Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
Speaker 2: These guys are your favorites.
Speaker 1: So like Shay, subscribe and rade it five star s me.
Speaker 2: Righteous one Yesterday.
Speaker 1: And listening watching always keep its watching. And now you're
hosts Cliff Perrickman and James Bubo Fay. Good morning to you, Bobo.
How you doing, sir?
Speaker 3: Pretty good? Pretty good? Long time you'll see me?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I spend days now actually putting my eyes
on you. Just a few days ago, yeah, and what
a sight to behold. Last time I saw you is
one in the morning over on the east side of
Mountain Hood and I was a driving away. I saw
you in my rearview mirror. What has happened since then?
Speaker 3: Nothing? Absolutely nothing. I spent the next to you and
I I reved the next day just because I thought
the place was awesome. But like some people hiked by me,
I didn't know there was a trail right by there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that bad.
Speaker 2: That Mountain Bike trail is a walking trail as well,
and in fact that the trailhead is new. As I
pointed out to and we were there, I had not
seen that cause I hadn't been up there in the
last year or two.
Speaker 3: That's way.
Speaker 2: It seems that there's a new trailhead there and all
sorts of trails come together in that specific spot.
Speaker 3: Yeah. But I mean like when we were camping, there's
there's a trail like only like less than one hundred
feet away. Yeah. Yeah, I was taking a leak and
I was and then all of a sudden there's two
women and a guy like walking up and like I'm
just sitting there. Oh my, Like I was like, sorry,
didn't know there's a trail there, you know whatever, and
they were cool. They didn't say anything.
Speaker 2: That's the way it always goes, you know, as soon
as you dropped the drawer, somebody walks by.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I was like, like, of all the timing,
you know, it's just like there. Yeah. I got down
thirty six that night, and then the next time was
about the saying I went. I went down for the
south that I was going to go to that one
lake we were talking about, huh. I started looking at
the other I started looking at like databases and stuff
and places I was always wanting to go. I was like, well,
I got a couple of nights still, so I went
down Southomore and then I went I went down to
this one spot for a night and there was totally nothing,
nothing at all. Yeah, after talking to Sarah, you know,
about her spot that I just had to go down there,
and I knew a spot that wasn't real close to
her because I mean, she is a pretty long hike
to where her her en counter happened. It was like,
you know, it takes me like three days to hike
in there. So I just went through a spot on
I could camp buy there and it was it was
beautiful night, like you know, moon and all that, but again,
it was freezing, dude. It was like I think it
was right around the seane. It was like thirty five
thirty six at night.
Speaker 2: I was not.
Speaker 1: I wasn't.
Speaker 3: I mean I was prepared pretty good for cold weather,
but I didn't have my furry hat or a Deanie
or nothing. So that was a little chilly. But I
mean it was just kind of you know, for July,
that's kind of you know, pretty extreme cold.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did, you know there's no fire all the
fire restriction is going on right now, which is very
reasonable of course, means you can't warm up by a fire,
and that kind of sucks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would change everything if you can have like
a little fire and keep yourself warm, but got to
follow the rules and not in danger everybody and all
the wildlife and stuff. Just because you're a little cold.
Speaker 3: I'll still do fires because it just rained recently, Like
I went to my I would have done a fire
when I was with you that first night, you know,
just because everything was so wet and green. I generally
like totally go with those fire backs, like if there's
like any kind of fire danger, very aware. I used
to mean I used to fight forest fire, so.
Speaker 1: It's hard to love forest fires.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I'd like to think I'm a lover, not a fighter firefire.
I'm a lover, not a firefighter.
Speaker 3: Oh you are a fire lever, just just the properly controlled,
maintained one.
Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It is in my Hominin heritage that I love fires. Yeah,
it's interesting when you're sitting around a fire and you
just have to stare into it. You realize, man, we've
been doing this for three or four hundred thousand years,
and we're just epigenetically programmed to love that.
Speaker 1: Caveman TV absolutely or hippie TV.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well cool, it looks like we have a
topical episode in front of us right now. A number
of topics have been sent in by both you and me,
and I'm not sure if Matt contributed anything or not. Prude,
did you throw anything in the bin on this one
or is it just us I grabbed something from listeners.
We had a few that were submitted by regular listeners.
Speaker 1: Oh cool, cool, very good.
Speaker 2: I'm glad to hear their participating as well.
Speaker 3: I just opened my eyes, just open to my mail
just now to look at what Pruit sent us, and
I got a message from Paul Cropper about them recovering
DNA from human mitochondria and nuclear DNA unaccompanied by final
DNA from the pigmented calcite crust at a scirrel cave
in Portugal.
Speaker 4: Really, yeah, we're the where the where they painted on
the walls. There's these their fingers a lot, So there's
there's a human DNA that's not there's there's no contamination
for men the animals, so it's like really clean, and
I guess they're they're excited about the getting results.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think that's one of our articles right now,
but I did see that article and I thought it
was fascinating that because it makes sense, you know, because
you know, you picture those the cave paintings where like
there's a hand and somebody like put a bunch of
paint in their mouth and blew it over their hands.
So it's just the hand is like the negative spot
where there is no paint.
Speaker 1: On the wall. We've all seen that, like they did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, they generally they put they put paint in
their mouth or some sort of pigment in their mouth
and use a straw or something and blow it over that.
Speaker 1: That's how they do that. And of course that would
have saliva in it, which is a wonderful source to DNA.
Speaker 2: It's just chock full of DNA, so that that was
a very interesting article that I read. And of course
there's also probably skin cells sloughing off and all that
sort of stuff. But I think the DNA in the
saliva is what my brief free to the article seem
to be what they were going after, and it makes
perfect sense. Of course, it would be fascinating study. And
of course once you get that genome all sequenced out,
you can start piecing together you know, who's related to
that person today, which is kind of cool and I
bet many, many, many, many many of us are, which
would be really really cool to learn about.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Also not in our article. I did see yesterday that
they're starting to talk publicly about the DNA studies that
they're doing over his study Sasquatch that Bart is sponsoring
to some degree with Haskell Heart. I thought that was
pretty cool. I saw that publicly announced. He has or
at least start talking about it online, so I guess
not online. I didn't go to like Facebook or anything,
but I saw it on one of the other ones,
like Twitter or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I saw them talking about that, and I thought, that's
fantastic that there's more than one e DNA study going
on at the same time. You know, so I'm helping
North Carolina State University because they have a team of academics.
Bart's funding this. Saying that they're testing water sources, I
guess with Haskell Heart, I know he's been doing it
for a number of years. I talked to Haskell about
maybe two years ago or more about his efforts doing that.
Talked about maybe getting some water samples out of the
bowl run nearby me. We haven't done that yet, but
imagine we'll probably do that at some point. He did
reach out again in another like maybe three weeks ago
or something to me about that. Yeah, so maybe we
can get something together there. But yeah, the more studies
the better, is my thought. The more people do an
actual real work, the better. Of course, that doesn't remove
the obstacles, which was one of my first thoughts, of course,
and it's one of my first thoughts with the soil
sample sampling study that we're doing, or even the hair
for that matter. And I know Derby. I've talked to
Derby at length about this. It's like, well, how do
you identify an unknown you know, I guess that's problematic.
You know, it sounds problematic, like how do you know
what you're looking at? If you if you're looking at
something you've never seen, then I guess I talked to
Derby a little bit about it. It's like the best
way or a good way to do it is get
multiple samples that I'll match each other on the species
level at least, and then to move on from there
and then identify what you have. But I guess they'll
probably be doing the same thing over there with Haskell's
study as well, So it's just if they do get
a hit, But aren't they using commercial labs? See, that
would be the problematic part of that study for me,
I think is that commercial labs generally speaking, don't go
to the depth necessary to differentiate on a species level
when two things are so closely related. But I don't know,
But I'm not part of that study. I don't really
know what's going on behind it, and I.
Speaker 3: Don't know exactly. I know he analyzes. I mean, I
guess he just analyzes the lab gives him. But I
think he's pretty self contained as far as I know.
And I think it's more like with Bart's thing. It's
like it's more, it's not it's not as like rigid
like academically and all that is as the North Carolina
State with Darby, And if you're willing to pay for
your own tests, you can get results a lot faster.
Speaker 1: But yeah, do those tests go deep enough?
Speaker 3: Is what I'm on. You should send them the both.
You should send them a Bolt Pascal and North Carolina
State because you can say, hey, Darby, look at this,
this one came back really interesting. That they can help
those guys like really focus on good samples.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that that that would be fantastic, like if
if Pascal study or whoever studied is gets a good
hit as long as the data is preserved, because that's
a lot of the problem with a lot of the
other previous DNA efforts, the very very few that actually
were real, like actually happened instead of just were rumors
and mythology and bigfoot land, is that the data is
either inaccessible or gone because the scientists had no reason
to keep it beyond a favor to a big foot nerd,
you know, or in some cases that people have the
data still but won't share it, which is very unscientific
as well. So hopefully the data will be all right
there and if they do get something interesting, then they
can forward it on to get the like the PhD
nerds all frothy about it, you know, yeah, yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The more efforts and in this direction, the better though,
because I really do think that the DNA thing is
probably what's going to do it at least to take
the first few steps into the realm of like, oh
my god, the real and then you know, they play
and ketch up with the scientists for the next ten
to fifteen years. It's exciting up though exciting times to
be be checking out the Bigfoot thing. You know, a
lot more is going on today than say, twenty thirty
years ago, And of course that also implies that a
lot of garbage is out there too, a lot more
garbage more than ever before. But if you can weed
through all that and figure out and separate the wheat
from the shaft, then there's a lot of cool things
going on.
Speaker 1: Be a good excuse to get Bart back on too. Oh,
like we need a good excuse to get Bart back on.
I love that guy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, anytime open door policy.
Speaker 3: He doesn't listen, so.
Speaker 1: I bet he does.
Speaker 3: He claims he doesn't. Yeah, seems pretty convincing because he
knows what I'm talking about. If I mentioned the pod
like something we had on there.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
We'll be right back after these messages. Well, should we
jump into these articles? These other ones here?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well I'll just pop this one out. This is
the article from science dot org. It's basically about how
the earliest Homo species did not look human based on
a partial skeleton. So the researchers basically have described the
most this is I was really excited about this one
the most complete known skeleton of Homo habilists. It's from Kenya.
It's about two a little over two million years ago
is when this thing was walking around on two legs,
being all apy. Homo habilists, of course, was the is
the first member of our genus, the earliest member of
our genus before Homo habilists. These where we call those
critters australopithscenes, Australopithecus this, or Australopithecus that. There's about six eight,
maybe more different species of Australopithecus at this point, depending
on if you're a lumper or a splitter. But Homo
habilist is the earliest member of our genus was kind
of habilist. What is it. It's a tool maker, the
handyman is what they called him back in the early days.
And Homo habilis has had a more human like skull
than earlier australopithescenes, right, But the thing is their body
was not very human like at all. They still retained
a lot of the more archaic traits that the predecessors,
the Australopithoscenes had. For example, they had longer, more powerful
arms that were very ape like, longer in purportion of
their body, that intermembrable index thing that we'd like to
throw around so much. And so this is interesting because
the discoveries basically that the earliest members of our genus Homo,
they weren't just simply smaller versions of us humans walking around.
They were let's call the mosaics. They were evolutionary mosaics
that had a number of ape like traits as well
as human like traits. And that's what we kind of expect,
you know, I mean, there's no such thing as a
missing link. That is a misnomer. It's kind of left
over from archaic ideas like the great chain of being,
you know, where humans are at the very very top
and all the super primitive like things right the very
very bottom, and there's a chain connecting us all in
a direct linear fashion. And that's where we get the
idea of missing link, like a link in a chain.
That's not the way evolution works of any sort, and
human evolution is included in that. So we would expect
that earlier versions of Homo would have more ape like
and human like traits. And of course, one of the
interesting things about looking into the anatomy of early Homo
or even australopithesenes is that if you look at their anatomy,
you can infer some behaviors. I think that's a really
important thing that people overlook often, is that anatomy is
an indicator of their behavior. So these longer ape like
arms suggest at least that they probably spent more time
climbing than previously believed, even though they were probably pretty
efficient at walking on the ground as well. And again again,
Homo habilis is super interesting because it is one of
several species that lived at the same time in the
same general era. Also kind of squashing that idea of
the single seat, single species hypothesis, where like, you know,
there's only one of a type of animal that can
occupy an ecological niche at the same time, although they
probably had, you know, a variety of niches that they
were exploiting at the time.
Speaker 1: And I love this.
Speaker 2: It's because one of the parts of the article here
discusses should Homo habilists actually be in the species Homo
or are they or should they be australopithesenes because of
their primitive body And I love that because it echoes
it mirrors so closely. The debate around homofluresiensis some people
are still holding onto this idea that homofluesciensis is just
like a Homo erectus. Is pretty modern in a lot
of ways, but it's just smaller like island dwarphism. But
there's so many things about it that indicate that that
probably is not the best model. Some some paleontologists has
even gone as far as I say, no, no, homofluesiensis
the hobbit species from Flores is an australopithesceene. Others say, well,
it's really more like Homo habilists, and as we get
fuller and fuller pictures from the fossil record, we'll be
able to sort that out a little bit. But I
think that is truly interesting that even though there are
in our genus Homo habilists, they're very, very ape like,
And it turns out, I say that's even true of
us Homo sapiens.
Speaker 3: But well, I took away two things from that article. One,
I think that'd be a really cool name if you're
a handyman like fabulous services.
Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Also, that missing link might be kind of a misnomer,
but it did give birth to one of the greatest
pro wrestlers with one of the greatest pro wrestler names
of all time, The Missing Link. You do the scientists
far and I'll do the other far.
Speaker 1: Okay, very good, I'll do my best. I'll do my best.
Speaker 2: Don't let me down, Cliff, I'll just be aping the
scientists myself.
Speaker 3: So nice. Wow, that's great.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I really wonder if it is just a retention
of that upper body climbing adaptations or if they really
were being used a lot, because obviously there's what you
could infer or interpret as an improvement in bipedal locomotion
and improvement in terrestrial walking, and so that gives it.
It's not really progress, but it's just an increment of
difference away from the Australopithecus precursor. But yet those other
features you know, essentially from the waist up are retained,
because obviously they'd have to be spending a lot more
time on the ground walking bipedally for those improvements to
those adaptations to occur. But were they climbing enough to
I don't know. If you have to use if you
don't use it, you lose it, you know what I mean,
or if it's just like no, that's a retention of
features and those just remain unchanged because they're still functional
in that environment, even if they're not climbing to the
same degree as they were generations previously. I don't know,
I'm just taking stabs and guessing, because you'd think to
some degree be one or the other in that well,
they're obviously on the ground a lot more hintsy adaptations.
But I don't think that the retention of the ape
like upper body necessarily means heavy usage of those features
as much as I mean, we've retained a whole host
of climbing features and we're not tree dwellers, you know,
but we still have the arms and shoulders of like
climbing animals.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But at the same time, Homo habilists they were small.
They were about three feet tall three and a half
feet tall or something like that if I remember correctly,
and they were prey species, And I think that's one
of the things that sometimes gets a little bit overlooked
with as far as like tree adaptations if you want
to call them adaptations really, because it's really more that
they don't adapt to a behavior necessarily, you know, certain
certain quirks get introduced into a genome, you know, and
and those quirks allow some things to survive better. So
it's not they're not adapting to a situation. It's just
an accidental progress of mutations essentially, and those those ones
survive a little bit better, of course, but you know that.
But I want to clarify that for the listeners a bit.
But retreating to the trees when you are a prey
item seems like an awfully useful thing, especially with a
three foot tall prey item. Because Paranthropists gets all the
magazine covers because of that that paranthropist's skull that was
found with leopard canines in it. They should call those felines,
I think when they come on cats. But anyway, the
leopard tooth marks in the paranthropine's skull, so it gets
all the press, all the cool stuff about me. But
Homo hablis was absolutely certainly a prey item for many
many an animals. We could guess that they probably lived
in large groups, being primates and being social and all
that sort of stuff. It would have helped a small
bodied animal like this avoid predation. And also that tree
being nimble in the trees has to be very very
useful for them in a lot of ways. So and
of course where the fruits up in the trees, where
the nuts generally up in the trees, are on the
ground underneath it. So it would be very very useful
for these animals to be able to be arboreal. And
when you think about sasquatch reports, because we have got
to tie it back the into that, of course, think
how completely adept sasquatches seem to be in trees based
on the siding reports. But you take their behavior and
transfer it to the ground. Because of the really big, heavy,
massive ones would probably be spending less time in the
trees because they don't have the pressure of trying to
stay safe or anything like that. And also they're just
big and heavy. Their branches break, and.
Speaker 3: It'd be like in Asia the like where the where
the check antilos, where all those other ones it was
pine like, whereas the Asians are maybe not as much
as like those deciduous forests like the evergreens up North
Moore and stuff like the year and then Africa that's
all deciduous trees, you know, it's like that there's more branches,
there's like bigger branches going out that you can like
that aren't just covered little branches like they can. There's
a lot more mobility in them.
Speaker 2: Well, that could very well be true. But if you
look at these same adaptations and apply them to a sasquatch,
which probably isn't in the trees as much as like
these smaller critters would have been, or even the juvenile sasquatches.
But if you plot, if you see the if you
look at those same adaptations or of those same features,
they're equally useful in a mountainous environment over rocks and
steep terrain and that sort of stuff. Everything from their
long arms because if they're on a steep slope to
some degree, their arms would be used for locomotion, to
be hitting the ground a little bit, you know. And
also the flexibility the mid part of the foot is
a fantastic adaptation for living in a montane environment with
steep slopes and uneven terrain and all that sort of stuff.
So these arboreal adaptations or features are are equally useful
in the mountainous environment of some sorts. So that's why
I think that's why we see the same features in
the sasquatch, longer arms and legs, and in the mineral
index stuff, flexibility in the feet. These are all just
fantastic things to have that would make your life just
a bit easier if you live in the habitatic a
sasquatch does, and again if sasquatches well, since sasquatches do
show many of these same features you know, ape like cranium,
including sagital crest, deep set jaws, big zygomatic arches, shoulders
and for brecation, longer arms and legs, flexibility and the
feed hair cover all these sort of things. That implies
that the last common ancestor between sasquatches and human beings
is pretty deep in time. It goes way back. I
put it back to the australopithesenes and Ego Maane. Much
further than that, anything after Homo habilists. If you're looking
at homoerectus or something like that as a possible ancestor
of sasquatches, you're going down the wrong valley right there.
I think at the earliest, the earliest hominin you could
even look at reasonably as a last common ancestor to
be a Homo habilists. But even that's a stretch because
they use tools quite frequently and fashioned their own tools.
I think I've said before that they have using controlled fire,
but I don't think that's correct now. I think I
read some updated stuff on that. I don't think they
were using fire. I think that's a Homo erectus thing.
But I think you have to go at least as
far back as Homo habilists, and probably much earlier to
find the last common ancestor between humans and sasquatches.
Speaker 1: To me, the biggest implication here is that it is
very unlikely that habitlist was the direct ancestor of Erectus
based on this newest find. Yeah, which interesting stuff pointed out,
definitely points to something like Ostelopithecus, and it hearkens to
the arguments about fluoresciences et cetera, et cetera, the potential
survival or the proliferation differentiation. You know, how many forms
of australopithcy or their ancestors were there. You know, obviously
with all these things, that have to be a lot
more than we're currently aware of. So this is it
is definitely an interesting find.
Speaker 2: Yeah, remember that the current estimate is that we are
aware of something like one and a half percent of
the species that have ever lived from the fossil record.
The fossil record has only shown us that one and
a half percent, so most everything that ever lived, we
have no idea that it was there.
Speaker 1: Very good, I was waiting for that.
Speaker 3: I was waiting for a little money man there.
Speaker 2: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
We'll be right back after these messages. All right, This
next article was submitted by Bobo. It's in the SI
Dot News. I guess is the source for this thing.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: So the researchers have analyzed three hundred and eighty something
almost three hundred and ninety fossil specimens representing twenty one
hominin species. And again, just for our new listeners, we
talk about hominin's all the time, not hominid, hamanin. It
ends in an N, and that is a special word
for everything on the human family tree. Since human beings
and chimpanzees last shared a common ancestor about six to
eight million years ago, so hominin. So, once again, researchers
have analyzed three hundred and eighty six fossil specimens from
twenty one different hominin species to reconstruct how body size
changed over the course of human evolution, and they found
that body side size did not increase in one steady trend.
It did not just increasingly get larger every single time.
There was gradual growth among the early hominins and then
jumps in later species, so it was an irregular growth rate.
So the most significant increase in size and body size
happened about two to two and a half million years ago,
and that was the time when the early Homo erectus
and Ergaster, which Homo ergaster was an earlier form of
Homo erectus as well, was as well was Homo rudolphensis,
just so you know, like those are just more archaic
versions of Homo erectus. Because Homeorectus was around for a
really long long time, it was by far one of
the most successful hominins, not only in the time that
they were walking around on the planet, but also the
distance that we have confirmed that they traveled. I've said this,
i think a couple times the last two months. The
actual holotype, the very very first specimen of home Erectus
ever found was in Java. You might have heard of Java. Man,
that's it.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 1: Java is in Southeast Asia. But yet we have.
Speaker 2: Plenty of Homo Erectus fossils from Africa. So that's a
long range, Man, that's a big, big range. So anyway,
I'm a big fan of home Erectus, but the Homo
ergaster and.
Speaker 1: Ho rootolphens Is are closer related. Is a little bit earlier.
Speaker 2: So anyway, the most significant increase in size happened two
to two and a half million years ago, because the
body mass increased to about one hundred and thirty something pounds.
What do they say, is looking at the article here,
sixty kilograms, so like one hundred and thirty something pounds,
which is pretty small still, but at the same time
not nearly as large as almost apiens. Right, And of
course not all of these hominin lineages became larger at all.
Some species and I'm looking at you homofluresiensis and homonalide. Homofluesiensis,
of course, is the hobbit species from the island of Flores.
Homo nalidi is that South African rising star cave critter
down there that may or may not have buried.
Speaker 1: They're dead.
Speaker 2: And now there's been in the news last couple weeks.
Actually too, they were still pretty small, and so evolution
here is basically giving a variety of hominins a variety
of body sizes depending on what they need and where
they were. So the increase in body size seems to
go along with behavioral and ecological changes. Of course, that's
what makes sense. Climate change is not a modern thing.
It has always been going on because climates are always changing,
and whenever those climates change, some random mutation enables some
members of the species to deal with it better. And
those are the ones that breed more and survive when
things feel weird, and they're the ones that we're all
related to because that's how evolution works. So the body
size increase coincided with these behavioral and ecological changes. And
some of the other things that changed along with those
behavioral and ecological changes and the body size thing are
better bipedalism, more meat consumption, and longer distance movement over landscapes. Yeah,
that makes sense. All that kind of stuff makes sense
to me at least. So, yeah, things are getting bigger
and they're moving further. Makes sense. Let let's really really
keep it simple. Things change, we adapt or our ancestors adapted,
we got bigger, we moved further. Makes sense, but there's
still no clear winner on the theories.
Speaker 1: Well, we're all winners, Bobes. That's the thing.
Speaker 2: That's the thing, that's the cool part about when we
look around today, whether I'm looking at these horrible, terrible
squirrels I have infesting my yard, or looking at you
and I wonderful beautiful critters walking around on two legs,
or even the lowly fruit fly, all of the species
we see today are the winners of the evolutionary race
so far. We're not done yet, we're not all extinct yet,
So yeah, we are the winners. So when people say
like humans try to put things in strata, you know,
like humans are above these other things, It's like, no, dude,
We're all winners, every one of us, if we still
exist today. We are the winners of the evolutionary race
so far.
Speaker 1: See, I thought you were going to make the argument
that you and I were more basal because we're smaller,
and Bobo is more derived. I e evolved because he's larger,
which would be in.
Speaker 3: Keepicking with us, and I'm less hurried than he es.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true. Let's put this to the test though, Like, Matt,
how far did you drive this week away from home? Like?
Speaker 1: How many hours from home are you today? Four and
a half? Four and a half?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I guess it's past week. You drove pretty far.
I'm just trying to wonder if, since Bobo's larger, did
he actually travel.
Speaker 1: Further than us?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Definitely, there you go. Proof is in the pudding.
Speaker 3: I love putting.
Speaker 1: You got to make that a sound by it exactly,
That's a good one. It's just so interesting. I mean,
I know, Africa is such a massive continent. You know,
you can't even really think of it as a place
any more than you could think of North America as
a place, because it's like, well, where are we talking
about the Everglades? Are we talking about the Rockies? Are
we talking about the Northern Rockies? Are we talking about
southern California? I mean, there's so many different environments. But
it is interesting to see such a variety of sizes
because it's easy to think about when humans left Africa
and we went from certain landscapes through the levant into
temperate rainforests and monsoon forests, and then the Subarctic and
the Arctic and vastly different environments that you think would
drive a lot of different change, where you know size
would matter a lot more in terms of thermoregulation, etc.
But they don't float a lot of hypotheses as to
various causal pathways that drove these certain things. But I
guess there's probably not enough evidence there to propose really
strong hypotheses as to like specific causal pathways that would
lead certain things to have these massive leaps and size,
while other things not too far away in space and
time don't really change much at all.
Speaker 2: So often this evolutionary pathways come down to climate change.
Something changes, and something you know it's not as forested
as it was, and therefore you have to adapt to it,
or or the people who have that the things that
have that adaptation survive, is a better way to say it,
I guess, as opposed to just picking up an adaptation.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: One of the things that made me one of the
questions that popped into my head with this article is
that I'm thinking about the places in the world where
there are reportedly more than one species of unknown hominoid Australia,
for example, or the various islands of Indonesia, some of
the islands have big critters like sasquatch like things. Some
of the islands are reportedly still have the small critters
like why would that be true? Or Australia. The native
folks in Australia that we visited said that, no, no,
we've got the big ones. We got the little ones.
And at the time I wasn't aware of the little ones.
They're the ones that include me in on it. And
I just wantn't those just the baby ones? And said,
oh no, they're different, they're different. We would know and
I don't know. I guess they would know. I'd have
to trust them on that. But why would it be
that both are at the same place, you know what
I mean? That is a tricky proposition, especially parts of
Asia and Southeast Asia. Like I said, I knew a
carnivore biologist who did a lot of traveling and a
lot of field work in Southeast Asia, and he had
taken a number of those sasquats like reports. But his
words to me said, for every one report I've gotten
of the big ones, I've gotten ten of the little guys.
So yeah, I think there's places even on the mainland too.
Not just in the archipelago or whatever, but you know,
places where supposedly both types occur, and then there would
certainly be I guess as you'd get more into the mountains,
like the Hamalias. There there are the larger types sort
of sasquatchs like types, the migoy et cetera. And then
the more manlike forms, you know, the barmanu, the all
musty al masty. So I guess if all these are real,
you know, which is a big if. But you know,
we really got the short end of the stick here
in North America just having sasquatches. I think we're blessed anyway, though,
you know, just I was just in the I was
down in the Meldrum files today looking around. I was
digging through the Russian section. I was examining the purported
almosty footprint. Yeah, and I'll say that it looks awfully human,
but much much wider, so almosties clearly aren't sasquatches. I
think there's something else going on that if that footprint
is actually real and not misinterpreted or even hoaxed, I
guess that's a possibility as well. But there are a
couple of casts in the collection and a number of
photographs of footprints that seem to be pretty relatively consistent. Yeah,
my money for almosty and all that sort of stuff
in that part of the world. My money is on
a relative Neanderthal or Denisovan or something like that, something
much more modern than a sasquatch.
Speaker 3: None of the indigenous people refer to them as animals
like everyone. First one is, you know, like a wild man,
hairy man, snowman like. They always say it's it's some
type of man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is weird too, because what are we plants?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: I started all my lectures. I did this the other
day at the at the library down in Albany, where
I spoke this past week. I said, Hey, before anybody
gets all their feathers ruffled, I just want to let
you know I always speak about these things in biological terms.
So I'm going to refer to them as animals. And
I could see some uncomfortable shifting and they say it's okay,
you can relax. You're an animal too, and so am
I ask yourself, well, what are the other options? I
guess the other options are plant produce bacteria, that kind
of stuff. So are you one of those? Or are
you an animal.
Speaker 1: Get over minerals. Yeah, minerals right, exactly.
Speaker 3: A'm in the bedroom. Okay.
Speaker 1: I love Moneybagger, He's the gift that keeps on giving. Well,
I don't want to go off on too big of
a tangent, but you know when people do bring those
things up, and they'll say, well, indigenous peoples around the
world do refer to them as a sort of people.
It's like, well, the delineations that we make in modern
times on the basis of things like genetics or various
other methods of taxonomy, essentially of determining what we refer
to something as you can't really apply that retrospectively in
the past. I mean, I bet you you would find
peoples around the world, coastal peoples would refer to something
like cetaceans as fish, and that doesn't mean that they're right,
and it doesn't mean that they're wrong either. It's like, well,
you would experience those things the same way you experience fish,
Like they're in the water, they come up to the surface,
sometimes they have fins, you know, you catch them and
eat them. Like they wouldn't have made the distinction that,
oh no, these are actually the same type of creature
that we are in that brought us sense i e.
Mammals because they didn't have that terminology. That wasn't part
of the way that they differentiated the world or the
way that they viewed the world. And so of course,
what would you refer to a whale as well, it's
a big fish. So of course if you saw something
that was more like a person than it was like
a bear or a dog or a cat or these
other mammals or a deer or something, of course you'd say, oh,
that's a wild person. Doesn't mean necessarily that they are people.
And it also doesn't mean the indigenous people were just
flat out wrong or uninformed or ignorant. It's like, no,
they're describing things based on a certain type of certain
number of categories on the decision tree, or restricted to
the language they had at hand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sure I've said I'm sure I've said this
on the podcast before, but it always brings me back
to the native gentleman in Brazil we spoke to where
they didn't describe them as a hairy people. They described
them as a monkey walking on two legs without a tail.
Because they have monkeys in Brazil and it's somebody something
to compare it to besides people, you know, but here
in North America or in other parts of the world,
I have to wonder if I'm wonder if there's apes
or monkeys. Well, I know there aren't apes. Maybe there
are monkeys or something in the part of the world
where you know, almostes are hanging out. I don't know,
and I don't think there are, but maybe there are.
There's a lot of things I don't know. When it
comes to the WU Yep, stay tuned for more Bigfoot
and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo. Will be right back
after these messages.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: With article Cliff submitted that I really liked because we
do try to emphasize laughter and humor on this podcast.
There was a great article about ape laughter.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So this article we got from IFL Science orangutanin's gorillas, chimps,
and bonobos all lup just like humans. That means we've
been chuckling this way for fifteen million years. Yeah, it's
like anyone who's been to the zoo watches you know,
animal Plotter Discovery that you know you've seen everyone's seeing
like monkeys and and girls all laughing and making each
other laugh and it goes on it. They analyze the
laughter of four orangutans, three bonobos, two girls, and four chimpanzees,
and they found that greats laugh with an isochronous rhythm,
which means the vocal bursts are evenly spaced. This is
the same characteristic is also a present human laughter, indicating
that this particular trait must have emerged in the last
common ancestor of humans in the Great Age, which lives
some fifteen million years ago. Yeah, the researchers weren't expecting
such regularity in their laughter like ours is. They expected
to be much more irregular, especially the more distantly related
ones animals. Yeah, so the rhythmic regularity of laughter appears
to be remarkably conserved across the Great Age. This suggests
that we've been laughing this way for around fifteen million years.
But humans, we can. We have the ability to alter
our laughter depending on the social context. Social like that
fake lascau something's not funny, like oh ha ha ha
I hear that a lot, you get more oh, and
then we laugh faster and we're tickled than we do
during play. While chimps, bernobos rantings and grills maintained more
of us. The same laughter in all scenarios like ours
is more varied, you know, there's more context, where theirs
is all just the same. It's just the same lapter
no matter what the situation.
Speaker 1: It's still amazing to think that, I mean, that's basically
like a hardwired circuit at that age, over fifteen million years,
that there is like a hardwired laughter circuit. That's that
ancient and fundamental. It's just amazing to think about one
of the theories I'd heard years ago. I guess I've
never chased it down. I wonder if people have developed
it more, but that at least in our lineage, that
it's an extension of basically like grooming behavior because in
a social unit, you know, social apes like that live
in troops, gorillas, champs, et cetera, groom each other. You know,
they're they're reinforce social bonds, they're creating new social bonds,
helps develop trust or relax tensions, et cetera. And that
in our lineage, humor would be like distant grooming. It's
like contactless grooming, like the ability to maintain those social
bonds without like physical touch or over greater distances or
something like that. I thought, man, that's a pretty strong hypothesis.
I think that's a pretty plausible theory.
Speaker 2: Well, especially since human language is by far the most
advanced thing that we're aware of, at least, right, language
at the end of the day is representing ideas with
small mouth noises words in other words, so words are
basically noises that your mouth makes. Right, But you say
something like a tree, the word tree, and I set
a series of three different sounds or e and you
picture a tree. It's a different tree for everybody, of course,
but it's a tree, so it's a representative thing. And
so that's social grooming idea of grooming over distance, you know,
is it makes some sense? And also that seems to
be the general trend of human evolution nowadays. Our world
got a lot bigger in the last twenty thirty years
with the advent of computers and you know, cell phones
and all that sort of stuff, and it seems to
be expanding outwards. Where once you had to write a
letter and put it in the mail, and and that
was a way to communicate kind of telepathically if you
think about it. You know, when you read a book,
you read a book, say you're reading a you know,
Shakespeare or something from four hundred years ago. You're in
that guy's mind. You're in that person's mind. That's a
weird form of telepathy in a way. It's a low
tech form of telepathy, but it kind of is that.
In a way, you can write things on a piece
of paper and give it to somebody and they know
what you thought. Well, the digital world is a different
version of that. So we're constantly evolving a larger sphere
of you know, like social bonding. Our social bonding circles
are getting larger and larger and larger, to the point
where you can have long distance relationships with somebody on
a different continent and still know what they're up to
every single day. And it's a it's an increasing sophistication
in language abilities, and so laughter may have been one
of the very, very first steps in that direction.
Speaker 3: I think humors have evolved even just recently, you know,
like not talking about like human brain evolution over the
last hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years.
I'm talking just like recently, like in the last one
hundred years, fifty years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that might be true.
Speaker 2: I mean, certainly I think stand up comedy as we
see it today is a modern art form. Perhaps maybe not,
though I don't know.
Speaker 1: I really don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't have any information on what bards were doing
four or five hundred years ago. They mean gestures, like
you said, we're certainly doing some stuff, but I really
don't have any information on that.
Speaker 1: So that's interesting thought. Well, I think that's what you
could kind of extrapolate from something like this, or at
least guess ad is that the behavior obviously emerged first
if it's fifteen million plus years old, and so there
would have been behaviors that triggered that sort of laughter,
and so maybe they were acting out comedy in a
way intentionally unintentionally, I mean, we were obviously laughing at
something across our lidiage or else we wouldn't have had
this fixed conserved again for lack of a better word,
circuitry for this long. So you could definitely imagine that
comedy probably predates language because so many of these things
would have like there would have been representational actions, whether
that's some form of like play acting almost like drama
or performing that would have predated the symbolic or artistic
representation of those concepts in words and art, and then
that feedback loop begins where it extends and extends. So
certainly within the canon of like any tribes or whatever
size social unit, their stories. There are going to be
moral stories, there are going to be stories that are
meant to encapsulate history, and then there's got to be
stories that are intentionally just that are specifically just funny,
you know, that are intended to like bond people in
that way, to cohere your social unit through a funny story.
So I bet you really the roots of comedy probably
go back millions of years.
Speaker 3: Like Langor's not being a part of it. Is like
when they show primates, this isn't in the articles we
just read, but I know this from other the pastes
that they and like you can go to anywhere in
the world and put the Three Stooges and everyone gets out,
like you don't need to speak English to you know,
get the slap, Like everyone laughs watching like I've seen
you know, chimpanzees and orangutans laughing, you know, laughing, laughing
watching three stoodos. You know, it's just because it's so basic,
you know, it's just kind of like a base basic humor.
Speaker 2: And also for something to be funny, the most important
thing there is it's fun. And animals have fun. I mean,
it's the bottom line. All animals, I think, have fun,
play with one another and what all that sort of stuff.
And nobody, nobody can convince me that's Sochi. My dog,
God dog rest her soul, didn't have a good sense
of humor because she did kind of play jokes and
have fun with stuff, and she had messed with me,
you know. And that's the same route for a comedy,
right there, is when you have a dog messing with
you just because they think it's funny. Yeah, there's comedy there.
And so yeah, the comedy gene is a very very
old one, and I think the roots of it is
just having fun, you know, enjoying this temporary existence.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think to Bobo's point, that embodied humor, you know,
like funny faces, funny actions, tripping and falling, that sort
of stuff has to be universal and maybe fifteen million
years old, you know what I mean. I mean, I forget,
we were just watching something last night. Maybe we're just
like channel surfing or something. But I just had remarked
to Emily about man, I will never not laugh when
someone trips in fall like a pratfall in a movie
or something, or slapstick humor.
Speaker 3: It is always funny.
Speaker 1: And I guess I could say that's immature, but now
I could say, no, it's it's it's ancient, it's eternal.
It's older than you and I and all of our ancestors,
you know. So now I now I can back up
my childish sense of humor with science.
Speaker 3: I think, I think for sure the oldest form of
like like we're reliant on language would be roast roasting
roast humor, like we just make fun of the other
guy and hackle on and stuff.
Speaker 2: So not not like cooking a wooly mammoth leg over,
like roasting it over a fire, right.
Speaker 3: Right, Like I know, like the Native Americans, like the
a lot of the tribes, it was like you just
like you just laughed at like when someone got hurt
or you know, like someone like you would just laugh
at like misfortune.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: That that's a pretty strong vein in humor even today.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, totally, we all engage in it.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there's a lot of this podcast that's focused
on that, Like tell us about your plane flight, Bobo.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: That's not funny.
Speaker 2: Yeah, stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff
and Bobo will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 1: Should we end this one? On the controversial note? The
article about ghosts? Oh sure, sure, yeah.
Speaker 2: This article comes from NZ dot news dot Yahoo dot com,
so it's like New Zealand News, is what I'm guessing.
I'm pretty sure that's correct. Scientists have figured causes of ghosts, well,
possible cause of ghosts. I'm gonna bump in and say that.
And yeah, actually I wrote an article about this years
and years and years ago actually, so it's kind of
fun to see it circling back around. Researchers of have
suggested that infrasound may contribute to haunted experiences. Well, yeah,
they kind of do that before, But I guess this
article is rehashing that. Infrasound, of course, is our sound
waves that are too low infrequency for humans to hear.
We often talk about it in the context of sasquatches
and other animals that generate infrasonic frequencies because of the
curious effects that these frequencies seem to have on human beings.
Everything from a feeling of being watched to nervousness. There's
the legendary, mythological but legendary brown note that South Park
did a whole episode on where you hear a certain
frequency and amplitude and it makes you poop your pants,
the brown note. But it turns out that some of these,
some of these low frequency sounds, which are usually below
twenty herds, so twenty bumps per second. Shall we say
that humans generally cannot hear generate sound of uneasy anxiety
and discomfort and may be associated with hauntings somehow. You see,
buildings are constantly vibrating and wiggling, basically, and such sources
for the wiggling, for the vibrations that you may not
even hear are things like aging, heating system or plumbing
or ventilation systems, even the structural vibrations. Maybe there's some
plate tectonics in your area or something like that, or
volcanism like in my area, and all of these are
sources of infrasonic frequencies, and they may affect people on
the physiological level. Basically, participants in this particular study were
unknowingly exposed to infrasonic frequencies and they showed an increased
level of cortisol, which is a stress hormone, and they
reported feeling unsettled, and they also rated this is kind
of cool. They rated music as sadder than those who
were not exposed. So expectations may shape interpretation, which is
a big takeaway from this particular article, because the researchers
argue that if someone already believes in ghosts, they may
interpret their physical sensations like these things, you know, the
stressed or feeling unsettled or something like that we previously mentioned.
They may interpret this physical feeling as being caused by
or as evidence of a supernatural source, where some skeptics
might just say, oh yeah, that building seems unpleasant. So
anyway that expectation shapes interpretation is man a bull's eye
for much of the Bigfoot community at this moment in
my opinion. Now, of course, the article does say that
the findings are not presented as proof for or against
paranormal claims, So the authors point out that the infrasound
could explain some of the sensations associated with haunted places,
but does not account for all experiences like visual apparitions
and stuff like that. Although I think that it very
likely could be the source of visual operations as well. Now,
mind you, i've seen a visual operation. I've seen a ghost,
or what you might as well describe as a ghost.
I don't know if there's a better word for what
I have personally seen. Okay, scared the hell out of me.
I didn't dig it at all. I've told the story
more than once on the podcast. I don't see any
reason to tell it again. If you haven't heard it,
just go back to one of the previous three hundred
and eighty something episodes. You'll find it in there somewhere. Yeah,
but in some cases that article I wrote, I think
it's called a case for Infrasound. It's on the Cliff
Barrickman dot com website. It's pretty old. I wrote it
back in the twenty twelve or fifteen or something. It's
pretty old. But I noted a story about a house
that had a plumbing problem, and I think if I
remember the visual there were visual operations as well, like
mists and that kind of stuff, or just like distortions
and focus and stuff like that associated with this particular
pipe that was vibrating in an odd frequency. So which
brings us back to Bigfoot. If sasquatches do use infrasound,
as I strongly suspect they do. We would expect a
lot of these things to be in the sighting's database,
and sure enough they're in there, like the feeling of
Krant's actually noted that many people experience the sensation of
being observed, of being watched before they even see the sasquatch. Now,
Grover at the time was he was looking at pheromones
as a possible explanation for that. Pheromones, of course, being
chemical signals that your body sends out to members of
your own species or closely related species that communicate information.
Speaker 1: Mating.
Speaker 2: Pheromones are a big one. Everybody kind of understands that,
you know, like bugs or whatever, they release a pheromone
into the air, which is their come hither, look, you know,
for the other bugs of their species. But there's entirely
it's entirely possible that sasquatches, or Grover was thinking, it's
entirely possible that sasquatches release similar pheromones that give a
message of unease or disease, not disease, but disease to humans.
And we would understand it because we're so closely related
to them. I think that's possible. But I think infrasound
is now on the table, and I think that is
probably a better fit for the sensations that people report.
I've heard stories many times from witnesses who have been
yelled at or at a screened at at close range,
and several of them have described they can feel their
body vibrate. Sometimes people can feel their body vibrate in
the presence of sasquatches, whether they know the sasquatches or not.
Sometimes they just don't know yet, they haven't seen as yet,
but sometimes they can. I've talked to a witness that
actually reported their body vibrating, but they didn't hear anything. Well,
that sounds to me like infrasound. It's ironic, I said
that sounds like infosound because you can't hear infra sound.
But nonetheless, and so it's possible, I think.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 2: In my article, in fact, I go on to kind
of guess and speculate about maybe maybe this infrasonic thing
that sasquatches are possibly using is the source of other
sensations or even hallucinations, visual hallucinations. Why not, so maybe
some of the WU crowd aren't as wrong, as I
think they're just experiencing something in it attributing it to
something else because of that one phrase in there in
this article, where is it? Oh yeah, expectations may shape interpretations,
and I think for me at least, that's the big
takeaway from this article.
Speaker 1: I think it explains a lot of things. I think,
first of all, it's probably just the media side of
it that's saying like scientists figured out what causes ghosts,
when it's clearly that's not the researchers intent. And also
you'd have to say, well, the belief in the survival
of death by something like a soul, a spirit, et
cetera is so cross cultural and universal and ancient that
you can't possibly attribute all that to infrasound as much.
You know, it'd be like to I get you Referencednletti earlier.
You know, if those burial sites are indeed burial sites,
if they're being correctly interpreted, which I do lean towards
that interpretation, and these individuals were buried with stone tools
in their hands intentionally, that sort of suggests a belief
in the afterlife, an ancient, ancient belief in the afterlife
of like you will need these tools at some point
after this, you know, some degree of like an embodied
behavioral manifestation of the quote unquote belief of the survival
of death. And so it's like, I don't know what
old buildings in the LETTI was hanging out in, which
aging plumbing or boilers they were hearing, you know.
Speaker 3: What I mean.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's the scientists who are trying
to make that claim as much as it's the media.
But I do think it would also lean into like
we've discussed many times, is that rather than looking at
someone who said they entered a quote unquote haunted building
and had these experiences and saying, oh, well, you're just
paranoid or you're a scaredy cat, or you have a
wild imagination because of their interpretation, you could say, oh, no,
there is a perfectly reasonable cause, a mechanical slash biological
cause for this very real experience that you had that
did elevate your COURTSSOL levels, etc. And so no, you're
not lying about the experience. Interpretation might not be one
hundred percent accurate, but the experience is authentic, which you know,
we could apply to many different things within sasquatchry. But yeah,
I think it's definitely the Yahoo article that gives it
that title. That would be like saying, well, some people
misinterpret bard owl territorial calls as ape like calls, and
then to say like, oh, we scientists identified this al
CAOL scientists figured out the cause of all sasquatch reports.
Like no, no, no, it doesn't work that way. Maybe
some of these experiences because people were expecting to hear
sasquatches and heard birds make a sound they hadn't heard before.
But it is not a hand waving, you know, explaining
something away. But I did find this article very interesting,
for sure, I.
Speaker 2: Need to dig up that article. I have not found
it yet in the Meldrum stuff, so I just probably
need to look in at a different source. But doctor
Meldrim was telling me in the last six months of
his life or more that he found research about gorillas
using infrasound, which is a very very close to home
sort of mark that I've been looking for. We've all
been looking for for a while, because we've all known
tigers use it and elephants use it and that sort
of thing. But to have it being used by a
primate that's something I need to learn a lot more about,
like why do gorillas use it? How do grillas use it?
You know, like what benefits does it offer to them?
I bet you that it's going to be very, very
parallel to that of the Saasquatch as well.
Speaker 1: And speaking of the LETTI you did mention. It's been
in the news. It's recently been discovered that all of
the specimens in that cave that were deposited there I
think intentionally buried. I think Burger and Hawks's interpretation is correct.
It was correct they were That's what I think too.
I know it's debated, but you know, I do agree
with their interpretation. But it's now been shown that they
were all female, which I think has even more deep
implications than ritualistic intentional burial alone does. So I'm sure
we'll cover that. So that would probably be worth a
whole episode unto itself.
Speaker 3: But so I guess that we're done for this week.
Speaker 1: Well, we do have a few articles that were submitted
by our members aka the Pigeons, so we can touch
on some of those, and we got a lot of
catching up to do because I haven't even talked to
you guys since you've been together. The members haven't heard
from you, listeners haven't heard from you, So I'd love
to hear about how the whole trip went, everything with
you guys getting together, the various things you did, so
we can roll over to pig Land and discuss such things.
Speaker 3: Yes, let's do that, all right, folks. Thanks for joining
us this week on Bigfoot and Beyond on Clifton, Bobo
and Cruit. Chiming into this always a pleasure, So hit
like hit share give us a good review. We'd appreciate that,
and until next week, y'all keep it squatchy.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Twitter Bigfoot Beyond, that's an N in the middle, and
tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag Bigfoot
and Beyond.