,
Speaker 5: through Google Maps and Google Streets and all that, it
Speaker 5: kept changing the road names on us, like as you
Speaker 5: drove through this one area, it would change.
Speaker 2: It'd flipped it, they'd flip it around.
Speaker 5: And it happened on two different phones and a GPS,
Speaker 5: which was weird. And so we figured out where we
Speaker 5: were it was. It was lost right where this guy
Speaker 5: was sleeping at. So we went back there and we
Speaker 5: looked a couple of times, and I found out PAULI
Speaker 5: had a metal detector. So we're gonna go back out there,
Speaker 5: probably tomorrow the next day and go look forward. It's
Speaker 5: supposed to rain tonight, pretty good, but I hope it
Speaker 5: doesn't rain, get there and retrieve it.
Speaker 2: But I got a phone coming in the mail. It
Speaker 2: should be here today.
Speaker 3: Well, hopefully you find your phone for no other reason,
Speaker 3: just the photographs that are on it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's what I'm going for. And I'm bringing out
Speaker 5: rope this time so we can go down that hillside.
Speaker 5: It's not a cliff clip, it's super steep. You need ropes.
Speaker 5: But it would have had to slid down only a
Speaker 5: couple different spots where I turned around.
Speaker 2: So because it shows.
Speaker 5: Up being off the off the road like about thirty
Speaker 5: thirty five feet, so I think it slid down a
Speaker 5: ways and it's down to the leaf. There's a bunch
Speaker 5: of it's all oak through there and stuff, so there's
Speaker 5: a lot of leaf litter.
Speaker 3: Well, those find my phone apps sort of things are
Speaker 3: pretty accurate. I've used one of those before I dropped
Speaker 3: my phone on. I think it's during finding Bigfoot or
Speaker 3: something like that, and it was out on the grass
Speaker 3: next to the parking lot. It put me within like
Speaker 3: maybe three or four yards of it, So they're pretty accurate.
Speaker 3: You should be able to find it if you have
Speaker 3: one of those things.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but I figure the more times about there, that's
Speaker 5: the better times. I haven't seeing one anyway, so it's
Speaker 5: not that not that big of a deal. But yeah,
Speaker 5: I hope, I hope I find it. The detecting out
Speaker 5: tied into a robe off the side of a very steep, almost.
Speaker 3: Cliff like hill, so it'll take pictures. Nothing can go wrong,
Speaker 3: Nothing could go wrong. No, Well, that's the stuff that you,
Speaker 3: my friend, are impervious to. Like when you put yourself
Speaker 3: in ridiculous, potentially dangerous situations, you always come out Scott Free.
Speaker 3: It's the stuff that you wouldn't think would be dangerous.
Speaker 3: Where you're you are in most danger.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I jumped over this little creek yesterday just walking
Speaker 5: through town with Created and she walked around, I'm just
Speaker 5: gonna jump over it. I did the exact same thing
Speaker 5: when I blew my back out when I her needed
Speaker 5: those discs when we were filming the show. I blew
Speaker 5: up my back season two, like where I jumped and
Speaker 5: landed like on a opposing like you know, just like
Speaker 5: it's like a you know, it's like a V shape.
Speaker 5: I jumped across and I landed lower down. I put
Speaker 5: my left leg up totally straight and stiff when I landed,
Speaker 5: and totally like felt I could feel the exact say.
Speaker 5: I was like, oh, like the second I did, like
Speaker 5: that was stupid. Then I impacted like right at the
Speaker 5: same exact moment, and I just got that same jarring
Speaker 5: like I could feel right in my back where I
Speaker 5: just cave those her need to those discs before, And
Speaker 5: I was like, it didn't happen, but I could feel
Speaker 5: like we're it was close. It tingled pretty hard but
Speaker 5: didn't get hurt. I was like, God, I think I
Speaker 5: almost got hurt walking taking walk in town.
Speaker 3: That's exactly what Clip's talking about.
Speaker 4: Like, you will survive the the cliff diving, metal detecting,
Speaker 4: back flipping down a mountain, you know, phone search, but
Speaker 4: it's the hop in town that'll get you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, wear a padded suit when you check your mail,
Speaker 3: bobes do it from me. Yeah, stay tuned for more
Speaker 3: Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
Speaker 6: We'll be right back after these messages.
Speaker 3: Boba, are you starting to notice thinning hair?
Speaker 2: Who me?
Speaker 3: Maybe a little a little hair left or a little
Speaker 3: thinning hair both. Well, I've got good news for you, Bobo.
Speaker 3: Hymns offers access to prescription treatments for regrowing hair and
Speaker 3: as little as three to six months, so you can
Speaker 3: see a fuller head of hair like Bobo in the
Speaker 3: old days by fall.
Speaker 5: That'd be nice having a fresh fall crop to harvest.
Speaker 3: So Sweet Hymns offers convenient access to a range of
Speaker 3: prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients at work, including choose
Speaker 3: oral medication, serums and sprays.
Speaker 2: Yeah, doctors trust this stuff. It's been clinically proven.
Speaker 5: Ingredients like finesteride, anoxidil and that stuff can stop hair
Speaker 5: loss and we go hair in as little as three
Speaker 5: to six months.
Speaker 3: You can get started from the comfort of your own home, cave,
Speaker 3: motor home, or wherever you happen to be by filling
Speaker 3: out an intake form and a medical provider will determine
Speaker 3: if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment
Speaker 3: is sent directly to you for free.
Speaker 5: The process is one hundred percent online, which means getting
Speaker 5: started has never been more convenient. And even if sasquatch
Speaker 5: can do it, it's so easy.
Speaker 3: No insurance is needed and one low price covers everything
Speaker 3: from treatments to ongoing care. Plus treatment options start at
Speaker 3: just thirty five dollars a month. Start your free online
Speaker 3: visit today at hymns dot com slash beyond.
Speaker 5: That's hims dot com slash beyond for personalized hair loss
Speaker 5: treatment options.
Speaker 3: Hymns dot com slash beyond.
Speaker 4: Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and
Speaker 4: oral monoxidal and finasteride. Prescription required. See website for full details,
Speaker 4: restrictions and important safety information. Well, very good, what are
Speaker 4: we talking about today? Well, you know one of the
Speaker 4: topics that comes up a lot, not just in the
Speaker 4: Q and as but with listeners suggested topics is the
Speaker 4: idea of DNA, and there's a couple of different threads
Speaker 4: there that comes through, like one of which is the
Speaker 4: sort of mythos that there exists a number of like
Speaker 4: previously tested quote unquote unknown primate DNA samples, which is
Speaker 4: totally a myth and so we could cover some of that.
Speaker 4: But a lot of people think now that DNA technology
Speaker 4: has come along so far and we have things like
Speaker 4: the North Carolina study getting so heavily involved that I
Speaker 4: know Doug Hichek was going to get some testing done
Speaker 4: as part of legendmede science that discovery will occur as
Speaker 4: the consequence of DNA testing, and that's looking more and
Speaker 4: more promising. You know, a body might still be needed
Speaker 4: down the line one day to study like a skeletal
Speaker 4: structure or a respiratory system or something like that. But
Speaker 4: I think a lot of peop people really want to
Speaker 4: hear what discovery might look like were it to happen today.
Speaker 5: And I thought Darby was saying like, it's more muddle now,
Speaker 5: it's not as easy thought like I thought that was
Speaker 5: the gist what I heard last Well.
Speaker 3: Maybe with E DNA, Yeah, E DNA is problematic, but
Speaker 3: we can definitely tackle that. Should we just start there?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think we should just touch on all the above.
Speaker 4: I mean, the overarching nature of a lot of the
Speaker 4: questions that come in is like, what does discovery look like? Now?
Speaker 4: Is it only a body? Is DNA something that's going
Speaker 4: to constitute discovery or is that just another you know,
Speaker 4: stone on the path towards discovery.
Speaker 3: Well, that's an interesting question, actually, and I certainly have
Speaker 3: thoughts on that. To back up a little bit, everybody knows,
Speaker 3: from Krantz to Green, et cetera, there's an advocacy for
Speaker 3: a type specimen, a holotype of the animal, because every
Speaker 3: other species of animal out there that is real in
Speaker 3: the eyes of academia has a dead one in a
Speaker 3: freezer somewhere or a mason jar fromaldehyde. And that was
Speaker 3: the original one, the first one killed and then described
Speaker 3: in a peer reviewed journal. Almost every other animal human
Speaker 3: beings don't have one, because we're pretty sure we're real.
Speaker 3: Although there's some argument there too, I guess, especially a phenomicon.
Speaker 3: But on top of that, well, actually they say Linnaeus,
Speaker 3: the guy the scientists back in with the early seventeen hundreds,
Speaker 3: I think the guy who made up the taxonomic system
Speaker 3: of naming animals like genus species stuff. They give Linnaeus
Speaker 3: the credit of being the type specimen for Homo sapiens,
Speaker 3: which I think is kind of fun. You know, there's
Speaker 3: also a monkey. I understand that was deemed too rare
Speaker 3: to even spare one because it would upset the balance.
Speaker 3: So they don't have a type specimen. But they have
Speaker 3: enough documentation of various sorts and I believe including hair
Speaker 3: samples that could be wrong on that, So they don't
Speaker 3: have a type specimen or a holotype for that one.
Speaker 3: And I thought there was another species just recently that
Speaker 3: is something similar. But the basic gist of a holotype
Speaker 3: is that you need a body or a piece of
Speaker 3: a body. Well, the good news is that DNA is
Speaker 3: a piece of the body. It's a very very small one,
Speaker 3: but it literally is a piece of a body. And
Speaker 3: some species were proven to be real by DNA so far,
Speaker 3: most notably and most pertinent our Field Denisovans homodenis Ovan
Speaker 3: human and probably not ancestrab well some of us, because
Speaker 3: they did interbreed with Homo sapiens, but a relative human
Speaker 3: relative a Homo Sapien relative. It was discovered by a
Speaker 3: DNA They found a small segment of a fingerbone in
Speaker 3: a cave, and they it was recent enough that they
Speaker 3: could test it for DNA, and sure enough, it wasn't
Speaker 3: Neanderthals like they thought it was. It was this brand
Speaker 3: new thing, Denisovans. So that's encouraging for us that DNA
Speaker 3: can be used to prove a species as present now
Speaker 3: with Bigfoot. It might take a little bit more than that,
Speaker 3: you know, just because so many hoaxes have been perpetrated
Speaker 3: through the year, so many wild and borderline or full
Speaker 3: on paranormal claims have discredited the subject for so long,
Speaker 3: so it might take more than just a DNA hit.
Speaker 3: It's probably going to take repeated DNA hits, honestly, by
Speaker 3: several different sources. But that is a piece of the body,
Speaker 3: and I believe that will do it, that at least
Speaker 3: start the avalanche. You know, picture the DNA hit, a
Speaker 3: positive DNA hit as a pebble that starts an avalanche,
Speaker 3: and the avalanche will look like a lot of different things.
Speaker 3: And one of those rocks, one of the big boulders
Speaker 3: falling down the hill in that avalanche, and that metaphoric
Speaker 3: avalanche will be collection of not just one, but probably
Speaker 3: several types like specimens. Unfortunately, but I think that's what's
Speaker 3: going to do this because we've had a long time
Speaker 3: of people walking around in the woods and maybe seeing
Speaker 3: sasquatches and having the opportunity to take a shot, and
Speaker 3: they never have, or if they have, they never collected
Speaker 3: the specimen and brought it in. But DNA, with that
Speaker 3: North Carolina State University thing going on right now with
Speaker 3: Darby or cut, that is where my money is at
Speaker 3: the moment. I think that has a much higher chance
Speaker 3: of bringing back what we need than just depending on
Speaker 3: some hunter to not be so scared to pull the
Speaker 3: trigger essentially, and again, just to be clear, I don't
Speaker 3: necessarily advocate for the collection of the species because I'm
Speaker 3: not the guy who's going to pull the trigger. It's
Speaker 3: kind of like Game of Thrones, right that very first
Speaker 3: episode of Game of Thrones, if you remember, I forget
Speaker 3: all the characters names like the ned Start guy or
Speaker 3: whatever his name is, he told his son who was
Speaker 3: a king, you shouldn't sentence someone to death unless you're
Speaker 3: willing to swing the blade, you know. And I feel
Speaker 3: the same way about sasquatch stuff. I know it has
Speaker 3: to happen. I'm not going to be the guy to
Speaker 3: do it, so I feel a little hypocritical by advocating
Speaker 3: for it because I'm not willing to do it myself.
Speaker 3: It's going to happen, bottom line. So but I can
Speaker 3: do the DNA thing, and I am doing the DNA thing.
Speaker 3: It turns out with Darby, and now that I'm allowed
Speaker 3: to talk about it, it's kind of nice. And I've talked
Speaker 3: about it on the podcast before. But DNA, I think,
Speaker 3: is the avenue to start that avalanche.
Speaker 4: I think clearly one of the things that needs to
Speaker 4: get fleshed out for the listeners, because enough questions come
Speaker 4: in that it's easy to tell that there's not a
Speaker 4: strong understanding of this within the community, or at least
Speaker 4: among the enthusiasts. And I think a lot of that
Speaker 4: has to do with the way that this is often portrayed.
Speaker 4: But there seems to be this sort of belief that
Speaker 4: there have been in the past a host of DNA
Speaker 4: samples that were collected or you know, genetic samples that
Speaker 4: were collected and subjected to DNA testing and the results
Speaker 4: were quote unknown primate and that's just frankly not true.
Speaker 4: And as far as I can tell, what's generally occurred
Speaker 4: is that when it does come to physical evidence, you know,
Speaker 4: the most abundant of which being hair. You know, as
Speaker 4: a source of physical evidence that you know, you look
Speaker 4: at hair under a microscope to determine its anatomy, and
Speaker 4: so by studying its anatomy you might be able to
Speaker 4: determine its source. And so of the hair samples that
Speaker 4: are attributed to sasas Squatch, or at least categorized as
Speaker 4: like purported Sasquatch or potential Sasquatch hair samples, they do
Speaker 4: share a suite of characteristics with each other that are
Speaker 4: also characteristics that are analogous to those found in other apes.
Speaker 4: But they're idiosyncratic enough from the known apes and from
Speaker 4: humans that the analyzes might say something like, well, they
Speaker 4: don't seem to be attributable to any known ape or humans,
Speaker 4: but they certainly share primate characteristics, and they're not attributable
Speaker 4: to any known animal, So we don't know what this
Speaker 4: is from, but it seems to be from a primate.
Speaker 4: And that's strictly looking at the physical structure of hair
Speaker 4: morphology anatomy etc. Now, some of those samples have been
Speaker 4: subjected to DNA testing, these very you know, low resolution,
Speaker 4: surface level DNA tests that usually produce the most you know,
Speaker 4: homology or the biggest hits on like human primers and things.
Speaker 3: Of that nature.
Speaker 4: So there's a whole list of these cases, even including
Speaker 4: some from Asia, you know, with like the ya Orn
Speaker 4: or the YETI. Let's say where you have people studying
Speaker 4: these samples under a microscope that say this is some
Speaker 4: sort of quote unquote unknown primate, and when it goes
Speaker 4: to DNA testing, they say, well, this is human. And
Speaker 4: there's been these debates that have played out, some of
Speaker 4: them very publicly, where people say, look, I don't know
Speaker 4: what you think you're seeing there, but this is absolutely
Speaker 4: not human hair. It's not like any human hair that's
Speaker 4: ever been collected or studied. And they'll say, well it
Speaker 4: was you know, it's either human hair or it was
Speaker 4: mishandled and therefore contaminated because the only DNA is human.
Speaker 4: But there's no DNA result that has given that moniker like,
Speaker 4: well we're looking at the DNA of a quote unquote
Speaker 4: unknown primate. So it seems like those two have been conflated.
Speaker 4: But I see that come up time and time again
Speaker 4: in our emails and other places online where people are
Speaker 4: commenting saying like, well, what about all of the unknown
Speaker 4: primate DNA samples that have already been tested and that
Speaker 4: just it frankly doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I had long conversation with Darby about that one, and
Speaker 3: he was visiting, and it'd be best to have it,
Speaker 3: of course, come from Darby's own mouth. And he has
Speaker 3: promised me that he will be on the podcast soon.
Speaker 3: I mean, I know that's coming, and I know I've
Speaker 3: been saying that for a while, but he will be
Speaker 3: here soon, I promise. But he's chased down every rumor
Speaker 3: of these DNA tests and found at the end of
Speaker 3: each one there's nothing really there.
Speaker 2: He told us that last time he was on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, And sometimes he's chased down the like various
Speaker 3: television shows have claimed DNA, various people have claimed DNA
Speaker 3: papers have been published, and he's chased down all of
Speaker 3: those things, and it turns out that either the results
Speaker 3: or the data, which is actually more important, would not
Speaker 3: be given or just didn't exist. And of course, if
Speaker 3: if it's they're not given the data, that tells you something,
Speaker 3: you know, that's that's a sign of maybe there's nothing
Speaker 3: there or don't don't want you to run independent results.
Speaker 3: But science is about reproducibility, you know, like peer reviewed
Speaker 3: sort of stuff. You know, if there's data that indicates
Speaker 3: there's a new species, you think you would be over
Speaker 3: the moon to share it with somebody else so they
Speaker 3: can get the same results or find out if you're
Speaker 3: incorrect about something. But apparently that it just does not
Speaker 3: has not happened. So these are all rumors.
Speaker 4: Not in a formal published sense, and that's the frustrating thing.
Speaker 4: Not only on the morphological side, like the anatomy of hair,
Speaker 4: the physical structure of hair. No one's ever published really
Speaker 4: about that. All of those references tend to be in
Speaker 4: personal correspondences, in media interviews and books, you know, where
Speaker 4: someone has analyzed and said, well, here's what I think
Speaker 4: i'm seeing, but it's never really been formally published. But
Speaker 4: the same is true of the claims that the DNA
Speaker 4: was tested and quote unquote came back as human, you know,
Speaker 4: Homo sapiens, either that the source was human or that
Speaker 4: it was contaminated. And you know, I don't want to
Speaker 4: be too disparaging, but there's a number of really interesting
Speaker 4: samples that were discussed heavily. There was one from the
Speaker 4: Pacific Northwest that was a blood sample from a light
Speaker 4: bulb that comes to mind. There's a handful of others,
Speaker 4: including some from the Kentucky project. And when you dig
Speaker 4: into the claims they were sent to be tested, and
Speaker 4: the results always come in the form of claims given
Speaker 4: to the media or in personal correspondence. Hey, I looked
Speaker 4: at this. It's just human Well none of that data
Speaker 4: has ever been published, you know, the sequences aren't released,
Speaker 4: not that they were fully sequenced genomes, but it's nothing
Speaker 4: more than a set of claims. And the other frustrating
Speaker 4: thing is the majority of those claims all come from
Speaker 4: a single source. We don't know exactly what tests were used,
Speaker 4: how in depth they were, if there were anything more
Speaker 4: than like cursory or preliminary tests. And also those kind
Speaker 4: of claims very often feed the skeptics to such a
Speaker 4: degree where they go, hey, look, these boneheads thought they
Speaker 4: had something, but it turns out it was just human DNA. Lol,
Speaker 4: you know, lmao. And it's it's kind of funny because
Speaker 4: it's like, well, if we're going to play the game
Speaker 4: where you know, you have to have evidence to support claims.
Speaker 4: I think any of us would be justified in saying, okay, well,
Speaker 4: where's the evidence that that was quote unquote just human,
Speaker 4: because as it stands, actually those are claims. We don't
Speaker 4: have the proof that. You know, we know the sample existed,
Speaker 4: we know that it was supposedly tested. While we know
Speaker 4: that sample existed, we know it was sent to this
Speaker 4: person to be tested, we can't see the results of
Speaker 4: the tests. We can't see the data. All we know
Speaker 4: is that the person who claims they tested it claims
Speaker 4: that it came back just human. Now I'm not disputing that,
Speaker 4: I'm just saying that, like, if claims have no value
Speaker 4: in no place here, then every skeptic that says, well,
Speaker 4: you know, every time they come up with a sample
Speaker 4: it's just human, it's like, no, you can throw that
Speaker 4: out because that's a claim. It's unsupported by evidence and data.
Speaker 4: So Darby was right to point out that every time
Speaker 4: he chased one of these things down, the sample is
Speaker 4: gone and the test results are gone. There's like nothing
Speaker 4: to show that these tests even actually occurred, you know,
Speaker 4: which is frustrating.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you mentioned the one word really caught my ear
Speaker 3: a few moments to Goo Matten. It really is the
Speaker 3: best men metaphor for all this. You mentioned a low
Speaker 3: resolution test. Resolution is probably the best metaphor for this,
Speaker 3: because when you do DNA testing, there are certain kinds
Speaker 3: of tests, and certain kinds of tests go deeper than others.
Speaker 3: But the low resolution one is also a visual metaphor,
Speaker 3: I think, because sasquatch DNA and human DNA are going
Speaker 3: to are obviously going to look very very similar to
Speaker 3: one another. Obviously, Well it turns out that sasquatches and
Speaker 3: humans also look visually very similar to one another. So
Speaker 3: that's where the resolution thing really comes in here, because
Speaker 3: if you take a picture of a human or a
Speaker 3: sasquatch at five hundred yards, maybe the resolution of the
Speaker 3: photograph isn't isn't great enough for you to tell the
Speaker 3: difference you know you need. I don't know how many
Speaker 3: megapixels you would need or whatever, but imagine it just
Speaker 3: like a nineteen ninety five digital camera versus your iPhone today.
Speaker 3: The resolution on your phone is a lot better than
Speaker 3: a camera back then, and the tests are the same ways.
Speaker 3: The lower the resolution of the test, the more approximate
Speaker 3: the results. Just like a lower resolution of in a photograph,
Speaker 3: the more approximate that picture is, you can tell it's
Speaker 3: a human shaped thing. But if you have a high
Speaker 3: enough resolution camera, you can see the eyeballs and the
Speaker 3: hair cover in the body if it's a sasquatch or
Speaker 3: the you know, the member's only jacket or whatever one
Speaker 3: happens to be wearing if it's a human. Right, same
Speaker 3: thing with tests. The lower resolution tests can get you
Speaker 3: in the ballpark, and almost all of those are going
Speaker 3: to say human on them, because that's the ballpark of
Speaker 3: what we're expecting, at least with the sasquatch thing, being
Speaker 3: that they're some sort of great ape species, you know,
Speaker 3: just like humans or anything else. So the resolution of
Speaker 3: the test needs to be great enough to differentiate. And
Speaker 3: there's no evidence that such a test has been run.
Speaker 3: Really at this moment, all of the other ones have
Speaker 3: to come back human. I think it's reasonable to assume,
Speaker 3: and the lack of evidence at this point because there
Speaker 3: is no data to examine unfortunately that those low resolution tests.
Speaker 3: But any test on a DNA sort of thing where
Speaker 3: you get a human hit is very encouraging and should
Speaker 3: be tested to a higher level. To a higher resolution
Speaker 3: so we can see what exactly it is instead of
Speaker 3: approximately what it is.
Speaker 6: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 6: Bobo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 4: I just think it's really important for people to understand
Speaker 4: that there are no previous DNA results that quote unquote
Speaker 4: came back. That's the way people always said it, like
Speaker 4: you mail it off and it comes back to the
Speaker 4: mail came back quote unquote unknown primate. Like that's never
Speaker 4: happened as far as I know in this pursuit of
Speaker 4: I don't even think that's a result you would get
Speaker 4: from a DNA study. So the unknown primate moniker comes
Speaker 4: from the physical structure of hair samples primarily, and not
Speaker 4: this d anything. Because people are always asking, well, what
Speaker 4: about all the previous unknown primate samples? Can't Darby test those,
Speaker 4: and so trying to like weed out, well, actually, there
Speaker 4: are no real previous unknown primate DNA samples. There are
Speaker 4: unknown primate hair samples or other you know, evidence that
Speaker 4: was deemed that. But anyway, I know that's a bit
Speaker 4: of a diversion there, but it comes up so very
Speaker 4: often that I thought it'd be worth clarifying. Oh yeah,
Speaker 4: but as I understand it now, like I don't know
Speaker 4: this would I'd love to ask Darby this, but you know,
Speaker 4: I've heard it said that the technology has come so
Speaker 4: far now that you can sequence a full genome from
Speaker 4: as few as three cells. Now, whereas you know, previously
Speaker 4: you needed a fairly sizable sample, like a pretty decent
Speaker 4: amount of blood or a chunk of the animal, you know,
Speaker 4: like a diagnostic portion. They would say, you know, a
Speaker 4: big piece of the animal, and that now, like you know,
Speaker 4: if you had a droplet of blood and there were
Speaker 4: three intact cells in it, you could sequence in it
Speaker 4: full genome just from that.
Speaker 3: That's way above my pay grade. Man, I'm just a
Speaker 3: grunt that walk in the woods trying to look for footprints.
Speaker 4: Did you see the recent news story, either of you guys,
Speaker 4: about this sequencing of a chimpanzee genome?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so. I mean I saw something in
Speaker 3: there that. But what did you hear to tell us
Speaker 3: little bit more? Maybe I'll find that at the same one.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I saw something from Science Andculture dot com that
Speaker 4: a pigeon had posted in our Patreon section there, and
Speaker 4: so I just like quickly perused it. So I haven't
Speaker 4: gone to the source because you know, they're obviously reporting
Speaker 4: on someone's study, someone's findings. But that essentially that prior
Speaker 4: genomic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees using the human genome
Speaker 4: as a reference apparently like had some sort of biasing
Speaker 4: effect on the results. And so that's where this idea
Speaker 4: that we differ from chimps by only one percent, that
Speaker 4: you know, there's ninety nine percent of our genetic material
Speaker 4: is homologous, and that we are we share ninety nine
Speaker 4: percent of our DNA, but that this full genome sequencing
Speaker 4: comparison shows that we're more like fourteen point nine percent different,
Speaker 4: which is, you know, fairly like an exponentially larger difference.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, So I don't know. Obviously I'm not a geneticist,
Speaker 4: and so I have no idea, Like once I access
Speaker 4: the paper and try to read it, I still don't
Speaker 4: know how qualified I will be, probably very little to
Speaker 4: interpret it correctly. But it was it was very interesting,
Speaker 4: but just showing like if you get higher and higher resolution,
Speaker 4: you're going to get more and more of these fascinating results.
Speaker 4: You know, if that result is correct, that no, there's
Speaker 4: a lot more differences than we initially thought, now that
Speaker 4: we can see a lot more of the data.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because what was it like the that part of
Speaker 5: the there's like no coding that in those DNA stretches.
Speaker 2: It wasn't not the deal, right.
Speaker 4: Just looking at an overview of it, it basically says
Speaker 4: that earlier sequencing was incomplete and so it excluded repetitive
Speaker 4: and complex regions, and that it masked certain genetic divergences.
Speaker 5: Yeah, like one of the eye hundred nucleotides is different
Speaker 5: than the sequence.
Speaker 2: So that's a lot in one percent.
Speaker 5: There is that variation you're talking about with that like
Speaker 5: up to fifteen percent difference between humans when you use
Speaker 5: that same technique, then chimpanzees up to nine percent different
Speaker 5: amongst themselves.
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting to me.
Speaker 4: That just speaks of, you know, if those results are accurate,
Speaker 4: that the technology is getting better and better. We should
Speaker 4: be promising for sasquatch researchers, Like we started this conversation
Speaker 4: that well, maybe now the technology is such that a
Speaker 4: small sample would be enough to fully quote unquote discover
Speaker 4: you know, the species, discover the sasquatch from as few
Speaker 4: as a couple of fibers or maybe a little bit
Speaker 4: of tissue or a drop of blood or something of
Speaker 4: that nature, whereas before, you know, obviously you needed a
Speaker 4: lot of material. You know, the problem with those earlier
Speaker 4: physical samples that were subjected to DNA testing is that,
Speaker 4: you know, they were collections of fibers in a lot
Speaker 4: of those cases, and testing was really destructive, and so
Speaker 4: even to do just those low resolution preliminary tests, you
Speaker 4: would destroy the sample in the process, and so what
Speaker 4: you're left with is that low resolution thumbnail. And even
Speaker 4: if it seemed to be promising, like oh maybe there's
Speaker 4: something here where you can't retest it now, I mean
Speaker 4: it's gone. The stuff is gone, And it seems like
Speaker 4: that's becoming less and less of a problem for discovering
Speaker 4: new species from very limited physical evidence these days.
Speaker 5: Yeah, what they said was that the differences the differences
Speaker 5: between human and chimp genomes mostly in non coding DNA,
Speaker 5: the segments that do not code for a specific protein.
Speaker 5: They think of about ninety percent of the genome.
Speaker 4: We will have to dig into that in depth or
Speaker 4: get someone like you know, Darby to break it down.
Speaker 4: But I just thought, like the way that it speaks
Speaker 4: to what we're capable of now is cause for optimism
Speaker 4: within Sasquadriye, Well.
Speaker 3: I'm very optimistic at this point. I do believe that
Speaker 3: Darby will do it, and I've told them such. I
Speaker 3: do believe that Darby's study will do it. It might
Speaker 3: be five years, it might be ten, but I think
Speaker 3: it's gonna going to hit home basically, which is good
Speaker 3: for everybody and good for good and bad for Darby,
Speaker 3: I think. And of course when we have him on
Speaker 3: we'll kind of talk about the good and bad about
Speaker 3: all this. But that is a tremendous responsibility. And I've
Speaker 3: spent a lot of time with Darby. Now I consider
Speaker 3: I'm a good friend, I really do, and I have
Speaker 3: faith in the man. And one thing I'm very very
Speaker 3: happy about is that he's already thinking ahead. He's looking
Speaker 3: for the pitfalls, he's looking for the problems in the
Speaker 3: future that might come his way or institution's way. If
Speaker 3: this is done. I mean, there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 3: of great things that come out of it, but there's
Speaker 3: gonna be a lot of problems that go with it too,
Speaker 3: And he's already thinking and trying to get ahead of
Speaker 3: that stuff. And he Dearby in my opinion, truly understands
Speaker 3: the gravity of the situation, his responsibility not only to academy,
Speaker 3: but also to the animals themselves, which is something that
Speaker 3: I think gets lost in all of this. Not to everybody,
Speaker 3: Bigfooters in particular have a certain soft spot, a certain
Speaker 3: compassion or empathy to the animals. But when they are
Speaker 3: quote unquote discovered, even though I don't like that term,
Speaker 3: I don't think it quite fits, but for lack of
Speaker 3: a better one right now, when they are discovered or recognized,
Speaker 3: it may be the worst thing that ever happened to them,
Speaker 3: But also at the same time, it might be the
Speaker 3: only way to save the species if they're going extinct.
Speaker 3: An that's the only path towards legal protection of any
Speaker 3: sort of way. But there are dangers with it as well.
Speaker 3: I mean, and it's not hunters in my opinion, it's
Speaker 3: not hunters because they're not going to be any easier
Speaker 3: to run across and shoot once they're proven to be
Speaker 3: real animals. You can shoot them now, but nobody really does,
Speaker 3: so it's not going to be an easier at that point.
Speaker 5: It'll get easier to hunt down once like you know,
Speaker 5: like when all this you know maybe thirty forty years now,
Speaker 5: there's a bunch of data like they move these times,
Speaker 5: you're these certain locations, and they travel these ridgelines, and
Speaker 5: I think it'll making these the more info of theseus
Speaker 5: to find them.
Speaker 7: I think, you know, hunt them whatever. Maybe this'll be hard,
Speaker 7: but it'll be easier. Yeah, I suppose maybe a little easier.
Speaker 7: But I think the real danger isn't from hunters. That's
Speaker 7: not what I'm talking about at all. Is it's not
Speaker 7: from people, you know, quote unquote exploiting them in some
Speaker 7: sort of way, you know, like doing some sort of
Speaker 7: eco tour thing like they do in Rwanda for the
Speaker 7: mountain gorillas to help preserve them. I think the real
Speaker 7: danger are from places like the pharmaceutical companies. You know,
Speaker 7: it's from corporations who are going to when who want
Speaker 7: to exploit them for medical reasons and do testing and
Speaker 7: doing all that sort of stuff, which would amount to
Speaker 7: torture as far as I can see, at least from
Speaker 7: my perspective. I've always said that, Well, you're always right
Speaker 7: than Bobo.
Speaker 2: I was.
Speaker 3: That's why I said it. And so that's the real
Speaker 3: danger is from corporate interests trying to exploit them.
Speaker 2: In that way. Yeah, makes superhumans.
Speaker 3: Well I saw what I was thinking, necessarily, but I
Speaker 3: wasn't thinking about developing an army of superhumans.
Speaker 2: But that's like one aspect.
Speaker 5: I mean, extract like their muscle genes or whatever, you know,
Speaker 5: like whatever it is, like their leaping ability, like the
Speaker 5: structure of this and that. And they get medical like
Speaker 5: they resists, if they're resistant to certain kinds of cancers,
Speaker 5: or there's all kinds of stuff I want to use
Speaker 5: them for.
Speaker 3: And and to his credit, Darby thought of that, and
Speaker 3: then that's going to be a fantastic discussion and we
Speaker 3: can have them on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's your earlier point about not advocating. You know,
Speaker 4: I definitely understand that a specimen will be necessary at
Speaker 4: some point because there's certain things that you can only
Speaker 4: understand from having a specimen, and there's a lot of
Speaker 4: routes to that. It doesn't mean that you have to
Speaker 4: collect one by lethal means. You know, it could be
Speaker 4: the recovery of a recently deceased individual if we have
Speaker 4: the ability to like track them at some point. Sure,
Speaker 4: But over the years, you know, my perspectives have changed,
Speaker 4: you know, I've grown up, I've had different experiences. You know,
Speaker 4: I've been influenced by certain arguments and then swayed by
Speaker 4: other arguments and learn new things and discover new things,
Speaker 4: and so it has changed. But at this point, yeah,
Speaker 4: I don't think that it is to be undertaken by
Speaker 4: the citizen scientist at all. I think, you know, if
Speaker 4: such a thing is to occur, it would be best
Speaker 4: carried out by an institution with a lot of resources.
Speaker 4: I don't think the individual citizen would be able to
Speaker 4: survive the aftermath. And I don't mean that in a
Speaker 4: literal sense, but reputationally, financially, legally, I don't think that
Speaker 4: is for the citizen to try to take on. And
Speaker 4: I think it might be very different if there was
Speaker 4: an individual whose home was being you know, threatened and
Speaker 4: took some action and self defense, or if someone you know,
Speaker 4: hit one with a truck or a vvehicle or something
Speaker 4: like that. But in terms of like someone intentionally hunting one,
Speaker 4: collecting it and turning it into the public and thinking
Speaker 4: that the world would smile upon them for the discovery.
Speaker 4: I've been swayed a lot by some things that I've
Speaker 4: seen and encountered that I think this is not for
Speaker 4: the citizen scientists to take on in my opinion, and
Speaker 4: I know, people assume that they, you know, would have
Speaker 4: access to some degree of anonymity. But you know, a
Speaker 4: lot of the people that I discussed this with, you know,
Speaker 4: they do hold the belief that this would be the
Speaker 4: biggest scientific discovery of all time, or at least the
Speaker 4: biggest biological discovery of all time, and that they could
Speaker 4: just hand over the specimen and keep all the details
Speaker 4: to themselves and you know, let the discovery unfold through
Speaker 4: these institutions. And you know, from my perspective, especially studying
Speaker 4: cases like the case of Ed Wiseman, the man who
Speaker 4: was attributed with killing the last of the Colorado Grizzlies
Speaker 4: in nineteen seventy nine, it's like, you think that you're
Speaker 4: going to make the biggest biological discovery of all time,
Speaker 4: and it's not going to be accompanied by the biggest
Speaker 4: federal fish and wildlife investigation of all time. Like there's
Speaker 4: no way that those two things don't go hand in hand.
Speaker 4: That you know, if you're going to claim like, oh, well,
Speaker 4: I don't have to tell anyone where I got it
Speaker 4: or how I got it, you know, no, you're going
Speaker 4: to have to you know, and what happens If it's
Speaker 4: collected on public land, who does it belong to? Does
Speaker 4: it belong to the state, Is it on national forest land?
Speaker 4: Does it belong to the federal government. If it's on
Speaker 4: someone else's private land, does some degree of that belong
Speaker 4: to the landowner. I mean, there's going to be so
Speaker 4: much and none of these things can really be sussed out.
Speaker 4: I mean, some states do have rules of like, you
Speaker 4: can't collect anything that isn't a recognized game species. So
Speaker 4: whether that's something like a cougar in a state where
Speaker 4: they say, well, we have no cougars, there are no
Speaker 4: cougars here, but if you kill one, it's illegal because
Speaker 4: the cougar is also not a recognized game species in
Speaker 4: this state. That's played out in multiple states where there
Speaker 4: are supposed to be no surviving cougars, and yet every
Speaker 4: once in a while someone collects one and they get
Speaker 4: into a lot of trouble for it. Would the sasquatch
Speaker 4: fall into that category? Let alone, like Bobo said, if
Speaker 4: post hawk they're found to be closely related to us,
Speaker 4: Let's say, if they are something of that African lineage
Speaker 4: like paranthropists, and they're closer to us than chimpanzees are.
Speaker 4: Are there going to be laws that are applied you know,
Speaker 4: post hawk, even though it's like we didn't know they
Speaker 4: existed yesterday when you shot it, But now that we
Speaker 4: know that they're potentially like within our genius or closely
Speaker 4: related genus whatever, are those laws going to be applied retroactively?
Speaker 4: I mean, there's so much there that it's like, man,
Speaker 4: this isn't for the citizen scientists to try unless you're
Speaker 4: just ready to throw everything away.
Speaker 3: Our friend Matt Moneymaker is the one who pointed out
Speaker 3: to me at least, that you don't really need laws
Speaker 3: against shooting sasquatches because of the way the laws are written. Yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, I do want laws that are the prohibit
Speaker 3: the shooting of sasas.
Speaker 2: I absolutely do.
Speaker 3: But he points out that the way the hunting laws
Speaker 3: are generally written, and I'm not a hunter, etc. But
Speaker 3: I haven't looked at all the hunting regulations, et cetera.
Speaker 3: So I'm taking Matt's word on this, so fact check me.
Speaker 3: As always, I encourage everybody to do so all the time.
Speaker 3: But Matt does have a jurisd doctorate, you know, he
Speaker 3: does have that, So I'm going to go with Matt
Speaker 3: on this one. He says that generally the way that
Speaker 3: hunting regulations are written is that they tell you what
Speaker 3: you can do instead of what you cannot do. And
Speaker 3: they specifically say what you can hunt or fish or
Speaker 3: whatever and when you can do so, and if it
Speaker 3: isn't specifically said so, then you can't do it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: So they're very specific on what you are allowed to do,
Speaker 3: so they don't have to write what you're prohibited from doing.
Speaker 3: And Sasquatch isn't on the list.
Speaker 6: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 6: Bobo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 4: The game of trying to collect hair or once DNA
Speaker 4: becomes more accessible and prominent, like maybe after a genome
Speaker 4: sequenced and we can identify sasquatches through DNA alone, well
Speaker 4: anybody can get in on that. Every researcher can take
Speaker 4: part in that, and right now a lot of people
Speaker 4: can if they're just aiming at collecting hair or other
Speaker 4: bits of physical evidence and submitting that to the NC
Speaker 4: State thing. So everybody could be collecting samples and submitting
Speaker 4: them or at least submitting them to be screened, you know.
Speaker 3: And I think that's going to be a key component
Speaker 3: to studying these animals after they're recognized. Is that I've
Speaker 3: always thought, and this is one of the big draws
Speaker 3: of bigfooting to me, and it always has been since
Speaker 3: I ran across those books in the library at cal
Speaker 3: State Long Beach in ninety three or ninety four. This
Speaker 3: has always been the draw that this is going to
Speaker 3: be a field where the amateur scientists, like the amateur investigator,
Speaker 3: like us, we will always have a role there because
Speaker 3: there's a way more of us than there are professional scientists,
Speaker 3: or even in the future there will be professional scientists
Speaker 3: looking into this, and most evidence will therefore be probably
Speaker 3: collected by citizen scientists. So if we all kind of
Speaker 3: up our game and do the right thing and submit
Speaker 3: things to the appropriate folks when it comes in, we're
Speaker 3: going to be learning a lot about it. Like say
Speaker 3: tomorrow the whole thing's over and sasquatches are recognized species, well,
Speaker 3: I'm going to still go out there and a lot
Speaker 3: of people are still going to go camping and see
Speaker 3: these things, and maybe you have the possibility of collecting
Speaker 3: hair or footprints or whatever. And if there's a standard
Speaker 3: protocol that's very simple for the tourists. Kind of like
Speaker 3: if you see a sasquatch and there's a footprint, you
Speaker 3: get all the dirt in a bag and you send
Speaker 3: it into.
Speaker 2: So and so.
Speaker 3: Well, that's going to be tracking the animals over time,
Speaker 3: and that's the kind of thing that's going to give
Speaker 3: us information about where they're going, what their needs are,
Speaker 3: what their food habits are, what their dietary strictions, like,
Speaker 3: their social all that kind of stuff, the stuff that
Speaker 3: you can only learn by tracking them. That's going to
Speaker 3: be the way to study them. It's like going to
Speaker 3: be a group collaborative effort, hopefully because small teams deployed
Speaker 3: out in the remote areas are going to learn some
Speaker 3: stuff for sure. But even more data coming in and
Speaker 3: we're okay, we tested this DNA because there was a
Speaker 3: sighting in the Assemite National Park and there was a
Speaker 3: footprint and so and so on vacation from Florida collected
Speaker 3: all the dirt underneath, and here's the DNA that we're
Speaker 3: looking for. Oh, that's that one individual that's big earl
Speaker 3: or whatever we call that one that hangs out in
Speaker 3: twelve of the meadows. Then they're oh, why is it doing.
Speaker 2: See.
Speaker 3: That's the kind of stuff that I think is going
Speaker 3: to be absolutely fascinating and can only be accomplished by
Speaker 3: trace evidence by a large number of people, and the
Speaker 3: largest number of people are the general public. So if
Speaker 3: there's a very simplified protocol that some people are aware of,
Speaker 3: if they happen to see a sasquat for the collection
Speaker 3: of dirt or whatever, that it can be tested in
Speaker 3: the future, that's going to give us a tremendous amount
Speaker 3: of insight into how these things live.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, amen, which is.
Speaker 3: What I'm so excited about, because again I've said it
Speaker 3: during my presentation, if you're still asking if these things are,
Speaker 3: you're behind the learning curve. One should be asking how
Speaker 3: they live?
Speaker 2: What do they do?
Speaker 3: And I think that's by far the most interesting thing
Speaker 3: about them. And I cannot wait till academic recognition of
Speaker 3: the species so we can really start drilling in and
Speaker 3: finding out what have I been doing wrong all these years?
Speaker 3: Like why haven't I seen a few more of these things?
Speaker 3: Why haven't I filmed one? You know, That's what I
Speaker 3: want to know.
Speaker 2: Absolutely anything else in the DNN is.
Speaker 3: Not in the news, I think, But you know, One
Speaker 3: of the challenges, of course, is the hair samples right,
Speaker 3: Because the hair would be great, it's a part of
Speaker 3: the body. It should count for potentially been a type
Speaker 3: specimen if if handled correctly. But the problem is if
Speaker 3: Heinterer Fahrenbach is correct, most sasquatch hairs either are lacking
Speaker 3: a medulla or they have a fragmentary medulla, And unfortunately
Speaker 3: the medulla is the only place in the hair where
Speaker 3: there might be genetic material. Essentially, so with the cards
Speaker 3: are already stacked against us, so to speak, because the
Speaker 3: part of the hair that we need isn't present in
Speaker 3: the species that we're looking at unless you have the
Speaker 3: follicle along that unless the course of follicle. Yeah, in
Speaker 3: which case they both sides of the DNA in mitochondria
Speaker 3: and nuclear. But still that that would be fantastic. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I think hair hair traps might be better utilized. Like
Speaker 3: I know, I haven't really been doing hair traps so much,
Speaker 3: but I also despite having places where I've found recurring
Speaker 3: footprints and things, I'm not sure how to set up
Speaker 3: a hair trap to keep the bears out. You know,
Speaker 3: some sort of attractant which is illegal. So I wouldn't
Speaker 3: be doing that anyway, but like you need some sort
Speaker 3: of like attractive But I think if you don't use
Speaker 3: food attractants, that's probably in the legal realm, you know,
Speaker 3: squeaky toys or something might be of interest, because you
Speaker 3: aren't allowed to use food attractants for animals because they
Speaker 3: think you're luring bears in and stuff like that. But
Speaker 3: some sort of visual attractant or something might be useful.
Speaker 3: I think Doug Hicheck, I think he suggested using velcro tape,
Speaker 3: you know, like the tape that the Volco thing, and
Speaker 3: just using the prickly hard plastic side and taping those
Speaker 3: on things like what did he use, like beach balls
Speaker 3: or something like that. He may have maybe he told
Speaker 3: me he had some success with that or something. But
Speaker 3: what kind of visual or non food attractant might be used?
Speaker 3: I guess that's the hard part.
Speaker 2: Something bright colored, I don't.
Speaker 3: Know, mirrors like shiny things people have used CDs. I
Speaker 3: mean to no avail or to avail I have no
Speaker 3: idea if there's been any positive hits on.
Speaker 2: That sex dolls.
Speaker 3: Well, we're talking about sasquatches, Bob's not you. The things
Speaker 3: that work well, right, right, it's a scientific fact that bigfoots,
Speaker 3: like with bobo likes, I've been told are.
Speaker 2: Think pretty funy to foot one of those out there.
Speaker 3: I was like, bait, sounds like a finding bigfoot concoction.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, I do look forward to, like whenever Darby's ready
Speaker 4: to come back and speak more to these things, because
Speaker 4: I have so many questions. Again, genetics is so far
Speaker 4: over my head. And then obviously the technology races along
Speaker 4: so quickly, I just don't follow that closely to know
Speaker 4: exactly where it's at. Other than that, it seems to
Speaker 4: be getting better and better, which is cost for optimism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I know. One of the hurdles that Darby
Speaker 3: was waiting for is getting his website up and running it.
Speaker 3: But it is up and running. His website looks great.
Speaker 3: He talks a little bit about a couple of the
Speaker 3: projects on there. The website is up, so it can't
Speaker 3: be too long. And every time I speak to Darby,
Speaker 3: he's the one that brings up and I promise I'm
Speaker 3: coming back on your Podcastie. I've just been so busy
Speaker 3: and I can't blame him, blame the guy. He's got
Speaker 3: so much going on, so weah it was a lot
Speaker 3: to look forward to. I think as far as the
Speaker 3: DNA thing goes as an alternative for collecting a type specimen,
Speaker 3: it's certainly less aggressive, and the less aggressive we are,
Speaker 3: I think, the more human we are in a lot
Speaker 3: of ways. So I'm looking forward to what comes on
Speaker 3: the other side of that, where the real learning starts happening.
Speaker 3: I think it was a good discussion today. But before
Speaker 3: we do go, before we hand it over to Bobes
Speaker 3: to close us out here, I do want to push
Speaker 3: I'm speaking in New York on October third and fourth
Speaker 3: for the first ever New York Bigfoot Conference is going
Speaker 3: to be in John's Town, New York, and if you
Speaker 3: live within spitting distance, feel free to come on and well,
Speaker 3: don't spit on me, but you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: come on down and hang out. It's going to be
Speaker 3: October third and fourth, twenty twenty five in Johnstown, New York.
Speaker 3: You can go to ny Bigfoot Conference dot com for
Speaker 3: all the information your eyeballs are asking for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that. No.
Speaker 4: The next thing I'm doing will be cryptocon with Cliff
Speaker 4: in November, so there's plenty of time to promote that
Speaker 4: between now and then. But I will put a link
Speaker 4: to that in the show notes.
Speaker 5: And Cliff people didn't come and split any They might
Speaker 5: just be Buddhist monks trying to cure you or something.
Speaker 3: I'll try to I'll try to remain very zen and
Speaker 3: not be upset about it.
Speaker 2: Then, hey, they cured my leg doing that?
Speaker 3: Oh did they? Was that a cure?
Speaker 2: I think so?
Speaker 5: But anyways, all right, all right, folks, So that's an
Speaker 5: episode of big Footian. Thanks so much for joining us,
Speaker 5: So come back next week. We'll see you then. But
Speaker 5: until then, y'all keep it squatchy.
Speaker 6: Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
Speaker 6: If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
Speaker 6: us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
Speaker 6: get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
Speaker 6: at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Speaker 6: Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's an n in the middle,
Speaker 6: and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Speaker 6: Bigfoot and Beyond.