Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo. These guys
Speaker 1: a favorites, so like to say, subscribe and rade it.
Speaker 2: Five Stock and me.
Speaker 1: Greatest gone Yesterday and listening watch limb always keep it squatching.
Speaker 3: And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman and James Bobo Fay.
Speaker 4: Hey, squatch get hears is Cliff here? And of course
Speaker 4: you're listening to Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and very
Speaker 4: often Bobo. We just got a message from Bobo a
Speaker 4: few minutes ago saying to start without him. So hopefully
Speaker 4: whatever he's got going, he will get it together and
Speaker 4: join us in just a few minutes or in a
Speaker 4: few dozens of minutes, or perhaps even in this very broadcast,
Speaker 4: and perhaps not because it is Bobo after all, and
Speaker 4: we all love him for these reasons. AnyWho, we're gonna
Speaker 4: hop into our guest here, our guest today. Is he
Speaker 4: really kind of a man who wears many, many hats,
Speaker 4: and all of them look good on him. He's articulate,
Speaker 4: he's intelligent. He has a whole slew of podcast. Man,
Speaker 4: I've got one podcast and I don't I barely have
Speaker 4: time to do that. But this guy's got like three
Speaker 4: or four. His name's Micah Hanks. His main podcast is
Speaker 4: the Micah Hanks Program. I don't know where he got
Speaker 4: came up with that name. He also has Sasquatch tracks,
Speaker 4: purely Bigfoot sort of thing, and some archaeological stuff called
Speaker 4: Seven Ages podcasts. He is all over the place, and
Speaker 4: we are going to be talking about Bigfoot today. We're
Speaker 4: gonna be talking about his other interests, and we're also
Speaker 4: gonna be talking about u aps. In other words, UFO's
Speaker 4: some of my favorite acronyms. So we're gonna be talking
Speaker 4: to him today about this sort of thing because it's
Speaker 4: been all over the news, and from what I understand,
Speaker 4: I want to get this clarified for Mike himself, and
Speaker 4: we'll get to that in the minute. From what I understand,
Speaker 4: the reason it's all over the news is directly because
Speaker 4: of Micah. So Micah, welcome to Bigfoot and Beyond with
Speaker 4: Cliff and sometimes Bobo.
Speaker 2: Cliff, how are you, sir? Long time no Sea. I
Speaker 2: was very pleased to have, of course be able to
Speaker 2: spend some time with you up there in Ohio. Recently
Speaker 2: said Bobo isn't here yet, hoping he will come stumbling
Speaker 2: in soon, but again. We've got a great conversation in
Speaker 2: store and on TAT today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's going to be fine. We have to do
Speaker 4: this every once in a while because Bobo is Bobo
Speaker 4: and man. And you know what, It's funny, Mike. I
Speaker 4: was telling you before we came on the air that,
Speaker 4: you know, I came down to this COVID thing again,
Speaker 4: and I've had all this slew of bad luck. I
Speaker 4: won't go too much into it, but you know, it's
Speaker 4: like like my bank account was hacked briefly, and then
Speaker 4: I had to miss some opportunities filming with Discovery Channel
Speaker 4: because of my illness. And it's just like one thing
Speaker 4: after another after another, and I'm thinking, what in the
Speaker 4: world happened to me? And then I looked back and
Speaker 4: I said, oh, you know what, I know exactly what
Speaker 4: it is. I hung out with Bobo and apparently his
Speaker 4: chaos is contagious.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, the other thing too, I think is you know,
Speaker 2: and I realized this early on after I met you, Cliff,
Speaker 2: you and I have a whole lot more in common
Speaker 2: than just sasquatch. We're also really busy guys who travel
Speaker 2: a lot, and busy guys who were travel a lot
Speaker 2: who try I have a lot seem to have these
Speaker 2: kinds of things follow them. I suppose now, if sasquatch
Speaker 2: only would become as evident and follow us as often
Speaker 2: as these kind of calamities, I guess we'd all have
Speaker 2: this figured out, wouldn't we.
Speaker 4: Something like that, something like yeah, probably, Yeah, we're also
Speaker 4: extraordinarily intelligent and good looking.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well indeed, yes, thank you sir, And that certainly
Speaker 2: applies to you so well. Listen, sorry to hear that
Speaker 2: you got COVID, and I really appreciate you making time
Speaker 2: for the conversation day in spite of that, and like
Speaker 2: we mentioned, they're in the intro. Of course, you've been
Speaker 2: talking about the UAP thing. The kind of cool relationship
Speaker 2: to all of that and everything that people have been
Speaker 2: hearing about in the news recently is that you and
Speaker 2: I were together when a lot of that was still
Speaker 2: in the kind of behind the scenes stage, which is
Speaker 2: kind of cool. So we kind of have a unique
Speaker 2: relationship there too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was the seth breedlove gig A monster what
Speaker 4: was it called? Monster something, monster Fest? Monster Fest.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I'm not good at these names. I'm not good at
Speaker 4: people's names or event names. I kind of know where
Speaker 4: I'm going, but yeah, the one out there in Ohio.
Speaker 4: You and I got the right, got our rides to
Speaker 4: and from the airport and whatnot, and you're back there
Speaker 4: busily texting and apparently you're texting about all this stuff
Speaker 4: because it was going to drop in the next couple
Speaker 4: of days.
Speaker 2: That's true. Yeah, now I can talk about it. And also,
Speaker 2: you know, I'll just say this just because since you mentioned,
Speaker 2: of course for your subscribers, some of the sites you've
Speaker 2: gone out to and some of the footprints you've been finding,
Speaker 2: let me go ahead and state for the record, I
Speaker 2: am now of a mind having seen some of the
Speaker 2: photos from those locations. Cliff has shared some of these
Speaker 2: images with me. After seeing those, buddy, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 2: if anybody is in the running to discover sasquatch first,
Speaker 2: you're probably at the top of that list. I mean,
Speaker 2: really truly incredible stuff you're finding out there.
Speaker 4: Well, I appreciate that, but discover I mean, I take
Speaker 4: the John Vndernoggle point, where are the tact where it's
Speaker 4: the discovery is ongoing and it is happening right now.
Speaker 4: We're just waiting for the academics to.
Speaker 2: Catch up right. Yeah, And you know that's the thing
Speaker 2: that fascinates me about both the Sasquatch or the relic
Speaker 2: tominoid enigma, and also UAP, you know, the artists formerly
Speaker 2: known as you f These are both topics to me
Speaker 2: that there's been quite a lot of information that is
Speaker 2: strongly suggestive, maybe without there being you know, unambiguous it
Speaker 2: would convince a physicist or a chemist type physical proof.
Speaker 2: There's still a lot of data that strongly supports the
Speaker 2: existence of these phenomena. And it's like Thomas Kuhne talked about,
Speaker 2: and of course, like you mentioned John Bendnogol and his
Speaker 2: excellent writings on this, The Discovery the Sasquatch, one of
Speaker 2: my all time favorite books he's talking about. You know,
Speaker 2: sometimes it takes a whole lot of that data to
Speaker 2: accumulate and then all of a sudden, at some point,
Speaker 2: a straw breaks the proverbial camel's back and people go, WHOA,
Speaker 2: what's all this data? People knew about this stuff for
Speaker 2: a long time before we actually accepted that it was here.
Speaker 2: So you're right, I think we're in that phase of
Speaker 2: discovery rather than reaching the point of discovery. Both with
Speaker 2: sasquatch and also with UAP.
Speaker 4: Yeah, a bunch of the anthropologists and biologists are going
Speaker 4: to their faces will be covered with egg sasquatch egg yoke,
Speaker 4: and when the discovery does finally drop with sasquatch stuff.
Speaker 4: But in the meantime, all we can do, I think,
Speaker 4: as the citizen scientists that we are and the amateur community,
Speaker 4: is represent the subject as best as we can and
Speaker 4: as honestly as we can. Steer away from the paranormal
Speaker 4: stuff as much as we can when it comes to sasquatches,
Speaker 4: because it doesn't do anybody any good. Ben and Oggle,
Speaker 4: even though he entertained some of those ideas, and he
Speaker 4: would he certainly spent some time with people who thought
Speaker 4: these things were paranormal, he was. It is biography, as
Speaker 4: he points out, put the best stuff out there first.
Speaker 4: Put the best stuff out there, because we don't want
Speaker 4: other scientists turning their nose up at the subject and
Speaker 4: walking away because people are saying they're interdimensional shape shifting.
Speaker 4: You if we're writing teleborders or whatever, you got to
Speaker 4: put the best stuff out there first to get the
Speaker 4: highest level of interest from academics. And then if all
Speaker 4: that's stuff actually If any of that stuff is true,
Speaker 4: let it come out later. I don't happen to think
Speaker 4: it's true. But if any of it is true, we'll
Speaker 4: figure that out later. So let's do the good stuff first.
Speaker 2: You know. Yeah, I'm right there with you in fact,
Speaker 2: And that's an important point of clarification that should be
Speaker 2: made early on in a discussion like this where we're
Speaker 2: likely to get into some of the end beyond on
Speaker 2: the Bigfoot discussion and with the UAP thing, because people
Speaker 2: always ask me, they say, okay, so you're, you know,
Speaker 2: really deeply involved in trying to get information from government sources,
Speaker 2: and of course you know, doing the citizen science side
Speaker 2: of things with UAP. So you also look at relictomenoids
Speaker 2: or sasquatch. Are they connected? Do you think they're connected? Well, sorry, folks,
Speaker 2: I gotta say I don't. I do not mix these
Speaker 2: two fields. I mean, it would be really cool if
Speaker 2: there was some sort of connection, if sasquatches were Chewbacca pets,
Speaker 2: you know, that were being dropped off your own planet Earth.
Speaker 2: But you know right now there is of course no
Speaker 2: evidence that suggests that. And really, I don't think that
Speaker 2: we benefit from trying to find you know, and I've
Speaker 2: heard people refer to it as a grand unified theory
Speaker 2: of the so called paranormal. Why do these things have
Speaker 2: to be connected. I don't think they have to be connected.
Speaker 2: I don't think that we have to see all this
Speaker 2: as some overarching mystery. I think that uap unto themselves
Speaker 2: and then sasquatch to itself, are too you know, fantastic
Speaker 2: mysteries without having to be connected. So yeah, I kind
Speaker 2: of am in the you know, sasquatches a big ape
Speaker 2: camp uap. We're not sure what they are. They could
Speaker 2: be something extraordinary. Currently they just remain unidentified, but there
Speaker 2: are no connections between the two. And yeah, like you said,
Speaker 2: very well, you know, put the best evidence for either
Speaker 2: of those or for any other anomalous phenomena that one
Speaker 2: wishes to study, you know, put the best stuff you've
Speaker 2: got forward, try and appeal to scientists so that these
Speaker 2: topics aren't completely ruled out of hand before they even
Speaker 2: have an opportunity to be weighed on their merit and studied.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I think that today's psychology for a lot
Speaker 4: of people is don't trust the scientists, don't trust the man.
Speaker 4: We want them involved, We want them involved. I mean,
Speaker 4: it would be really hard to argue, no matter what
Speaker 4: side of the fence, or no matter what your take
Speaker 4: on sasquatches, happens to be that if you look back
Speaker 4: people's involvement, you know, like like like Napier's involvement in
Speaker 4: the subject in the early nineteen seventies helped the subject.
Speaker 4: Doctor Meldrum's current involvement helps the subject. Doctor Krantz's involvement
Speaker 4: helped the subject. We want more scientists, as many as possible,
Speaker 4: to give an honest look at the evidence because the
Speaker 4: evidence can stand for itself. Things that are true can
Speaker 4: take all the scrutiny that people want to give it
Speaker 4: and it'll still be true. Most scientists, unfortunately, take a
Speaker 4: look at the evidence and point out things like hoaxes
Speaker 4: or Ivan Marx's involvement or things like that and throw
Speaker 4: everything out throughout the baby with the bathwater. We all
Speaker 4: know that hoaxes have existed. It's an unfair take on
Speaker 4: the subject to do that, unfortunately. But we want people
Speaker 4: to take a good, hard look at this subject because
Speaker 4: sasquatches are real animals, and the longer you look, the
Speaker 4: more you'll be able to see that that is true.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, absolutely. You know, I'm very inclined to believe
Speaker 2: that sasquatch is a real biological reality. I mean, and again,
Speaker 2: this is one reason why I've been so interested in
Speaker 2: trying to collect information from you know, federal government and
Speaker 2: state government employees. It's not necessarily, in my view that
Speaker 2: they are better witnesses in every instance, that they should
Speaker 2: always be deemed necessarily more credible. But again, you do
Speaker 2: have in those instances qualified professionals, many of whom do
Speaker 2: have specialized backgrounds and in their line of work, if
Speaker 2: they have made an observation of a good candidate, for
Speaker 2: for instance, a relict tominoid. You know, I do think
Speaker 2: that for those scientists who might have been averse to
Speaker 2: the idea originally, some of them may find it compelling
Speaker 2: when they hear will gosh. You know a lot of
Speaker 2: people who have worked for government, people who are members
Speaker 2: of the armed forces, people who work in law enforcement,
Speaker 2: they also have seen these things. So it's not just
Speaker 2: you know, again the you know, the drunks and the
Speaker 2: hillbillies out there in the hills who claim to see
Speaker 2: these things. Know, there are a lot of people, a
Speaker 2: lot of qualified professionals, and one reason I think that
Speaker 2: that could help the sasquatch topic again is because we've
Speaker 2: seen that very thing happening, a sort of glass ceiling
Speaker 2: breaking with unidentified aerial phenomena in recent years. Because let's
Speaker 2: just be clear, the government has always collected information about this,
Speaker 2: and this has been something that has been a very
Speaker 2: contentious element of all that for many years, but since
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen with a lot of revelations about to what
Speaker 2: extent the government has been involved, and the result being
Speaker 2: updating of reporting systems and attempts to try and end
Speaker 2: stigmas that have prevented members of the Armed Services from
Speaker 2: discussing things that they've encountered, experiences, they've had, things that
Speaker 2: they've observed. It's really kind of helped scientists to say, well, Okay,
Speaker 2: there really might be something here. It's really helped them
Speaker 2: maybe become more aware of the fact that not only
Speaker 2: is this data a very large data set, but a
Speaker 2: lot of it comes from very credible sources, and hence
Speaker 2: more scientists are getting involved. So for my own part,
Speaker 2: I'd love to see the same thing happen with sasquatch,
Speaker 2: where we get to a point where people say, okay,
Speaker 2: you know there is a lot of good data. The data,
Speaker 2: even if it's anecdotal, it comes from some very reliable sources,
Speaker 2: and therefore we can look at this and we can
Speaker 2: say maybe this is something indeed worthy of study. I
Speaker 2: think we could get to that point with Sasquatch. We
Speaker 2: may already be getting to that point. You look at
Speaker 2: the accellent work that people like Amy Boo with the
Speaker 2: Project Zoo book effort and things like this. I mean,
Speaker 2: people are already beginning to engage with the academic community
Speaker 2: and they're taking note, they're taking interest. So that's very,
Speaker 2: very encouraging to me.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
Speaker 4: Will be right back after these messages. Bob, are you
Speaker 4: starting to notice thinning hair?
Speaker 5: Who me?
Speaker 4: Maybe a little a little hair left or a little
Speaker 4: thinning hair both, Well, I've got good news for you.
Speaker 4: Bobo Hymns offers access to prescription treatments for regrowing hair
Speaker 4: and as little as three to six months, so you
Speaker 4: can see a fuller head of hair like Bobo in
Speaker 4: the old days. By fall.
Speaker 5: That'd be nice having a fresh fall crop to harvest.
Speaker 4: So wheet Hymns offers convenient access to a range of
Speaker 4: prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients at work, including choose
Speaker 4: oral medication, serums and sprays.
Speaker 5: Yep, doctors trust this stuff.
Speaker 2: It's been clinically proven.
Speaker 5: It's got ingredients like finesteride and oxidil, and that stuff
Speaker 5: can stop hair loss and we goo hair in as
Speaker 5: little as three to six months.
Speaker 4: You can get started from the comfort of your own home, cave,
Speaker 4: motor home, or wherever you happen to be by filling
Speaker 4: out an intake form and a medical provider will determine
Speaker 4: if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment
Speaker 4: is sent directly to you for free.
Speaker 5: The process is one hundred percent online, which meanss getting
Speaker 5: started has never been more convenient, and even if sasquatch
Speaker 5: can do it, it's so easy.
Speaker 4: No insurance is needed and one low price covers everything
Speaker 4: from treatments to ongoing care. Plus treatment options start at
Speaker 4: just thirty five dollars a month. Starts your free online
Speaker 4: 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 4: HIMS dot com slash beyond.
Speaker 3: Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and
Speaker 3: oral monoxidyal and finasteride Prescription required. See website for full details,
Speaker 3: restrictions and important safety information.
Speaker 4: Friend of mine, Darren Nay, she's a high profile skeptic
Speaker 4: from the UK. He told me when he was visiting
Speaker 4: my home here. But we're going through the cast and
Speaker 4: all that sort of stuff in the garage and going
Speaker 4: over some of the evidence and whatever, and which of
Speaker 4: I believe he found very impressive. I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: want to speak for him, but that was my take
Speaker 4: on that. And he says, you know, Cliff, there's a
Speaker 4: lot of scientists out there that are watching. They are
Speaker 4: back there watching silently, sitting there, watching what you guys
Speaker 4: are doing. And to me, that's that's horrifying because I
Speaker 4: look around and saying, oh no, I don't want them
Speaker 4: to see that stuff, like look at the look at
Speaker 4: the way the community, you know, presents itself. Look at
Speaker 4: the way that the loudest people are saying the most
Speaker 4: ridiculous things and all that sort of stuff. But the
Speaker 4: that point you're saying there is well taken because they
Speaker 4: are interested. So there are scientists, there are institutions that
Speaker 4: are interested, which is why we all need to present
Speaker 4: the subject in the most dignified, intelligent, sober manner that
Speaker 4: we possibly can because the loudest, most ridiculous claims, which
Speaker 4: often get amplified by the media, they don't do anybody
Speaker 4: any good, especially our subject and the individuals involved in it.
Speaker 2: No, one hundred percent. And again, that's one thing I
Speaker 2: really love about the podcast. You guys do again. You know, sane,
Speaker 2: rational but fun conversations that are engaging. You know they're
Speaker 2: getting people interested. I can guarantee among your listenership, I
Speaker 2: know those folks you're listening right now. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of people former government, current active duty military, scientific community,
Speaker 2: a lot of folks out there who are listening to
Speaker 2: this conversation right now. You may not be putting your
Speaker 2: name out there and getting involved, but we know you're
Speaker 2: out there, We know that you're interested, and you know,
Speaker 2: I always just like to put it out to folks.
Speaker 2: You know, if you are one of those individuals, if
Speaker 2: you'd like to communicate with somebody, you know, like Cliff Orrye,
Speaker 2: we always invite you to reach out and your privacy
Speaker 2: will be respected if you don't want your information to share,
Speaker 2: but we do think it's important to be able to
Speaker 2: hear from people like that. I certainly do because I
Speaker 2: learn a lot from people, especially those in these unique positions,
Speaker 2: whether it's you know, employment and government or in the sciences,
Speaker 2: when they have had an experience themselves or made an observation,
Speaker 2: you know, whether it's a relictominoid or you AP or
Speaker 2: whatever else, any kind of unusual or extraordinary phenomenon in nature.
Speaker 2: Those firsthand observations by really credible individuals to me have
Speaker 2: helped me, you know, shape the way I look at
Speaker 2: the phenomenon and broaden my opinions about it. And also
Speaker 2: just it encourages me too, you know, when I know
Speaker 2: that there are people out there who have had personal
Speaker 2: relationships to this and they say, look, I was your
Speaker 2: perennial skeptic and then it happened, this is what I saw,
Speaker 2: that encourages me. It just, you know, Cliff, it drives
Speaker 2: me to want to look even deeper. And plus, you know,
Speaker 2: guys like you and I, our names are already involved.
Speaker 2: You know, we've already got our names behind this, so
Speaker 2: it's too late for us to get out now. So
Speaker 2: we're happy to go out there and look for the stuff.
Speaker 2: If others can't.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, and you know, I mentioned earlier Matt Pruitt's book,
Speaker 4: and there's a section in there that I was reading
Speaker 4: and it never really occurred to me before. But he's
Speaker 4: absolutely right. And this is from his book The Phenomenal Sasquatch,
Speaker 4: where people ask why haven't they found them yet? And
Speaker 4: people I hear it almost all the time. I hear
Speaker 4: it almost every day in the museum, why haven't they
Speaker 4: got more pictures? And I was learning, who is this
Speaker 4: they they keep talking about? And Matt Pruit brings up
Speaker 4: it's the institutions, because people, human beings have this inclination
Speaker 4: to basically give away our own power essentially to other institutions,
Speaker 4: whether there's the state or the church or the school
Speaker 4: or whatever like that, they give away our own I'm
Speaker 4: I'm not sure what the word I'm looking for is,
Speaker 4: but that they look for other people to be the
Speaker 4: authority figures so we can believe them, you know. And
Speaker 4: by having governmental or scientific establishment involvement in the subject,
Speaker 4: it satisfies that need for those people who perhaps need
Speaker 4: somebody else to validate something for them. They have not
Speaker 4: gotten more photographs because of this, or they have not
Speaker 4: proven that because of this, and I think that that
Speaker 4: in itself is a huge boom to the subject in
Speaker 4: the same way. Like, for example, another parallel thing which
Speaker 4: I think drives the same point home is for a
Speaker 4: long time with say Matt Moneymaker, Matt has always been
Speaker 4: very very focused on footage, whether it's photographic or video footage,
Speaker 4: and I'm thinking, well, that's not going to prove anything.
Speaker 4: And I brought this up with him, and Matt's a
Speaker 4: good friend. He's very intelligent. I know what. Perhaps he
Speaker 4: rubs people, some people the wrong way, but he's very
Speaker 4: logical and he's very very intelligent, hyper intelligence. So I
Speaker 4: asked him, so, like, what why are you always so
Speaker 4: focused on that instead of actually proving one and killing one,
Speaker 4: which I don't want to do that either, mind you,
Speaker 4: but that's I understand, that's what's going to take right
Speaker 4: He goes, well, because first of all, he's not going
Speaker 4: to kill one either, he's not really a gun guy
Speaker 4: or anything like that. But secondly, he says, because photographs
Speaker 4: are going to increase public awareness about it, and that
Speaker 4: in itself is a good thing because it'll get more
Speaker 4: and more people. Because the scientist, the establishment is made
Speaker 4: out of the public and so the more people that
Speaker 4: are interested, the more enthusiasm there is for the subjects,
Speaker 4: the more people thinking that these things are real. Just
Speaker 4: by default, more people in these institutions and seats of
Speaker 4: power are going to be interested in the subject as well.
Speaker 4: And I think that's that's one of the benefits of
Speaker 4: the institutional approach that you're talking about here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, and I'll make a couple of points
Speaker 2: about that. You know, one thing about the institutional side
Speaker 2: of things is that, yes, it does present a degree
Speaker 2: of legitimization, right, you know, we see okay, well, you
Speaker 2: know official people, agencies take interest in these topics. Now again,
Speaker 2: I'll be clear, having you know, worked for several years
Speaker 2: now filing Freedom of Information Act requests, public Records Act requests,
Speaker 2: things like that on a range of different topics that
Speaker 2: relate to everything from UAP to missing persons and you know,
Speaker 2: crime and also of course, yes, relict tominoids or Sasquatch.
Speaker 2: I can tell you I have found no evidence of
Speaker 2: there being you know, some elite group government who's really
Speaker 2: serious about trying to find Sasquatch. If anything, it's just
Speaker 2: the opposite. I don't see a tremendous amount of evidence.
Speaker 2: In most agencies when I write to them and look
Speaker 2: for information, I mean, they're straight up and they'll say,
Speaker 2: we don't keep records actively on that subject. But sometimes
Speaker 2: they'll also follow that up by saying, but we do
Speaker 2: actually have a few things that our wildlife biologists or
Speaker 2: you know, this division or that division have kept in
Speaker 2: formally and we're happy to pass that along. And you know,
Speaker 2: sometimes you get stuff. So one thing I often caution
Speaker 2: people about is using the presumption that well, government interest
Speaker 2: therefore legitimizes, and or we can presume maybe that even
Speaker 2: if they aren't forward facing with their interest, if we
Speaker 2: do some guests work and presume that maybe they have
Speaker 2: stuff and they're hiding it, then all we've got to
Speaker 2: do is we've just kind of try and pressure government,
Speaker 2: and eventually all this stuff will be released. I mean
Speaker 2: we've seen that for years with the UAP thing. People
Speaker 2: constantly trying to say, well, you know, if we just
Speaker 2: continue to put pressure on lawmakers and write to our
Speaker 2: elected officials, tell them this means something to us, eventually
Speaker 2: we're going to have the big D word disclosure. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm not so sure, first of all, that there is
Speaker 2: as much in government holdings, although recent news seems to
Speaker 2: suggest that there is potentially quite a lot. Maybe we'll
Speaker 2: get into that, But I've always been very cautious about
Speaker 2: presuming that there's a whole bunch of stuff being withheld
Speaker 2: from the public and that the only avenue that's worthwhile
Speaker 2: is leveraging pressure against government to get them to release it.
Speaker 2: And here's why, because at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: one of two things could happen. Either they have it
Speaker 2: and they won't release it, or they don't have as
Speaker 2: much as you hoped for, and then what have you done.
Speaker 2: You've wasted so much time. So, especially when it comes
Speaker 2: to the relatominoid thing, you know, citizen action, citizen science,
Speaker 2: that's incredibly important, And the same goes for UFOs, you
Speaker 2: know it. Love more people out there, even if you
Speaker 2: aren't a scientist. Per se go by a telescope, you know,
Speaker 2: learn a little about the night sky. Educate yourself online
Speaker 2: in astronomy, you know, and learn things like this. Learn
Speaker 2: about meteorology. Learn about relevant areas of science. Learn what
Speaker 2: to look for and what not to look for. If
Speaker 2: you're interested in sasquatch, learn about you know, man tracking,
Speaker 2: learn about biology. You know, study different animal behaviors, learn
Speaker 2: about wilderness and survival, training, things like this. You know,
Speaker 2: that's so important because I worry sometimes that if we
Speaker 2: put too much emphasis on the institutional, we may miss
Speaker 2: some great opportunities and some headway that we could be
Speaker 2: making ourselves. So again, you know, being a weekend warriors
Speaker 2: an important aspect of this too, getting out there in
Speaker 2: the field, getting your feet, money and having a good
Speaker 2: time whether or not you find sasquatch, but of course
Speaker 2: always attempting to try and contribute in that way too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like empower yourself, because that kind kind of goes
Speaker 4: back to one of those points I was I kind
Speaker 4: of tangentially touched upon, is that people give their power
Speaker 4: away to these institutions. And it reminds me of my
Speaker 4: friend Tom Powell, who I disagree with wholeheartedly about sasquatches.
Speaker 4: He's very paranormal, but he always says, it's really easy
Speaker 4: to convince yourself sasquatches are real, it's really hard to
Speaker 4: convince other people. Not that I think that's a fruitful
Speaker 4: adventure anyway, Who cares what other people think. There's people
Speaker 4: that will argue with you that the Earth's flat, who
Speaker 4: cares what other people, right, But it's really easy to
Speaker 4: convince yourself. And the more you educate yourself on skills
Speaker 4: like bushcraft or astronomy or outdoor things or tracking or whatever,
Speaker 4: you're gonna be out there in the right habitat doing
Speaker 4: what you need to do to be around sasquatches, and
Speaker 4: then maybe you'll have an experience that will eventually end
Speaker 4: up convincing you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, And you know, think about this too. I mean,
Speaker 2: how many people who have those experiences were not out
Speaker 2: there looking for the phenomena they end up having the
Speaker 2: encounter with. In fact, I mean, and I would maybe
Speaker 2: just guess based on my own experience from collecting accounts
Speaker 2: from individuals. Sadly, I've never seen what I think is
Speaker 2: unequivocally a UFO. I certainly have never seen anything I
Speaker 2: think was related to sasquatch. But most of the people
Speaker 2: who I've spoken to who have and who share those experiences,
Speaker 2: you know, they weren't out there looking for it. Again,
Speaker 2: in the case of those in government who had those experiences,
Speaker 2: most of those people never even would have hazarded to
Speaker 2: guess that there could have been something like sasquatch when
Speaker 2: they had their encounter. And that's what's really interesting about
Speaker 2: it is it seemingly took them completely by surprise and
Speaker 2: entirely off guard, having had no expectation of ever seeing
Speaker 2: something like that, and then it is just thrust into
Speaker 2: their reality. And again, you talk about a paradigm shift
Speaker 2: on a personal level when somebody who was not even
Speaker 2: a skeptic, it's more like they just never even thought
Speaker 2: about that and then all of a sudden they're looking
Speaker 2: at sasquatch. And those are to me some of the
Speaker 2: most incredible encounters.
Speaker 4: You know, as far as a government agencies and whatnot
Speaker 4: having this information, whether we're talking about UAPs or sasquatches
Speaker 4: or whatever like that, I can totally see them collecting
Speaker 4: a lot more data on UAPs because number one, it
Speaker 4: could potentially be a security threat of some sort. And
Speaker 4: I'm not talking necessarily about you know, extraterrestrials or interdimensional
Speaker 4: consciousnesses or whatever, you know, like that sort of thing.
Speaker 4: I'm talking about if say an unfriendly national power got
Speaker 4: hold of technology that was we couldn't tell the difference
Speaker 4: between that and and the UFO stuff, Like if say
Speaker 4: these these deemed quote unquote you know, foreign enemies had
Speaker 4: access to technology like that. It would scare the willies
Speaker 4: out of the US government, of course, but also probably
Speaker 4: even more of more interests. And this is the cynical
Speaker 4: cliff guy. You know, I think they see dollar signs
Speaker 4: when they see that sort of stuff, because I think
Speaker 4: a big portion of our economy is driven by by
Speaker 4: the military and industrial complex. So much money is there,
Speaker 4: so many people are employed by the government in that
Speaker 4: sort of way that they have a super high interest,
Speaker 4: whereas poor old Bigfoot, you know, there's I don't think
Speaker 4: there's a lot of money to be made there for them.
Speaker 4: You know, it's going to cost a couple industries a
Speaker 4: little bit of money, like logging or road building or
Speaker 4: things like that. But for the most part, there's not
Speaker 4: like there's not like, you know, billions of dollars on
Speaker 4: the line when it comes to sasquatches.
Speaker 2: Yeah, those are really very important points to make again,
Speaker 2: you know, sasquatch. As fascinating as that possibility, is the
Speaker 2: recognition of its existence. If anything, And this is by
Speaker 2: the way, in no way by intent on my part
Speaker 2: to espouse some conspiracy theory. I don't really generally think
Speaker 2: that using conspiracy theories necessarily help an argument, and so
Speaker 2: you know, great philosophers would tell you don't appeal to
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories when you're making those. So all that said,
Speaker 2: I think that it's very likely that a lot of
Speaker 2: industries would potentially be more harmed than helped by the
Speaker 2: revelation that a creature like sasquatch exists, which you know
Speaker 2: very much like you're pointing out logging industry. Think about
Speaker 2: issues that this might raise for the national parks. Right now,
Speaker 2: we do have some park officials at various different national
Speaker 2: parks around the country that are kind of beginning to
Speaker 2: embrace sasquatch. But they're using it, and I think this
Speaker 2: is a good idea. They're using it as a fun
Speaker 2: kind of educative thing it means by which to get
Speaker 2: people interested in getting out into the forest and enjoying nature,
Speaker 2: and that's good. I don't think though, it should be
Speaker 2: something that you know, is just entirely just treated whimsically. Again,
Speaker 2: I take very seriously the idea that there is a
Speaker 2: flesh and blood biological reality to sasquatch. But if it's
Speaker 2: helpful in terms of getting people out there into the woods,
Speaker 2: hey great, I love it. But like you mentioned, Cliff
Speaker 2: with regard to you AP in terms of relevance to
Speaker 2: government interest, here we don't seem to have a intelligence
Speaker 2: or even if we say that sasquatch is maybe more
Speaker 2: intelligent than the average animal, but still quote unquote a
Speaker 2: big dumb ape in terms of its relation to humans,
Speaker 2: we still have a very unique organism that alone is
Speaker 2: not interesting enough to government. Whereas with you AP, we
Speaker 2: appear to have a technology, something that was highly intelligent
Speaker 2: that must have produced this technology. Whether that be of
Speaker 2: an earthly provenance or from someplace else, we just don't know.
Speaker 2: And so, like you said, we cannot risk the possibility
Speaker 2: that a country like China or Russia might have made
Speaker 2: some sort of incredible technology. You know, they could have
Speaker 2: seen some sort of incredible technological development and done so
Speaker 2: in relative secrecy that the US has not yet learned about,
Speaker 2: but that we're beginning to observe. And that's what some
Speaker 2: of these UAP are. Yeah, they don't want to take
Speaker 2: that chance. And so it's obvious why UAP is of
Speaker 2: greater relevance to government. But I think it gets lost
Speaker 2: in the mix, though. Is that a lot of the
Speaker 2: more skeptically inclined look at the topic. These days with
Speaker 2: the recent developments that have occurred, and they say, look,
Speaker 2: you have the DoD with its newly established All Domain
Speaker 2: Anomaly Resolution Office. They're saying a lot of these phenomena
Speaker 2: that they're observing and that they're collecting information on or
Speaker 2: balloon like or drone like, it's probably because most of
Speaker 2: them are balloons and drones, and those are probably balloons
Speaker 2: and drones being operated by foreign adversaries, not extraterrestrials. Point taken,
Speaker 2: and again, in the interest of national security, they're going
Speaker 2: to look at that possibility because that's what's most directly
Speaker 2: pertinent to ensuring the safety of this nation. So it's
Speaker 2: obvious why they would be looking at anything that seems
Speaker 2: out of place or potentially concerning anything that challenges our airspace.
Speaker 2: But there's always that possibility in many intelligence officials, knows
Speaker 2: us among them, the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haynes,
Speaker 2: has recently said, yeah, but we're open to the possibility
Speaker 2: that some of these things, and make no mistakes, some
Speaker 2: do seem to display capabilities that are not easily reconciled
Speaker 2: in terms of known technologies. We're open to the possibility
Speaker 2: that some may come extraterrestrially, so I understand why government
Speaker 2: would be more interested in one. But bringing that back
Speaker 2: down to academia, to me, the idea that a non
Speaker 2: human again, whether we call sasquatch intelligent or not, that
Speaker 2: a non human species is in our midst. That's another
Speaker 2: one of those commonalities we have between UAP and sasquatch,
Speaker 2: the potential that we're going to discover something that's closer
Speaker 2: to humans than anything else we've ever seen in that
Speaker 2: in any case, either way it goes, would be the
Speaker 2: greatest discovery of all time for the sciences.
Speaker 4: To me, stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with
Speaker 4: Cliff and Bogo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 4: For me, the first that at least the first like
Speaker 4: a high resolution look of like the modern age of
Speaker 4: all this sort of thing to me was the Podesta emails.
Speaker 4: This is during the Hillary email leaks, where in Wikipedia
Speaker 4: got to hold everything and put it all out and
Speaker 4: I say, oh, those are out there, and someone mentioned
Speaker 4: to me, yeah, look up UFOs, it's going to blow
Speaker 4: your mind. A says okay, cool, I did it. That's
Speaker 4: where I first heard of UAPs, for example, and they
Speaker 4: had academics from institutions sending emails and corresponding with government
Speaker 4: agencies about things like quote unquote celestials and interdimensional intelligences
Speaker 4: and this idea that they're trading non nuclear or nuclear
Speaker 4: non proliferation for technology and things like that, and when like,
Speaker 4: oh wow, look at that. That's some crazy stuff going on,
Speaker 4: and this kind of rote it off to that. But
Speaker 4: here we are today where a lot of this stuff
Speaker 4: is becoming declassified. I think as recently as yesterday, I
Speaker 4: was scrolling through Twitter news feeds, and I'm seeing that
Speaker 4: the House is trying to pass sort of legislation about
Speaker 4: them not withholding and correct me or from actually refine.
Speaker 4: What I'm saying is, I know there's something going on,
Speaker 4: and you probably know far more about it than I
Speaker 4: ever will. The House is trying to put some sort
Speaker 4: of legislation forward to saying that you can't withhold like
Speaker 4: basically extraterrestrial technology from them. And it's just this phenomenal time.
Speaker 4: So what is the current state of this subject in
Speaker 4: the government as far as you know?
Speaker 2: So right now you correctly point out that again Congress
Speaker 2: is back in the game. They really have stayed in
Speaker 2: the game, and the last several National Defense Authorization Acts,
Speaker 2: which is basically the big defense spending bill that's signed
Speaker 2: into law by the President each year, and it provides
Speaker 2: kind of the roadmap for where the armed forces go
Speaker 2: and you know what the DoD will do. Basically, for
Speaker 2: the last several years that bill has included UAP related legislation,
Speaker 2: and now there is new draft language that will go
Speaker 2: in the twenty twenty four bill, which is dealing with
Speaker 2: exactly what you're talking about. It's aimed at trying to
Speaker 2: deter Furman if and also to provide a means through
Speaker 2: which information about craft of non human origin if it exists,
Speaker 2: and that's the term they like to use these days,
Speaker 2: because they're saying, we aren't sure if it's necessarily extraterrestrial.
Speaker 2: We just know that, according to what some have said
Speaker 2: in recent days, that there are purportedly craft of non
Speaker 2: human origin that the government, perhaps some contractors, special excess
Speaker 2: programs and things like this, may have knowledge of, may
Speaker 2: actually have acquired and now have in their possession. And
Speaker 2: so Congress is trying to create essentially a means through
Speaker 2: which that can be revealed. Now to back up just
Speaker 2: for a moment, because you make a really good point there, Cliff,
Speaker 2: Like you mentioned the Podesta emails that were leaked, like yourself,
Speaker 2: and I don't know why more people don't bring that up.
Speaker 2: I found those really interesting. Podesta had been in contact
Speaker 2: with a lot of interesting people and at that time
Speaker 2: that those emails leaked. We should point out again those
Speaker 2: emails I believe were actually made available online by wiki leaks.
Speaker 2: This was for political reasons because this was during a
Speaker 2: very contentious election year. Podesta, of course was a part
Speaker 2: of the campaign that was actually attempting to elect a
Speaker 2: president at that time, Hillary Clinton. She ended up losing
Speaker 2: the election. But in the midst of all that, there
Speaker 2: were these emails from Podesta regarding these meetings he had
Speaker 2: been having with individuals. One of those individuals, for instance,
Speaker 2: had been Tom DeLong, the former guitarist and singer actually
Speaker 2: he's back with the band Blink one eighty two now,
Speaker 2: who went on to form this organization called to the
Speaker 2: Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences. But he had been
Speaker 2: bringing with him to Washington to meet Podesta a guy
Speaker 2: named Major General William McCaslin, who at the time oversaw
Speaker 2: the scientific Division at Right Patterson Air Force Base. So
Speaker 2: Basically he was in charge of about eleven thousand employees,
Speaker 2: I believe, and they oversaw the science division within the
Speaker 2: Air Force. They're at right pat and they were going
Speaker 2: to meet Podesta to talk about UFO's in the middle
Speaker 2: of an election year. I mean, there must have been
Speaker 2: some genuine interest in something for that to have been occurring.
Speaker 2: Now fast forward to twenty seventeen. The following December, of course,
Speaker 2: there was an article that broke in The New York
Speaker 2: Times that was by a couple of authors, Leslie Kane
Speaker 2: and Ralph Blumenthal, who happened to be the authors of
Speaker 2: an article that was recently published by my publication, The Debrief,
Speaker 2: which is available online at the debrief dot org. That
Speaker 2: publication featured their latest offering, which entails the claims of
Speaker 2: a former member of government who worked for a number
Speaker 2: of different organizations, the NRO more recently the National Geospatial
Speaker 2: Intelligence Agency, and he was a liaison to what was
Speaker 2: called the UAP Task Force, which was officially sanctioned back
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty under the cognizance of the Department of
Speaker 2: the Navy, but it was basically the UAP investigative component
Speaker 2: within government. It's since been replaced by the Al Domain
Speaker 2: an omaily Resolution office within the DoD. When the UAP
Speaker 2: Task Force was in operation, David Grush had been the
Speaker 2: liaison for the National Geospacial Intelligence Agency, and that guy
Speaker 2: has now come out and in Kanaan Blumenthal's recent article
Speaker 2: that we published, has said, Look, while I was doing
Speaker 2: work in relation to the UAP issue for the task Force,
Speaker 2: there were several insiders that came to me and they
Speaker 2: said that they had knowledge of a program, and that
Speaker 2: this program involved the acquisition of and maybe also things
Speaker 2: like reverse engineering and things like this, but essentially that
Speaker 2: there had been acquired craft that are believed to would
Speaker 2: be of non human origin, and this information has been
Speaker 2: illegally withheld from Congress and thereby of course from the
Speaker 2: American people. So the long story short, he decided to
Speaker 2: file an official complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
Speaker 2: And what this means is that he is thereby going
Speaker 2: the entire thing is going to be investigated. But if
Speaker 2: he were to be found guilty of making, for instance,
Speaker 2: false statements about all this, if that were the result
Speaker 2: of this investigation, I mean he could be held criminally
Speaker 2: liable for doing that. So he stands to lose nothing.
Speaker 2: I mean, he loses everything actually if he has misspoken,
Speaker 2: if he is told any information and is found to
Speaker 2: have knowingly done so, he doesn't gain anything from lying.
Speaker 2: So many people are looking at this saying, well, well,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, given those circumstances, it definitely seems
Speaker 2: like he believes the information that he's provided to Congress,
Speaker 2: or rather to the IC Inspector General. He seems to
Speaker 2: believe that this information is true. We've got to wait
Speaker 2: and see what the results of this investigation will be.
Speaker 2: But that is essentially what has caused, like you said, Cliff,
Speaker 2: Congress now to get involved in They're already drafting legislation
Speaker 2: to try and say, hey, look, if this stuff has
Speaker 2: been going on and we haven't been informed, we need
Speaker 2: to know about it. And then as recently as just
Speaker 2: the last couple of days, Senator Mark or Rubio of
Speaker 2: Florida has also come out and said, look, he's not
Speaker 2: the only whistleblower we've spoken to. There are others that
Speaker 2: have told us very similar things about so called legacy programs.
Speaker 2: So they do seem to think a lot of information
Speaker 2: may have been withheld from Congress. Of course, from the
Speaker 2: American people and now elected officials are trying to get
Speaker 2: to the bottom of how much and indeed if all
Speaker 2: that information can be verified.
Speaker 4: And just to catch me up, because I'm not in
Speaker 4: the UAP game. I'm just a humble, little bigfoot of
Speaker 4: looking for prince in the woods for the most part,
Speaker 4: just as to catch myself up. This is what we
Speaker 4: were talking about now is essentially the central hub of
Speaker 4: the last say two weeks of UAP whistle blower news.
Speaker 4: Is that correct? Like the wid when I look at
Speaker 4: whistle blower blah blah blah, UAP, Sup, this is exactly
Speaker 4: what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Right, This is exactly what we're talking about. Yeah. In fact,
Speaker 2: I think the listeners will appreciate this. The weekend that
Speaker 2: I was working with the two authors, Caan and Blumenthal,
Speaker 2: they approached us about this article for various reasons. I
Speaker 2: think it had been somewhat erroneously reported in the media
Speaker 2: that well, they've gone to a bunch of big public
Speaker 2: publications and they all turned it down. That's not actually accurate.
Speaker 2: There had been several publications they've been working with, but
Speaker 2: the name of the whistleblower had leaked online and while
Speaker 2: many of those publications said, well, we need more time.
Speaker 2: Caina and Blumenthal were concerned about various aspects of what
Speaker 2: could happen if they waited too long. But make no mistake,
Speaker 2: many publications, including The Washington Post and Politico had been approached.
Speaker 2: They also wanted the story, and I'd been informed about
Speaker 2: that before we actually ended up accepting it for publication ourselves.
Speaker 2: My advice had been, look, get it in the biggest
Speaker 2: publication that will take it. But time became a concern
Speaker 2: for the authors, and they said, you know, we're going
Speaker 2: to lose the story if we wait too much longer.
Speaker 2: When they approached me and said, would you be interested
Speaker 2: in having your publication print this, I said, on the
Speaker 2: condition that my team can independently vet those sources go
Speaker 2: through all the background checking, which we had enough time
Speaker 2: to be able to do. But it was quite an
Speaker 2: interesting time because while my team was doing that, I
Speaker 2: was handling the editorial side of things, you know, having
Speaker 2: phone calls with the two authors getting things lined up
Speaker 2: while you and I were at an event together.
Speaker 4: Yeah, monster quest gets in the our monster fest, you know,
Speaker 4: gets in the way.
Speaker 2: Literally, as Cliff and I are riding to the airport,
Speaker 2: on Sunday with our pal Aaron DS. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: seeing these incredible footprint photographs you're showing me in stuff.
Speaker 2: Let's just say that there was the weight of the
Speaker 2: world on my shoulders at that time, my friend, and
Speaker 2: so I'm glad to be able to come out and
Speaker 2: now say, yeah, this is the story everybody's been hearing about.
Speaker 2: And I think that the net result has been positive because,
Speaker 2: like Marco Rubio said in the last couple of days,
Speaker 2: if grushes, you know, if he believes what has been
Speaker 2: said and what he has been told, and if any
Speaker 2: of that ends up being true, it's going to be
Speaker 2: really important. Again, like you said, it might not impress
Speaker 2: everybody out there, but I'm sure there are going to
Speaker 2: be a few scientists and you know others and you
Speaker 2: know official theom that are going to find this really important.
Speaker 2: It's going to be arguably the hugest story in all history.
Speaker 2: But if it ends up being the case that someone
Speaker 2: has misled him and there's someone in the upper achalons
Speaker 2: of government who is you know, seeding bad information, as
Speaker 2: Mark Rubio said, that too should be investigated. So I
Speaker 2: think this is very important to get to the bottom
Speaker 2: of whichever direction the investigation goes. But yes, this is
Speaker 2: the whistleblower story everybody's been hearing about. And again, this
Speaker 2: is the strange and small world that we live in.
Speaker 2: The Cliff and I were in a car together the
Speaker 2: weekend this was all coming down.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, it's pretty it's pretty wacky. Man, life is
Speaker 4: like that. So this is all, you know, moving through
Speaker 4: the halls, the halls of power basically in Washington, DC
Speaker 4: at this point, and those wheels churned very very slowly.
Speaker 4: So but it's all coming down the next couple of months, probably,
Speaker 4: What would you expect or what are some of the
Speaker 4: things that one might expect to see over the next
Speaker 4: couple of months sort of hear about.
Speaker 2: Well, as some like I have mentioned Marco Rubio, also
Speaker 2: US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who has really
Speaker 2: kind of led the charge with drafting legislation for the
Speaker 2: various bills that have featured UAP related language. Several members
Speaker 2: of the House and Senate have been really active with
Speaker 2: all this, And so right now, what I would expect
Speaker 2: to see is, indeed, we're going to probably see bipartisan
Speaker 2: language that's going to go into law it'll be signed
Speaker 2: into law in early twenty twenty four in the next NDAA,
Speaker 2: But in the meantime, the current language for this year's
Speaker 2: bill already has wait for it, a whistleblower provision. So
Speaker 2: it's no big surprise that people are starting to come
Speaker 2: forward and talk about this because it had been included
Speaker 2: in the language of this year's bill that there should
Speaker 2: be protections for anyone who has knowledge of any kinds
Speaker 2: of special access program you know, programs that have been
Speaker 2: kept out of the purview of not only the public,
Speaker 2: but many in government too, And if individuals from those
Speaker 2: programs or people in other areas of government have knowledge
Speaker 2: about this, they are essentially offered protections for coming forward
Speaker 2: and informing Congress about it. So there are already elected
Speaker 2: officials saying there are others who have spoken about this,
Speaker 2: some may be coming forward. I would say that what
Speaker 2: we can expect, probably in the weeks and months ahead,
Speaker 2: is that we will probably be hearing from some others,
Speaker 2: and certainly we'll see some more bill language. But again,
Speaker 2: the question I guess on everybody's mind is when is
Speaker 2: there going to be unequivocal evidence that supports these claims.
Speaker 2: One of the issues of people have raised is well,
Speaker 2: you know, Gresh says that he has provided documents in
Speaker 2: the form of classified information transcriptions and things to the
Speaker 2: Inspector General of the intelligence community. Everybody wants to see
Speaker 2: the UFO photos and the videos and stuff. You know,
Speaker 2: I'd like to see those two and we have seen
Speaker 2: a few. There were a few that were released. Of course,
Speaker 2: there were first leaked in twenty seventeen. They appeared in
Speaker 2: the New York Times. One of those three videos had
Speaker 2: already been floating around for years, and that's the famous
Speaker 2: tic Tac that was filmed off the coast of California.
Speaker 2: Still a really interesting video in my opinion. And no,
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a pelican or anything else that
Speaker 2: a lot of the skeptics have made it out to be.
Speaker 4: Maybe they actually try to say pill ackin because it
Speaker 4: does look like a pill.
Speaker 2: That's what I meant, Yeah, pillican, of course. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, there've been all kinds of different suppositions about
Speaker 2: what it may be. The bottom line is it's unidentified.
Speaker 2: I mean, currently the DoD Stell characterizes that one as unidentified.
Speaker 2: They don't know what it is. And we could come
Speaker 2: back and talk about that in a moment, but again
Speaker 2: in the immediate sense, you know what we can expect
Speaker 2: to see. I would hope maybe that we'll see some
Speaker 2: additional video, photographs and other things that might help substantiate
Speaker 2: some of the claims, But certainly for the time being,
Speaker 2: will probably be hearing more about Grush and what he
Speaker 2: is reportedly learned, and there may be some other whistleblowers
Speaker 2: who have similar stories who'll be coming forward in the
Speaker 2: days ahead as well.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 4: Bogo will be right back after these messages. Now, how
Speaker 4: is what is unfolding here in the United States paralleling
Speaker 4: what is happening in other places? Like wasn't it Chile
Speaker 4: who declassified a lot of their UAP stuff a few
Speaker 4: years before the US?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe they may have, and of course Brazil did.
Speaker 2: And you know, I've spent a lot of time done
Speaker 2: in Brazil. I think I had to miss an opportunity
Speaker 2: to go squatch and maybe with Matt Pruitt because I
Speaker 2: was in Brazil a couple of years or actually I
Speaker 2: guess it was probably early last year, and I've spent
Speaker 2: enough time down there and gotten to know some of
Speaker 2: the former lawmakers who were interested in this subject in Brazil,
Speaker 2: their national archives both say impressive collection of government documentation
Speaker 2: about their experiences and their interest in this phenomenon. And
Speaker 2: it's funny because I have seen some who have said,
Speaker 2: you know, this is a culture bound phenomenon. There's a
Speaker 2: reason why only the United States and its citizens claimed
Speaker 2: to see UFOs, and only its government is actively pursuing
Speaker 2: answers about this phenomenon. That's not true. These things certainly
Speaker 2: have been seen in other parts of the world, and
Speaker 2: other governments have taken interest. Quick example, since we were
Speaker 2: talking about Brazil, we had back in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 2: so many residents along this little coastal town in northern
Speaker 2: Brazil called Kolaris that were alleging not only that they
Speaker 2: were seeing objects, but several of the residents claimed to
Speaker 2: have actually been accosted by these things. You know, again
Speaker 2: UAP attacks. There aren't frequent occurrences, but they do happen,
Speaker 2: and the islanders down there at Kolaris were saying that
Speaker 2: this had happened to them. Now the Brazilian government responds
Speaker 2: to this and they put together what at the time,
Speaker 2: and my Portuguese is terrible, but therewith me opera sal Pratu,
Speaker 2: which essentially translates to mean Operation Plate or Operation Saucer.
Speaker 2: There was an official Air Force Brazilian Air Force investigation
Speaker 2: into these incidents. There were some photographs and video that
Speaker 2: were I guess it would have been filmed back in
Speaker 2: the seventies that were obtained of the aerial phenomena in question.
Speaker 2: And again the Brazilian National Archives have made those kinds
Speaker 2: of documents of Availa to the public. And I had
Speaker 2: a dear friend who was a great researcher in Brazil
Speaker 2: who just passed away earlier this year, a Jagyvard, but
Speaker 2: he had really really led the charge in terms of
Speaker 2: trying to push for transparency in his country and also
Speaker 2: to obtain a lot of those documents and make the
Speaker 2: public more aware of their presence and what they entailed.
Speaker 2: So to your point, yeah, a lot of countries have
Speaker 2: been involved in this. I can't speak with the same
Speaker 2: level of knowledge about what maybe has happened in China,
Speaker 2: although I will point out that once the UAP Task
Speaker 2: Force had been established here in the United States, there
Speaker 2: had been a lot of Chinese I guess official news outlets,
Speaker 2: state controlled media there in China that came out saying
Speaker 2: that the Chinese government's going to use artificial intelligence and
Speaker 2: we're going to figure out what UAP are before the
Speaker 2: Americans do. So it's interesting to see that sort of
Speaker 2: dynamic we're going to beat them to the punch. But
Speaker 2: the broader takeaway seem to have been that China indeed
Speaker 2: is interested in this phenomenon just like the Americans are.
Speaker 2: And so for those who would say, well, we're just
Speaker 2: worried about whether Chinese drones are what some of our
Speaker 2: personnel are encountering when they see these UAP, it seems
Speaker 2: that China is concerned about what these things might be
Speaker 2: and that they're trying to get to the bottom of
Speaker 2: it too. So I mean, for what that's worth, again,
Speaker 2: it does seem to point to the worldliness of this phenomenon.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it can't just be an American thing. And of
Speaker 4: course we also had a James Fox on the program
Speaker 4: a couple of times now, and he's done a tremendous
Speaker 4: amount of research down in Brazil, so it's kind of
Speaker 4: funny that you brought that particular country up. He's had
Speaker 4: various degrees of success. I guess with working with the
Speaker 4: governmental agencies and whatnot down there, and he was a
Speaker 4: fascinating guest and a really cool guy in generally, Yeah,
Speaker 4: a great guy too, very well researched, very very well researched.
Speaker 4: At this point, what's your best guess what the hell's
Speaker 4: going on?
Speaker 2: I'm still saying it's sasquatch as far as you know,
Speaker 2: what I think is going on again. You know, sasquatch,
Speaker 2: for instance, is a simple problem. And by that I mean,
Speaker 2: and Cliff, I've heard you and Bobo say this many times,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, they're probably just I mean, all
Speaker 2: the evidence points to this just being a biological phenomenon.
Speaker 2: It's an animal, and somehow it has remained incredibly wary
Speaker 2: of humans, wary enough that they're pretty hard to reconcile
Speaker 2: in terms of, you know, obtaining that physical evidence. And
Speaker 2: UAP aren't unlike that in the sense that this is
Speaker 2: similarly evasive phenomenon. Again. A great definition of the paranormal
Speaker 2: appears in Matt Preuittz's new book The Phenomenal Sasquatch, where
Speaker 2: he's talking about how phenomena that are reported throughout history
Speaker 2: and that seem to be fairly a common occurrences, but
Speaker 2: actually are incredibly rare. That's a good way to look
Speaker 2: at both sasquatch and UAP. Lots of people say they've
Speaker 2: seen these things and encountered them, but they're actually extremely
Speaker 2: rare phenomena. As far as what I think is going
Speaker 2: on and what UAP may represent, I mean, it's in
Speaker 2: anybody's guests. I've always been fond of the possibility that
Speaker 2: there could be an extraterrestrial phenomenon. But if we want
Speaker 2: to go down the rabbit hole here for a moment
Speaker 2: and say, you know, what are the other possibilities. There
Speaker 2: have been people who have proposed the idea that we
Speaker 2: may be seeing, you know, some sort of developments that
Speaker 2: are occurring behind the scenes here on Earth, and that
Speaker 2: a lot of these may just be secret technologies of
Speaker 2: ours that might help account for why when there are
Speaker 2: observations of the occupants of some of these craft that
Speaker 2: they often do appear very human like and in some
Speaker 2: instances almost indistinguishable from humans. In some instances, people have
Speaker 2: said that the reason they look so much like humans
Speaker 2: might be because they are humans. But maybe they aren't
Speaker 2: humans from our temporal reality. They could be humans from
Speaker 2: another dimension. They could be humans for another period and time.
Speaker 2: In other words, it could be us from the future
Speaker 2: coming back to view successive generations from the past and
Speaker 2: observe how we lived in our present day. There's always
Speaker 2: that idea that we could be dealing with extraterrestrial visitors
Speaker 2: that just traverse great distances through space to get here.
Speaker 2: But there's also that fun idea that's kind of what
Speaker 2: you see in the Matrix films, that maybe we live
Speaker 2: in a sa and that the operators of the Matrix
Speaker 2: when they intersect with our reality, they appear to us
Speaker 2: as UFOs. And you know, for all we know, if
Speaker 2: we're going to go that far out on a limb
Speaker 2: to try and suppose what UAP might be, maybe sasquatches
Speaker 2: or glitches, and the Matrix too. But if I had
Speaker 2: to really bet on any of those circumstances, my view
Speaker 2: would probably be that again, UAP appear to be physical,
Speaker 2: tangible craft. We don't know where they're from. But I'm
Speaker 2: very open to the possibility, especially if more and more
Speaker 2: evidence seems to point in this direction that extraterrestrials or
Speaker 2: some extraterrestrial technology at very least, you know, it could
Speaker 2: be autonomous probes that are being controlled remotely, or they
Speaker 2: could just be completely autonomously controlled, but it could be
Speaker 2: some kind of an exotic technology. Now we'd need to
Speaker 2: see more evidence before we can lead with that presumption,
Speaker 2: but I am fond of that idea without getting married
Speaker 2: to it. And again, that's kind of my corollary for
Speaker 2: the Sasquatches, the big dumb ape idea. I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to be mean by calling it a big dumb ape.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying I mean. I think that if we
Speaker 2: get so far out in our thinking about either of
Speaker 2: these phenomena, we really don't do ourselves any favors. This
Speaker 2: comes back to what you were talking about, Cliff, you know,
Speaker 2: put your best data first. I think it's unnecessarily reductionist
Speaker 2: to say that, oh UAP can very easily be explained.
Speaker 2: They can't trust me. The United States federal government would
Speaker 2: not take such interest in this phenomenon as they do
Speaker 2: if this were easily reconcilable and they didn't think there
Speaker 2: was anything worthy of study. Again, we should put our
Speaker 2: best data forward, and for me, a lot of that
Speaker 2: data is what we are now seeing coming out of government,
Speaker 2: and there are a lot of researchers myself included in
Speaker 2: my team with the debrief to McMillan, m Jbinias, and
Speaker 2: others you know, who are actively involved in trying to
Speaker 2: appeal to government. We're speaking with people who have worked
Speaker 2: in government past and present, and as journalists we're trying
Speaker 2: to get to the bottom of what they know and
Speaker 2: how that could help us frame what we may be
Speaker 2: dealing with. But again, I keep saying that if we
Speaker 2: have seen this glass ceiling broken in recent years with
Speaker 2: the UAP issue, it's gone through this legitimization. We're now
Speaker 2: seeing lawmakers taking the subject seriously. We may not be
Speaker 2: able to see all the same developments happening with sasquatch.
Speaker 2: But I do think that a similar approach toward trying
Speaker 2: to understand that phenomenon could also result in more people
Speaker 2: taking it seriously, more scientists getting involved, and who knows,
Speaker 2: it could also be that there are some records that
Speaker 2: will eventually obtain that indicate that at various times, even
Speaker 2: to a small degree, that there have been government agencies
Speaker 2: on the state level or federal that have also taken
Speaker 2: interest in the Sasquatch issue.
Speaker 4: Oh, certainly they have. Certainly, you know, one thing that
Speaker 4: you keep saying that I love the fact that you
Speaker 4: keep coming back to it is that you keep mentioning
Speaker 4: to basically follow the evidence. Wherever the evidence leads, that's
Speaker 4: where we need to go, and that is what comes down.
Speaker 4: It comes down to for not only UAPs, but sasquatches
Speaker 4: as well. Of course, you're throwing around a big dumb
Speaker 4: ape and I know that you don't really think that way,
Speaker 4: because but that's the general idea that if you say
Speaker 4: these things are an animal, then the people who are
Speaker 4: less aware of how fantastic and intelligent whatever apes are,
Speaker 4: they say, oh, Cliff, you just think there are a
Speaker 4: big dumb mape. So no, no, not at all. I
Speaker 4: think that they're a really big, really intelligent ape. Actually,
Speaker 4: you know, and I'm sure, and I've talked to you
Speaker 4: about this. I know that that's your case as well.
Speaker 4: But I want to clarify that for listeners that in
Speaker 4: a way that's almost a throwaway line because when people
Speaker 4: ask are they humans or are they apes, which is
Speaker 4: a ridiculous question, of course, because that's like asking is
Speaker 4: it a coyote or is it a canine? Right, It's
Speaker 4: a meaningless question, unfortunately, but generally speaking, people are unaware
Speaker 4: of our own biological family and are in the way
Speaker 4: that taxonomy works, and are you know the way that
Speaker 4: evolution works, et cetera. They Oh, so, Cliff, you think
Speaker 4: they're just a big dumb ape. No, no, not at all.
Speaker 4: They are big. They are apes, but they're not dumb, right,
Speaker 4: And I want to point that out before people get
Speaker 4: all their feathers in a big uproar out there.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you making that point, and actually I'll clarify
Speaker 2: further to that. Again. By that, I mean in no
Speaker 2: way as a pejorative to ascribe low intelligence to sasquatch,
Speaker 2: which is if indeed the characteristics that are often attributed
Speaker 2: to the creature by those who have encountered it are
Speaker 2: accurate representations of hou sasquatch behaves. It's arguably second to humans,
Speaker 2: the most intelligent creature out there. Okay, and by some measures,
Speaker 2: it may be more intelligent than we are.
Speaker 4: But bo does say they don't have jobs or pay taxes,
Speaker 4: and that proves they're smarter.
Speaker 2: You can't argue that, can you. You know? So I
Speaker 2: mean in some ways, and you know, I've talked with
Speaker 2: a lot of friends, you know, naturalists philosophers who say
Speaker 2: that one of the greatest problems that humans have ever
Speaker 2: created for themselves are civilization, society, and the intricacies. I mean,
Speaker 2: it gives us a lot of really good things, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, easy access to food and shelter and things
Speaker 2: like this. But really, anybody who spends any time camping
Speaker 2: or out in nature and reverting back to the wild
Speaker 2: so to speak, I mean, I think they will have
Speaker 2: the experience of realizing what we have lost by becoming
Speaker 2: so dependent on a structured kind of civilization, the likes
Speaker 2: of which we have today. I know, I love that.
Speaker 2: And whether or not I find sasquatch when I'm out
Speaker 2: there in the forest, you know, with Matt Pruter or whoever,
Speaker 2: and we're out there stopping around in the foothills of Georgia,
Speaker 2: I mean, to me, getting back to nature in itself
Speaker 2: is something I just love. And in that regard, I mean,
Speaker 2: I look at a creature like sasquatch that has evolved
Speaker 2: to resemble and in many ways even behave like humans.
Speaker 2: We've got a bipedal lape. It's very large, it's very clever,
Speaker 2: very cunning, very capable of you know, finding food and
Speaker 2: obviously sheltering itself against the elements, and yet it hasn't
Speaker 2: become encumbered by a lot of the things that society
Speaker 2: imposes on humans today. I mean, maybe that's sort of
Speaker 2: a romantic outlook, but I think there's actually some truth
Speaker 2: to that too. So in some ways, you might say
Speaker 2: Sasquatch is actually more intelligent than we are. It's avoided
Speaker 2: a lot of the perils that humans now face by
Speaker 2: remaining hidden out there in the forest and living simply
Speaker 2: and enjoying nature.
Speaker 4: Getting back to the UAP thing real fast, I'm Melissa,
Speaker 4: and I my wife said, we're astonished because Melisa's kind
Speaker 4: of a u FO girl, right, she likes this this
Speaker 4: sort of thing UFOs and ghosts and stuff, so I'm
Speaker 4: exposed a lot of this stuff through her. We're astonished
Speaker 4: that more people aren't interested, you know. I mean, they'd
Speaker 4: rather watch a reality TV show about you know, a
Speaker 4: family or the Kardashians or something. But no, no, no,
Speaker 4: there's potentially non human intelligences out there looking at us
Speaker 4: or interacting or doing stuff. Why do you think it
Speaker 4: is that more people aren't taking this seriously or perhaps
Speaker 4: don't understand the gravity of this situation. I mean, this
Speaker 4: could legitimately be potentially the most important discovery in all
Speaker 4: human history, and it's on our doorstep, but people you know,
Speaker 4: are watching like cupcake shows.
Speaker 2: It's a really good point. I think about this a lot.
Speaker 2: I saw a guy on Twitter in recent days tweeting about,
Speaker 2: you know, is there a way that we can learn
Speaker 2: to talk to our family members about UAP? And again,
Speaker 2: I think that the same really that we're about to
Speaker 2: dive into here applies to sasquatch or any other kind
Speaker 2: of topic like this. But he had been sharing a
Speaker 2: communicational messenger or some app and saying, so, here is
Speaker 2: a link to a article that's giving a breakdown of
Speaker 2: all the latest stuff with the whistleblower and everything, and
Speaker 2: the family member had replied with like an eyebrows raised
Speaker 2: emoji and then immediately pivoted to, so, what do you
Speaker 2: want me to pick up for dinner tonight? I mean,
Speaker 2: And I got to tell you, I mean, I've had
Speaker 2: that same thing. I lovingly say that, you know, I
Speaker 2: called my mom and dad just to check in right
Speaker 2: after we had dropped the big article there at the debrief,
Speaker 2: and I said, you know, Mom, Dad, and let me
Speaker 2: just be clear. I mean, I am interested in all
Speaker 2: this stuff because at a young age I was gifted
Speaker 2: with parents who instilled wonder in my imagination, and they
Speaker 2: gave me books on Sasquatch. I mean, when I was
Speaker 2: in kindergarten, in first grade, I was reading Ivan Sanderson.
Speaker 2: I had a UFO book by Ray Fowler. These were
Speaker 2: not books for children, but I asked for him, and
Speaker 2: my parents say, you know, if it'll make him read,
Speaker 2: we'll give him what he's asking for. And I'm so
Speaker 2: glad that they did.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 2: They're interested in this stuff too. Him. My dad is
Speaker 2: just about as interested as I am in Sasquatch. But
Speaker 2: I call them to tell them the news about the
Speaker 2: whistleblower stuff and everything, and my mom in the background,
Speaker 2: I hear her yell and say I believe it, and
Speaker 2: my dad says, that's fascinating, son. Now listen, I got
Speaker 2: to go to the dealership tomorrow. Could you give me
Speaker 2: a ride.
Speaker 4: A lot of.
Speaker 2: People I talk to have had that kind of experience,
Speaker 2: but I think in the case with my parents, it's
Speaker 2: certainly not because they're not interested. But I think that
Speaker 2: the reality for them is they're like, you know, of
Speaker 2: course this stuff's probably out there, it's probably real, and
Speaker 2: I would imagine that a lot of people are already
Speaker 2: they've kind of warmed up to that idea, and so
Speaker 2: we always share this idea you can't handle the truth
Speaker 2: and one concern and they're actually there's some historical precedent
Speaker 2: for this and the reality that certain agencies have been
Speaker 2: concerned about. You know, what would happen if humankind were
Speaker 2: made aware without any kind of you know, question any further.
Speaker 2: I mean, if we were to disclose the reality of
Speaker 2: an extraterrestrial presence on Earth, I mean, society might fail,
Speaker 2: Religions would go away, people would be you know, out
Speaker 2: there in the streets. I mean, it would be complete
Speaker 2: and total chaos. I wonder sometimes would it necessarily? I mean,
Speaker 2: I look at people's reaction to this recent news. People
Speaker 2: are excited, but a lot of them are like, man,
Speaker 2: doesn't surprise me at all. And that's kind of where
Speaker 2: I am. Cliff. I look at this and I say,
Speaker 2: if you told me that all this stuff that we've
Speaker 2: been hearing, these whispers about these rumors about crash wreckages
Speaker 2: and things maybe at Roswell or wherever else, going back
Speaker 2: decades cover up secret programs that have been studying this technology,
Speaker 2: trying to reverse engineer it. I mean, if you told
Speaker 2: me all of a sudden that all of it was true,
Speaker 2: I can't say I'd really be surprised. We've been hearing
Speaker 2: these rumors for a long time. But again, we still
Speaker 2: got a long ways to go before we find that
Speaker 2: if it is indeed true. So I don't know. Maybe
Speaker 2: there will be complete societal collapse once the news all breaks,
Speaker 2: But something tells me that, based on people's kind of
Speaker 2: ho home reactions, maybe we shouldn't worry about that too much.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people are kind of already
Speaker 2: accepting the idea.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't think much would change. It's like the
Speaker 4: sasquatches are proven to be real today. It would be
Speaker 4: a big hullabaloo for about a month, and then everybody
Speaker 4: go back to normal because it turns out they're already real. Right,
Speaker 4: nothing really changed except for people are aware of it.
Speaker 4: But I would I would hope that, I mean again
Speaker 4: that this is I'm a curmudgety old guy or whatever,
Speaker 4: but at the same time, I am an optimist in
Speaker 4: a lot of ways, and I would hope that knowing
Speaker 4: that perhaps we weren't alone, whether I'm talking about sasquatches
Speaker 4: on the planet or something else, you know, driving cool
Speaker 4: spaceships or our atmosphere and checking us out. Maybe that
Speaker 4: would give us a little bit of introspection, some sort
Speaker 4: of humility, I guess, and realize that perhaps building our
Speaker 4: arsenals to kill our brothers isn't the best use of
Speaker 4: our money when we have so many people in need
Speaker 4: in the world, you know. And that's one one glimmer
Speaker 4: of hope that I see with a lot of this
Speaker 4: UAP legislation and whatnot, is that it is finally giving
Speaker 4: those people who say that they're quote unquote leaders but
Speaker 4: don't act like it, and governments something to agree upon,
Speaker 4: because for the most part they're like preschoolers arguing over
Speaker 4: a toy and like yelling and pointing fingers and blaming
Speaker 4: at each other. But to give them something to actually
Speaker 4: agree upon for some greater good that has to have
Speaker 4: some sort of beneficial effects for society, and to see
Speaker 4: them coming together and some sort of bipartisan legislation to
Speaker 4: make some things happen for a bigger than human cause,
Speaker 4: literally bigger than human cause, is at least some good
Speaker 4: that's coming out of the government today. Instead of the
Speaker 4: tit for tat name calling and what about ism that
Speaker 4: we get fed every day through the media.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's one of the most fascinating things I've seen.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's hard to say that anything that's just
Speaker 2: happening on Capitol Hill is anywhere remotely close to as
Speaker 2: fascinating as some of the UAP potentials. And again saying
Speaker 2: goes for sasquatch to me, there's a reason why I'm
Speaker 2: studying these phenomena. And I'm not a politician, but it's
Speaker 2: been fascinating seeing that members of the different parties that
Speaker 2: often share no common ground or very little at least,
Speaker 2: they all seem to be an agreement that, hey, whatever
Speaker 2: UAP represent, this is something we all need to take seriously.
Speaker 2: I've seen very few instances where there have been holdouts
Speaker 2: for political reasons that have said we can't pass this legislation.
Speaker 2: Now that's not to say that there haven't been some
Speaker 2: They are always going to be skeptics certain personality types
Speaker 2: and things like that. But I mean, in large part,
Speaker 2: those who have worked to push forward this UAP legislation
Speaker 2: and who have gotten it included in the National Defense
Speaker 2: Authorization Act over the last several fiscal years. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's been a bipartisan group with lawmakers from both sides
Speaker 2: of the political isle, and they're all coming together in
Speaker 2: unity on this point. So I mean that to me,
Speaker 2: at least on the socio cultural level, has been one
Speaker 2: of the most fascinating things.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and a glimmer of hope, I think as well,
Speaker 4: because I think I'm a lot like a lot of
Speaker 4: Americans that is, with very little hope in the government
Speaker 4: at this point because of the way they behave like
Speaker 4: children essentially, So to give them something to agree upon
Speaker 4: and move forward with, to me, that's a breath of
Speaker 4: fresh air that people are paying attention to something and
Speaker 4: realize that the importance is greater than what they normally,
Speaker 4: you know, bicker and bitch at each other about.
Speaker 2: So yeah, for sure, and that's you know again, I
Speaker 2: used to follow politics. I used to be a political junkie.
Speaker 2: I got to be honest. I mean, I read the
Speaker 2: news every morning, but I'm not really the political junkie anymore.
Speaker 2: I mean I began to realize the deeper I looked
Speaker 2: into trying to understand these phenomena. I mean, really, I
Speaker 2: guess you could call me a fourteen. In that tradition
Speaker 2: of Charles Fort. I'm somebody who's interested in every kind
Speaker 2: of anomaloust phenomena that can be observed in nature, and
Speaker 2: I study a little of all of it. I am
Speaker 2: just a you know, a longtime reader of not only
Speaker 2: that kind of you know, classic literature, but more recentis
Speaker 2: by guys like William R. Corlis, the American physicist who
Speaker 2: documented all kinds of stuff. He even devoted some time
Speaker 2: to the relictomenoid question and biological anomalies too. But for me,
Speaker 2: I've had to step away from so much of that.
Speaker 2: I mean, you turn on the news, and I mean
Speaker 2: it's just so depressing, so.
Speaker 4: So sucking, it's a bum out.
Speaker 2: It really isn't to me that sense of wonder that
Speaker 2: I used to get from watching In Search of as
Speaker 2: a child. You know, that drive, that hope to find
Speaker 2: something new, to aspire to find something that not only
Speaker 2: maybe is fascinating, but in many ways, like you're saying,
Speaker 2: but you know, might benefit humankind, make us all the
Speaker 2: better for it. Maybe it will broaden our perspective even
Speaker 2: in a cosmic way, and help us understand that our
Speaker 2: bickering and our fighting here on the global level is
Speaker 2: you know, a lot less consequential than we may think
Speaker 2: it is. Yeah, those kinds of pursuits, the pursuit of
Speaker 2: the mysterious, but not just for the sake of being
Speaker 2: interested in mysteries. No, actually really trying to study it,
Speaker 2: really to resolve these anomalies and to understand what's happening
Speaker 2: in our world. That's what really gets me, That's what
Speaker 2: really enlivens my spirit, and that's really where I've just
Speaker 2: chosen in recent years to put my time, effort, and energy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the unknown and mysteries is a wonderful unifier that
Speaker 4: brings people together from all sorts of walks of life,
Speaker 4: and it sees no boundaries, and I think that's just fantastic.
Speaker 4: And you know, you mentioned you're a general Fortian, so
Speaker 4: I think that I think that On that note, we'll
Speaker 4: probably end this episode and go over to the member
Speaker 4: section and let's get into some of the other things
Speaker 4: over there on our special members only broadcast. Let's get
Speaker 4: into some of the other things that you might think
Speaker 4: are real, or maybe some of the things that you
Speaker 4: don't think are real, and we can talk about that.
Speaker 4: We can cover things I don't know, like dog men
Speaker 4: or fish fallen from the sky or lizard men or
Speaker 4: lake monsters and some of that stuff in there, and
Speaker 4: we'll hear your thoughts on some of those more extraordinary
Speaker 4: beyond Bigfoot and Beyond sort of things and in the
Speaker 4: member section.
Speaker 2: Okay, sure sounds great.
Speaker 4: All right, so members, talk to you on Thursday, I
Speaker 4: guess and everybody else. Thank you so much for listen
Speaker 4: need a Bigfoot and Beyond today. Bubba was not able
Speaker 4: to make us. He was not able to join us
Speaker 4: before this broadcast ended, but that's all right. We're all
Speaker 4: here to cover for each other. We're all good friends.
Speaker 4: That's what we do here at Bigfoot and Beyond. So
Speaker 4: thank you very much for listening. Everybody. I'll talk to
Speaker 4: you next week and in the meantime, keep it squatchy.
Speaker 4: Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
Speaker 4: If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
Speaker 4: us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
Speaker 4: get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
Speaker 4: at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Speaker 4: Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond. That's an N in the middle,
Speaker 4: and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Speaker 4: Bigfoot and Beyond
Speaker 5: H