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