Speaker 1: This is a Bigfoot and Beyond special bulletin.
Speaker 2: Everybody. This is Cliff. I'm hanging out with Matt Pruitt today.
Bobo is in the woods. Today is Friday, March twentieth.
I just got back from a week in California. I'll
tell you about that on the next episode. And Matt
thought it might be a good idea to do a
few minutes on the most controversial thing that's hit the
Bigfoot community in quite a while.
Speaker 1: Matt, you want to talk about that for a second. Yeah,
I thought it would be good to let our listeners know.
So the episode that you're about to hear was actually
recorded on Wednesday, March the eleventh, in anticipation of Cliff
doing some traveling and getting together with Bobo. So very
often we'll cram episodes and get a couple of weeks ahead.
But since the time we recorded that episode, obviously some
news has come out and a whole lot of conjecture
and speculation about that news, and so we have understandably
been inundated with messages and emails and questions and a
lot of people saying, why aren't you guys talking about this? Well,
Cliff was out of town until win Cliff like last night.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got back into town late last night. I
wasn't even due home until today, but a small miracle
happened in my life and I ended up having to
come home a day early because of that. I'll tell
you about that later, of course. But I've been gone
since Monday morning. And again it's Friday right now.
Speaker 1: Yep, and Bobo's out in the woods and having fun
with other squatter buddies of ours. So it'll be a
minute before we get to record and talk again. But
in the meantime, we have not gotten to see this documentary,
which I know we would all love to. But first
of all, the audience might be interested to know that
we've been aware of the existence of this found footage
for how long?
Speaker 2: Oh, I think I heard about it a minimum April April,
because it might have even been March.
Speaker 1: April and March of twenty twenty five, so for over
a year roughly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly just about a year actually, anow that
you're mentioning, I keep forgetting this March right now, I
was being courted to be in the documentary actually at
the time, So yeah, so just about a year I've
been aware of this thing, and I that they had
some sort of piece of footage or something like that.
But I think the focus here though, even though I've
known about this for a long time, there's a couple
of things that I think should be said. Number One,
I have not seen the documentary. I was never even
shown the piece of the controversial piece of footage, and
until I do, I'm just keeping my mouth shut, unlike
the vast majority of the bigfoot community apparently, who also
has not seen the documentary. And I think that what
we're looking at now is a It's not dangerous, but
it's a kind of a dumb situation where people are
taking other people's opinions and making it their own opinions.
Then I just it was just a couple of weeks ago,
mad that, or maybe even last week. You have a
way better memory than I do. Wasn't I just talking
about giving away your power to other people? And this
is exactly what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think one of the frustrating things is to
see how you know. It's one thing when people jump
to conclusions, but it's another thing when people jump to
other people's conclusions. And the reason I thought it would
be interesting for the audience to know that we've been
aware of this. You know, I was made aware of
it by you. And so the fact that you, Bobo
and I have been aware of this for a year
and have elected to say, well, you know what, we
won't talk about it until we actually get to see
it and have something to say. That's based on our
experience with the evidence as presented.
Speaker 3: So when people keep.
Speaker 1: Saying, well, hey, you guys need to comment on this,
I'm like, no, we've waited a year. We can wait
a little bit longer. I don't think that's a problem.
And I also don't think that there's much to address
other than the state of the so called community right now,
and that's we don't want to jump to other people's conclusions,
and we're not really in the business of having discussions
about other people's discussions.
Speaker 2: The whole thing is ridiculous. Everybody, just calm down a
little bit, wait until you see it, because again I
haven't seen the documentary, and neither of have most of you.
Speaker 1: It has sort of always been our policy here on
this podcast not to talk about things that the audience
couldn't see. If we can help it. Now, Like if
we're talking to an old case that you know, there's
no evidence. But it's like, we can speculate about William
Rowe or Glenn Thomas or Albert Osman all day long,
but when something is forthcoming and it will be released,
it's like, oh, well, let's just wait until that's released
to talk about it, because it doesn't make sense to
talk about it now before the audience can also see it.
And so that was the same with this particular documentary
and this piece of found footage too. So I think
we'll just stick to our guns on that one because
we've already waited a year while no one knew anything
about it, and so I don't think it would be
hard to wait longer.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, And it's no big deal, just a
little bit longer. Patience is an attribute of bigfooters, So
why not just have a little bit more. We'll see
what it says. If the evidence is there, give it
to us. Let's find out what the truth is. I mean,
I think it's important to weed out the fakes in
the past, but make sure it's evidence and not just
to claim. So I don't know, that's just my opinion
on the whole thing.
Speaker 1: And like Cliff said, Bobo's out in the woods, so
he can't be here with us, but we did get
a pre prepared statement for you, Bobo, what do you
think about hype in general?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not all it's cocked up to be.
Speaker 1: We agree with that. And so what would you say
to the people that are just spreading hype kind of baselessly?
Speaker 3: Bobo? F you?
Speaker 1: And then any final thoughts about the current state of affairs,
like the current state of Sasquatchrey.
Speaker 3: Excuse it?
Speaker 1: Well you heard it here, folks.
Speaker 2: All right, Well that with that last message from Robo Bobo,
let's continue to keep it squatchy here and jump into
the regular episode that we already prepared for you. Thank
you everybody for listening, and hope you enjoy the next hour.
Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
Speaker 2: These guys are your favorites, So like Shay, subscribe and raid.
Speaker 3: It five star.
Speaker 1: Me Great Conquest Today.
Speaker 2: Listen watch.
Speaker 1: Is Cheap and Squatchy and now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman
and James Boobo Fay.
Speaker 2: Greetings, Bobo is up? Cliff, I don't know, just doing
my thing, Man, just doing what I do, Like I know,
tomorrow tomorrow. This is a big deal. I drive up
to Michael Wallace's house. He lives up in Washington. Michael
Wallace is the son of Ray Wallace, notorious hoaxher, et cetera.
Michael Wallace has a book out called Son of Bigfoot,
and he talks about how he's pretty confident that his
dad faked the tracks that Jerry Crue cast. I am
doubtful and might now mind you, when I met Michael,
he recognized me because I guess he watched the show
or something like that, and he knew I was at
the same conference as him as over his squatch Fest.
And he goes out, now, Cliff, just because my dad
made the Bigfoot footprints does not mean that Harry harmonoids
are not walking around right now. So he's very very
open to that. But I am I am gonna need
some convinced that his tracks are responsible for the Jury
Group tracks, because the Jerry Crew tracks show some anatomical
features that are very very interesting. And of course there's
other photographs from that same scene, like the same night,
basically the same day, or two of tracks in the
ground that show different tow positions, et cetera. But I'm
going up there because he still has a number of
stompers in his possession, and I'm going to document them
and take pictures of them against a you know, a
back a grid background so we can see what size
they are. I'm going to see if he will allow
me to put them on, to don the stompers and
make some tracks in the ground and cast them.
Speaker 3: We'll see.
Speaker 2: I'll report back next time I speak to you about
what actually happened. But tomorrow is going to be a
big day because to my knowledge, and I could be wrong, Matt,
and maybe you know this because you pay attention to
the community a little bit more than I do. Has
anyone ever had the opportunity direct access to the stompers
and maybe even putting them on?
Speaker 1: Not that aware of I've never seen any images other
than the ones that were presented to the press in
the aftermath of Wallace's death.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and Bobo you same thing.
Speaker 3: No, never, I never heard anyone doing that. Yeah, I know,
I know the people that are not convinced those are
legit tracks. So that's yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when Michael Wallace is one of them, and he's
a lovely guy. When I talked to him like he
was just absolutely lovely, a great sense of humor. We
had lots of smiles and laughs. I've got nothing against
the guy obviously, Like I'm not one of these guys
that's going to come out swinging and say what an
asshole you blah blah blah whatever. He didn't do anything.
He was a kid man. He was raised in the
logging camps, you know.
Speaker 3: Ray adopted like a bunch of Native kids, like a
dozen of them or something.
Speaker 2: To my knowledge, he's not Native. Maybe he is, but
to my knowledge he's not, And that could be wrong
about that, But I will say he's a really nice
guy and you know, much like his father, I guess,
full of mirth and you know, joy and all that
kind of stuff. Because at the end of the day,
Ray Wallace, even though he was a hoaxer and he
has complicated a lot of bigfooter's lives over the decades,
he generally had a good sense of humor and that's
where he was coming from, you know. But nonetheless, I
don't appreciate hoaxing, and his father was associated with a
lot of it. But nonetheless I'm not going to hold
that against Michael. Come on, yeah, kind of yeah, how
could I Michael's a good guy, and he's going to
give me access to the stompers, so I'll know a
little bit more about some stuff. Tomorrow I'm going to
at least do an audio interview with him, and if
he'll allow me, I'll do a video interview with him again.
Tomorrow is going to be very telling in a lot
of ways, but cool, significant Bigfoot history stuff is happening,
as it always is. So yeah, that's tomorrow. I'm pretty
excited about it.
Speaker 3: Cool. Yeah, hopefully, Loan, maybe like you get a little
more relationship going with the little lonely at the museum,
taking him in for a while.
Speaker 2: Oh, I wouldn't mind a bit. I wouldn't mind a bit.
I'd love to have Michael down because we have I
showed him pictures of some of the stompers we have.
We have two sets of stompers at the muse right now,
one of which was carved by Rant Mullins, probably specifically
for that nineteen eighty two news event that he did
on whatever news channel that was. I forget what it was,
but they did a little thing on him where he
went into depth about, you know, basically is pissing match
with Ray Wallace back and forth about who's a better
hoaxer and who owes who money for carving whatever fake
prints were left around. But we have those and I
know they're the same ones because they have the markings
that you can see in the newspaper photographs like you
can when you look at the stompers. There are certain
marks in the wood, and you can see those same
marks on the wood of the actual stompers themselves. But
we have another set that was used in Renton, Oregon,
back in the early nineteen seventies and they fooled Barbara Lawson,
who cast prints, and I have the actual cast. You
have the original cast on display at the NABC, as
well as the original stompers that were obtained for the museum.
We have those two. And when I showed pictures of
the Renton stompers to Michael Wallace, his first words were, Yeah,
that looks like Rant Mullens work, So I think those
are probably Rant Mullins as well. I'm interested to see
what kind of commonalities and specific markings are on the
Wallace stompers that I might be able to attribute to
certain track finds, specifically the nineteen sixty seven Blue Creek
Mountain tracks and maybe the Onion Mountain tracks and whatever else,
because I suspect those are probably hoaxed, and I'm curious
about what sort of confirmation I might be able to
get for that. So tomorrow's a big day. We'll see.
Oh you know what I heard, and you know how
a couple of weeks ago we kind of lamented over
the death of our good friend Tom Cantrell. Yeah he
wasn't dead. What really, that's what I heard. I heard
that he was not actually dead when we did that.
I'm not sure of his current state, but from what
I understand, everybody thought he died, but it turns out
he didn't and he was still hanging on somewhere in hospice,
and so to I was a friend, I'll say it,
but I think it's funny that you know that rumors.
It's like one of us have the rumors of my
death have been.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 2: He may maybe he was actually dead at the moment,
Maybe he was not, but I understand there was some confusion.
Maybe he's alive now for all I know, And I
think for all of us, Tom Kentroll will always live
on our hearts.
Speaker 3: So I don't know. Yeah, shoot that sus I was
writing him a big long thing and then it uh
you know, and then I got a word like, no,
he passed away like an hour ago.
Speaker 2: I got that word too, And then like a week later,
I got a word that he wasn't dead. So I
don't know who to believe or what to believe. I
haven't seen in an obituary. Maybe maybe it's out there.
I haven't really looked though.
Speaker 3: If Lauren Coleman hasn't reported it, then he's alive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like we always defer to Lauren as far as
he's alive. Yeah, you know, I believe Lauren told me
a few years ago that he's actually written his own obituary.
Speaker 3: He didn't mine.
Speaker 2: We should get it and read it on the air
to kind of confirm the rumors that you're dead.
Speaker 3: No, he never he never posted it, but he had
it ready.
Speaker 2: Oh well, we should get it anyway. That'd be hilarious.
Oh you know, it's gonna say, well, I know some
things that could say. It'd be interesting to see what
he actually thought made the cut.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think in the spirit of your South American bat,
you should be mummified.
Speaker 2: And put in Cliff Museum kept on my computer console.
Speaker 3: That'd be cool.
Speaker 1: That would be so great.
Speaker 3: Like that rapper that died back he used a couple
of years ago and his buddies took him out for
the weekend. They threw a whole concert. They propped him
up in the corner of the room and like played
his music. I had never heard about that, but rapper, No,
I think it was Atlanta. It's it's pretty funny, dude.
The guy looks he looks dead, but he's like, you know,
frozen in one position.
Speaker 2: He looks dead. I'm assuming Monkey's bones have been burnt
or something. Yeah, she got okay. I was hoping to
maybe get your bones and Monkey's bones and rearticulate them
every once in a while for the museum like a
Griver Krantz and his irishes.
Speaker 3: That's a great idea.
Speaker 2: Thank you. You know he'll do that for you, Mark Marcel,
he would, he'd bury much.
Speaker 3: He could go bury me on the beach and take
up my bones like a year later.
Speaker 2: And yeah, he's already looked into it, like he's looked
into the laws. If you will it to him, like
if you sign some papers, Apparently it's doable. I'm in Oh,
you should totally do it. He wanted to re He
wanted Sochi's bones when she died, but I didn't have
the heart to do it. You know, it'd be heart
wrenching for me. So I did not do that. But
I could do it with you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, as long as you put him up. I just
don't want him sit in a box in the back.
Speaker 2: Oh no, we'll put them on permanent display man awesome. Yeah,
if if the law allows it, we'll do it.
Speaker 3: He's give me the paper and i'll sign it.
Speaker 2: I'll talk to Mark, I'll do an email right now.
I'll put you on it. I'll put prough It on it,
and i'll put Bigfoot and Beyond on it.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Subject Bobo's corpse. Bobo has consented to allowing you to
reconstitute his his skeleton after the flesh is eaten away.
Get the paperwork ready. There you go. Bobo has consented
to allowing you to reconstitute his skeleton after the flesh
has eaten away. Get the paperwork ready, Cliff, there you go.
Speaker 3: Or you can send me up to Dan up big
Fur up in Canada and have him, like you know,
do a full taxi army.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I think a reasonable question would be,
like that would be cool, right, like stretching your skin
across the frame, et cetera. But isn't it kind of
a tip of the hat to Krantz to do the
same with your body as Krantz did?
Speaker 3: Yeah, if I had Monk, I mean, if I had Monkey,
you'd be freaking no brainer. But I mean being stuff,
you know, and taxidermy that'd be pretty rad too.
Speaker 2: It's groundbreaking.
Speaker 3: How do I want to be in cliff Museum, bones
or taxidermy?
Speaker 1: So now we wait for mister Mark Morsel to send
us an update, So listeners, we will pass along updates
as we get them from Mark.
Speaker 2: I cannot wait to have Bobo's corpse gracing our museum.
Speaker 1: Hopefully it'll be a long long time from now.
Speaker 2: We'll make you even taller.
Speaker 3: Oh you know what, I just realized, I'll probably, yeah,
probably older. Maybe maybe I will just go bones. So
I don't want to be like in like all like
old old stuff. I mean, that'd be kind of young
to get STUDI Otherwise, Yeah, I gotta go bones.
Speaker 2: And honestly, if like, if I had any hand in
the taxidermy at all, when they asked me about like
how to make I would make you really really fat,
thank you. You know, like the finding big Foot Bobo,
like the big one that everybody remembers, like the one
that that is called my Bobo when people ask you
about you, how's my Bobo? Yeah, and get my wig totally.
But yet, like if if we had to stretch your
dead skin over some large fat person's frame, that I
was kind of weird and like distorted.
Speaker 3: You gotta have big fd Dan dude, he mean he's
a world chat pro.
Speaker 1: Oh ken Walker or.
Speaker 3: Ken Walker Ken It'd be kind of funny, but probably make.
Speaker 2: Other people said, yeah, our museum does that anyway. Sometimes
that's not true at all. Actually it already walks out stoked. Yeah,
stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
We'll be right back after these messages.
Speaker 3: All right, I'm probably talking about stuffing my corps.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I can't get enough of that, you know.
Speaker 1: I was like I was digging into some stuff because
I always reread a number of the classics and some
of the old stuff. We talked several times about what
the Four Horsemen got right or what they got wrong
or things that have sort of been updated. So I
was rereading some of the papers in the Helping and
Ames book A Manlike Monsters on Trial, and I was
rereading this John Green paper in there called what is
the Sasquatch? And it was basically like an overview of
his first statistical analysis of the first like thousand plus
reports that he had aggregated, and it was presented. You know,
there was a conference at the University of British Columbia
in nineteen seventy eight, I think it was called the
Anthropology of the Unknown Sasquatch and Similar Phenomena, and then
a number of those papers were compiled into that book
edited by Helping and Ames, that was released in nineteen eighty.
So I was going back through that paper and in it,
you know, it's fairly brief, but Green lays out a
number of like bullet points almost, and I was like, oh,
this would be fun to go through those and see, like, well,
what is held up over time? What things would you
guys take issues with today now that it's twenty twenty six,
and you know, a lot's happened since Green's day and
since that initial thousand plus reports. So I thought maybe
we could go through that for the audience and see
what you guys think of them in contemporary context.
Speaker 2: Now, yeah, that sounds fun. Yeah yeah, I'm always happy
to give my two cents, even if it's only worth one.
Speaker 1: Let me pull up the paper here and I won't
read the whole preamble, but basically it says, you know,
there's a bit of an abstract. It's obviously written by
the editors. Is based on the study of more than
a thousand reported sightings of manlike monsters. This article presents
a statistical survey of the characteristics of the being seen
and of conditions under which they were cited, and Green
discusses a little bit of like preliminary information. Green basically says,
if such a creature does exist, a substantial proportion of
the reports involve genuine observations of it, and from them,
if they prove consistent, an accurate picture of it can
be drawn. It is my contention, based on the study
of approximately one thousand such reports, that a consistent picture
does exist, and that it is not the one which
is usually presented to the public. Reports portrayed not a
semi human, but an upright eight, not an endangered remnant
of a species, but an extremely widespread and secure population.
Not a fearful monster, but a remarkably inoffensive animal. So
maybe we could start with those points. You know, I
think all that's held up pretty true in terms of
what people actually report, Maybe not what all podcasters and
YouTube channels portray.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there's some like linguistic details that I might
take issue with. I'm okay with does not portray a
semi human, because humans a pretty squishy term at best,
I think, but an upright eight not an endangered remnant
of a species, but an extremely widespread and secure population,
Whereas I agree with the an extremely widespread and secure
population side of this, Like that statement I think is
in fact true, not an endangered remnant of a species endangered.
I don't think they're endangered remnant of a species. That's
where I am nitpicking here, because they are a remnant
of a species that was most likely wider spread at
some previous time. So that's my only complication I guess
with what mister Green wrote down.
Speaker 1: You know, you wouldn't think that if they were let's say,
the descendants of Paranthropus or the descendants of gigantic A.
The kiss or some clade thereof like that there would
be more of them now because they are more widespread
across Asia and North America and potentially Australia, you know,
wherever these things might be, rather than just the progenitor population.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but doesn't that make them the remnant of a species.
Speaker 1: Like a remnant would be what's left after the original populate,
like a smaller proportion of the original population. You know,
if I eat a whole pizza and I save you
one slice, that's the remnant of the pizza, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, I think that since we have a fair
number of fossils from Africa, that any other population would
be considered remnant species. I think that they are probably
more common in Africa, you know, like a million years
ago than they are in North America today, based on fossils,
because fossilization is such a rare event at all, and
the fact that we have a decent number of fossils,
not a ton, but a decent number of them from
Africa implies that there must have been just a ton
of them there. But then again, we're also looking at
a spanse of time that is incomprehensible, you know, by
humans who live, you know, eighty or ninety years.
Speaker 1: So certainly, so that's a minor quibble.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I've got plenty of minor quibbles. That's what
I do. Quibbl Barrickman.
Speaker 1: Like quibbo for so, before he goes into that sort
of like bullet point or the listed breakdown, he explains
a bit more. I have no way of knowing how
many reports about such creatures there may be, but from
North America alone, I have more than a thousand on file,
plus several hundred more concerning footprints of assume utable size
and shape. For the animal described. With such a volume
of reports, even allowing for the fact that an unknown
number of them are manufactured or mistaken, some validity must
be assumed for those attributes and actions that are frequently described,
and consideration should also be given to those that are
not described at all. There should be enough information to
tell us not only what the creature is, but also
what it is not. The following is a digest of
some of the significant points that I've been able to
glean from the careful study of the reports. And so
the first one just is like a general physical description
that I don't think any of us would Quipple with
too much, but he basically says that sasquatches are significantly
larger than humans, not only in height but in size
and mass, and statistically speaking, he says, the average of
all of the height estimates is more than seven and
a half feet. In California and Oregon the averages exceed
eight feet, and nowhere are they significantly less than seven feet.
Perhaps more significant is the heavy build described compared to
an average man. Fifty seven percent are described as quote
very heavy and thirty four percent as heavy, with only
six percent medium and three percent slim. So how do
you think those numbers bear out today with all the
additional tens of thousands likely of reports on file a
little shorter?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that we need to look at the
research done by Terrestrill, who is a guest on the show,
and others that suggests that the people exaggerate height in particular,
And you know, at the very least, people are terrible
observers as far as like numerically they overestimate height because
I think it's because it's such a number one. They
can see the mass of the creature and then they
falsely translate that into height. Versus mass. It is a
profound experience to see one of these things for any
length of time, and I think the weight of that
experience affects the weight and the size of the creature
as well. Basically boils down to I don't have a
lot of faith in people.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 2: There are observational skills and language skills, but I think
it's probably as Bobo said, exaggerated, oh certainly.
Speaker 3: Now he does mention.
Speaker 1: You know, small hairy bipeds are reported fairly frequently, but
only nine percent of the reports involved creatures described as
being smaller than man, basically smaller than humans. Nine percent correct,
so just under you know, ten percent, And I think
that would hold true because sightings of juveniles are still
pretty rare. I mean, they're out there, but it would
make sense to me that roughly one out of every
ten sidings is of a juvenile. Like I don't, I
would think that holds fairly true.
Speaker 2: To this day. Yeah, you have to wonder, like what
number of any population. I wonder if there's a standard
number or something like that in humans or apes or
you know, related species with like a low birth rate
sort of thing, what percent of any given population is
not adult sized at the very moment. You know, that'd
be an interesting avenue to go whole, I guess to
go jump down.
Speaker 1: It would be because it's such a short period of life.
But I do think as a general overview, that makes sense.
So his second bullet point is they are solitary creatures.
Only five percent of reports involved more than one individual
and only one percent involved more than two individuals.
Speaker 3: But audio report audio reports is way higher percent more
than one.
Speaker 1: Or these days, for sure. But I wonder if he
was restricting this to just visual sightings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, probably, Yeah, I don't, yeah, because they weren't really
into vocals back then. And also the audio reports, you
just don't know the size of the animal that's making
them because adult orangutans sound like what I would interpret
juveniles to sound like. So we just don't know, you know,
and listen to my shrieks and screams. You wouldn't think
that that was robust male specimen as I am. You
would think of some sort of like SaaS like girly
sasquatch or a juvenile Yeah, you know, yeah exactly, So
we vocal stuff. You really can't you can't rely on
that information at all because that is purely speculation. It's
not observation at all. You can say a high pitch,
you can prove that that is observation, but you cannot
speculate and interpret with any relied upon accuracy.
Speaker 1: I think, in my opinion, I would guess that when
he's doing this statistical analysis and saying only five percent
of reports involved more than one individual, he's talking about sightings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'd have to be.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if that number is still true
that Like, yes, we do find pairs of tracks in
terms of like maybe consort pairs or adult juvenile pairings.
Most of the time that I've heard things, whether it
was wood knocks or vocalizations or things of that nature,
there were two individuals making sounds back and forth or
on either side of us. But it wouldn't surprise me
if still only like five to maybe ten percent of
all reports involved seeing two sasquatches.
Speaker 2: Well, it left less than ten visual observations. Yes, but
that doesn't mean that they're not more sasquatch around. Oh.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 2: Track finds are I think tell a better story, a
more accurate version of the story at least, and by
and large, probably about half the time that there are
tracks found, whether it's stuff that I'm finding, or the
Blue Mountain or the Bluff Creek or any of those stuff,
there's generally more than one individual in the area based
on track finds. Now, as far as them being solitary,
I guess we start equivalent again, because what does solitary mean.
Solitary might mean that they're generally alone, they can't see
another individual in their line of sight, right, But at
the same time, does that mean, like if one is
two hundred yards away and they occasionally keep in contact
via knox or other audio clues, that they are not solitary,
Or what if, like an animal walks through an area
and then in the next hour and a half or
two hours, another one walks through in that same general area,
doing the same path because it's some sort of social
arrangement or social behavior that they have, does that mean
solitary even though they're both both the sasquatches are aware
of the other one's presence, you know, in time, I suppose, So,
I don't know. I think we run into issues about
what does this actually mean for this particular species, because
it is a fact, at least that I interpret, you know,
I'm not saying that I'm interpreting correctly, but I think
I am obviously. But it is a fact that I
interpret multiple individuals in the same general area based on
their footprints. Whether or not they're at the same time,
I don't know that, but they're kind of close because
the footprints are deteriorated at approximately the same amount. So
I don't know. So I don't think that. I don't
think they're as solitary as a lot of people do.
I think that they are very commonly close by, within
a few hundred yards of other animals of the same
species doing whatever they do, and they coordinate and use
each other's positions and whatever else to their advantage, you know,
whether it's hunting down prey or whether it's foraging, you know,
bugs at a you know, rotting ceedar stumps or whatever.
You know.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I also, like I understand why Green
would come to that conclusion at that time, But I
still I would not be surprised if that number, if
those numbers still didn't bear out in terms of strictly
visual observations that only this small number involved more than one,
and an even smaller number involved more than two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they had a much smaller database at this particular time.
And also Green wasn't exactly a field guy. You know,
he did a did field work, don't get me wrong,
but he's not doing like He's not going out like
I kind of kind of consider myself a field guy, right.
I go out at least once a week and walk roads,
whether I know there's anything there or not. My impression
of John Green, even though I know he went to
the woods of fair Amount, is that he largely got
his sasquatch data by following up on reports and in
which case, and a lot of this is going to
be observational visual data that he's relying these conclusions on.
You know, stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with
Cliff and Bobo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 1: His next bullet point that he touches on, he says
their hairiness is of the animal, not the human sort.
Only eight percent of observers thought the hair was longer
on the head than elsewhere on the animal, and descriptions
of long head hair or of bodies only partially covered
with hair do not constitute even one percent. I think
that holds up pretty true.
Speaker 3: Well, there's a lot of people that say the hair
was patchy on the chest and the ribs and they
could see the skin Like he's saying, that's that's that's
only one percent.
Speaker 1: Well, what he's describing is it's probably harkening back to,
you know, those early representations where people picture them as
having like long flowing hair, almost like the stereotypical representation
of like an indigenous person. Yeah, and so he's saying, like, well,
they don't seem to have like very very long head hair.
You know, only eight percent of observers thought the hair
was long, longer on the head than elsewhere on the animal,
and then subsequently saying descriptions of long head hair or
of bodies only partially covered with hair, so not just patchy,
but like there's only hair in certain places and the
rest of his bear. So those don't even constitute one percent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would definitely hear him, though, I think that
kind of holds up, although one witness kind of stands out,
and I don't think he's necessarily contradicting any of this.
But one dude I spoke to in Washington outside of Woodland,
he'saw the thing of a number of times, actually over
a number of years in the same general area, and
he told me that it was hairy all over, but
you can see through the hair, So I don't think
that's really what mister Green was discussing here. There are
other issues, so I don't know it comes down to
language again. But yeah, as far as like partially covered,
like hair was only on the shoulders but not on
the chest, Yeah, we don't really hear about that. There's
more or less uniformly covered in hair. Whether or not
that hair is as thick in some places as others, well,
that's different. That's a different question perhaps. Uh.
Speaker 1: His next bullet point, he says the proportions of their
lambs are more human like than ape like compared to
a human and in relation to the general build, leg
length is noted as medium in fifty five percent of
descriptions and arm length as medium in fifty percent. I
could see where he would arrive at that statement, because
you know, obviously guerrilla's champs and ranks have much much
longer arms than they do legs, and so since sasquatches
would be a bit closer in the lenks, although certainly
not equal at least based on the few bits of
multimedia of visual evidence that we have. But yeah, if
you were picking between quote unquote human like than ape like,
i e. The other apes, I can see where he
would come to write that particular statement. But yeah, I
think that should be rewarded for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah at this point, I mean because all the
other apes like orangutan's, chimpanzees and gorillas, they'll have an
i am an intermentbal index of over one. You know, basically,
their arms are longer than their legs, like one point
eight or something like that, so one hundred and eight
percent the length of their legs or something, which is
a very noticeable divergence from humans who have an intermemberable
index of about points or seventy to one and seventy
two somewhere in there. So seventy percent the length of
their legs and their arms are seventy percent seventy plus
percent of the length of leaves Sasquatches based on the
PG film, and only the PG film, which is squishy
at best, have an intermemble index of about eight and
a half or eight eighty five, you know, zero point
eighty five I should say eighty five approximately, give or
take a little bit. So it is longer than in humans.
But is it so much longer that it's visually in
your face? I don't think so. I don't think so.
And there's also been some work I guess on the
cruel index, which I think is the length like something
to do with the legs versus like the top part
of the legs versus the bottom part of the legs.
I don't know. There's other indices that have been measured
by Bill Munns and others that show that these things
are absolutely outside the human realm in that sort of way.
But these are I think, maybe nitpicky or at lesa
minute enough that they're not visually apparent. They're not like
grossly in your face, like the arm length of the
other apes, for example, like that that's just in your
face and you can't ignore it. But the sasquatch stuff
is close enough, and especially when it's walking on two
legs versus the other apes, like it's just so clearly
apparent that like, oh, that's a human like build, you
probably would notice a ten percent or so different in percentage,
you know, of the arm length versus leg length. I
don't think that would stand out to you. So moving
on with more statistical analyzes of physical description. He says,
from the shoulders up there is less resemblance to the
average human. Shoulders are termed wide in more than ninety
percent of descriptions, seventy percent of necks are short, and
twenty five percent have no neck. Flat faces, large flat noses,
sloped foreheads, and brow ridges are noted in nearly all
descriptions resulting from close observation.
Speaker 1: That's definitely held up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't have any issue with any of those things.
Speaker 3: That's pretty uh well accepted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And as far as their general build, I think
one of the most descriptive wordings that I've heard that
really drove it home for me is that these things
are basically as tall and wide as a sheet of plywood. Yeah,
you know, and that's kind of how I pictured it,
because you know, their heads are a little bit lower
on the body, like the shoulders might maybe maybe the
shoulders right higher higher rather, but maybe the heads are lower.
It doesn't matter. But the result is a piece of
plywood is basically what you're looking at.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm, yeah, like a big rectangle. I've heard people
describe it like a refrigerator. You know, it's just a
big refrigerator standing.
Speaker 3: There, Yeah, side by side.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: I love this next one because there's like this weird
little dig at oron Strassenberg in there. Even though they
were friends and colleagues, he says they are omnivorous. Gordon
Strassenberg described such animals as herbivorous, but that cannot be supported.
Of sixty four reports that I had by nineteen seventy
seven mentioning things apparently taken or carried for food, exactly
half involved some form of meat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, again, and I think that's I think that's solid.
I would strongly argue against herbivorous in any sort of way,
especially from the foraging sign that I have personally observed
in the woods.
Speaker 1: Ye always think it's interesting to follow people's journeys because
I remember the points at which the reports of them
ambushing ungulates really started to captivate me and made me
think about what kind of evolutionary pressures, you know, the
need for that kind of protein, What those pressures would
result in, what adaptations, And thinking about, oh, well, if
there's a certain percentage of their lifestyle that's dependent on
ambush predation, And then going back and seeing sort of
like Archie Buckley's journey with that, Keith Foster and Colorado's
journey with that, and Matt Moneymakers, you know, and there
was a great researcher and witness who used to post
a lot on the Bigfoot forums that I got to know.
I think he's still fairly anonymous. He had a lot
of great things to say along those same lines. So
a lot of people sort of converge on that almost independently.
So I do think, like that's inextricable that, you know,
you can't remove this sort of hunting behavior from these
things wherever they occur in North America. And I wondered
to what degree other people were sort of pushing this
like gentle quote unquote like vegetarian so to speak at
that time. But I did think it was odd because
I don't remember whether or not Strasenburg presented at that
conference or if he had a paper. He might have
had a paper in that book. I'd have to go
revisit the book. But when I was rereading this, I
was like, that's kind of weird that he that included
that as a line in this paper. Hey, this one
guy says this, but it can't be supported, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now you spoke to Gordon Strassenburg, didn't you.
Speaker 1: I did, Yeah, I mean it literally spoke to him
or at him. I'd been trying to track him down
and eventually found a phone number because I was looking
for some He self published a book I think called
Paranthropists Once in Future Brother was the name of the book,
and he was arguing for Paranthropists as the you know,
progenitor genius of the Sasquatch. And I couldn't find it anywhere.
And then I found some other older papers that he
had written and submitted that were published in places, and
the sort of back and forth between him and Dmitriy
Bayanov and other researchers of that day. And I found
a phone number and called, and I think he was
in the kind of late stages of decline, and so
I spoke to his caretaker, and she was very nice,
and she was like, he can definitely hear you, and
he's definitely cognizant, and he can hear you and understand you.
He just can't speak. So I just expressed a lot
of gratitude for the work that I was able to find,
and that I thought his ideas and thoughts were very interesting,
and you know, he's featured briefly in that Sasquatch Odyssey documentary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so anytime I ever seen his picture.
Speaker 1: There's another talk of his that's on a like a
two disc DVD set I got. Do you remember that?
Speaker 2: It has like a brown cover.
Speaker 1: I think it's called Sasquatch Science or something like that,
and it's from Sun conference and it's like a few
It's like film with a camquarterer basically of a few
people on stage. I think Meldram's presentation is in it,
and a few people. But there is a presentation from
Gordon Strassenburg in there.
Speaker 2: Hmm, No, I don't know that one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in one of his old papers. I think it
might have been about Parantipis as a candidate, or making
the argument that what is seen in the Patterson film
is the descendant of Parantipus. But at the bottom it
said Gordon Strassenberg. I think the address was nine to
twelve Duvall Street in Key West, And you know, Emily
and I go to Key West often and Duvall's the
sort of main strip there. So I went to nine
to twelve, if I'm remembering the number correct, I went
to the number on the paper, took a picture of
it and sent it to you. I was like, Eh,
Gordon Strassenberg used to live here.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's cool.
Speaker 1: But I did get to speak to him, and you know,
he was sort of emoting, like, you know, he was
making sounds, but he just couldn't articulate speech. But his
caretaker was adamant, like, no, he can understand you, and
he seems very happy that you're calling and that you're
interested in this.
Speaker 3: So that was nice.
Speaker 2: Oh that is nice. Well, that's cool.
Speaker 1: So the next bullet point, he says they are largely nocturnal,
in spite of the fact that there are far more
human observers around in the daytime and that humans see
very poorly at night. Almost half of the sightings reporting
have been at night. The time when tracks were made
is not generally known, but when it has been, almost
ninety percent have been made at night.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. I
think they're a little bit more active at night, don't
Although I wouldn't write off daytime. I know a lot
of people who see these things either at like in
the middle of the day or you know, at the
end of the day. A lot of people aren't up
at the beginning of the day, but that also happens
as well, So.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would think, you know, the first person that
turned me on to the term cathemerl was Dennis Fole
when he was describing what they were observing and experiencing
there at the Rickson Project site in Kentucky. And I
think I think Ian Tattersall coined that term cathemerality basically
describes periods of activity punctuated by periods of rest off
and on through a twenty four hour cycle. Activity like
up and down and up and down, regardless of day
or night. And there's many many animals that are now
being like recategorized as cathemeral, especially with the advent of
things like game cameras, because you could imagine back in
the day when your wildlife biologists field observers, we were
very limited technologically, and so we saw most things during
the day or you know, heard certain things at night
and thought they were restricted those times. And then you
put out game cameras that are functioning twenty four to
seven and you realize, like, no bears are active in
the heat in the middle of the day and in
the middle of the night, and you know, a lot
of other animals fall into that category. But yeah, I
would guess that as it relates to humans, maybe they're
more active around humans at night than they would be
during the daytime, Like they would be bolder about approaching properties,
are stepping onto properties, or coming closer to homes, et cetera,
crossing roads at night than they would be during the day.
Even if activity were equal during daylight hours and nighttime hours,
maybe activity close to humans is higher during nighttime hours.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they could very well choose it, just like like
thieves and the military, you know, choose those same nocturnal
cycles to do their dirty work.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Bobo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 1: This one I definitely disagree with, and I think you
guys will too. He says they're not active in cold
weather everywhere except in Florida. There are only half as
many reports in winter as in summer or fall, and
tracks are rarely found in snow. Less than nine percent
of the reports, including tracks and sidings mentioned snow. Oddly,
there are also few reports in spring and consist less
in May than in April. At my most recent count out,
of eight hundred and four siding in track reports for
which a specific month was known, only thirty nine were
in May, compared to fifty three in April and fifty
six in June. There were forty two in each of February.
In March, leaving out Florida reports, there were thirty six
in February, thirty seven in March, and thirty seven in May.
Speaker 2: I think he'd have to look at the locals that
he's specifically speaking about, you know, like where are they
popping up in these surroundings these shoulder months, like you
know Mity says there's more in April than in May,
for example, where are the locations and what is going
on there at the time. Because I don't think cold
matters much to them. I mean, they lived in Alaska,
for God's sake, right, and then they lived there all
year round doing whatever they do, so cold doesn't matter.
And also I'd like to point out that cold for
us does not mean cold for them. I know money
Maker was very very focused in on where the warm
currents were going, and I think they does play some
role in their behavi But I will also say that
I think it's a safe bet that Matt Moneymaker's perception
of comfort is not the same as a sasquatch.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you made the great point that cold
is different to them than it is to us, and
I think that's what you see reflected in the reports,
is that there are a fewer of us out in
the cold, especially if you know, Green was focused on BC, Oregon, Washington,
northern California surrounding areas. It's like a lot of those
roads are impassable and inaccessible in the winter. So there's
so many factors that would keep people from seeing sasquatches,
even if they were just as active during the winter
as they are in other months. You know, there's a
lot of things that would reduce the number of human
observers and therefore reduce the number of reports. So I'm
kind of surprised that he didn't reference that here because
I think in other places he did have the caveat that, like, well,
maybe this just has to do with reduced human activity,
But in this paper he certainly doesn't have that. He says,
you know, quote, they are not active in cold weather,
which I think is erroneous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, winter's the best time for us, you know,
and probably because it gives us the best tracking, which is,
you know, it could be considered a human factor. You
know what idem is the best tracking, you know, But
winter is our best time. We find more tracks and
more movement and more recent tracks during the wintertime that
we do any other time of year. And maybe it's
because of just the tracking and I can see the footprints,
but maybe it's not. Maybe they are moving around at
least in those zones. But we find tracks all throughout
the summer as well, but at a different elevation. Is all. So,
I don't know. I disagree with this one. I think
it's a human factor and it's as simple as that.
Speaker 1: Same here and then the final bullet point in this section,
he says sasquatches make considerable use of water. I have
six reports of tracks ending in bodies of deep water,
five reports of sasquatch is swimming, and a dozen of
them standing or walking in bodies of water. In one
survey I did, of two hundred and eighty nine track reports,
eighty three were beside water. Of twenty eight reports located
near towns in four states east of the Continental Divide,
seventy one percent of the towns were right beside a
stream or lake large enough to be shown on an
ordinary road map. A sample consisting of all the towns
and two counties chosen at random in each of those
states indicated that on average, only fifty one percent of
towns were beside water.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, because I think this is very reasonable, you know,
with some caveats and quibbling, quiffling. The sasquatch is unlike
I think the other ape species. And again, if I'm incorrect,
let me know Listeners or Matt or Bobbo or anybody.
I think that most of the other ape species don't
drink water. They get their liquid needs through the plants
they eat, like deer do for example, you know, or whatever.
If there's like cupping of hands and drinking out of water,
it's got to be pretty minimal, I think, because I
believe that's the case with the other ape species. But
sasquatches have been observed numerous times cupping their hands and
drinking out of water sources like creeks and stuff. So
I do think that a lot of their life is
cruising along waterways. But that's also a point of quibbling,
I guess, because the tracks I find are almost never
in the actual creek bed. They're always ten, fifteen, twenty
fifty yards up from the creek bed, so they seem
to be associating themselves with the waterways for whatever reasons.
Maybe it's edible plants, maybe it's other animals that are
taking a badge of the water or something I don't know,
but almost never actually in the creek itself, So there's that.
So I don't know how to figure that one out,
because they do seem to be near water, but I
wouldn't say they're exactly in the water from what I've
seen now. Of course, John Green has list these reports
of them standing in the water and stuff, so he
has data that I do not, But based on my
general observations, they're near water more than they're in water.
Very few tracks actually in the creek bed.
Speaker 1: So I think the other big difference between these apes
and other apes is that, at least as we see
it reflected in North American reports. I guess another in
Asia as well, but mostly North America is just the
amount of activity it happens on the coast and like
exploiting coastal resources.
Speaker 2: Yeah, lots of it, of course. I mean I've literally
been standing on the rim of the Pacific Ocean, fishing
for redtail surf perch in the Redwoods of northern California.
The end, the waves are coming in, they are going
up to my knees and all that stuff fishing in
the water. To the left of me, fifty yards away,
some wave comes in and deposits a live crab on
the beach, just boom, right there, a dungeon iss crab,
the kind you would go to the store and buy
for however much money a pound, right there on the beach.
It's like, yeah, the ocean is a never ending cornicopia
of food items, whether it's the stuff that is constantly
deposited the sand, crabs are inches beneath your feet, help
on the shores. It's just a buffet, a literal buffet,
all the time. And certainly sasquatches are privuted at I mean,
every time I go to gold Bluff Beach in the
Redwoods in California, I see elk right there in the sand.
So why wouldn't sasquatches be doing it too?
Speaker 1: And maybe if they did somehow distribute their population from
whether they originated in Africa and had to move across
the levant into Eurasia and then across Asia into North America,
or even if they just originated in Asia and moved
into North America, that at some point that evolutionary history
there was a significant amount of time that was predicated
or at least required the acquisition of coastal resources. And
maybe that's the driving factor that made these things a
lot more aquatic friendly than the other extant apes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it had something to do with the
flexibility of intelligence and being as smart as the other
ape species, if not a lot smarter. So they're adaptable,
you know, as the adaptable survived. This's the ones who
can adapt that go extinct, and sasquatches seem to be
doing a pretty good job at stand alive. And it
certainly has something to do with their intelligence level.
Speaker 1: So the next section sort of describes that all of
those foregoing observations involve substantial numbers of reports, although the
numbers vary from several hundred down to a few dozen.
There are, in addition, a number of significant observations that
have only been reported a few times, the first of
which is the only time sasquatches have been reported sleeping.
They were in the open, although it was snowing and
there were trees close by. And I have heard modern
reports to that effect. Well, there's a couple I think
even from Kentucky that come to mind that Dennis related
to me.
Speaker 2: I've only heard one report of them sleeping personally. Yeah,
I spoke to a tribal cop on the Akima res
who came upon this saying sleeping, and he got maybe
fifty or seventy five yards from it because he recognized
what it was and beking Akima dude, he goes, oh
my god, I know exactly what that is. I'm not
going to mess with it. But he watched it, and
the thing was just sitting, just sitting on the slight slope,
apparently sitting upright, not cross legged or anything, nothing like that,
but like sitting upright, nonetheless sleeping, And he watched it
for a bit, and I guess and I'd have to
go check out this report on it. Actually, I think
he watched it for a bit and then he just
left because, yeah, I'm not going to mess with that.
So that's the only one that I have personally heard.
Should we mention the nests, because we don't know what
nests are for at this point, but there are indications
that they rest in these nests, So if they are
sleeping out in the open, maybe that's just the only
time they've been observed, because these nests aren't exactly an
easily observable locations.
Speaker 1: No, I think that's a great point, because I'm sure
they take those periods of rest if they're truly cathemral,
you know, off and on throughout the day at night,
and they're going to do that in pretty safe, defensible places,
and maybe occasionally in the open if the open provide
some kind.
Speaker 3: Of safe place to go.
Speaker 1: Back to Greens quote, he said something about it was
snowing and there were trees close by. One of the
things that Dennis had related to me, if I'm remembering
it correctly, was after I think kind of a big
snowstorm had rolled through like an overnighter, finding a place
in the morning where all the snow had been brushed
away down to just the bare earth underneath, and there
was this big spot where something had just laid as
if like out kind of in the semi open, but
just laid there on the ground through a whole snowstorm.
And then after it stopped snowing, got up and walked away,
which you think, man, that's a pretty brutal lifestyle if
you have to do that occasionally. So that's the big
one that comes to mind. But yeah, if they're usually
sleeping in thick vegetation, you know, like Shane described, like
it's like the walls of a house and you have
to step into the house and find the right room
to stumble on the nest, then yeah, you wouldn't expect
many people to observe that now.
Speaker 2: And there's a couple of Blue Mountain nests that there's
photographs something, but not a written description or anything like that,
and the photograph indicator and actually Krantz actually wrote a
little bit about it, but he didn't have much information.
In his book The Big of Sasquatch Evidence, he comments
at a place where the toll Gate track was recovered
out of Tollgate Organ nearby there was a place in
the meadow where it looked like something about eight feet
tall had laid down and rolled back and forth a
few times or whatever. And there's I think I believe
there are pictures of that in the Freeman photo album.
There's certainly pictures of something that matches that description, but
we don't have dates and you know, that's not one
of the puzzle pieces I've been able to confidently piece
back into the puzzle yet, But that's what I think
is represented in those photographs. But and I guess a meadow,
you know, like tall grass, like three or four foot
tall grass, that's plenty obscured, you know, but it is
also in the open. So which way do you want
to go with it? Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and
Beyond with Cliff and Bogo will be right back after
these met sages.
Speaker 1: This next bullet point, I think you see a little
bit of his West Coast sort of bias shining through.
He says, I have six reports of running Sasquatches being
clocked by.
Speaker 3: People in cars.
Speaker 1: Speeds reported were thirty five, forty five, fifty to sixty,
seventy and eighty miles per hour. None of these reports
were from west of the Continental Divide, and I have
not talked to any of the informants, So he's kind
of implying that, like, only crazy people in the east
claim that their sasquatch is running seventy and eighty miles
an hour.
Speaker 3: You never know. I mean, I've talked to plenty people
have seen them, running like forty five plus.
Speaker 1: Isn't there a famous like multi witness siding from one
of the interstates in Washington where like multiple cars saw
it and it and it ran fairly quickly.
Speaker 3: Was it like was it on the coming through the Gorge?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: I mean coming down Columbia right? I think it was
right there.
Speaker 2: There are reports sasquatches on the eighty four and the
general vicinity of Multnomah Falls.
Speaker 1: I just remember from either the late nineties or early
two thousands, there was a report of multiple motorists that
saw a sasquatch. I can't remember his daytime or nighttime,
but you know, there were multiple people unconnected to each
other except for they were all in traffic around the
same time and saw this thing and it was running,
you know, like over forty miles an hour or something
like that, if I'm remembering correctly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but yeah, I'd love for a bunch of like
interviews on other podcasts where people talk about getting chased
and like this. So they didn't they didn't really leave
it behind until they got going like fifty plus and
then they pulled away.
Speaker 1: So maybe that one hasn't changed too much, because again,
this is the category of reports that he says that
are significant but have only been reported a few times.
This one, I think we would definitely amplify nowadays, he says,
I have six reports of sasquatches shaking or hitting vehicles,
five of them jumping on vehicles, and five of them
pushing at or damage buildings. I think that number is
going way up.
Speaker 3: It's way up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, particularly the building's part, I would imagine. Oh yeah,
I don't really hear reports of them like lifting up
cars and all that kind of stuff like they did
back in the seventies very often. I don't know if
that was a horror movie trope that got picked up
by witnesses who were scared or what.
Speaker 1: But definitely like the shaking of vehicles, oh for sure,
you know, because there's so many great observations that people
have had from part vehicles, and oftentimes they are like
probing or testing the vehicle and pushing it or something
like that. But to your point, yeah, the quote pushing
at or damaging buildings, that's that's a lot more. That's
a lot higher than kind of surprising that at that
time Green said he only had five reports of that
nature in seventy eight, when this paper was presented. He says,
I have eight reports of sasquatches seen to throw things
at people without hitting anyone, and seventeen of them chasing
people without catching anyone. Five people have reported being rush
in what appeared to be a bluffing action. Reports of
sasquatches looking in the windows of houses and even vehicles
are fairly common, but it's far more usual for a
sasquatch encountering a human to leave, often hurriedly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I agree with all that. It's that
I'm a little surprised that the numbers are so low,
like eight reports of things being thrown. Of course, then again,
maybe that's just observations of the sasquatch throwing, which is
entirely different than having things thrown at you in the
woods and thinking or knowing or whatever that a sasquatch
is responsible. Those are entirely dehoot different things, of course,
you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, He says.
Speaker 1: Three people have reported being grabbed at while in their vehicles,
and four have reported being picked up and dropped, but
none have been much hurt. All reports of people being
killed by sasquatches, of which I have seven have been
very indirect or very old, usually both. There are perhaps
a dozen reports of sasquatches being seen to kill animals,
but I have never been able to talk to any eyewitness.
Kind of surprises so high, actually, because I I have
reports of two people being picked up by sasquatches that
I've I've spoken to directly, well, one for sure, and
I think there's another one I can't remember who that is,
one that I remember speaking to, and another who I
can't remember the details of it. I feel like I have,
but I'm so I'm surprised that he has so many
at such an early date.
Speaker 3: And eli from small town monsters. He got grabbed by
one for that a few times. I reached it through
a tent and grabbing their leg and just squeezing it. Yank.
Speaker 2: You have a very but no one that I'm aware of,
at least who has had that happen has seen the sasquatch.
And I'm not saying a bigfoot didn't do it, but
it's hard to say one did, even though like you
kind of run out of options like bears don't do that,
and deer don't do that and stuff. But at the
same time, to be very grounded in the claim, you
do have to acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised he only had quote perhaps a dozen reports
of sasquatches being seen to kill animals, and that he
hadn't been able to talk to those eyewitnesses, because you know,
I've talked to several I know both of you guys have,
And it wasn't too long afterwards that Jim Huckin, you know,
when he started publishing those field reports, he would include observations,
And there's two of them that I used in my
presentation from last year. One was from the Malala River
drainage and one was from Montana, from two different hunters
that he spoke to who watched a sasquatch ambush and
kill deer. In both of those cases, well one might
have been an elk who want to do I think
they were both deer, but in any case, so there's
plenty of that to go around. But I guess at
this point he only had a dozen reports and had
not spoken directly to anyone who'd actually claimed to see it.
So that's certainly gone up a lot since then.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 1: Reports specifically identifying females and young are very rare. I
have only nine substantial and specific descriptions of females and
only three of young animals seen with adults. I think
that so holds pretty true.
Speaker 2: It's rarer, but it's not unheard of, and I would
imagine that well, clearly only three of young animals seen
with adults. That's gone up dramatically. John Green was early
on saying this because the numbers are have just skyrocketed.
I mean, there's lots and lots and lots of observations
of sasquatches with a younger one in toe, maybe not
a three or four footer, but sometimes a five footer
with a larger six or seven footer or something. But
there's lots of them who have been seen with another
one of two different sizes. So I think that that's
a little outdated, but otherwise pretty good.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I just I think that reports specifically identifying females and
young are very rare because I was trying to think
about all the reports that have taken in North Georgia,
like if you were trying to identify core areas, for example,
and you wanted to have clear evidence like well, there
was definitely female seen around here, and without going back
through all the notes, just going from memory and certain
things online like I I can't think of anywhere someone
described like clearly seeing mammary glands. Now there are some
of like smaller individual's juveniles, but so yeah, like the
female sidings are still pretty rare comparatively.
Speaker 2: Well, And I am of the opinion this, I this
is pure speculation. I don't think that that there their
boobs are big all the time. I really don't. I mean,
I think that females are more accurately identified by size
my height, for example, and yeah, and then perhaps shaped too. Yeah,
but I don't. I don't think their memory glands are
always engorged, like and.
Speaker 3: Are the ones that stay let's stay like that all
the other species are they're not. If they're not black
hitting any shrink back up and go up in the
chess like, you can't really tell that they have them. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So if you don't have a sasquatch with a sizeable rack, like,
how are you supposed to know?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be the only visual queue.
Speaker 2: If the breasts are not engorged, and they're fairly flat
chested or flasted or whatever for most of the year,
or most for several years in a row, perhaps how
are we supposed to know? And we don't know if
that's the case of sasquatches, and I would I'm not
going to argue that that's the case, but I would
argue that we should at least keep that possibility in mind.
We just don't really know enough about these things yet
to say much about but we have a podcast about it,
so we have to. So.
Speaker 1: The last observation that he offers here in the category
things that that are significant but only been reported a
few times, he says, one observer has reported two incidents
in which it seemed that a sasquatch did not have
an opposable thumb, or at least did not use it
in that way. I have no specific report of a
sasquatch using the thumb.
Speaker 3: In opposition, a lot of people say that when they've
found where they broke trees and stuff, or they saw them,
you know, everything ground and breaking something, they all five
fingers are on this same side of the branch a
lot of usually.
Speaker 2: But I also have reports that show that they're on
opposite sides, which shows a remarkable versatility in the thumb.
And that's also, in my opinion, substantiated very well by
the handprint evidence. I think that it's an option for them,
like they if you look at your thumb, like you
spread your fingers out as wide as possible right in
front of you right now, their hand looks similar. The
thumb doesn't bend the same way. Like if you curl
your thumb, it kind of goes across the palm at
say forty five degree angle from the plane of the palm.
You know, very approximately. Everybody's a little bit different. Theirs
would go more directly in the ground, as if they
lifted the butt of their palm up that and therefore,
if you flexed the one joint in your thumb, it
would go more directly in the ground. That's how there's
roles more so more of the time than ours. But
that gives them flexibility. I do have reports of them
grabbing things with all five fingers all on the same
s side of the tree or whatever, wrapping around the
same direction. But I also have reports of them grabbing
it in a more or less human fashion, which does
not mean they have a more or less human thumb anatomy.
That just means that at that particular point, at that
particular with that particular grasp, they did it that way.
But it just shows a versatility one author actually who
wrote a book, not a bad book in general, but
their argument about that thumb is that there's no way
it could be done because the thumb, you know, blah
blah blah, wouldn't function well and it would serve as
a hindrance and all this other stuff. It was the
thinking of that author that was inflexible, not the usage
of the thumb, because the thumb can move back and forth,
just like your pointer finger can wiggle back and forth
along the same plane pretty dramatically, you know, up to
like thirty or forty degrees or more. I think the
thumb can do it probably forty five or even maybe
sixty degrees on a sasquatch, but always bending in that
same plane. So the thumb is very very interesting difference,
I guess, in between sasquatches and humans and how they
use it.
Speaker 1: That is the end of that section of the paper,
and there's a couple of other sections that maybe we
could talk about. On the member section. There's a really
interesting one where he says, like, here's a number of
things about sasquatches that seem to me to be significant
because they have never been reported. So I think that'd
be fun to go through to see if there are
any reports that you guys or any of us have
heard they contradict that, and then there's a bit of
like closing thoughts, you know, a few different key points
that emerge.
Speaker 3: So maybe we can do that on the.
Speaker 1: Member section and then get to some of the overflow
Q and A questions from the pigeons as well.
Speaker 2: Sounds good to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, well yeah, let's go see the pige
well run Patreon. Okay, fellos, Well, thanks for tuning in listening.
We appreciate it. Hit hit, share, and until next week,
y'all keep it squatchy.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot End Beyond.
If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's an N in the middle,
and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Bigfoot and Beyond.