Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bubo. These guys
Speaker 1: are your favorites, so like to subscribe and raid it.
Speaker 2: Live stock and me righteous on Yesterday and listening watching
Speaker 2: always keep its watching. And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman
Speaker 2: and James Boobo Fay.
Speaker 3: Greetings earthlings and Bobo. How you doing pretty good?
Speaker 4: Pretty good?
Speaker 3: And I'm a nursling too, only temporarily right, take me
Speaker 3: to your leader, Bobes. What's happening?
Speaker 4: Not much, just I got some good weather down here.
Speaker 4: It's pretty nice out, get a little out for work
Speaker 4: for a minute or two and coming in for a
Speaker 4: little podcast.
Speaker 3: And excellent, excellent. You got to take advantage of the
Speaker 3: weather and get outside and look for some sasquatch footprintcess
Speaker 3: has been dumping rain for the for the past X
Speaker 3: number of days. This is a great opportunity to do so.
Speaker 3: I know Freeman found a lot of his footprints because
Speaker 3: the snow melts and stuff. He tried to be the
Speaker 3: first guy on a certain road after the snow is
Speaker 3: melting and everything and just kind of walking and stuff.
Speaker 3: This is the opportunity. So I'm trying to get out,
Speaker 3: but having some trouble with my barn situation, getting the
Speaker 3: roof back on it. But other than that, I'm going
Speaker 3: to try to get down the woods as soon as
Speaker 3: possible to walk these roads and look for prints.
Speaker 4: That's quite a project, you get there, Cliff that roof.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, and they're they're yeah. A long story, man,
Speaker 3: long story. There's just always something with this thing, you know,
Speaker 3: construction is, you know, you like everything's in order, then
Speaker 3: suddenly you run out of something. Everything's in you reorder that.
Speaker 3: Then suddenly what turns out what you got is the
Speaker 3: wrong size, and it's like, oh man, it's just brutal. Right,
Speaker 3: but so far, so good. They were supposed to finish today,
Speaker 3: but again, wrong size is something. So now I have
Speaker 3: a seventy foot long, one foot wide hole in my roof.
Speaker 3: The rain's coming in a couple of days, so we'll see,
Speaker 3: we'll see what happens. Man. It's just always an adventure.
Speaker 2: Sounds like everything was fine when Bobo's trailer was in there.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, everything was always better when Bobo's trailer was there.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It was like a talisman that had a protective shield,
Speaker 2: like a spell. It cast like a wide net of
Speaker 2: protection over your outbuilding.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, Cliff has to learn the hard way. We all do.
Speaker 3: I know, I know we all have to learn the
Speaker 3: hard way. I'm a lifelong learner too, I'll tell you.
Speaker 3: But you know, maybe we can do a little bit
Speaker 3: of learning and teach them today too. It's a Q
Speaker 3: and A today, of course, and all the questions are
Speaker 3: submitted by you, the listeners. If you want to submit
Speaker 3: a question, to hit that link that Matt Prude always
Speaker 3: puts down in the show notes there, and you can
Speaker 3: of course write as an email as many of you
Speaker 3: have chosen to do. Or the cooler and more fun option,
Speaker 3: perhaps maybe is to actually record a voicemail for us
Speaker 3: asking your question. We have a couple of those today
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 2: Should we just.
Speaker 3: Hop right into it?
Speaker 2: We should? I want to throw a caveat in there
Speaker 2: real quick, because we did get a couple of additional
Speaker 2: voicemails that just the audio was very bad and haven't
Speaker 2: really had that happen before. So I would just say
Speaker 2: to folks, if you're going to submit a voicemail, just
Speaker 2: makes you're at home in a quiet room and not
Speaker 2: like driving or with the TV on in the background
Speaker 2: or something super noisy, because it does use your phone
Speaker 2: mic and those are pretty sensitive, and so a couple
Speaker 2: of them were just like unlistenable for all you would be.
Speaker 2: Voicemail submitters go somewhere quiet.
Speaker 3: You know who you are, whoever you are.
Speaker 2: So anyway, here is the first voicemail. Hi Cliff, Hi Bobo.
Speaker 5: This is Josh Kiltmaker, longtime fan of both of you
Speaker 5: and your work. My question is a kind of a
Speaker 5: comment that leads into a question. Over the past fifteen years,
Speaker 5: we've seen a lot of projects, missions, and areas that
Speaker 5: start off with a big bang, a lot of promising
Speaker 5: reports and excitement surrounding them, i e. The Olympic Project
Speaker 5: Area x, Melbo, Ketchem, et cetera, and they just kind
Speaker 5: of sort of fade away and nothing ever is resolved
Speaker 5: or achieved big moment. So my question is, is anything happening
Speaker 5: now that you either of you know that might be
Speaker 5: the winning ticket.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I appreciate your input and thank you so much for
Speaker 5: your podcast.
Speaker 4: Have a good one, guys. I say, first off, that
Speaker 4: last name of kilt Maker. That's the best thing I've
Speaker 4: heard in a long long time. That's awesome.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've never heard that last name before, but I
Speaker 3: have been known to Donna kilt or two in my time, at.
Speaker 4: Least one for sure. Some Yeah, you can ask this
Speaker 4: question better the big clip because you're talking to Derby.
Speaker 4: It's communication with him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think Darby is the thing I have the
Speaker 3: most hoping that there's actually going to be some sort
Speaker 3: of resolution or some serious, serious progress. I do speak
Speaker 3: to Derby in a fairly regular basis. In fact, he listens,
Speaker 3: he tells me straight out. I listened to almost all
Speaker 3: your Q and A, so he's probably listening now to
Speaker 3: this very question. I think Derby is the thing right
Speaker 3: now that I have the most hope in that we're
Speaker 3: going to actually get somewhere. Whether proves the species, well,
Speaker 3: I certainly hope it does, but I think we might
Speaker 3: be able to learn something actually from this.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind, though, so a couple of the things
Speaker 3: you mentioned. The only two that I can remember is
Speaker 3: the Melbow thing, and that just turned into a mess,
Speaker 3: and you can read, you know, books about it like the.
Speaker 4: Sasquatch Doctor Hearts.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, exactly, Haskell Heart's book at a brain fart there.
Speaker 3: But the Olympic Project stuff. I think the Olympic Project stuff.
Speaker 3: I know that it started with a bank, so to speak,
Speaker 3: and from the outside perspective, it kind of fizzled, but
Speaker 3: it didn't really. It didn't. It started with a bank
Speaker 3: because they announced it essentially, but it had been going
Speaker 3: on long before the announcement, so you got to keep
Speaker 3: that in mind. There's a public face of this stuff
Speaker 3: and then there's a behind the scenes stuff that it's
Speaker 3: always going on. Oh the other thing was Area X too,
Speaker 3: So they have a good spot basically. That's what that
Speaker 3: came down to. They had a good spot and they
Speaker 3: were doing a concerted, organized effort essentially. But both of
Speaker 3: those situations are still ongoing. But as far as the
Speaker 3: Olympic Project stuff goes, Yeah, yeah, there was a nest stuff.
Speaker 3: They studied that for quite a while. They found a
Speaker 3: bunch of these things, and then later they announced it
Speaker 3: to the public, which was the bang part, And the
Speaker 3: fizzle part is that the public doesn't get a lot
Speaker 3: more information about it unless they're actually out, you know,
Speaker 3: going in here in Shane or Derek or Chris or
Speaker 3: some of these people speaking, you know, Dave Ellis for example.
Speaker 3: But the Nest stuff is still going on, and it's
Speaker 3: just one of a couple of things they have on
Speaker 3: the burners as well. I think it's amongst the more
Speaker 3: important things they have on the burner. But let's look
Speaker 3: at what we actually got out of that. We got
Speaker 3: a really interesting behavior that had been reported sporadically in
Speaker 3: the literature for a long time and never really supported
Speaker 3: very well by other stuff. And also, much like this
Speaker 3: whole stick structure thing that I'm always kind of like
Speaker 3: casting a sidelong, dubious glance at, there had been very
Speaker 3: very few, if any, to my knowledge, direct one to
Speaker 3: one correlations with nests. With the nests, it's a little
Speaker 3: bit different the nests. There were, and there were several
Speaker 3: supporting pieces of information. Obviously, there were sightings in the area,
Speaker 3: which is interesting in itself because it's a closed area
Speaker 3: that's private land. Blah blah blah, unusual artifacts found. I
Speaker 3: guess we can say the nest situation. We had biologists
Speaker 3: go to the location and say, yeah, that this is
Speaker 3: bear behavior, this is undocumented bear behavior, and bears are
Speaker 3: really the only other culprit that might be responsible for
Speaker 3: this kind of thing. There were those stones that were
Speaker 3: knocked together. There were when they dissected how the nests
Speaker 3: was made, they found that sticks were shoved into the
Speaker 3: ground and other sticks were woven around them. That's very
Speaker 3: unusual for any sort of animal out there that doesn't
Speaker 3: have hands. And then, of course the next nest site
Speaker 3: that was discovered I personally was involved in much more
Speaker 3: heavily than the first nest site. I saw the first
Speaker 3: nest but long after they were discovered, but I was there,
Speaker 3: I think within a week or something of the second
Speaker 3: nest site being discovered, and I personally found and documented
Speaker 3: hand prints at the location, several footprints from underneath the
Speaker 3: NeSSI material. So we have a direct one to one
Speaker 3: correlation now with these nests and sasquatches, which is something
Speaker 3: that was missing before and never documented to my knowledge beforehand.
Speaker 3: So there's several footprint casts and handprint casts from this location,
Speaker 3: and a couple of those are on display at the
Speaker 3: North American Bigfoot Center. It might add too, they're publicly displayed.
Speaker 3: And then on top of it, Okay, so we have
Speaker 3: interesting behavior, these nests are somehow associated with sasquatches, and
Speaker 3: then that second nest site in particular that sasquatch was
Speaker 3: repurposing a bear den. That's super interesting. That's really interesting
Speaker 3: behavior that never been documented before, but makes a lot
Speaker 3: of sense, and of course, now you know, years after
Speaker 3: all this stuff is kind of like settled down. There
Speaker 3: have been visual observations of sasquatches in this property or
Speaker 3: on this property. There have been footprint finds from this property.
Speaker 3: Chris Spencer most of his audio work or a lot
Speaker 3: of his audio work has been from this same property,
Speaker 3: so this is an ongoing location. I think that the
Speaker 3: fizzle down part might be dism misinterpreted. So it's not
Speaker 3: like there was a bang and then you hear then
Speaker 3: there's nothing going on. There's actually a bang, a big
Speaker 3: announcement of some sort, and then the Olympic Project in
Speaker 3: particular gets deployed long term in this location, visiting it
Speaker 3: as much as as they possibly can, and then studying it.
Speaker 3: I've seen some of Chris Spencer's Excel files about audio
Speaker 3: vocalizations and they're fantastic. These guys are still working the
Speaker 3: area now. Is there are more nests being found? Not
Speaker 3: that I've heard, of course, you know, but they're getting
Speaker 3: patterns down, and I think that that's something you got
Speaker 3: to keep in mind. Just like what I said a
Speaker 3: couple of weeks ago in the last the Q and A,
Speaker 3: and I'll say it again too, that like the Darby
Speaker 3: thing I think right now holds the North Carolina State
Speaker 3: University thing holds the most promise. But just like the
Speaker 3: Olympic Project thing, just like the long term study at
Speaker 3: the area X for an AWAC, real science takes a
Speaker 3: long time, and it's not that there's going to be
Speaker 3: a finding from the Olympic Project, nest site and Darby studies.
Speaker 3: There are many of them. Some of these hold a
Speaker 3: lot of promise to have a finding that would be
Speaker 3: a cool announcement. The rest of these are like, okay,
Speaker 3: sasquatches are there. Now we have to document their behavior
Speaker 3: over a long period of time, which to me is
Speaker 3: by far the most interesting thing. You can show me
Speaker 3: a picture of a bigfoot.
Speaker 2: I think it.
Speaker 3: Might think it's cool, but the most interesting thing about
Speaker 3: these animals is what they're doing day to day. To me,
Speaker 3: I think a long term study, years and years and
Speaker 3: years study of one particular area is to me probably
Speaker 3: the most fascinating thing one can do. And that's what
Speaker 3: at least both of these areas, to my knowledge, are
Speaker 3: being subjected to well.
Speaker 2: I think too. A big part of it is that
Speaker 2: when the initial announcement is made or the first set
Speaker 2: of findings. A lot of the commentators, let's say, like
Speaker 2: podcasters or YouTube channel hosts, et cetera. They'll all reach
Speaker 2: out and they all want to talk about it, and
Speaker 2: so the people are sort of reiterating those initial findings,
Speaker 2: and because those make the rounds, it seems like there's
Speaker 2: a big buzz, but really it's multiple iterations of a
Speaker 2: description of the same initial findings or initial observations, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And then as they get focused on things, you know,
Speaker 2: there's less to report on without just reiterating what's already
Speaker 2: been reiterated multiple times. And so I can see how
Speaker 2: to an outsider it would seem like, oh, there was
Speaker 2: all this buzz and then it just went quiet. But
Speaker 2: it's a little bit more complex than that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so don't lose heart. Don't lose heart. I think
Speaker 3: that's the big takeaway from what I'm trying to say least,
Speaker 3: is that a big splash is great. It makes a
Speaker 3: lot of noise all at once, but then you're swimming
Speaker 3: for a while. That's cool too. And I think with
Speaker 3: patients and hope and a good dash of luck, maybe
Speaker 3: more stuff that will come out of there, you know,
Speaker 3: maybe more nests will be found in that area, or
Speaker 3: someone like myself or you know, whoever I had, or
Speaker 3: you know, various Olympic Project members and stuff who are
Speaker 3: familiar the nest. Maybe they're going to find other locations
Speaker 3: similar to these, where there are other nests. That would
Speaker 3: be a huge find as well. A discovery begs questions,
Speaker 3: and questions are the basis of hypotheses, and that's when
Speaker 3: you get to start testing what's going on, what's going
Speaker 3: on here, and then trying things in different areas or
Speaker 3: in different locales in that same area. I think there's
Speaker 3: a lot going on in all of these cases. Maybe
Speaker 3: not the Melbow things so much. I don't know what's
Speaker 3: going on with that. I don't really care. But these
Speaker 3: other things, I particularly the Olympic Projects stuff, since I
Speaker 3: know all these people and I've been up there and stuff,
Speaker 3: I'm very interested in what they're doing. And they are
Speaker 3: not sitting on their laurels. They are not being idle.
Speaker 3: Stuff is going on and it's a long term, slow drip,
Speaker 3: and so far, I think it's fascinating what they've been doing.
Speaker 3: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 3: Bogo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 4: Different things about their appearance. But if you're a guy
Speaker 4: who really cares about your hair and find out it's
Speaker 4: slowly going away or worse quickly, you might be feeling
Speaker 4: discouraged when you look in the mirror. And that's where
Speaker 4: hymns comes in. Check out their personalized hair loss solutions
Speaker 4: and you can start seeing your hair go back in
Speaker 4: as little as three to six months.
Speaker 3: Hymns provides you with convenient and quality access to a
Speaker 3: range of hair loss treatments that work all from the
Speaker 3: comfort of your couch or leisure chair or baby carriage,
Speaker 3: whatever you're into.
Speaker 2: I guess. Hymns makes treating hair loss simple with doctor
Speaker 2: trusted options and clinically proven ingredients like finast ride and
Speaker 2: monoxid ill that can regrow hair in as little as
Speaker 2: three to six months.
Speaker 4: This process is simple and one hundred percent online, so
Speaker 4: there's no uncomfortable doctor visits.
Speaker 3: Answer a few questions, and a medical provider will determine
Speaker 3: if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment
Speaker 3: is sent directly to you for.
Speaker 4: Free, No insurance is needed, and one low price covers
Speaker 4: everything from treatments to ongoing care.
Speaker 3: Hymns has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers and they
Speaker 3: can help you get your confidence back with visibly thicker
Speaker 3: and fuller and squatchier hair. Nice searcher free online visits
Speaker 3: today at hymns dot com slash beyond. That's hims dot
Speaker 3: com slash beyond for your personalized hair loss treatment options.
Speaker 4: Hymns dot com slash beyond.
Speaker 2: Results vary based on studies of topical and oral monoxidal
Speaker 2: and finastera ride. Prescription products require an online consultation with
Speaker 2: a healthcare provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate.
Speaker 2: Restrictions apply. See website for full details and important safety information.
Speaker 2: It's funny that this was the other new voicemail that
Speaker 2: came in because we just talked about this on a
Speaker 2: member's only episode with Steve Coles. So if you're not
Speaker 2: members you want the deep dive, you can get it there,
Speaker 2: but we can chat about it here as well.
Speaker 4: Hey, guys, love the podcast. This is Gregan Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Speaker 4: Click question, what are your thoughts on the Miller documents?
Speaker 2: Let me know take care. Yeah, I don't know, squad
Speaker 2: about that man some for the audience if you're not familiar.
Speaker 2: The quote unquote Miller documents were quote unquote submitted to
Speaker 2: a prominent bigfoot blog that this person said, Hey, I
Speaker 2: received this email, and according to the writer of the email, like, oh,
Speaker 2: my uncle or grandfather, you know, some older relative passed
Speaker 2: away and we found these documents among his belongings. And
Speaker 2: I've typed this up for you, the writer of this blog,
Speaker 2: as you are the most credible person in all of sasquatry,
Speaker 2: and you're the only person that can be trusted with
Speaker 2: this information. And it basically was written in like a
Speaker 2: first person sort of narrative about a guy who claimed
Speaker 2: that you know, he went to Yale and then began
Speaker 2: working for I believe it was like the Department of Agriculture,
Speaker 2: and that he and his colleagues had essentially discovered the
Speaker 2: sasquatch and like six subspecies thereof. But we did a
Speaker 2: bit of a discussion of that with Steve Coles for
Speaker 2: the members only episode that accompanied Steve Coles's main episode,
Speaker 2: which by now listeners will have heard, So if you
Speaker 2: want to hear a little bit more about that. But
Speaker 2: now there's no reason to think that that was anything
Speaker 2: other than a fabrication, likely based on a real person
Speaker 2: who really was a scientist and did some real writings,
Speaker 2: and someone took his writings and took some playful creative
Speaker 2: license and adapted it to be this top secret Sasquatch document.
Speaker 2: It's poorly written, full of errors and things of that nature.
Speaker 2: So unfortunately that's the story with the Miller doc. But
Speaker 2: if you want to hear more of the details and
Speaker 2: essentially why we know that it's a hoax and where
Speaker 2: the works that it was derived from, go listen to
Speaker 2: the members only episode with Steve Coles.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I am blissfully unaware of all of that, and I
Speaker 3: couldn't be happier about it because it sounds like a
Speaker 3: bunch of hohoha.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: This was a little over a decade ago and it
Speaker 2: made a big buzz. A lot of people were talking
Speaker 2: about it and thought it was legitimate. That's why when
Speaker 2: I was talking with Steve, I said, oh, yeah, we
Speaker 2: get questions about that all the time. And it was
Speaker 2: after we recorded that episode with Steve that this voicemail
Speaker 2: came in just you know, another example of asking about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember Steve talking and you talking about that
Speaker 3: on the podcast. I just had no experience or knowledge
Speaker 3: of it at all, so I just tried to set I
Speaker 3: tried to sit that one out.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's that's the story with that Greg. So
Speaker 2: if you do want the deeper story, check out the
Speaker 2: members only episode.
Speaker 4: Even I didn't fall for that one, soul got into
Speaker 4: this first written one, I think. So Okay, this first
Speaker 4: one's for Jamie Incs. Hello, Cliff, Matt, and Bobbo. What
Speaker 4: are some of the funnier sasquatch of condo stows you
Speaker 4: have experienced or have heard about? Thanks for the show
Speaker 4: and have a beautiful day. I think again, what I
Speaker 4: heard was when we were in Virginia about a sasquatch
Speaker 4: getting into some still illegal whiskey still in the mountains,
Speaker 4: some moon shiners, and the thing was drunk way in
Speaker 4: the middle of the mash pile, and it came like
Speaker 4: daybreak morning, and thing was just super hammered, stumbled off.
Speaker 4: I've heard I've heard like two or three of those
Speaker 4: about them getting it was stills getting hammered.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've never heard anything like that, but I'm sure
Speaker 3: it does happen. It does happen all the all sorts
Speaker 3: of other wildlife, you know, bears and hogs and all
Speaker 3: that sort of stuff.
Speaker 4: You heard it, you're at the cliff is. A witness
Speaker 4: told us that we were like that carnival thing with
Speaker 4: the band playing Bigfoot songs.
Speaker 3: There's a lot going on that day. Man. I don't
Speaker 3: remember that one, but I believe it. But yeah, I
Speaker 3: think the the funniest one I heard is that I
Speaker 3: heard a story from somebody who's probably a little little
Speaker 3: little weird that uh, he didn't see it, but he
Speaker 3: took he supposedly took a report of a sasquatch walking
Speaker 3: across the road in an orange puffy jacket wearing sunglasses. Yeah,
Speaker 3: no pants or anything like that though, So let's hope
Speaker 3: it was a sasquatch though, instead of just somebody else
Speaker 3: just wearing an orange buffy jacket, sunglasses and no pants.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of reports, or several of them, where
Speaker 4: they have like a shirt sort of too small form
Speaker 4: with like just like stretched out, like the collar ripped
Speaker 4: and just draped over the over their like you know,
Speaker 4: over their head, draped over their shoulders because they're way
Speaker 4: too big for it. I've heard at least four or
Speaker 4: five there had human stuff like that, like clothing on, like,
Speaker 4: but never pants sort of thing. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Of course, other apes do occasionally put on a shirt
Speaker 3: or something if they you know, if they have access
Speaker 3: to that kind of thing. It's been documented before. But
Speaker 3: the sunglasses thing, that's what got me.
Speaker 4: That's a little much.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and an orange puffy come on. So I don't know.
Speaker 3: That are some pretty weird stories out there that. So
Speaker 3: there was a reported sighting by the way, a couple
Speaker 3: a couple of days ago in the Warm Springs Reservation.
Speaker 4: There was.
Speaker 3: I got wind of it on Monday morning, and actually
Speaker 3: I think the person might be a listener. He's a
Speaker 3: his Sun are museum members, and I guess is they
Speaker 3: were driving back towards town on Highway twenty six just
Speaker 3: they're still on the reservations, but they're reservation, but there
Speaker 3: were still a few miles shy of mountain Hood National Forest,
Speaker 3: so they're head in that direction, kind of heading roughly
Speaker 3: west and uh, and the young man in the passenger seat,
Speaker 3: the dad told me that he noticed that his eyes
Speaker 3: were following something on the side of the road and
Speaker 3: it was like five five point thirty at night or
Speaker 3: something like that, so getting a little dusky, and the
Speaker 3: guys he said that he saw, well, he saw, I guess,
Speaker 3: a rather large person ish thing. It looked like he
Speaker 3: was wearing a puffy jacket and his hood was up
Speaker 3: and like all kind of all one color, like either
Speaker 3: black or dark gray pants, but walking on the side
Speaker 3: of the road in the ditch, and it could very
Speaker 3: well be a person. So they didn't really get a
Speaker 3: great look at it. But he apparently the young man
Speaker 3: who actually observed it actually turned around in his seat
Speaker 3: to make like like followed it, like, what the heck
Speaker 3: is that? That's really weird looking. We got word of it,
Speaker 3: and Nico and I went out there on Monday night
Speaker 3: to the location and looked around. We didn't see any
Speaker 3: footprints or anything like that. And where the thing was
Speaker 3: walking initially sounded kind of weird until I was there
Speaker 3: and I go, wait a minute, this is exactly where
Speaker 3: I would be walking, because you know, the cars are
Speaker 3: going by real fast, and there was a bottle of
Speaker 3: rain going on at the time, and so maybe it
Speaker 3: was a person, maybe it was a sasquatch. We don't
Speaker 3: have enough information, but did my due diligence. Had to
Speaker 3: go out there and look, you know too. A couple
Speaker 3: hours of my time and a bunch of gas money.
Speaker 2: To get out there.
Speaker 3: But it was worth it, because that's what bigfooting is
Speaker 3: a lot of wild goose chases or things that you
Speaker 3: follow up on and just don't get to the bottom of.
Speaker 4: At least it's usually a beautiful drive.
Speaker 3: Not this time. Man, it was dumping. Oh my god,
Speaker 3: it was raining so hard.
Speaker 2: Speaking of dumping, the funniest one I've ever read, you know,
Speaker 2: I didn't hear it from the claimant, but I read
Speaker 2: it on a website that collects sasquatch reports. And we've
Speaker 2: had lots of laughs about this over many campfire or
Speaker 2: I mean, the last time that someone asked me this
Speaker 2: question I told the story. We were all laughing so hard,
Speaker 2: we were crying. I was with my friends Micah and
Speaker 2: Jeff and Smokey from the podcast Sasquatch Tracks at cryptocon.
Speaker 2: But there was a report from like the mid twentieth
Speaker 2: century in Oklahoma from this farm, and these two witnesses
Speaker 2: claim they had gone out they had peach trees on
Speaker 2: this farm, and one day they had gone out to
Speaker 2: that area, you know, the orchard or whatever, and that
Speaker 2: there was a sasquatch kind of laid back with his
Speaker 2: back against a peach tree, eating a peach with one
Speaker 2: hand and then the other hand doing the unspeakable. And
Speaker 2: next to it there was a dug hole in the
Speaker 2: ground with a giant turd in it. And so when
Speaker 2: they encountered this sasquatch who was eating a peach and
Speaker 2: enjoying himself, he left up started yelling at them in
Speaker 2: the classic gibber it's like, you know, and also covering
Speaker 2: the turd in the hole with dirt with his foot simultaneously.
Speaker 6: That's plausible, the whole image of like, you know, he'd
Speaker 6: just taken a dump, found some fruit, like life's pretty good.
Speaker 6: These people show up and he's like immediately trying to
Speaker 6: clean up the places. Just the whole thing is like
Speaker 6: the most preposterous, hilarious thing, and so like, man, maybe
Speaker 6: we should just leave out buckets and peaches.
Speaker 4: It's not that it's totally believable.
Speaker 6: I just wonder what, you know, if they do have
Speaker 6: a language or a proto language, Like what what do
Speaker 6: you think he was saying, like, oh, sorry, like the
Speaker 6: place isn't usually this dirty, or.
Speaker 4: He said, so doesn't it one knock anymore?
Speaker 2: Yet? Exactly? I believe it that I mean, I just
Speaker 2: think it's funny that the priority was to cover up
Speaker 2: the turt It didn't just get up and run away.
Speaker 6: It was like, well, I started kicking dirt over the
Speaker 6: turtle than me.
Speaker 2: If only it had had a pizza box.
Speaker 4: Let's keep it classy.
Speaker 2: Now that I've revealed the full spectrum of my immaturity,
Speaker 2: you put the next question in the chat here, all right.
Speaker 3: This one comes from Jeff Martin's Police departments use a
Speaker 3: technology called shot Spotter to pinpoint gunshots across an entire
Speaker 3: city using microphones and AI. This gives the near real
Speaker 3: time location for an acoustic event so they can respond.
Speaker 3: Have you heard of anyone using this type of technology
Speaker 3: to track real time Bigfoot activity? I believe if you
Speaker 3: could train the AI using known Bigfoot acoustic events, you
Speaker 3: could pinpoint activity. You could also tell it to ignore
Speaker 3: known animal noises.
Speaker 2: You know, there was a guy who he was a hoaxer,
Speaker 2: and he ran like a hoax on a number of
Speaker 2: people for several years. And I almost brought it up
Speaker 2: in the conversation with Steve Colls because I was the
Speaker 2: one who figured out who the guy was, and Steve
Speaker 2: found some additional information and published a blog about it.
Speaker 2: But in his lies, I mean, he was basically just
Speaker 2: a yarn spinner. But a lot of the ideas that
Speaker 2: he he claimed that he was a multi millionaire and
Speaker 2: was the head of a massive research project that had
Speaker 2: gathered a lot of sasquatch information they were going to
Speaker 2: release it any day.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: That was kind of the extent of his hoax, But
Speaker 2: the ideas that he floated were really good ideas where
Speaker 2: I thought, man, like, if I had, you know, endless resources,
Speaker 2: I would try some of these things. And now AI
Speaker 2: didn't exist back then, but one of the things they
Speaker 2: claimed is that he would use these sort of like
Speaker 2: ladder deer stands, not the kind that you affixed to
Speaker 2: a tree, but the standalone like deer towers, and that
Speaker 2: they would mount those up and have these microphones that
Speaker 2: would be pointing in like various directions and basically lay
Speaker 2: out a grid, and that you know, using software, if
Speaker 2: a sound happened within that grid, based on the proximity
Speaker 2: you know, the volume level, they could tell the proximity
Speaker 2: to any given microphone and like pinpoint it on a
Speaker 2: map in real time exactly where it happened. And I thought, man,
Speaker 2: if you had the resources that would absolutely work. Now,
Speaker 2: you'd need a lot of them. You need to cover
Speaker 2: a big area, So something like Jeff is describing here,
Speaker 2: I'm like, I think that would be useful.
Speaker 4: They had that because Romo National Park had I'm going
Speaker 4: for a elk poach or something, bald Hills right up
Speaker 4: by us, and they got all kinds of they don't
Speaker 4: have going now, but they had multiple recorder like microphones
Speaker 4: out there and they ad pinpoint where the shots are
Speaker 4: come from, so they could try to move in on
Speaker 4: the poachers like real time. I know they have like
Speaker 4: all kinds of problems with it, and I'm sure they
Speaker 4: got they must have gotten some squatch knocks and wood
Speaker 4: knocks and rock knock's or hand collapse, and sure they
Speaker 4: got some of those two, but they weren't looking for squatch.
Speaker 4: But that's all the place they deploy it, Like where
Speaker 4: they have elk or moose or any kind of poaching,
Speaker 4: they can put those for service. Law enforcement can put
Speaker 4: that out and triangulate where these guys are shooting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know what the cost of
Speaker 2: something like that would be. I would imagine that would
Speaker 2: be pretty exorbitant for what Jeff's describe. I think it's
Speaker 2: a great idea. But if you could imagine an area
Speaker 2: like the size of the nest site or the size
Speaker 2: of something like the active portion of the valley that
Speaker 2: constitutes area X, like you would need a lot of microphones,
Speaker 2: depending on how sensitive they are, but you know, you'd
Speaker 2: need a number of them, and they all have to
Speaker 2: be powered, and they don't have to feed to this
Speaker 2: AI and wherever that is housed and receiving the data
Speaker 2: or transmitting the data would have to be powered. And
Speaker 2: so you're talking about a lot of expense and maintenance.
Speaker 2: Let alone the manpower of deploying it, but the power
Speaker 2: of the expense and the maintenance. It's like, that's why
Speaker 2: no one's doing things like this, because ninety nine point
Speaker 2: nine ninety nine percent of sasquatchry is amateurs doing what
Speaker 2: they can in their free time with what little free
Speaker 2: income they have to spare on something like this.
Speaker 3: The mesh of that net that you would have to
Speaker 3: use it, it would be an insurmountable I think obstacle
Speaker 3: because you know, knocks, as loud as they might be
Speaker 3: at the source, don't really travel that far unless you
Speaker 3: have fantastic acoustics essentially, and most of the places in
Speaker 3: the woods are you know, you just don't have that
Speaker 3: because the trees act as sponges and really suck up
Speaker 3: the noises of the forest very quickly. I would be
Speaker 3: very surprised to hear a knock at anything more than
Speaker 3: maybe four or five hundred yards. I guess it could
Speaker 3: be possible, but I know that I've personally been in
Speaker 3: the woods yelling for friends or even using emergency whistles.
Speaker 3: I think I talked about in the podcast maybe a
Speaker 3: month or two ago, and I was within a few
Speaker 3: hundred yards and they had no idea I was making
Speaker 3: noise at all. So Knox, Yeah, I mean, just like
Speaker 3: you would have to have so many of these things,
Speaker 3: so many of these things, and how do you know
Speaker 3: bigfoots are in that one particular valley, that particular night.
Speaker 3: You just don't at this point, you know. But I
Speaker 3: mean it's a great idea. It would be fantastic, but
Speaker 3: I see some logistical problems.
Speaker 2: So you know, if you're using it in a city
Speaker 2: like law enforcement is doing in Jeff's comment, then you
Speaker 2: have an existing infrastructure and you have access to an
Speaker 2: entire grid, and it would be a wildly different story
Speaker 2: in a wilderness area, you know, just the power supply
Speaker 2: and whether or not these things are wired, because if
Speaker 2: they're wireless, then you have to have individual power for
Speaker 2: every single microphone. But if they're all wired, like there's
Speaker 2: a logistical issue, etc. Because I can imagine in a
Speaker 2: city you've got these things deployed and they're each connected
Speaker 2: to a power source and a hub that's connected to
Speaker 2: Wi Fi, and they're all feeding back to a server.
Speaker 2: But it's a different ballgame in the wilderness. But I
Speaker 2: love the idea. I think something like that could work
Speaker 2: for sure.
Speaker 3: We tried to do that with people before, positioning people
Speaker 3: in various places and putting a compass in their hand
Speaker 3: and say, if you hear a knock, take a compass
Speaker 3: bearing on it and you can triangulate. We just on
Speaker 3: a map if you know where everybody is. You know,
Speaker 3: we're doing that with those Garman Rhinos for a long time,
Speaker 3: but it didn't happen often enough that two people could
Speaker 3: actually hear the same knock. Actually, and you know, it
Speaker 3: might work in some places, like if you have a
Speaker 3: meadow situation or something like that, where a large vast
Speaker 3: area that there's not a lot of trees to absorb
Speaker 3: the sound on the way to your ears. But okay,
Speaker 3: so you get a general location of where the sasquatch was.
Speaker 3: By the time you get there, is it's still going
Speaker 3: to be there? I mean maybe I guess, But can't
Speaker 3: you do that? I mean just think it out loud here?
Speaker 3: And I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I
Speaker 3: think it's a great idea with some serious logistical problems.
Speaker 3: But you can kind of do that with your own
Speaker 3: ears anyway. Oh, there's a knock over there, you can
Speaker 3: go over there now right. It can't be that far
Speaker 3: away from you if you're hearing the knock, is what
Speaker 3: I'm thinking. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 4: It totally depends on the terrain and topography, like how
Speaker 4: far travels are, Like we know, like you got the
Speaker 4: Sierra Nevadas, get those just huge rock faces canyons. It
Speaker 4: can go for a couple of miles, and then you
Speaker 4: get like thick like Olympic Peninsula stuff, And so one
Speaker 4: two hundred yards away you can't hear anything like knocks yells.
Speaker 4: It's just all absorbed.
Speaker 3: And even if you did hear a knock or something,
Speaker 3: what's stopping in you from going that direction now and
Speaker 3: pinpointing the activity that way.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: What we would do a lot of times on the
Speaker 2: BFR expeditions that I would lead is if we were
Speaker 2: working like a particular river valley or a certain drainage,
Speaker 2: if you could get people on the ridges up above it,
Speaker 2: on either side of it, and we would exchange calls
Speaker 2: back and forth. And if you heard of a howl
Speaker 2: or a knock or something like that from the valley
Speaker 2: down below, yeah, everyone should shoot an asthmith and then
Speaker 2: in the morning we'll line it up on the map
Speaker 2: and like that's where we go start looking for tracks.
Speaker 2: Is like the sound came from somewhere near where these
Speaker 2: lines intersect. So like the method you describe.
Speaker 3: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo.
Speaker 3: We'll be right back after these messages. You know, Moneymaker
Speaker 3: is using something. He's not using technology as a listening
Speaker 3: device sort of thing, but I know on the expeditions
Speaker 3: that he goes on, he's gotten varying the drones, like
Speaker 3: thermal drones in the last six or eight months or
Speaker 3: something last year or so. So when they hear a knox,
Speaker 3: they deploy the drone in that direction to go see
Speaker 3: if they can go film it. That might be a
Speaker 3: useful application for this kind of technology. Should something like
Speaker 3: that get off the ground and overcome the deployment.
Speaker 2: Issues, Oh, that would be great.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So Matt's kind of doing that now, I guess
Speaker 3: in a way, but he's not using listening technology. He's
Speaker 3: using drone technology in combination with human observers on the ground.
Speaker 4: The other thing with that when you're listening for Knox
Speaker 4: and Pals and that sort of thing, is that it's
Speaker 4: all subjective. Like I think it was about a quarter
Speaker 4: mile that way or a mile or two mile. You know,
Speaker 4: it's like people just giving like a gus, you know,
Speaker 4: even direction. You know, a lot of times you're sitting
Speaker 4: there with three people and get through, like, you know,
Speaker 4: I thought it came from the northwest, so I thought
Speaker 4: it came from the northeast. I thought it came from
Speaker 4: the west. You can get all, you know, different answers
Speaker 4: where they thought it came from, and so there's a
Speaker 4: little subjectivity to it too. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I guess that's where the computer would come in and
Speaker 3: hopefully eliminate that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that would definitely be helpful. Because I've I've been
Speaker 2: standing in a circle with friends in the field. Before
Speaker 2: you know, we're all facing each other in like a
Speaker 2: circle or semicircle, talking and then a sound happens and
Speaker 2: there's like no agreement on which direction because everyone's ears
Speaker 2: are pointed in a different direction. You know what I mean?
Speaker 4: Totally that's from the Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: So there's the next question for you.
Speaker 4: Bobes from Frank Pavlika, your boy, Hey, clip Bubo, and Matt.
Speaker 4: I enjoyed your answers to my question from last month
Speaker 4: about the best bred bigfoot shoes as the teenager. Back
Speaker 4: in the eighties, my scout troop and I went camping
Speaker 4: in Michigan. What did a few of us went out
Speaker 4: into the woods and our flashlights hit would looked like
Speaker 4: a big refrigerator box. We did for a closer only
Speaker 4: to realize it was a cement altar that had weird
Speaker 4: symbols graved on it. We all froze, heard a noise
Speaker 4: in the distance, and we all just ran as fast
Speaker 4: as we could get to get out of there. What
Speaker 4: are some of the most unusual and out of place
Speaker 4: things you have found in the woods that were either
Speaker 4: built by humans or abandoned who.
Speaker 3: It was a little unsettling at first, big footing in
Speaker 3: the in the in the northeast, running across abandoned and
Speaker 3: overgrown graveyards. That was a little spooky at first because
Speaker 3: we just don't get that out here in the west
Speaker 3: really so much. But back of east, you know, you
Speaker 3: come across these flimsy they're rather thin, you know, tombstones
Speaker 3: and stuff, and they say, you know, like seventeen sixty
Speaker 3: four on it and things like like whoa, and it's
Speaker 3: like all overgrown and creepy and very blar witchy. But
Speaker 3: along those lines, there's a spot out in Mountain Hood
Speaker 3: National Forest. It's actually not very far from Esticada. The
Speaker 3: years and years and years ago, I was out there
Speaker 3: and we're doing calls into this one valley. It was
Speaker 3: like a little clearing, like a dead end sort of thing,
Speaker 3: like a turnaround place on the end of this road
Speaker 3: overlooking this valley. It looked good on a map. So
Speaker 3: we're trying some calls and there didn't get anything or
Speaker 3: you know, but at this location, like we're there kind
Speaker 3: of just hanging out listening and stuff. I was walking
Speaker 3: around looking and on the on the mountain side you know,
Speaker 3: like obviously this little plateau thing overblooks this valley, but
Speaker 3: you know, I'm on a mountain. So if you go
Speaker 3: to the backside of the turnaround, there's a grave there,
Speaker 3: and and it's like, I'm not sure it's a human
Speaker 3: grave or a pet grave. I hope it's a pet grave.
Speaker 3: I don't know it is, but it's so close to
Speaker 3: esticata could go either way. Like there's like a grave
Speaker 3: marker and a name, and I think there's a date
Speaker 3: and you know whatever this thing. I forget the name
Speaker 3: that was on it, but it was probably like eight
Speaker 3: or like six eight years old or something whatever it
Speaker 3: was that was buried there because they had the and
Speaker 3: die to thinking did somebody just bury their child out here?
Speaker 3: You know, it's kind of a very rural Claquemus County
Speaker 3: thing to do, you know, in some ways. And whoever
Speaker 3: it was that made the grave put a layer of
Speaker 3: cement over it, presumably to keep the animals from digging
Speaker 3: it up or something. I don't know, but a lot
Speaker 3: of that ground underneath the cement covering of the grave
Speaker 3: was like eroded through, but there's like marbles and stuff
Speaker 3: on it, and like little Chotchkey's that thinking, like, why
Speaker 3: would you put marbles on that like a dog's grave,
Speaker 3: Like it's like they're like a little girl buried here
Speaker 3: or something. Is that even legal? So that was one
Speaker 3: of the unusual and out of place things that I
Speaker 3: found in the woods, and needless say, I didn't even
Speaker 3: go to that area anymore, but yeah, that's creepy.
Speaker 2: I was driving around a really remote place in northeast
Speaker 2: Georgia one time with my dad and we found like
Speaker 2: the remains of basically like an old rock quarry. It
Speaker 2: wasn't like a big, massive quarry. It was just almost
Speaker 2: like an exposed vertical wall that you can tell they
Speaker 2: had quarried out. And I was like, oh, there's you know,
Speaker 2: there's activity around quarries and places, and I just wonder
Speaker 2: what's around here. And so we parked the car and
Speaker 2: I ended up like climbing up this super steep slope
Speaker 2: to get up above this rock wall of the quarry
Speaker 2: and up top there and there's it's a ridge top
Speaker 2: it just drops down the other side. It's all forceded
Speaker 2: down into a drainage and then on our side there's
Speaker 2: a single for service road up at the top. There
Speaker 2: was this massive pile of belongings that included like stethoscopes, microscopes,
Speaker 2: medical textbooks, a whole bunch of like medical equipment that
Speaker 2: was all associated with a medical school in Temple, Texas.
Speaker 2: And this was so out of the way, like I
Speaker 2: can't believe I stumbled on it and then just imagining,
Speaker 2: like how did someone haul all this stuff up here?
Speaker 2: Like you haul up a big chest or like a
Speaker 2: pelican case or a bunch of bags and dump it
Speaker 2: here to go through it. But we were like, something
Speaker 2: very strange happened here, Like did somebody rob a place
Speaker 2: and this is where they dumped the stuff they didn't
Speaker 2: want to keep. Who knows, But that was one of
Speaker 2: the wilder things I've seen where it's like there's some
Speaker 2: something nefarious happened up there.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I think the weirdest thing I found was he
Speaker 4: had a bunch of property on the edge of like
Speaker 4: where the Redwoods transition, like oak Zone, and he had
Speaker 4: an old skid road I was. He said, like he
Speaker 4: had hundreds of acres, and he said I could go
Speaker 4: cruise around his next you never had like eight or
Speaker 4: seven thousand acres or some cattle stuff, And so he
Speaker 4: said there's no problem. You can walk for wherever you
Speaker 4: want down that way. I was walking down. I was
Speaker 4: in the Redwood Park still, and I felt like that's
Speaker 4: like satanic like coming to this old skidro like upside
Speaker 4: down crosses painted on trees. There was a bunch of
Speaker 4: dolls that had their exes over their eyes and they
Speaker 4: were hanging from noises like around. And there's like an
Speaker 4: altar with like red look like it's supposed to be
Speaker 4: like blood, and like red paints splashed on it like
Speaker 4: sacrifices and all this weird stuff like bones, like animal bones.
Speaker 4: And I was like, dude, something with that. It's like, oh,
Speaker 4: I know, some guys are cutting through there trying to
Speaker 4: rip off my wei because he had he was growing
Speaker 4: weed out there and so he he staged like a
Speaker 4: satanic cult looking to scare off the guys coming in.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I found a capsized boat up in the mountains once weird.
Speaker 3: That was kind of weird. It was a pretty small boat.
Speaker 3: It's probably about fifteen feet long or something, and it
Speaker 3: was made out of a fiberglass, so it wasn't aluminum
Speaker 3: boat or anything like that. I'm assuming somebody just trailered it.
Speaker 3: There or something and dumped it or something. But it
Speaker 3: was pretty far out, man, it was pretty far out.
Speaker 3: This is like kind of near the border of Oregon
Speaker 3: in California. But yeah, yeah, kind of a weird place
Speaker 3: to find a boat. I figured out. Talk about high.
Speaker 4: Tide, yogurt dryers, flood.
Speaker 2: All right, let me grab the next one. We'll do
Speaker 2: a couple more here. This one would be a fun
Speaker 2: thought experiment, Okay. Jeff Davies asks, greetings from Whales. Thanks
Speaker 2: for the amazing show. I have learned so much about
Speaker 2: the subject of bigfoot from listening to you guys, and
Speaker 2: really enjoy your take on things. I'm in the same
Speaker 2: camp as you when it comes to these creatures in
Speaker 2: that they are flesh and blood and a relic hominid
Speaker 2: of some kind. Since some people see them as supernatural entities,
Speaker 2: my question to you is what tests or procedures would
Speaker 2: be needed to prove its existence as supernatural, if at
Speaker 2: all that could be proved. Well, I think you'd have
Speaker 2: to probably capture one and then watch it evade you,
Speaker 2: like through the bars of the of the of the cage,
Speaker 2: or I don't know. I think you'd have to have
Speaker 2: one solidly there and it can somehow do all the
Speaker 2: things that people claim they can do. You know, That's
Speaker 2: what probably it would take for me at least, you know,
Speaker 2: like if you had one right in front of you
Speaker 2: and see, I don't know, I mean, because all those
Speaker 2: tests are subjective to it. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know. How do you test that? How do
Speaker 3: you test that they're superhuman magic harry people?
Speaker 4: You know, Yeah, you have to catch one for sure
Speaker 4: of so you never know.
Speaker 2: But by the very nature, if it is like metaphysical,
Speaker 2: then it can't be trapped by any physical means or
Speaker 2: tested by physical means in the way that you would
Speaker 2: test or measure or detect any natural phenomena. So it
Speaker 2: would be like a self defeating thing, and any attempts
Speaker 2: that fail would only confirm the suspicions of those who
Speaker 2: believe that they are metaphysical. They'd go, yeah, well, it
Speaker 2: never would have caught them, because you can't catch them
Speaker 2: because they're metaphysical, And so even the failures would just
Speaker 2: be seen as confirmation. And so I don't necessarily think
Speaker 2: you could design a test to validate a lot of
Speaker 2: the claims that people make, or validate the beliefs that
Speaker 2: people hold associated with the metaphysical or supernatural, even as
Speaker 2: it pertains to sasquatch let alone. I mean, first, you'd
Speaker 2: have to definitively validate or verify the existence of the
Speaker 2: supernatural realm, so to speak of all phenomena that fall
Speaker 2: into that versus. We know mammals exist, and we know
Speaker 2: apes exist, and this proposition only requires either that one
Speaker 2: of the fossil apes we know about survived, or that
Speaker 2: there's just one more ape that we didn't know about
Speaker 2: that survived, and that this ape got into North America somehow.
Speaker 2: Those are the only two things you really need. Everything
Speaker 2: else you don't have to invent any sort of like
Speaker 2: new science or new tests or new procedures. If the
Speaker 2: relictomenoid hypothesis is correct, you know, there's nothing new that
Speaker 2: needs to be found. It's just we've reconfirmed the existence
Speaker 2: of an ape we already knew about, or a lineage
Speaker 2: we already knew about, and we've just discovered that they're
Speaker 2: on one additional continent. It's that simple, versus the other
Speaker 2: side of the coin is much much more complex. See.
Speaker 3: I think the problem is that the paranormal community, as
Speaker 3: lovely as some of those people are are using, are
Speaker 3: conducting the experiment now and as evidence to support their
Speaker 3: claim sasquatches are still an unknown, you know, like, oh, well,
Speaker 3: we would have known about them, we would have gotten
Speaker 3: one by now. The only way they could have existed
Speaker 3: this long without us having better proof or evidence of
Speaker 3: them or better evidence is if they were paranormal. So
Speaker 3: I think that the ongoing experiment that they're running in
Speaker 3: their mind is what supports these claims.
Speaker 2: Very much so. And the truth is that people have
Speaker 2: failed to properly test the relictomenoid hypothesis. And I think
Speaker 2: that's a hard pill for a lot of people. And
Speaker 2: I see it in myself too, So I'm not pointing
Speaker 2: fingers anywhere but at myself. But you know, to properly
Speaker 2: test that hypothesis takes a lot of time and effort
Speaker 2: and resources, frankly, And so like a good analogy is
Speaker 2: like maybe the way that we conduct ourselves in the
Speaker 2: field is in itself counter productive to eliciting an approach
Speaker 2: that's documentable. And so one of the analogies I use
Speaker 2: with people's like if you were in law enforcement and
Speaker 2: you had a frequent caller every night saying there's a
Speaker 2: prowler coming to my house every night. He tries to
Speaker 2: get in, he jiggles the door handles, he peaks in
Speaker 2: the windows, and then you say, oh, well, let's go
Speaker 2: humor this person. And you go sit in there driveway
Speaker 2: with the blue lights on, wait all night, and no
Speaker 2: such prowler shows up. You go, Ah, that person's lying.
Speaker 2: There's no such thing. There was never a prowler to
Speaker 2: begin with. And it's like, well, no, you didn't actually,
Speaker 2: you didn't actually run the experiment correctly. You didn't test
Speaker 2: the hypothesis correctly. Because if there is someone with nefarious
Speaker 2: intentions coming in the guise of darkness, trying to take
Speaker 2: advantage of someone, they're probably not going to do that
Speaker 2: when there's a police cruiser with the blue lights on
Speaker 2: sitting in front of the house. And so I think
Speaker 2: a lot of the things that researchers do trying to
Speaker 2: observe or encounter a sasquatch, it actually ends up having
Speaker 2: the opposite effect. Even if there are sasquatches in eyeshot
Speaker 2: or earshot, which ninety nine percent of the time there's
Speaker 2: probably no sasquatches within eyeshot or earshot. And so I
Speaker 2: don't think we can could say as a field research
Speaker 2: community that we've properly tested the hypothesis as such, although
Speaker 2: there are individuals making progress like yourself, casting and documenting
Speaker 2: tracks and other impressions, trying to collect physical evidence, EDNA
Speaker 2: associated evidence, substrate, et cetera. But for the most part,
Speaker 2: by and large, it's not that we've run the experiment
Speaker 2: correctly for seventy years and failed because they're supernatural. It's like, no,
Speaker 2: we really haven't run the experiment correctly yet. We haven't
Speaker 2: properly tested it yet. We're all trying to. We have
Speaker 2: little bits and pieces, but you know, I don't think
Speaker 2: it would be fair to say that, like the Sasquatch
Speaker 2: as a species has seen, the best of human science
Speaker 2: is thrown at it. Not by long.
Speaker 4: Shots, No, absolutely not.
Speaker 3: It reminds me of a story I heard out of
Speaker 3: Yosemite Valley, and I don't know if it's true, but
Speaker 3: I've heard this maybe it is. It seems true to
Speaker 3: me that they had a problem Bear kind of going
Speaker 3: through and raiding the campsites in Yosemite Valley. You know
Speaker 3: there's tours Servey, we're in Thesemity Valley right album, Bear
Speaker 3: would kind of come by at a certain time, so
Speaker 3: the rangers showed up, and of course the bear didn't come,
Speaker 3: you know, And then basically what they had to do
Speaker 3: is they had to modify their own behavior to make
Speaker 3: the bear come. They essentially had food out and then
Speaker 3: dressed as tourists and played frisbee and did tourists stuff,
Speaker 3: and then the bear came, you know, the same sort
Speaker 3: of thing like sitting in your driveway with the blue
Speaker 3: lights going, you know, the problem is not going to show. Well,
Speaker 3: the bears didn't either, you know. And people don't give
Speaker 3: bears enough credit for being as smart as they are,
Speaker 3: but they're very, very intelligent animals, you know, and especially
Speaker 3: yosemite bearers, they're like a different breed altogether, so to speak.
Speaker 3: Maybe not literally, but you know what I mean. They're
Speaker 3: really good at what they do. But the bears caught
Speaker 3: on pretty quick, and certainly sasquatches would be expected to
Speaker 3: catch on just as quickly, I think with any sort
Speaker 3: of behaviors with humans, you know, showing up to a
Speaker 3: location where a sighting was or a long term witnesses
Speaker 3: house or any of that stuff, which I think again
Speaker 3: is brings me back to advocating footprints track king them
Speaker 3: is to my knowledge, pretty much the only way, or
Speaker 3: certainly the easiest or best way, but it might be
Speaker 3: the only way to really observe sasquatches in their natural
Speaker 3: habitat without them knowing you're doing it, because they've already
Speaker 3: been there. They're not probably not there anymore, but you
Speaker 3: can see what they did and where they went and
Speaker 3: maybe even why. You know, stay tuned for more Bigfoot
Speaker 3: and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo will be right back
Speaker 3: after these messages.
Speaker 2: Again, I think you made a great point in that
Speaker 2: people assume, you know, they have this erroneous assumption that
Speaker 2: researchers have doggedly been searching for many years to no
Speaker 2: avail er go, if sasquatches do exist, it must be
Speaker 2: in some supernatural or metaphysical form. And so I would
Speaker 2: ask you, like, at this given moment, or at any
Speaker 2: given moment, how many dogged, competent field researchers do you
Speaker 2: think have boots on the ground at any moment in
Speaker 2: North America actively pursuing the sasquatch via scientifically sound observational
Speaker 2: field study methods or techniques.
Speaker 4: With the proper equipment, we'd have like a really good,
Speaker 4: high quality therm and good like audio recording, multiple audio recorders.
Speaker 2: No matter what they have, Like how many do you
Speaker 2: think at any given moment, how many people specifically do
Speaker 2: you think you're doing that?
Speaker 3: Close to zero?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So what I had said in the book is
Speaker 2: like I said, there's probably less than two dozen such
Speaker 2: people at any given time in all of North America.
Speaker 2: And so I had pulled some numbers. There's roughly six
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy seven million, four hundred and sixty four
Speaker 2: thousand hectares a forested land in North America, or roughly
Speaker 2: two million, six hundred and fifteen thousand, seven hundred and
Speaker 2: three square miles. And you know what percentage of that
Speaker 2: land you could call like viable Sasquatch habitat is debatable.
Speaker 2: But to make the argument, I said, Okay, let's let's
Speaker 2: make a drastic reduction and just say one million square
Speaker 2: miles of viable Sasquatch habitat in North America. And so
Speaker 2: let's be generous to the argument, and let's up that
Speaker 2: to say that there's fifty competent field investigators actively pursuing
Speaker 2: the Sasquatch on any given day in North America. And
Speaker 2: then you have to think like, well, what percentage of
Speaker 2: the ground would we assume as being surveyed during daylight hours,
Speaker 2: because you know you're not going to find bones or
Speaker 2: collect physical evidence as easily at night, and so we
Speaker 2: restrict that during the day. To be even more generous,
Speaker 2: you could say that the average field investigator is surveying
Speaker 2: maybe five square miles a day, and that's a very
Speaker 2: liberal estimate, especially in like a densely forced environment. And
Speaker 2: so fifty field investigators covering five square miles a day
Speaker 2: equals two hundred and fifty square miles per day searching
Speaker 2: for any sign of sasquatches, and that amounts to zero
Speaker 2: point zero two five of viable habitat. It's a dreadfully
Speaker 2: small percentage. And we know there's not fifty, and we
Speaker 2: know there's a lot more than a million square miles
Speaker 2: of viable habitat. And so again generally, speaking from a
Speaker 2: big overview, I would say, like the faulty assumption that like, well,
Speaker 2: researchers have tried their very best and haven't come up
Speaker 2: with anything like no, because we haven't thrown very much
Speaker 2: at these things over the last seventy years.
Speaker 3: No, And I think fifty is ridiculously high. And you know,
Speaker 3: even like the square mile, as you mentioned, is I
Speaker 3: think that you'd be lucky to cover a mile, like
Speaker 3: one square mile. One square mile is impossibly large when
Speaker 3: you come down to it.
Speaker 2: You know, That's why I use those numbers is to
Speaker 2: give the skeptics, like, let's say there is only a
Speaker 2: million square miles, and let's say there is as many
Speaker 2: as fifty even then it's zero point zero two five percent.
Speaker 2: And let's say again those fifty investigators can cover five
Speaker 2: square bars. But the reality is there's a lot more
Speaker 2: than a million square miles. There's a lot fewer than fifty.
Speaker 2: They're covering a lot less. And so that number, the
Speaker 2: percentage of viable habitat being actively surveyed for signs of
Speaker 2: the Sasquatch at any given time, is so much smaller
Speaker 2: than zero points zero two five percent. You know, at
Speaker 2: there are not people out every day, and so it's
Speaker 2: like the assumption that oh, lots of peace people are
Speaker 2: out there looking. It's just way way off base.
Speaker 4: Well, that cliff where we went in Ohio, there's that
Speaker 4: place in Ohio with all the activity we went to
Speaker 4: a couple I mean there several times even there a
Speaker 4: couple of times. It was behind the house for the
Speaker 4: where all the action was. There was a square mile
Speaker 4: of woods connected by a green belt to like smaller
Speaker 4: tracks like miles away. Like that was the biggest section
Speaker 4: of woods within like a five or eight mile radio
Speaker 4: something like that. And we had, you know, four or
Speaker 4: five people poking on there. We didn't cover a fraction
Speaker 4: of it, you know, in like two days. That was
Speaker 4: just one square mile mile by a mile, and it
Speaker 4: was relatively flat, not like the Civic Northwest or the Rockies.
Speaker 4: In a mile square mile you could have a couple
Speaker 4: of thousand feet of vertical game, you know. So it
Speaker 4: was it was relatively relatively flat. I mean it had
Speaker 4: hills I got to like seventy foot elevation difference or something,
Speaker 4: but it was and that was like we couldn't even
Speaker 4: cover that. And with like five people.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine how many people it would take? Like
Speaker 2: let's say that Patty and her descendants lived and died,
Speaker 2: spent their whole lives in the Bluff Creek drainage, as
Speaker 2: gnarly as that drainage is, how many people do you
Speaker 2: think it would take and how long to cover every
Speaker 2: square inch of just the Bluff Creek drainage looking for
Speaker 2: bones or remains. Oh god, it takes like multiple lifetimes. Yeah, dozens, hundreds,
Speaker 2: many hundreds of people, maybe thousands. I mean that's a
Speaker 2: big area, and that's one creek drainage.
Speaker 4: That's a simil're sitting, that's a similar sitting on top,
Speaker 4: like you know, just laying there free to be found,
Speaker 4: which would be the case. Have you covered up or
Speaker 4: you know, it doesn't be like kind of digging around
Speaker 4: or poking around like moving stuff.
Speaker 2: And oh exactly. Well, it's also assuming that they all
Speaker 2: live and die they never leave that drainage, which is
Speaker 2: not you know, the case. And how often does one
Speaker 2: die in that county you know, once every few years maybe,
Speaker 2: or let's say in the Bluff Creek drainage and the
Speaker 2: associated drainages that are all tributaries of the Klamath in
Speaker 2: that general area, how often there's one die in that
Speaker 2: drainage every five years, every ten years. I mean, this
Speaker 2: experiment has not been run. When people go, well, why
Speaker 2: haven't they found bones, and the answer, it's like, no
Speaker 2: one's ever looked. Most people are trying to have sightings
Speaker 2: or encounters. That's about it. And then beyond that, like
Speaker 2: of that subset, most of those people are doing at
Speaker 2: night where they can't even see or document something, and
Speaker 2: so no, we have not run this experiment. So if
Speaker 2: the people think, well sasquatches are real as an assumption
Speaker 2: and because people have looked for it and haven't found one,
Speaker 2: they must be supernatural. Like that's a very flimsy limb
Speaker 2: to stand out on.
Speaker 3: I've spoken to a couple of the folks who have
Speaker 3: turned paranormal over time, and I think it's a matter
Speaker 3: of them thinking that, well, I would have figured this
Speaker 3: out by now, I would have done. So I think
Speaker 3: it's looking at themselves and saying, how did an animal
Speaker 3: And they say animal, as if it's a derogatory thing,
Speaker 3: How would an animal outwhit me? You know, well, because
Speaker 3: they're way better at everything than you are in the woods,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 4: I like that's a fair because they, I mean, will
Speaker 4: experience these anomalies. Just because you have it doesn't mean
Speaker 4: they did. And that's why. So those people get to
Speaker 4: that point because of things they've personally experienced.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, in some cases that's true, but not
Speaker 3: at all. They say, well, they must be that, because
Speaker 3: how would they possibly evade humans. Well, humans are terrible
Speaker 3: in the woods, and like Matt says, really no one's
Speaker 3: out there doing it. And we've all been on expeditions
Speaker 3: quote unquote, and then and those expeditions very often come
Speaker 3: down to sitting around a fire, hanging out and every
Speaker 3: once in a while going for the walk, you know,
Speaker 3: not exactly, not exactly a blanketing activity.
Speaker 2: Well, that's why I try to say, you know, in
Speaker 2: the book and all the interviews that I do about this,
Speaker 2: I'm like, I'm talking about my failures, like we in
Speaker 2: general have failed to produce proof. But that's on me
Speaker 2: because I'm not responsible for anyone else. And like, I
Speaker 2: think that's a cause for optimism, because means I can
Speaker 2: work more diligently at trying to better test the hypothesis
Speaker 2: and up my game in every way that I'm capable of,
Speaker 2: and that's all cause for optimism. I remember some one
Speaker 2: had said, Oh, I felt like you're that passage in
Speaker 2: your book where you're talking about like you know, you
Speaker 2: hadn't you'd yet to prove this. It was very melancholic,
Speaker 2: and I thought, like, I don't see this melancholic. I
Speaker 2: see it as optimistic because it's you know how there's
Speaker 2: people that think that, you know, everything's conspiring against them,
Speaker 2: the universe, the cosmos, fate or whatever. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: you should maybe think, like, well, to what degree can
Speaker 2: I make things better? And because you have two options,
Speaker 2: like either there's something wrong with the entire universe or
Speaker 2: there's something wrong with what you're doing, and you better
Speaker 2: hope that it's what you're doing, because you could actually
Speaker 2: do something about that. And so I think the same
Speaker 2: thing as at play, where people think, well, because I've
Speaker 2: failed to produce proof, they must be unprovable, Like, no,
Speaker 2: maybe we could just try a little harder.
Speaker 3: Well, you think about the consistency of the effort as well,
Speaker 3: you know, because I'm a very very lucky person. That's
Speaker 3: somehow another Bigfoot has become my full time occupation, although
Speaker 3: there's a lot of different aspects of that. I'm not
Speaker 3: out in the woods every single night, and who can
Speaker 3: do that, you know, Even though Bigfoot is my literal
Speaker 3: full time occupation, I'm I'm out one the three days
Speaker 3: a week at the most, you know, because life happens,
Speaker 3: and there's other things to do, and you know, there's
Speaker 3: other things to take care of. I got to earn
Speaker 3: a living, and I got to manage the museum, I
Speaker 3: got to take care of podcasts, I got to manage
Speaker 3: like speaking engagements. I have to do this. I have
Speaker 3: to make footage, you know, for our member. There's a
Speaker 3: million things that pulls me every which way. And I
Speaker 3: do bigfoot for a living full time, and I can
Speaker 3: barely get to the woods, it feels.
Speaker 2: I think so much of what people do in the
Speaker 2: field too, there's no legacy of successful sasquatch researchers to
Speaker 2: learn from. You know. It's not like if you wanted
Speaker 2: to become a bear hunter or a great steelhead fisherman,
Speaker 2: where you can learn all of the best techniques from
Speaker 2: all the best practitioners. Like we're all learning, like no
Speaker 2: one knows exactly how to you know, provoke an encounter
Speaker 2: and document it, you know, if you're trying to document
Speaker 2: a living sasquatch versus their sign or trace evidence or
Speaker 2: something like that. So this applies to all of us.
Speaker 2: But you know, I think a lot of us get
Speaker 2: involved in doing things that aren't necessarily productive. I heard
Speaker 2: a great quote today and I was like, oh, this
Speaker 2: kind of reminds me of a lot of Sasquatchery and
Speaker 2: myself included. I'm not pointing fingers. I've done a lot
Speaker 2: of things that were probably not you know, the best
Speaker 2: use of time and resources. But the quote was like,
Speaker 2: there's nothing sadder than watching someone expertly and efficiently do
Speaker 2: something that never should have been tried in the first place.
Speaker 2: It's like, doesn't matter how good your skill set is
Speaker 2: if it's just if it's not applicable. And you know,
Speaker 2: I'm definitely guilty. That's again I'm not castigating when I'm
Speaker 2: not casting blame. But yeah, I mean, we're all trying
Speaker 2: to figure out how to properly run the experiment, and
Speaker 2: so we'll say they're supernatural once that's been really tried
Speaker 2: and has failed, but yet some phenomena persists. But until then,
Speaker 2: I think we just keep doing what we're doing.
Speaker 4: Well. I think you can't say that their failure. It's
Speaker 4: just that we don't have the resources. I mean, if
Speaker 4: we have like these huge budgets, like the multimately dark
Speaker 4: grants are going to come into the field, the Sasquat's
Speaker 4: research field. When you get these you know, big entities
Speaker 4: that are you know, have basically unlimited resources, do what
Speaker 4: we do will prove to be successful. Like techniques we have,
Speaker 4: we just have property equipment at the time.
Speaker 2: To quote another person that I heard, he said, like,
Speaker 2: you know, there's the famous Sagan quote, extraordinary claims require
Speaker 2: extraordinary evidence. And he said, well, extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary science,
Speaker 2: and extraordinary science requires extraordinary resources, and so without those things,
Speaker 2: and you know, frankly, I think the whole premise is
Speaker 2: flawed where it's like, extraordinary claims require evidence period, you know,
Speaker 2: not extraordinary evidence. But anyway, I did like Jeff's question,
Speaker 2: and that was a fun thought experiment for sure.
Speaker 3: That's pretty good discussion, that's for sure, big a Jeff,
Speaker 3: and I think that's what these q and a's are
Speaker 3: really about, because we always go off on tangents, you know,
Speaker 3: we don't we don't color within the lines very well,
Speaker 3: I don't think.
Speaker 2: So they're great prompts for discussion.
Speaker 3: Okay, we're about the time limit now, so why don't
Speaker 3: we close down shop right now and we can go
Speaker 3: over to the members section. The members, of course, are
Speaker 3: a smaller pool, and we get to every one of
Speaker 3: their questions every single week. We do have some questions
Speaker 3: left over from this regular episode right now, though, so
Speaker 3: we will get back to those next month, of course,
Speaker 3: but we have we have to go do the members
Speaker 3: right now, and we have to get to every one
Speaker 3: of those. We pay extra close attention to our members,
Speaker 3: and so we're going to take care of that. So
Speaker 3: there you go. That's a terrible outro.
Speaker 4: Well get you so, Cliff, because I have to do
Speaker 4: it all the time. Okay, folks, that was another week
Speaker 4: of big Thanks for all the questions. We appreciate you
Speaker 4: submitting them to us. Keep them coming in a voicemail
Speaker 4: or written and we'll get we'll get to them next month.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, thanks for joining us, and y'all keep
Speaker 4: it squatchy.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
Speaker 3: If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
Speaker 3: us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
Speaker 3: get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
Speaker 3: at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Speaker 3: Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's an N in the middle,
Speaker 3: and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Speaker 3: Bigfoot and Beyond.