Speaker 1: Now one of your pudding.
Speaker 2: I got a string going on here, something just because
Speaker 2: my dog.
Speaker 1: Something killed your dog. My dog.
Speaker 3: We're flying through the air over the tree.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: How it did it, Okay, Damn, I'm really confused.
Speaker 1: All I saw was my dog coming over the fence
Speaker 1: and he was dead.
Speaker 2: And once you hit the.
Speaker 5: Ground like, I didn't see any cars.
Speaker 1: All I saw was my dog coming over the fence.
Speaker 4: Sat what are you putting? We got some wonder or
Speaker 4: something crawling around out here. Did you see what it
Speaker 4: was or was it was?
Speaker 1: Standing enough. I'm out here looking through the window now
Speaker 1: and I don't see anything. I don't want to go outside.
Speaker 2: Jesus Quice, you better.
Speaker 1: Hello, hit the boddy out here? What quin I'm out there?
Speaker 6: I thought of a.
Speaker 2: Bitch about tech forty nine.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Easy ann ount there, Yeah, I'm working right.
Speaker 1: Hey, all right, folks, On Walker my guest to the show.
Speaker 3: It is the Ban the Myth, the Legend, author, researcher,
Speaker 3: TV personality speaker, and.
Speaker 1: Now podcaster Ken Gearhard.
Speaker 4: Welcome to the show, Man, Thank you, Brian. It's good
Speaker 4: to see you, brother. It's an honor to be on
Speaker 4: with you.
Speaker 2: Man. Thanks for having me on your show. A big deal.
Speaker 3: This has been a long time coming, man. I was
Speaker 3: looking back at some emails we were emailing back in
Speaker 3: twenty two to twenty three trying to get this worked out,
Speaker 3: and it's taken us to twenty twenty six to get
Speaker 3: you on the show. So I've been looking forward to
Speaker 3: this conversation for a long time.
Speaker 4: Looking to ass I could remember if we'd done this before.
Speaker 4: I didn't think we had, so that's but it's great
Speaker 4: to finally make it happen.
Speaker 3: This is our virgin voyage together into podcasting. So let's
Speaker 3: get into it. Man, Let's talk about this bigfoot thing.
Speaker 3: What in the world got you interested in the subject
Speaker 3: of bigfoot sasquatch did?
Speaker 1: To begin with?
Speaker 6: Oh?
Speaker 4: Man, of course, a lot of people ask me that question.
Speaker 4: It's an unusual career slash following. I just talked about
Speaker 4: this in my first episode of my podcast this past
Speaker 4: week because people asked me this so much. But I
Speaker 4: had a pretty cool childhood. My dad was a scientist
Speaker 4: forestry professor from Canada. Both my parents were Canadian, so
Speaker 4: I spent a lot of time in the woods and
Speaker 4: I love to collect lots of creepy Crawley animals. My
Speaker 4: first pet was a Cayman alligator, and I had salamanders
Speaker 4: and snakes and all kinds of I loved animals.
Speaker 2: I also loved monster movies.
Speaker 6: Man.
Speaker 2: I grew up on Godzilla.
Speaker 4: Movies, a Creature from the Black Lagoon, and all that
Speaker 4: good stuff. Back in the day, when I saw a
Speaker 4: TV show, and I think I figured out it was
Speaker 4: at the latter part of nineteen seventy five, I was
Speaker 4: watching Saturday morning cartoons. Scooby Doo was my favorite at
Speaker 4: that time. There was a news break they did a
Speaker 4: segment on Bigfoot. I'd never heard of it before. I
Speaker 4: was about eight nine years old, and they showed up
Speaker 4: clips in the Patterson Gimlin film. They had the pictures
Speaker 4: of the guys holding plaster casts, Roger Patterson, Renee Dehn,
Speaker 4: and whoever man. Something clicked. I thought it was the
Speaker 4: coolest thing ever. Here was this thing to be some
Speaker 4: kind of animal obviously running around in the wilderness that
Speaker 4: we hadn't discovered yet. But it also was a monster.
Speaker 4: It was like giant and hairy and scary. My mother
Speaker 4: was very encouraging growing up. She used to tell me
Speaker 4: stories about the YETI and the Mothman and stuff. Took
Speaker 4: me the library to check out big Foot books. I
Speaker 4: saw the Minnesota Iceman exhibit about that time. In the
Speaker 4: summer of seventy six. My dad was at the University
Speaker 4: of Minnesota who was a professor there, and that was
Speaker 4: an impactful six million dollar man episode that was happening
Speaker 4: at the same time. Now, when I was fifteen years old,
Speaker 4: my mom took me all over the world. She was
Speaker 4: a travel agent. When I was fifteen years old, she
Speaker 4: arranged for me to go to Lockness in Scotland, so
Speaker 4: I attempted my first field research. When I was a teenager,
Speaker 4: had an eight millimeter movie camera. I would interview people
Speaker 4: around the lake and sit out there hoping something would surface.
Speaker 4: So I never expected to make it a career. I've
Speaker 4: just been very blessed. It's a passion, if not an
Speaker 4: obsession of mine. About twenty five years ago, when my
Speaker 4: music career was not at a point where I just
Speaker 4: wanted to step away, I got lucky and I started
Speaker 4: hooking up with others for researchers, joining groups, going to conferences,
Speaker 4: writing books, and I ended up on my first TV
Speaker 4: show in two thousand and six, and so it's just
Speaker 4: been a really cool experience since then.
Speaker 3: In addition to authoring of the books, the television shows,
Speaker 3: you've done speaking in all the Bigfoot events, traveling around
Speaker 3: the world looking for these things. You're a cryptozoologist, and
Speaker 3: I know that a lot of people on the show.
Speaker 3: I had to do some digging myself when I first
Speaker 3: got into the subject and started looking into cryptozoology. There's
Speaker 3: a lot of things out there. I think that people
Speaker 3: fundamentally just don't understand about cryptozoology.
Speaker 1: So for the audience, can.
Speaker 3: You talk a little bit about that, give us your definition,
Speaker 3: because most people, I think, only see it through the
Speaker 3: lens of pop culture and maybe they.
Speaker 1: Don't get so deep into the subject. So can you
Speaker 1: talk a little.
Speaker 3: Bit about what the definition of cryptozoology is and what
Speaker 3: it is for you and how you go about the discipline.
Speaker 2: Ye oh yeah, definitely, thanks for that.
Speaker 4: As I told you, I grew up, I don't have
Speaker 4: any scientific credentials.
Speaker 2: Admittedly, you don't have to be a cryptoso I'll just
Speaker 2: per se. I just think you need to be as.
Speaker 4: Scientific as possible in terms of your methodology and being
Speaker 4: objective and critical thinking in those kinds of things.
Speaker 2: But my father was a scientist.
Speaker 4: He imparted me with deductive reasoning and he was a statistician,
Speaker 4: so it was all about data, collecting data and stats
Speaker 4: and looking at things.
Speaker 2: So I try to take that approach cryptosology.
Speaker 4: The field was actually created by a zoologist named doctor
Speaker 4: Bernard Hoffelmans, who was a Belgian slash French zoologist at
Speaker 4: the Royal Institute of Natural History in Belgium, and then
Speaker 4: Ivan T. Sanderson, who wrote a great book in the
Speaker 4: nineteen sixties, A Bominable Snowman Legend Come to Life. Those
Speaker 4: two guys, both zoologists, founded cryptozoology. They were romantic in
Speaker 4: terms of thinking that a lot of these legendary creatures
Speaker 4: that people talk about, like sea serpent, signettes and the
Speaker 4: Lockness monster and sasquatch might be not just legends but
Speaker 4: undiscovered species. So cryptozoology means a study of hidden animals,
Speaker 4: that is, animals that are hidden from science scientific recognition.
Speaker 4: Pouvelman's original definition basically states that it has to be
Speaker 4: somewhat of a remarkable animal in terms of the size
Speaker 4: or the sensational aspects of stuff. So something like an
Speaker 4: unknown lizard that's this big wouldn't really be I mean,
Speaker 4: there are a lot of scientists working on that kind
Speaker 4: of stuff and field research. But of course scientists are
Speaker 4: very reticent to become involved in cryptozoology because it can
Speaker 4: hurt their reputations, as we know from our good friend,
Speaker 4: the late doctor Meldrum. So it's the study of hidden animals.
Speaker 4: So I try to emphasize the zoology part of cryptozoology.
Speaker 4: I look for these things like sasquatches and other cryptids
Speaker 4: in terms of are they undiscovered species. I think you
Speaker 4: can make an argument based on how much of our
Speaker 4: planet is still unexplored or at least uninhabited, and how
Speaker 4: new species are still being found all the time, even
Speaker 4: large ones from time to time.
Speaker 2: So that's it.
Speaker 4: I'm very interested, of course in other weird creatures, and
Speaker 4: I've written a book about things like the moth man.
Speaker 2: I've investigated dog man and.
Speaker 4: Pig men and the weird things that are I think
Speaker 4: more supernatural or metaphysical. And I guess the reason I
Speaker 4: get involved with those reports is there is a chance
Speaker 4: that some of those could be based on an actual
Speaker 4: animal or misidentification of something. Right, you knows, you really
Speaker 4: have to dove into the stuff. Anyways, A long rambling
Speaker 4: answer there, But cryptozoology things in my opinion that are
Speaker 4: not cryptids are things like mothman, dog man, goat man,
Speaker 4: black eyed kids, windigoes, skin walkers. They're still cool things
Speaker 4: to investigate and cool topics to talk about, but I
Speaker 4: don't see any viability for any of those things as
Speaker 4: being an evolved species on this planet.
Speaker 3: In your view, where do you think cryptozoology sits on
Speaker 3: the spectrum between folklore, zoology, anthropology, psychology and why do
Speaker 3: you think so many people are so uncomfortable with that
Speaker 3: gray area of cryptozoology as opposed to all those other things.
Speaker 2: Well, man, that's a good question.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Pulvimen's intended for cryptozoology to be a multifaceted discipline. So
Speaker 4: it does incorporate the fundamentals of zoology, which involves evolution,
Speaker 4: natural history, and biology and those types of things. But
Speaker 4: also folklore was very important because a lot of things
Speaker 4: that were discovered around or just before his time, like
Speaker 4: the okapi, the Komodo dragon, the mountain gorilla, a lot
Speaker 4: of those things had a cryptid status in some ways,
Speaker 4: at least to Westerners.
Speaker 2: So it's multidisciplined. As I've been in this a long time,
Speaker 2: I think all.
Speaker 4: Good researchers really have to study sociology and psychology because
Speaker 4: you need to understand human motivations, why some claims are
Speaker 4: more sensational than others, why some people claim that they
Speaker 4: can go in the woods and hang out with sasquatches
Speaker 4: versus the rest of us that have to go out
Speaker 4: for years and years looking We have to recognize and
Speaker 4: anthropology is very important because sasquatches do seem to look
Speaker 4: like something in our fossil records, some type of ancient
Speaker 4: hominin just bigger. All of that encompasses a lot of
Speaker 4: different schools of elf.
Speaker 3: Do you think cryptozoology suffers more from skepticism that comes
Speaker 3: from scientists We've talked about scientists already in this conversation.
Speaker 3: Or do you think it comes from some of the
Speaker 3: sensationalized accounts and some of the sensationalism that comes with
Speaker 3: and is created by the believers in the field. And
Speaker 3: how do you think that has shaped the tension in
Speaker 3: the field.
Speaker 2: These are good questions, Brian.
Speaker 4: Let me think in terms of Bigfoot, for example, I
Speaker 4: guess all cryptids really there's been a lot of hoaxing.
Speaker 4: There's no doubt that hoaxing has been enmeshed with these
Speaker 4: creatures in many cases across time and going back many years,
Speaker 4: so there's reasons for people to be skeptical. Scientists, as
Speaker 4: I mentioned, are reticent to get involved with this kind
Speaker 4: of stuff because it could damage the reputation or create
Speaker 4: professional problems for them. The general public, I believe, based
Speaker 4: on two recent surveys, eighteen to twenty two percent of
Speaker 4: the population think that foot could exist, So really just
Speaker 4: one in five people. Everyone loves the idea, it's a
Speaker 4: great idea, it's fun, it's a legend. But only one
Speaker 4: in five think that bigfoot could exist. But most people
Speaker 4: don't immerse themselves in the evidence. They may have just
Speaker 4: seen like a thirty minute TV show or a YouTube
Speaker 4: video or something, and they think, okay, I got an
Speaker 4: opinion on that. But if you've done this for years
Speaker 4: and you see how all these dots connect, as remarkable,
Speaker 4: as impossible as it seems for bigfoot to exist, I
Speaker 4: think they probably do. I've never seen one, I'm convinced.
Speaker 4: I've heard them a few times, and I've seen other
Speaker 4: evidence like footprints and physical trace evidence and things, And
Speaker 4: of course, I like you, I've spoken to hundreds of
Speaker 4: people various levels of credibility. I guess that's the other thing.
Speaker 4: The other part of your question that we could address
Speaker 4: is there are a lot of sensational claims to the
Speaker 4: general public outside of the bigfoot field. They're going to
Speaker 4: lump us all together. So if there's a person out
Speaker 4: there that's saying they telepathically communicate with a clan of
Speaker 4: Sasquatches and this and that, there are really no different
Speaker 4: than some like that's out there, like trying to use
Speaker 4: objective science and find answers that way you've.
Speaker 3: Described Bigfoot in the past. I believe is one of
Speaker 3: the most compelling cryptids because of the sheer number of
Speaker 3: the reports. So many people have claimed to have encountered
Speaker 3: and seen these things and had experiences with them. What
Speaker 3: do you think separates sasquatch from other cryptids as far
Speaker 3: as the evidentiary weight behind some of the reports.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's the consistence.
Speaker 4: It's the number of reports and accounts, which let's assume
Speaker 4: that's a small percentage of the population. Most people probably
Speaker 4: don't come out and tell anybody if they've seen one
Speaker 4: of these things, right, They're afraid of ridicule. But the
Speaker 4: consistency of the reports, But there have been analytical studies
Speaker 4: Brian on sasquatch reports, first by John Green mister sasquatch
Speaker 4: back in the nineteen seventies, and then Hunter Fahrenbach in
Speaker 4: the nineties.
Speaker 2: There's analytical models.
Speaker 4: The data fits pretty well together across hundreds or thousands
Speaker 4: of sightings. Height described or estimated to seven and a
Speaker 4: half feet, that's pretty consistent, the way the hairs on
Speaker 4: the body, the gait which is described, and of course
Speaker 4: the very broad shoulders and no neck thing, and so
Speaker 4: a lot of these things are very consistent. That's interesting.
Speaker 4: And then of course you have the wild man stories
Speaker 4: from the nineteenth century and also Native American traditions many
Speaker 4: in the Pacific Northwest and across the North America of
Speaker 4: these quote unquote wild men. So that's one level. Then
Speaker 4: you have the physical trace evidence, like the footprint evidence,
Speaker 4: in addition to some handprints and knuckles and butt prints
Speaker 4: and other things like that. But the footprint evidence is
Speaker 4: pretty consistent, the ones that are credible. I'm actually going
Speaker 4: to be talking about that a lot this year at
Speaker 4: conferences because I want to carry on doctor Jeff's legacy
Speaker 4: in terms of what evidence he thought was really key,
Speaker 4: So we'll talk about mid tarsal flection. You can see
Speaker 4: that on a lot of casts now, all the ones
Speaker 4: that are considered most credible. I've even gone back Brian
Speaker 4: and looking like the Gray's Harbor Trackway Jerry Crust. You
Speaker 4: can see mid tarsal flection on all of those, like
Speaker 4: really considered to be really realistic or genuine casts. And
Speaker 4: the foot design is so consistent but still shows a
Speaker 4: level of animation, as Jeff would say, but also genetic variation.
Speaker 4: So the physical trace evidence is very convincing. I think footprints,
Speaker 4: and then we have the Patterson Gimmin film, which we
Speaker 4: could probably do a five hour show on that, but
Speaker 4: I think that's very convincing. So it's just how all
Speaker 4: these dots connect. It just builds a pretty good case
Speaker 4: in my opinion. I've been doing this a long time
Speaker 4: and maybe I have a little bias, but I tell
Speaker 4: people I'm ninety percent convinced that they exist.
Speaker 3: That's where I was man until two summers ago. We
Speaker 3: were out in the Pacific Northwest. We're out actually at
Speaker 3: the headquarters for the Olympic Project when we were filming
Speaker 3: a documentary, and I had three encounters in two days.
Speaker 3: I got to see these things one daytime siding, and
Speaker 3: then I got to see them two times at night
Speaker 3: ten feet away from me. At one point, Oh gosh,
Speaker 3: I am definitely convinced one hundred percent. I'm only skept
Speaker 3: now about people and evidence. I'm no longer skeptical about bigfoot.
Speaker 3: But here's one of those questions that has haunted me
Speaker 3: and everybody I think that's in this field. After so
Speaker 3: many decades of all these sightings, the encounters, the footprints,
Speaker 3: the audio recordings, what do you personally find most difficult
Speaker 3: to explain away when it comes to sasquatch? Is there
Speaker 3: one thing that sticks out to you that you find
Speaker 3: more difficult than others, maybe to explain away when it
Speaker 3: comes to the phenomenon itself.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's definitely some red herrings, like the red eyeshine.
Speaker 4: It doesn't really make any sense zoologically. People talk about
Speaker 4: top of them, lucidum and different adaptations.
Speaker 2: Cliff has an interesting theory about all this.
Speaker 4: But red pies that are like seem self illuminating, that's
Speaker 4: pretty far out.
Speaker 2: So that's a big problem.
Speaker 4: But so many people describe that, and there's a lot
Speaker 4: of argument about I mean, they seem habitually by pedal.
Speaker 4: But then when you go down in the South, and
Speaker 4: I researched for many years in Texas, Louisia, Arkansas, and it,
Speaker 4: oh no, they go down on all the fours all
Speaker 4: the time. And I'm like, that doesn't really make sense,
Speaker 4: you know, I mean in the big scheme of things.
Speaker 4: But as far as the thing that's the most convincing
Speaker 4: in terms of evidence, I guess is what you're really
Speaker 4: asking me.
Speaker 3: Stay tuned for more sasquatch out to see.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after these messages.
Speaker 4: I think it's the physical trace evidence combined with the
Speaker 4: Patterson Gimblon film and maybe a percentage of the eyewitness
Speaker 4: accounts that are undeniable where you have multiple eyewitnesses. But
Speaker 4: I know there's a lot of arguments to be made against, right,
Speaker 4: why don't we have better photographic evidence at this point?
Speaker 2: And why hasn't one been road killed?
Speaker 4: The guys we're going to say all the roadkill that
Speaker 4: I see in this country driving around, and even big
Speaker 4: things get hit by trucks and stuff sometimes, and you
Speaker 4: think that might happen eventually, but I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's a great mystery.
Speaker 1: This is a two part question.
Speaker 3: If Sasquatch is a flesh and blood creature, and I
Speaker 3: believe that they are, I've always been in the apor camp.
Speaker 3: I've always been in the flesh blood camp. What do
Speaker 3: you think for you.
Speaker 1: Is the strongest.
Speaker 3: Argument of how they've avoided biological confirmation for so long?
Speaker 3: And I guess this is a two part question about
Speaker 3: The other question that I get from skeptics all the
Speaker 3: time is where are the bodies? How do you respond
Speaker 3: to those questions now? And has that answer evolved over
Speaker 3: the last ten or twenty years that you've been doing
Speaker 3: this where's the body?
Speaker 4: I've got a whole chapter on that in my book,
Speaker 4: The Censior Guide to Bigfoot.
Speaker 2: That is the great million dollar question for skeptics.
Speaker 4: I mean something, these are large animals that weigh eight
Speaker 4: hundred one thousand pounds. They've had to have a breeding
Speaker 4: population for thousands of years on this continent. You think
Speaker 4: at the some point a fossilized twos or a bone
Speaker 4: or something would have turned up at least. So that's again,
Speaker 4: that's a real tough proposition as far as why we
Speaker 4: can't find them. I think it's two dynamics at work.
Speaker 4: One is that they are incredibly rare animals, I think,
Speaker 4: much less common than people realize. A population estimate model
Speaker 4: that I came up with, which actually pretty well matched
Speaker 4: one by doctor Grover Krantz and somewhat one that Jeff
Speaker 4: had done, is that there's probably only about three to
Speaker 4: four thousand of these animals in the entire continent of
Speaker 4: North America, from Alaska to Canada to Florida. So you're
Speaker 4: one hundred and fifty times more likely to fight a
Speaker 4: bear or remains of a bear. Right, So they're very rare,
Speaker 4: probably critically endangered in some ways, but still they may
Speaker 4: have evolved with a longer lifespan and slower birth rate
Speaker 4: or some adaptation to keep them going. The other thing
Speaker 4: is that I think that they have evolved with adaptations,
Speaker 4: behavioral adaptations specifically geared at avoiding humans Homo sapiens. I
Speaker 4: think that they recognize I'm not saying they're as intelligent
Speaker 4: as we are, but they're intelligent enough to recognize that
Speaker 4: we are the one thing that can basically take them out. Right,
Speaker 4: they're the apex predators, but they don't like humans, and
Speaker 4: they seem to move away from humans as quickly as possible,
Speaker 4: Although they do. Occasionally we'll get territorial like many animals
Speaker 4: and throw rocks and scream and bang on things, but
Speaker 4: they're not out there killing people or dismembering people and
Speaker 4: eating them.
Speaker 2: They're very reticent. And there are other adaptations, presumably largely nocturnal,
Speaker 2: very nomadic, move around a lot, and just good at
Speaker 2: camouflaging themselves, staying very still standing, buying trees. All that
Speaker 2: stuff has ingrained in the reports.
Speaker 3: So I don't want to put words in your mouth here,
Speaker 3: but I assume when you first got into this, specifically
Speaker 3: with Bigfoot, most of the researchers that were in the field,
Speaker 3: at least for me, I'll speak for me personally. When
Speaker 3: I got into this seriously and started looking into the subject,
Speaker 3: most everybody was in the flesh and blood camp. Everybody
Speaker 3: thought this thing was a relic, tomanoid of some sort,
Speaker 3: or a Hamanan of some sort, some undiscovered primate. But
Speaker 3: as we've progressed in this, it seems that has changed
Speaker 3: in the mindset, seems to have went to almost a
Speaker 3: fifty to fifty sometimes at seventy thirty even eighty twenty
Speaker 3: split of people who believe that it's some sort of
Speaker 3: relic tominoid versus somebody on the other side, These people
Speaker 3: who think that it is potentially an interdimensional being, something
Speaker 3: that's dropped off by aliens to use the bathroom when
Speaker 3: they're moving throughout the galaxy, whatever it is that people
Speaker 3: think they do. Hortal potty, hortle potty exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Have you seen the same shift that I have towards
Speaker 3: this interdimensional supernatural or extraterrestrial explanation? And how do you
Speaker 3: think about that mindset versus what you discovered or what
Speaker 3: you saw when you first got into this versus now.
Speaker 4: I hope my answers aren't too meandering for you, Brian,
Speaker 4: but these are obviously relevant questions that you're asking. I've
Speaker 4: done some research on this, and to the best of
Speaker 4: my knowledge, the first reference to Bigfoot possibly being connected
Speaker 4: to UFOs or the supernatural was with John Keel in
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy in his book Strange Creatures from Time and Space.
Speaker 4: The next year, Jerome Clark ufhone investigator and Lauren Coleman
Speaker 4: Cryptosolas too. At that time was more of a kind
Speaker 4: of a fortiing guy. Co wrote an article for Flying
Speaker 4: Saucer Review magazine about his Bigfoot connected to UFOs, and
Speaker 4: then a lot of stuff started happening around that time.
Speaker 4: I still speak frequently with Stan Gordon, who investigated those
Speaker 4: bigfoot UFO cases in the early seventies in Pennsylvania. He
Speaker 4: called me about once a week. He's still adamant that
Speaker 4: bigfoot and UFOs are connected. And of course I've had
Speaker 4: good conversations with people like Ron Moorehead and Tom Powell.
Speaker 4: There are some people with that kind of viewpoint that
Speaker 4: I think are very smart and have done the research
Speaker 4: a long time. But as you mentioned, bigfoot research in
Speaker 4: Earnest started in the nineteen fifties, fifty six and then
Speaker 4: up until nineteen seventy for fourteen years. None of those
Speaker 4: pioneers of research that spent years and hours researching and
Speaker 4: interviewing people in the field, John Green, Reneea Hind and
Speaker 4: Peter Burn, Bob Tittnis, none of those guys ever said, oh,
Speaker 4: there's a supernatural UFO aspect to this. John Green even
Speaker 4: investigated some of those weird cases in the Eastern US
Speaker 4: and he thought that the this is were sincere, but
Speaker 4: it didn't make sense to him Anyways. Throughout the seventies
Speaker 4: there was an evolution and if you went to a
Speaker 4: bookstore or watch the TV show. Usually Bigfoot was sandwich
Speaker 4: between Atlantis and the Bermuda Triangle, right, so people began
Speaker 4: to connect.
Speaker 2: This is social phenomenon.
Speaker 4: People exercised something known as apophenia, which is basically our
Speaker 4: unconscious desire to connect everything and make it have some
Speaker 4: kind of meaningful connection. And we had a lot of
Speaker 4: cultural influence with these TV shows and six Million Dollar
Speaker 4: Man where Bigfoot was an alien and all these things
Speaker 4: in the seventies, and then it went back to apri
Speaker 4: for a while because things are cyclical. But it feels
Speaker 4: like to me, Brian, that there's been a new spiritualist
Speaker 4: movement in recent years where people are reconnecting with different
Speaker 4: levels of spirituality and belief. For many people, Bigfoot Sasquatch
Speaker 4: fits into their worldview their belief system. Unfortunately, according to
Speaker 4: Oxford Dictionary, belief is defined by feeling.
Speaker 2: It's not evidence. So it's just what.
Speaker 4: You want or think or feel that something should be
Speaker 4: or you want it to be, as opposed to what
Speaker 4: the evidence show. So I've been in the field for
Speaker 4: decades in the most active areas all over North America, Alaska, Pacific,
Speaker 4: Northwest Bluff Creek, boggy creek, honey island, swamp, foot, green swamp,
Speaker 4: apply and you name it. If they've been big for
Speaker 4: I've been in that area. I've never seen these weird
Speaker 4: orbs that people talk about. I haven't seen a bigfoot,
Speaker 4: so therefore I have not seen a bigfoot cloak or
Speaker 4: do anything like that.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I don't want to be disingenuous, and I'm sure I'm
Speaker 4: making a lot of enemies in certain camps when I
Speaker 4: talk about this stuff. To me, the evidence does not
Speaker 4: indicate that these things are supernatural or interdimensional. I'm still
Speaker 4: one hundred percent ap or based on the evidence.
Speaker 3: I've thought about this so much because we do talk
Speaker 3: to so many people. I've interviewed probably a thousand plus
Speaker 3: people at this point for the show and in person
Speaker 3: at these conferences and book signings and things that we do,
Speaker 3: it seems to be what's happening.
Speaker 1: It looks to me like Bigfoot has.
Speaker 3: Almost became the cryptid Rarshock Test, and people start putting
Speaker 3: their own worldview onto the mystery. Because here's the thing,
Speaker 3: I think, at least for me, and I guess this
Speaker 3: is a question for you, do you think it could
Speaker 3: be one of these situations where people go for decades,
Speaker 3: so many years looking into the subject. We both know
Speaker 3: people that have been doing this for thirty plus years.
Speaker 3: They've been out in the woods looking for their own experiences,
Speaker 3: looking for those answers, and they tend to not come
Speaker 3: right because, let's face it, bigfoot research in and of
Speaker 3: itself is pretty fricking boring. There's a lot of time
Speaker 3: sitting around the campfire where absolutely nothing happens, and you
Speaker 3: go so long without having any kind of answers about this.
Speaker 3: Do you think that pushes people maybe to start maybe
Speaker 3: getting into this more supernatural explanation because I can't explain
Speaker 3: it away with science. I can't explain it in a
Speaker 3: way that makes sense logically. So let me go in
Speaker 3: a different direction and see if I can find answers there.
Speaker 3: Do you think that's possibly what's going on?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I think for some people it's a sociological phenomenon, the
Speaker 4: archetype of the wild man, but you can find it
Speaker 4: in every culture around the world. The brutish, big hair,
Speaker 4: care covered manlike creature has a lot of symbolism.
Speaker 2: For us.
Speaker 4: It represents kind of our connection to the wilds, the wilderness,
Speaker 4: our past, and so it's a very powerful the idea
Speaker 4: of a bigfoot or a sasquatch. It hits people in
Speaker 4: a very profound way. I think resonates very strongly different
Speaker 4: people for different things.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 4: I think there are some researchers who eventually turned to
Speaker 4: hoaxing because maybe they found some cool evidence at one
Speaker 4: point and then they didn't feel as relevant.
Speaker 2: After a while.
Speaker 4: And I think that might be the case with people
Speaker 4: like Ivan Marx, and there was a guy in Texas
Speaker 4: that had a video can't think of any name off
Speaker 4: the top of my head, that originally had good evidence
Speaker 4: and then eventually they started faking things, I think to
Speaker 4: some extent, because it's very difficult for us to disconnect
Speaker 4: ourselves from our desire to have experiences or find evidence.
Speaker 4: I've been on a bunch of big put expeditions with
Speaker 4: different groups and stuff, and sometimes people are a little bit,
Speaker 4: maybe teeny over zealous about what something they hear or
Speaker 4: what they're interpreting something is. I've been on bigfoot hikes
Speaker 4: with fifty people and then someone was like, Yo, there's
Speaker 4: one following it.
Speaker 2: I don't think it is, man, I had fifty of
Speaker 2: us here in a row. Yeah, I don't know, it
Speaker 2: is boring.
Speaker 4: Also, if you love the outdoors, it's never such a
Speaker 4: thing as a bad big put excursion because you're just
Speaker 4: out in the woods checking out other animals and camping
Speaker 4: and enjoying the outdoors. But in terms of your right,
Speaker 4: I've been in the field for many years and I've
Speaker 4: heard vocalizations a few times that I think we're very convincing.
Speaker 2: I've never seen one.
Speaker 4: Occasionally, I'll find something else here or there, but you know,
Speaker 4: it requires a lot of patience.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit.
Speaker 3: About the technology. As technology has progressed. I know when
Speaker 3: people started getting out in the woods thirty forty years ago,
Speaker 3: you carried a flashlight.
Speaker 1: That was about it. Right now everybody has all the toys.
Speaker 3: We got trail cams, we've got drones or satellite imagery.
Speaker 3: There's even AI enhanced analysis that people do on things,
Speaker 3: which I think is a very dangerous, slippery slope that
Speaker 3: we can certainly get into at some point as well.
Speaker 3: But do you think with all the technology, are we
Speaker 3: any closer. Because of that technology and your opinion to
Speaker 3: getting into the answers, maybe it is pushing us farther
Speaker 3: into discovery. Take drones specifically. For example, I've had tons
Speaker 3: of conversations with people over the years. I love drones.
Speaker 3: I have two of my own. I love taking them up.
Speaker 3: I love taking them out in the field and using
Speaker 3: them as a scouting thing. Like when we were out
Speaker 3: in the Pacific Northwest. None of us had ever been
Speaker 3: in that area. We wanted to go out and shoot
Speaker 3: at night, so I put the drone up and it
Speaker 3: helped us a lot in determining, Hey, that area looks
Speaker 3: a little easier maybe to get to than this area.
Speaker 3: We could go there, but you're not going to find
Speaker 3: a bigfoot with a drone. And I don't know why
Speaker 3: that's so hard. I think it's hard for people that
Speaker 3: have never used a drone to just assume because they
Speaker 3: see these beautiful pictures online. You can zoom in and
Speaker 3: see the wings on a fly from three hundred feet
Speaker 3: away with some of these drones.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem.
Speaker 3: If you go out and use it practically in the woods.
Speaker 3: I was out with Todd's standing back in the end
Speaker 3: of twenty three up in Radium. Todd's got a fifteen
Speaker 3: thousand dollars thermal drone.
Speaker 2: We put it up.
Speaker 3: We found a few deer, but by and large, as
Speaker 3: dense as that forest is, and this was going into winter,
Speaker 3: most of the leaves had fallen, it was still almost
Speaker 3: impossible to see anything on the ground there. So there's
Speaker 3: no magic bullet as far as I'm concerned with technology,
Speaker 3: But in general.
Speaker 1: I guess that can be a two part question.
Speaker 3: Do you think we've moved the ball down the field
Speaker 3: with technology enough to help us maybe get some of
Speaker 3: these answers? And do you think things like AI are
Speaker 3: going to make that even more difficult? Even if somebody
Speaker 3: did find one of these and was able to get
Speaker 3: a photo or a video. Do you think all the
Speaker 3: AI stuff out there is going to muddy the water
Speaker 3: so much that's not even going to be a thing anymore.
Speaker 4: Yeah, definitely the last thing. For the last few years,
Speaker 4: I've basically declared I'm pretty much out on alleged photographic evidence.
Speaker 4: People try to send me photos and videos all the
Speaker 4: time now, and with technology as it is and AI,
Speaker 4: there's no way you're ever going to be able to
Speaker 4: tell for sure if something is Maybe if you had
Speaker 4: a multi camera angle of something by different witnesses, that
Speaker 4: might be something, But even then technology is moving so
Speaker 4: fast it's going to be hard. So yeah, I'm out
Speaker 4: on the photographic stuff for sure. But AI has many
Speaker 4: different benefits too in terms of data collection, assembly, organization stuff,
Speaker 4: so that's cool and all the other gadgets you mentioned,
Speaker 4: And I.
Speaker 2: Know lots of guys in the field too that have
Speaker 2: the really cool drones and the flurs which were never
Speaker 2: really affordable years ago, and light ar and man.
Speaker 4: There's the technology is definitely going to increase our chances,
Speaker 4: I think, because it is going to help us basically
Speaker 4: just survey the landscape a teeny bit better than we
Speaker 4: could in the past. But the one technology that I
Speaker 4: think is pivotal is the DNA environmental DNA.
Speaker 2: It's gotten a little bit more affordable.
Speaker 4: It was phenomenally expensive before, and there's still aspects that
Speaker 4: are pretty expensive. But I collected my first water sample
Speaker 4: at Lockness a couple years ago, I had my first
Speaker 4: DNA analysis. A doctor Haskell Hart, who's a friend of
Speaker 4: mine from Texas, put me in touch with a lab
Speaker 4: and it's becoming a little bit more affordable. And I
Speaker 4: was actually involved with a project with doctor Hart out
Speaker 4: in Oklahoma a couple of years ago where he was
Speaker 4: collecting water samples in an area in your area X
Speaker 4: where there's been a lot of activity where he had
Speaker 4: at a siding.
Speaker 2: So that's cool.
Speaker 4: Because DNA is scientifically speaking, it's going to be pretty
Speaker 4: much a slam dunk. Now Here's the thing that I've
Speaker 4: heard is for one thousand dollars or one thousands of
Speaker 4: dollars or maybe even a little less than that, you
Speaker 4: might be able to have a DNA sequence that is
Speaker 4: relegated to pomenoid or homa in hamanidai or whatever it's
Speaker 4: in our family.
Speaker 3: And stay tuned for more sasquatch otasy.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after these.
Speaker 4: Messages, and that sequence would come back. If you did
Speaker 4: a gen blast on the database, it would come back
Speaker 4: like champ human, gorilla champ orangutangad look like okay, it's
Speaker 4: a great eight, but it could still be human. In
Speaker 4: order to sequence and find a lab that'll do and
Speaker 4: I'm not a geneticist, so I'm not going to tend
Speaker 4: to explain it, but the way that Haskellhart could. But
Speaker 4: in order to have a novel DNA sequence that is
Speaker 4: distinct enough where geneticists can look.
Speaker 2: At it and say, oh, look it's almost human.
Speaker 4: But it's got this many mutations and this, and so
Speaker 4: it's got to be a different.
Speaker 2: Species or whatever.
Speaker 4: I think that is still going to cost tens of thousands,
Speaker 4: if not one hundred thousand dollars to have a DNA
Speaker 4: test of that level applied.
Speaker 2: So we're still going to run into.
Speaker 4: This kind of obstacle where we get a lot of
Speaker 4: DNA results of alleged sasquatches and they come back as
Speaker 4: either they could be human, and of course some people
Speaker 4: in the big foot field argue that they are human,
Speaker 4: which I disagree with.
Speaker 2: But it's going to be hard, but that's a pretty
Speaker 2: powerful tool.
Speaker 4: And then particularly if you find a soil sample under
Speaker 4: a bigfoot track, or you get a video or several
Speaker 4: witnesses see a big foot make a track, then you
Speaker 4: get the dirt sample, and then it's secret. Maybe I'm
Speaker 4: being overly optimistic. I think all that could add up.
Speaker 3: Anything's possible, But I agree with you it is the
Speaker 3: totality of the circumstances. If somebody goes out and picks
Speaker 3: up some random dirt just in the woods on a hike,
Speaker 3: with nothing to prompt them, just hey, I'm going to
Speaker 3: do this, and they want to go have it tested
Speaker 3: and then something weird comes back in it. Yeah, people
Speaker 3: are going to look at that and say, but if
Speaker 3: you do have something on video or a photograph or
Speaker 3: multiple witnesses that see this thing take a step, then
Speaker 3: you go get the dirt, and then it comes back
Speaker 3: that you've got some kind of grade ape or some
Speaker 3: sort of eight DNA, then you have to perk up
Speaker 3: a little bit and say, hey, what's really going on here?
Speaker 3: There may be something to this. I know you've looked
Speaker 3: at this, just it's like everybody else who's into this.
Speaker 3: Everybody takes a look at sasquatch, Yetti, the Yaren, the
Speaker 3: wild man from.
Speaker 1: All over the world.
Speaker 3: And I get this question a lot. People ask me,
Speaker 3: do you think Bigfoot or Sasquatch here in North America
Speaker 3: is the same thing as a yetti or a yaren
Speaker 3: or something in another country on another continent. And I
Speaker 3: take that a little bit deeper, and I guess I
Speaker 3: want to go a little bit deeper on the question
Speaker 3: for you. I know you've looked into this. Do you
Speaker 3: think there could be some sort of shared biological origin
Speaker 3: between all of those things or do you think it's
Speaker 3: just possibly some sort of convergent mythology going on.
Speaker 4: Good questions, Brian, this is good stuff, okay. Evan Sanderson,
Speaker 4: who I mentioned earlier. Ivan Terrence Sanderson, who was Abominable
Speaker 4: Snowman legend come to Life, proposed four different types based
Speaker 4: on his research back in the sixties.
Speaker 2: There was the neo giant, which is like a sasquatch
Speaker 2: or the year En.
Speaker 4: There was the proto pygmy wich were the little teeny
Speaker 4: ones like the Sadapa orang pendeck Agagway and shiu we Wendy.
Speaker 4: And then there was the subhuman, which was like the
Speaker 4: Almus from Russia. They seem to be more human like,
Speaker 4: they might wear skins or clothes or trade or have
Speaker 4: primitive language or something more human like. And then the
Speaker 4: fourth one was the sub human, which was like the Yetti.
Speaker 4: He thought that YETI was just like an ape, like
Speaker 4: a pongiate. So that's four types. And I know, actually
Speaker 4: doctor Melgrim kind of added he and I talked about that.
Speaker 4: He liked Ivan's original guests of four different types, and
Speaker 4: of course Jeff traveled around to Russian and China investigated
Speaker 4: a lot of those types of reports.
Speaker 2: Cliff has as.
Speaker 4: Well and Adam Davis a lot of guys I haven't
Speaker 4: had a chance, so Madda loved to get to Asian
Speaker 4: and check some.
Speaker 2: Of those out. But anyways, I digress.
Speaker 4: I tend to align with Krantz on this, Doctor Grover Krantz,
Speaker 4: I'm a crancy in many ways, and that's one of
Speaker 4: my scientific viewpoint. Science is about probability. So what is
Speaker 4: the probability that there is an unknown species of hominoid
Speaker 4: running around in the world. What is the probability that
Speaker 4: they're for in different types of specie that seems to
Speaker 4: be I don't know, so I like to hedge my
Speaker 4: bets in stay. I think it's the same species all
Speaker 4: over the world. The protopygmy accounts are interesting, little foot
Speaker 4: I've written about that. I've spoken to many Native people,
Speaker 4: indigenous peoples that have encountered these things. Could there be
Speaker 4: a pigmy variation or variant of the one type and
Speaker 4: then I think the other ones. You probably just had
Speaker 4: a lot of accounts of kind of feral people. I
Speaker 4: hate to say, like homeless. The website is really disingenuous.
Speaker 4: Not be disrespectful, but wild people that live feral and
Speaker 4: very wild and uncamped in the woods are very primitive people,
Speaker 4: uncontacted tribes, things like that probably make up the more
Speaker 4: human like one.
Speaker 2: So I think it is just one type.
Speaker 4: The footprint evidence again from China and the United States
Speaker 4: a lined pretty well, probably some from Russia and Asia
Speaker 4: as well, So yeah, it's probably just one species with
Speaker 4: regional variations that I guess would be subspeciation where they
Speaker 4: might be a little bit bigger, smaller, different colors based
Speaker 4: on you know, where they're at.
Speaker 3: Here's a question I get often, and I'm curious where
Speaker 3: you are on this. If sasquatch were definitely proven to exist, tomorrow,
Speaker 3: no question, somebody bags, a body brings it in.
Speaker 1: It's discovered, right, What do you.
Speaker 3: Think would be the most disruptive consequence from that, whether
Speaker 3: it be scientifically, culturally, politically, or do you think it
Speaker 3: would be more geared towards the sasquatch themselves as far
Speaker 3: as the consequences of discovery? Where are you on the
Speaker 3: whole discovery thing? Because I tell you, when I first
Speaker 3: got into this years ago, I was always about discovery.
Speaker 3: I wanted to push the discovery. I was documenting all
Speaker 3: these encounters as part of being the repository to have
Speaker 3: people come and share those so that it could be
Speaker 3: data mined by whomever wants to do it and hopefully
Speaker 3: maybe pushed the ball down the field for discovery. And
Speaker 3: I naively thought everybody was in the subject for that
Speaker 3: same reason. Not the case, And that has even changed
Speaker 3: for me some, especially since my encounters last year.
Speaker 1: It's definitely evolved from me.
Speaker 3: I'm less concerned about having them discovered by science, honestly,
Speaker 3: because I think there are going to be some disruptive
Speaker 3: consequences on both sides for that.
Speaker 1: So I kick it back over to you.
Speaker 3: Where are you on the whole thing with discovery and
Speaker 3: the potential for these disruptive consequences that would come with
Speaker 3: that discovery.
Speaker 4: Oh gosh, yeah, who knows. Again, the science nerd in
Speaker 4: me says, we have to discover these things. It's going
Speaker 4: to teach us so much about not only our planet
Speaker 4: and our environment and habitsat but also who we are
Speaker 4: because this is presumably the closest species to Homo sapiens
Speaker 4: on the planet, so from an anthropological and zoological perspective,
Speaker 4: it's pretty huge. The conservationist in me hopes there would
Speaker 4: be an attempt to have some kind of legislation or
Speaker 4: protection for these things right off the bat that everyone
Speaker 4: would agree, Okay, these things are really rare, maybe they're
Speaker 4: going extinct, and they're the most human like animals, so
Speaker 4: it would make sense that we would pass laws and
Speaker 4: pretty cool. There are actually a handful of places already
Speaker 4: in the US where there are ordinances things where yeah,
Speaker 4: they're protective.
Speaker 2: I think that's already a good start.
Speaker 4: Socially, I don't know, man, there's a lot of We're
Speaker 4: living a very polarized society right now, and people have
Speaker 4: very strong opinions and beliefs. It's hard to say exactly
Speaker 4: what the discovery like that would do to people in
Speaker 4: terms of a foundational level, people's reality and foundation, and
Speaker 4: would people stop going out.
Speaker 2: In the woods.
Speaker 4: There's definitely gonna be a lot of problems, economic issues,
Speaker 4: social issues, scientific problems, so it would be a big
Speaker 4: deal for sure. You may be right, maybe it's our
Speaker 4: best interest not to discover them, but I guess I've
Speaker 4: invested so much time in this, and also again just
Speaker 4: the curious person in me, which is the science side,
Speaker 4: you want some type of at least prove for evidence
Speaker 4: that this thing exists, because then it kind of broadens
Speaker 4: the scientific scope of our world.
Speaker 3: This is another question that I have wrestled with over
Speaker 3: the years, and I certainly want to get your take
Speaker 3: on this. Do you think there are institutions, systems in place,
Speaker 3: even the government on some levels, that have a vested
Speaker 3: interest in the fact that Sasquatch aren't proven real at
Speaker 3: this point? Because I used to argue with people and say, look,
Speaker 3: I was in government. I was a cop for sixteen years.
Speaker 3: You would be surprised what the government doesn't know about
Speaker 3: most things. I worked for a huge metropolitan police department
Speaker 3: in the city of Atlanta, and you would think that
Speaker 3: we were a well old machine, and most of the
Speaker 3: time it was literally like Keystone Cops.
Speaker 1: Behind the scenes.
Speaker 3: So that said, do you think it's possible that there
Speaker 3: are at least maybe factions within the government. In my opinion,
Speaker 3: I don't think it's some big, overreaching conspiracy theory, But
Speaker 3: do you think it's possible that at least maybe on
Speaker 3: a compartmentalized basis, there are factions or portions of the
Speaker 3: government or institutions that have a vested interest in making
Speaker 3: sure that this stay's quiet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess that's fair.
Speaker 4: I'm not really a conspiracy advocate either, I've found in
Speaker 4: my life that it's hard for more than one person
Speaker 4: to keep a secret. Like you said, how many people
Speaker 4: would have to be involved in a cover up of
Speaker 4: that magnitude with all these different political polarized positions and things,
Speaker 4: that would.
Speaker 2: Be very difficult. But I'll give you an example.
Speaker 4: We were doing an expedition maybe twenty years ago in
Speaker 4: the Green Swamp of Florida. Actually, Scott Marlowe was the
Speaker 4: guy that put it all together, of the late cryptosoldis,
Speaker 4: and he actually obtained a permit for us from the
Speaker 4: state of Florida to search for the skunk gate in
Speaker 4: this park, so as a state approved expedition or whatever.
Speaker 4: And while we were in there, one of the park
Speaker 4: rangers drove over and parked and came and talked to us,
Speaker 4: and he said, yeah, I'll never say this on the record,
Speaker 4: but they're here. But what I know about park rangers
Speaker 4: and p people that work in those situations is they're
Speaker 4: very overworked and underpaid. They have a specific list of
Speaker 4: animals that they have to manage, which is a lot
Speaker 4: of work different species, and then suddenly if you throw
Speaker 4: something like sasquatch in a mix, it's just going to
Speaker 4: make the wheels fall off in some cases. So I
Speaker 4: think there would be reasons, some economic and some perhaps
Speaker 4: just stress people trying to save themselves undue stress and problems.
Speaker 4: So probably true. But no, I don't think there are
Speaker 4: bodies hidden it an underground bunker and Area fifty one
Speaker 4: or anything like that. I don't think there were bodies
Speaker 4: recovered from Mount Saint Alan's or skeletons in the Smithsonian.
Speaker 2: I'm not a conspiracy person.
Speaker 1: Damn it. I don't know, and that's no fun.
Speaker 2: I know it's not. I keep ruining the party wherever
Speaker 2: I go, and I don't mean to do that.
Speaker 3: But with everything you've seen, researched, experienced, is there that
Speaker 3: one nagging question about sasquatch for you personally that you
Speaker 3: wrestle with the most?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 4: Wow, I think to me, the most definitive answer that
Speaker 4: I would want to know is that you know exactly
Speaker 4: what species they are because we're learning more in the
Speaker 4: field of anthropologies, learning so much more about all of
Speaker 4: our family tree and all the bushiness and different species
Speaker 4: that overlapped, and some inner bread and this and that.
Speaker 4: I don't think they are sentient in terms of you're
Speaker 4: going to be able to sit down and communicate. That's
Speaker 4: borne out by the eyewitness descriptions on the Patterson Gillen
Speaker 4: film where you see this sharply receding forehead.
Speaker 2: It's a smaller brain case.
Speaker 4: Are they as intelligent as something like Homo ergaster, which
Speaker 4: is almost like Homo erectus, which.
Speaker 2: Is almost on the cusp of being a man, or is.
Speaker 4: It more primitive which other great apes are very intelligent,
Speaker 4: Or is it more like a gorilla or a austrolipithesceene
Speaker 4: or something like that, because that would teach us so
Speaker 4: much about again, just where we belong in the kind
Speaker 4: of the scheme of things. I don't have any great
Speaker 4: interest in trying to communicate with one or anything.
Speaker 2: I don't want to make big foot, my friend.
Speaker 4: I know there are a lot of people out there
Speaker 4: that think that would be a pretty cool thing.
Speaker 1: But I know people who think they've done that already.
Speaker 2: But we won't go there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, last question here. I want to be
Speaker 3: respect for your time. So let's go out for the
Speaker 3: thirty thousand foot view for a second. When future generations
Speaker 3: look back on sasquatch research, maybe that you've done or
Speaker 3: I've done, or anybody in this field has done right. Now,
Speaker 3: what is it that you hope they say we got right?
Speaker 3: And what do you fear that they might say we
Speaker 3: got wrong or that we missed entirely.
Speaker 2: Well, that's deep.
Speaker 4: I'd like to think that the pioneers Peter Burn sixty
Speaker 4: eight years his research, John Green, I think it was
Speaker 4: like fifty six for Reneea Hinton forty something. These guys
Speaker 4: spend decades their whole lives, So I think their original
Speaker 4: idea of what a sasquatch is many different ways of
Speaker 4: describing it. Peter Burn liked to think it was more
Speaker 4: of a primitive man, whereas John Green and Renee and
Speaker 4: Krantz were all aper somewhere in that. But if it
Speaker 4: is discovered, then at least validates on not just them,
Speaker 4: but any big researcher out there within the sound of
Speaker 4: my voice, if you've spent years, decades, thousands of dollars
Speaker 4: pursuing this, if it's proven to be real, then you
Speaker 4: did get it right.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 2: That's the bottom line there is. All your buddies at
Speaker 2: work are gonna have to zip it at some pole.
Speaker 2: All right, you were right about that bigfoot thing. I'll
Speaker 2: tell you that what did we get wrong? I don't know.
Speaker 4: I think there's been a lot of I'm going to
Speaker 4: contradict myself because I think there have been a lot
Speaker 4: of very passionate researchers through the years, but there's been
Speaker 4: a lot of sloppy research and people that didn't do
Speaker 4: as meticulous a job as they thought they were when
Speaker 4: they were out there doing the research. And so maybe
Speaker 4: we would have made the discovery a lot sooner. Maybe
Speaker 4: there wouldn't have been so many missed opportunities or situations
Speaker 4: like that if people had really thought out or put
Speaker 4: more of a method or a strategy to the research
Speaker 4: and do not document any things a different way.
Speaker 2: If that makes sense. I don't know. Man, it's all
Speaker 2: fun to talk about. It's fun to speculate.
Speaker 1: I know, I love it. It's what keeps me coming back.
Speaker 3: Before we get out of here. We've talked about the books.
Speaker 3: We've talked about your cryptozoology classes. Tell everybody about your books.
Speaker 3: Tell them about your cryptozoology classes. Tell them about the
Speaker 3: cryptid Legacy podcast. I know you just got that off
Speaker 3: the ground. Tell them all the things about Ken Gearhard
Speaker 3: where they can find it.
Speaker 2: I appreciate the opportunity, Brian, great conversation and you had
Speaker 2: some pretty profound questions. I really enjoyed that.
Speaker 4: So yeah, my books can be found on Amazon dot
Speaker 4: com just look up Ken Gearhard. I do have a
Speaker 4: Patreon which is the base now for my online cryptozoology course.
Speaker 2: If you want to learn about.
Speaker 4: All the cryptids out there, from Bigfoot to NeSSI, to thunderbirds,
Speaker 4: the Beast of javadaan, you name it, that all can
Speaker 4: be found on Exploring Cryptozoology, which is my Patreon. And
Speaker 4: I've just started a podcast called Cryptid Legacy and we'll
Speaker 4: see how it goes. But I'm just going to tell
Speaker 4: stories basically about some of my misadventures and some of
Speaker 4: the big personalities I've worked with through the years.
Speaker 2: And different things like that.
Speaker 4: That can also be accessed on Exploring Cryptozoology on Patreon.
Speaker 2: So those are my two big product.
Speaker 4: And of course I can be seen on various TV
Speaker 4: shows on the History Channel mostly if people want to
Speaker 4: check that out on Friday nights, they're probably going to
Speaker 4: have the best.
Speaker 2: Shot at that. And I have several appearances this year.
Speaker 4: I'll be speaking at several Bigfoot conferences as always, Big
Speaker 4: Book conferences, festivals, and some paranormal type conferences as.
Speaker 2: Well, So I'm going to be a good year.
Speaker 4: Oh one last thing, my fiance and I am are
Speaker 4: also leading a tour to Scotland at the end of
Speaker 4: June for people that want to come with me and
Speaker 4: search for the Locknest Monster and check out other Scottish
Speaker 4: legendary creatures mythic Scotland. And that's the adventure mystery tours.
Speaker 3: That sounds intriguing. I'm going to have to check that
Speaker 3: out myself. As always here on the show, we make
Speaker 3: it easy for you guys. I will link to that
Speaker 3: in the show notes. Go over to Kengearhard dot com.
Speaker 3: You can get everything Ken just talked about there. We'll
Speaker 3: link to that in the show notes. Ken, our most
Speaker 3: valuable resource on the earth is time, and I cannot
Speaker 3: thank you enough for spending an hour of your time
Speaker 3: with us today. Man, I've been looking forward to this
Speaker 3: and it didn't not disappoint. One of the best conversations
Speaker 3: I've had in a long time. So thank you so
Speaker 3: much for coming on the show. Man, I've had a
Speaker 3: blast talking to you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, brother, It's been an honor and a pleasure.
Speaker 4: Everyone take care and stay warm.
Speaker 6: They say, you don't gotta go home, but you can't stay.
Speaker 2: I don't want to be.
Speaker 6: World open, this job, that chart everything, Joy for me.
Speaker 2: Joy, stay right.
Speaker 6: Coming away, answers, consiside and stalls.
Speaker 5: Concerns inside insteads stay said said, stand inside, side inside
Speaker 5: inside and stays stills. Also bass and State plays arst
Speaker 5: things in fast uss P instans