Speaker 1: Today, I want to tell you about a journey that
Speaker 1: I've been on for most of my life. Ever since
Speaker 1: I was a kid, I've heard tales of bigfoot and
Speaker 1: wild men while spending time with my friends and family.
Speaker 1: As I grew older and read more about the paranormal,
Speaker 1: my interest in encryptids and other things strange only deepened.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm so excited to share with you what
Speaker 1: I've personally become involved with the Untold Radio Network. The
Speaker 1: Untold Radio Network is a live streaming podcast network that
Speaker 1: airs a new show every day across all podcast platforms, YouTube,
Speaker 1: and more. They have eight different shows on all sorts
Speaker 1: of exciting topics such as bigfoot, cryptids, UFOs, aliens, and
Speaker 1: much more. I even have my own show called Weird Encounters,
Speaker 1: where I talk about all things strange. This is more
Speaker 1: than just a podcast network. It's a community that allows
Speaker 1: me to meet so many amazing people who share their
Speaker 1: stories and experiences with strange. If you're interested in hearing
Speaker 1: more of these stories and learning more about the paranormal
Speaker 1: and encryptids, make sure you check out the Untold Radio
Speaker 1: Network for all kinds of exciting shows. It's free to subscribe.
Speaker 1: So what are you waiting for visit www dot untold
Speaker 1: radionetwork dot com today.
Speaker 2: Open up to anot a.
Speaker 1: Sor there's something in the woods, anato to you what
Speaker 1: you're about to see.
Speaker 3: You?
Speaker 1: Or something in.
Speaker 2: The woods knocking a parn Changeerry the Ooman said, don't
Speaker 2: go outside.
Speaker 1: There's something in the woods tonight.
Speaker 2: I hear rim knocking, shaking bushits footprints howling on my lung.
Speaker 2: Open up to anat a sea, something in the woods.
Speaker 1: Hey everyone, and welcome to another installment of Wednesday Wisdom,
Speaker 1: where we go deep down the rabbit hole and become
Speaker 1: immersed in the world of sasquatch research, explore fascinating articles,
Speaker 1: and share a little nugget of wisdom along the way.
Speaker 1: Whether you're a seasoned researcher, a curious skeptic, or someone
Speaker 1: who just loves a good mystery, this is the place
Speaker 1: for insightful discussions on all things bigfoot. Today we're taking
Speaker 1: a deep dive into an intriguing study that sheds new
Speaker 1: light on the social dynamics of bigfoot encounters. Before we
Speaker 1: get into it, I want to acknowledge the fascinating work
Speaker 1: of Jamie Lewis and Andrew Bartlett Their article, first published
Speaker 1: online on August fifth, twenty twenty four, in Cultural Sociology,
Speaker 1: explores how bigfoot sightings are framed, validated, and shared within
Speaker 1: different communities. Their research goes beyond just what people claim
Speaker 1: to see. It examines how those encounters are communicated and
Speaker 1: how belief is shaped by storytelling, group dynamics, and cultural influences.
Speaker 1: So what does this mean for the world of Sasquatch research?
Speaker 1: How do these social patterns influence the way we perceive
Speaker 1: encounters and evidence. Let's break it down and explore their
Speaker 1: findings together. Bigfoot exists, maybe not as a living, breathing creature,
Speaker 1: but certainly as a powerful cultural force. Whether you believe
Speaker 1: in the legendary Sasquatch or not, the idea of bigfoot
Speaker 1: is something almost everyone recognizes. Some people even dedicate their
Speaker 1: lives to searching for proof of its existence. These dedicated individuals,
Speaker 1: known as bigfooters, scour the wilderness for evidence footprints, hair samples,
Speaker 1: recordings of strange calls, and, most compellingly, witness testimonies. Many
Speaker 1: bigfooters started their journey after a personal encounter, a moment
Speaker 1: that convinced them there was something out there worth investigating
Speaker 1: For decades, organized efforts have been collecting and categorizing these encounters.
Speaker 1: The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization BFRO hosts thousands of reports
Speaker 1: from individuals who claim to have come face to face
Speaker 1: with the creature, and while some might dismiss these stories
Speaker 1: as imagination or hoaxes, for the people involved, these encounters
Speaker 1: are very real. This story is part of a broader
Speaker 1: project examining the bigfooting community, a network of people committed
Speaker 1: to proving the existence of Bigfoot. Our research involved one
Speaker 1: hundred and six twenty six in depth interviews with individuals
Speaker 1: who have encountered Bigfoot, studied the phenomenon, or been part
Speaker 1: of the search.
Speaker 2: Through their stories, we.
Speaker 1: Explore how they build and challenge knowledge, and how they
Speaker 1: navigate the tricky landscape of belief, skepticism, and science. These
Speaker 1: encounters create a space an absence where the idea of
Speaker 1: Bigfoot takes shape. But when making a claim about something
Speaker 1: so extraordinary, credibility is everything. In a field filled with
Speaker 1: skepticism and hoaxes, Bigfooters must present themselves as serious and rational,
Speaker 1: rather than gullible or delusional. Bigfoot holds a unique place
Speaker 1: in the American imagination, standing alongside ghosts, aliens, and other
Speaker 1: unexplained phenomena. While science generally dismisses its existence, a significant
Speaker 1: portion of Americans about one in five, believe in Bigfoot.
Speaker 1: Even those who don't believe know what Bigfoot looks like
Speaker 1: and how it behaves. Time Bigfoot has transformed from a
Speaker 1: campfire legend into an enduring cultural icon. The fascination with
Speaker 1: Bigfoot is fueled by modern media, from pulp fiction and.
Speaker 2: B movies to TV shows like The X Files.
Speaker 1: And Finding Bigfoot. The idea of an undiscovered creature lurking
Speaker 1: in the wilderness continues to capture public interest. Some researchers
Speaker 1: suggest that during times of political and social uncertainty, interest
Speaker 1: in the paranormal increases. But even among believers, there's an
Speaker 1: understanding that not all Bigfoot claims are legitimate. Hoaxes are
Speaker 1: a known issue, and many bigfooters work hard to separate
Speaker 1: fact from fiction. Bigfooting groups like the BFRO, the Olympic Project,
Speaker 1: and the North American Wood Ape Conservancy in a WAC
Speaker 1: follow certain standards in their search. However, like any community
Speaker 1: of researchers, they have their disagreements. One major division is
Speaker 1: between the apers who believe bigfoot is an undiscovered primate.
Speaker 1: Those who think it has paranormal abilities, such as cloaking
Speaker 1: or interdimensional travel. The apors who dominate groups like the
Speaker 1: BFRO align themselves with primatologists like Jane goodall striving to
Speaker 1: maintain a scientific approach. While some bigfooters see their work
Speaker 1: as serious research, the wider world often views cryptozoology as
Speaker 1: part of the entertainment industry. Still, even skeptics recognize the
Speaker 1: familiar structure of bigfoot encounter stories, sudden sightings, eerie sounds,
Speaker 1: massive footprints. To believers, the consistency of these reports strengthens
Speaker 1: their case. To skeptics, it's evidence of people unknowingly repeating
Speaker 1: familiar myths. One interviewee expressed frustration with this skepticism, saying,
Speaker 1: you don't get it until you're in this stuff. But
Speaker 1: for many, their initiation into bigfooting began with a personal
Speaker 1: experience and unexplained sighting that changed their view of the world.
Speaker 1: A bigfoot encounter isn't just a moment. It's a story,
Speaker 1: a narrative that takes shape as it's told and retold.
Speaker 1: Storytelling is a deeply human experience, a way to share
Speaker 1: knowledge and beliefs The stories of Bigfoot stretch back far
Speaker 1: beyond modern pop culture, rooted in indigenous traditions across North America.
Speaker 1: The name Sasquatch comes from the Coast Salish language and
Speaker 1: was popularized in the nineteen twenties. The term bigfoot emerged
Speaker 1: later after a nineteen fifty eight newspaper article about massive
Speaker 1: footprints found at a construction site in California. Since then,
Speaker 1: the legend has only grown. One of the most famous
Speaker 1: Bigfoot encounters occurred in nineteen sixty seven, when Roger Patterson
Speaker 1: and Bob Gimlin filmed a figure striding through a dry
Speaker 1: creek bed in northern California. The resulting footage, known as
Speaker 1: the Patterson Gimlin Film, remains one of the most analyzed
Speaker 1: and debated pieces of evidence in Bigfoot history. Whether real
Speaker 1: or hoax, it cemented Bigfoot's place in popular culture. The
Speaker 1: rise of the Internet transformed the way Bigfoot stories are shared.
Speaker 1: In the nineteen nineties, the BFRO launched a website where
Speaker 1: people could submit their encounters, dramatically increasing the accessibility of
Speaker 1: these reports. Today, their database includes thousands of sightings from
Speaker 1: across North America, particularly from states like Washington, California.
Speaker 2: And Florida.
Speaker 1: The BFRO also organizes expeditions where participants search for evidence
Speaker 1: under the guidance of experienced researchers. Bigfoot research depends on
Speaker 1: eyewitness accounts, but it also faces two major challenges misidentifications
Speaker 1: and hoaxes. Many encounters can be explained as misinterpretations of
Speaker 1: natural events, an animal moving through the woods, an unusual
Speaker 1: noise at night. Meanwhile, hoaxes have plagued the field for years,
Speaker 1: making it difficult to separate genuine reports from deliberate fabrications.
Speaker 1: To counteract this, the BFRO has developed a filtering process
Speaker 1: for reports. As founder Matt Moneymaker explains, they weed out
Speaker 1: unreliable claims by looking for patterns, requiring detailed write ups,
Speaker 1: and prioritizing reports with multiple witnesses. Their goal is to
Speaker 1: sift through the noise and find the most credible accounts.
Speaker 1: Moneymaker himself has played a key role in keeping Bigfoot
Speaker 1: in the public eye. In twenty eleven, he began hosting
Speaker 1: Finding Bigfoot, a television show that reignited interest in the legend.
Speaker 1: This media exposure led to a surge and reported encounters,
Speaker 1: both recent and historical. According to researchers. It also reduced
Speaker 1: the stigma around discussing bigfoot experiences. Our research takes bigfooting seriously,
Speaker 1: not just as a search for a creature, but as
Speaker 1: a fascinating example of how communities build and evaluate knowledge.
Speaker 1: Bigfooters are deeply committed to their pursuit, despite mainstream science
Speaker 1: dismissing their work. This project aimed to understand what drives
Speaker 1: them and how they navigate a field that sits between science, folklore,
Speaker 1: and entertainment. We conducted one hundred and sixty six interviews
Speaker 1: with bigfooters, including active field researchers, documentary producers, museum curators,
Speaker 1: and cryptozoologists. These conversations revealed a central theme absence bigfooter's
Speaker 1: work to make sense of the lack of clear evidence.
Speaker 1: How do you prove the existence of something that always
Speaker 1: seems just out of reach? And how do you maintain
Speaker 1: credibility in a world where skepticism is the default. There
Speaker 1: are many ways to have a close encounter with bigfoot.
Speaker 1: Some of our interviewees actually saw the creature, fleeting glimpses
Speaker 1: of a massive, hairy, bipedal figure.
Speaker 2: Moving through the woods.
Speaker 1: These visual encounters follow a pattern. A lone observer catches
Speaker 1: sight of Bigfoot dashing across a road, peering from behind
Speaker 1: a tree, or silhouetted against the sky as it strides
Speaker 1: down a mountainside. The moment is brief, often unclear, and
Speaker 1: leaves the witness grappling with what they just saw. But
Speaker 1: sight is not the only way to experience Bigfoot. Many
Speaker 1: encounters happen without a direct visual large rocks hurled from
Speaker 1: unseen sources, chilling howls vibrating through the body, or a
Speaker 1: sense of being watched in the deep forest. These two
Speaker 1: are bigfoot encounters. The rarest kind of interaction is one
Speaker 1: involving direct contact, whether through physical touch or through the
Speaker 1: phenomenon known as gifting, where Bigfoot is said to leave
Speaker 1: objects for humans in a form of communication. Bigfoot is
Speaker 1: believed to be nocturnal, making the forest at night the
Speaker 1: prime setting for encounters. For serious bigfooters, these experiences differ
Speaker 1: from the chance sightings of an unsuspecting driver or hiker.
Speaker 1: They go in prepared, armed with cameras, microphones, parabolic dishes,
Speaker 1: even drones, determined to capture evidence of the creature's existence.
Speaker 1: Among them is Cliff Barrickman, a seasoned bigfoot investigator and
Speaker 1: former member of the Bigfoot Field Reco's organization. While filming
Speaker 1: for Finding Bigfoot in North Carolina, Berrickman had an encounter
Speaker 1: that left a lasting impression. The only time I've seen
Speaker 1: one wasn't a good sighting, but I'm inclined to think
Speaker 1: it was a sasquatch. We were filming in North Carolina.
Speaker 1: On the first night, Moneymaker says, there's something on the hill.
Speaker 1: We didn't take it seriously. The producers were pushing us
Speaker 1: to say things we didn't believe, and we were frustrated.
Speaker 1: But as we hiked two miles into the woods, something happened.
Speaker 1: Moneymaker kept asking who's on the hill?
Speaker 2: Who is that? No one answered.
Speaker 1: Then about seventy yards away, he saw a figure standing
Speaker 1: there watching us. Matt had a thermal imager. He yelled
Speaker 1: at it and it started walking. Then it did something strange.
Speaker 1: It froze mid step on one leg. That's a known
Speaker 1: sasquatch behavior. It stayed perfectly still for several seconds before continuing.
Speaker 1: I turned my thermal imager toward it and saw a
Speaker 1: biped It was either a human or a sasquatch. Those
Speaker 1: were the only possibilities, but it didn't move like a person.
Speaker 1: It wasn't like Patty from the Patterson Gimlin film either.
Speaker 1: The arms scooped forward like when you walk through the
Speaker 1: shallow end of a pool. Bigfoot encounters need a good storyteller,
Speaker 1: and television demands that evidence be presented with narrative structure. Berrickman,
Speaker 1: a respected figure in the field, carefully framed his experience.
Speaker 1: He qualified it as an unclear sighting, but ruled out
Speaker 1: other possibilities, leaving only two options human or sasquatch. And
Speaker 1: if it didn't move like a human, the answer, at
Speaker 1: least for him, became clear. Matt Pruett, another member of
Speaker 1: the BFRO, recounts an experience from his high school years,
Speaker 1: long before he connected it to Bigfoot. We had heard
Speaker 1: stories of a haunted place where strange things happened, disembodied howls,
Speaker 1: thrown rocks, glowing red eyes. At the time, no one
Speaker 1: associated these with Bigfoot. One summer night, we decided to
Speaker 1: camp there, armed with flashlights in an old VHS camquarder,
Speaker 1: we set out to explore. At first, we heard rustling,
Speaker 1: probably just animals, but then it escalated, branches breaking, loud,
Speaker 1: slamming noises, unmistakable vocalizations. It became so unnerving that we
Speaker 1: ran down the mountain, abandoning our tents until the next morning.
Speaker 1: Pruitt later learned that wood knocking and vocal calls are
Speaker 1: considered signs of Bigfoot communication. The experience, once supernatural and inexplicable,
Speaker 1: found a new framework, one grounded in.
Speaker 2: The lore of bigfoot research.
Speaker 1: Shane Corson, a senior member of the Olympic Project, also
Speaker 1: experienced something strange. I had a two night encounter in
Speaker 1: the mount Hood wilderness. At first I didn't know what
Speaker 1: it was, but now now I know. We were deep
Speaker 1: in the forest, no wind, dead, silent, and stay tuned.
Speaker 2: For more sasquatch ot to see. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: After these messages, around two am, I heard two rocks
Speaker 1: being clapped together. It got closer and closer. Then something
Speaker 1: started stomping around our camp, circling us. A loud whack
Speaker 1: hit a tree. The next night it happened again, but
Speaker 1: this time it was louder, more aggressive. Then came the rock.
Speaker 1: A soft ball sized stone hurled into our camp and
Speaker 1: then I saw it. Through the darkness. I made out
Speaker 1: a massive figure behind a douglas fur, a hand, an arm,
Speaker 1: a shoulder. It moved side to side, peeking out, and
Speaker 1: then it was gone. At the time, Courson tried to
Speaker 1: rationalize what he was experiencing, but later, after researching bigfoot reports,
Speaker 1: the details started to make sense. The rock throwing, the
Speaker 1: tree knocks, the massive, lurking figure, these were all documented
Speaker 1: sasquatch behaviors.
Speaker 2: The unknown took shape.
Speaker 1: One particularly eerie encounter comes from an anonymous witness, GK,
Speaker 1: who runs a sasquatch website. We were camping in a
Speaker 1: remote part of Canada, miles from anyone. In the middle
Speaker 1: of the night, I woke up to something touching my tent.
Speaker 1: Then a hand massive gripped my head through the fabric.
Speaker 1: Imagine a hand so big it could hold your entire
Speaker 1: skull like a basketball. It had no claws, only thick fingers.
Speaker 1: It wasn't an animal. It wasn't my friend, who I
Speaker 1: could hear snoring in his tent. The next morning, my
Speaker 1: friend said, what were you doing walking around my tent
Speaker 1: last night?
Speaker 2: But I hadn't.
Speaker 1: Something on two legs had been pacing around his tent.
Speaker 1: We checked our valuables, expensive fishing rods, and all of
Speaker 1: our gear. Everything was untouched. GK never saw what had
Speaker 1: grabbed him, but the details fingers instead of claws, bipedal movement,
Speaker 1: no human presence, left an absence that could only be
Speaker 1: filled by something unknown, or for those who believe something known,
Speaker 1: some encounters require other people to fill the absence. Leo
Speaker 1: Frank had his face to face encounter in King's County.
Speaker 2: Nova, Scotia.
Speaker 1: I was taking a short cut up through a stream,
Speaker 1: and as I came around a corner at the bottom
Speaker 1: of a waterfall, I saw what I thought was the
Speaker 1: back of a black bear. Black bears are common in
Speaker 1: the area, so I instinctively started backing up, But then
Speaker 1: what I assumed to be a bear stood up, turned
Speaker 1: around and looked directly at me. One of its arms
Speaker 1: was wet, as if it had been fishing or injured.
Speaker 1: It stood there, just staring. I froze. My entire world
Speaker 1: stopped because what I was looking at was not a bear.
Speaker 1: It was a hair covered man standing in a brook
Speaker 1: that I had walked through thousands of times before. At
Speaker 1: that moment, everything I knew about the world just stopped.
Speaker 1: You start to question everything all at once, but at
Speaker 1: the same time you can't really think of anything. When
Speaker 1: I told my uncle what I saw, all he said,
Speaker 1: you know what you're describing sounds like Bigfoot, and I
Speaker 1: thought bigfoot up here. After that, I didn't go into
Speaker 1: the woods for quite some time. That was strange for
Speaker 1: me because the forest had been my second home since childhood.
Speaker 1: But after that encounter, I was rattled. It sent me
Speaker 1: to bookstores and libraries trying to learn everything I could
Speaker 1: about Bigfoot. Frank's encounter takes place in the familiar. He's
Speaker 1: navigating terrain he knows well, a shortcut he's taken many
Speaker 1: times before. He presents himself as an experienced outdoorsman, someone
Speaker 1: who wouldn't easily mistake a bear for something else. Yet
Speaker 1: when the figure revealed itself, he was left speechless, his
Speaker 1: mind unable to process what he was seeing. Even as
Speaker 1: a reluctant witness, he needed his uncle to fill in
Speaker 1: the missing piece. Once again, we see how the framework
Speaker 1: of bigfoot lore allows an inexplicable experience to take shape
Speaker 1: in the mind of the observer. Many Bigfoot encounters come
Speaker 1: from people who work in or spend a significant amount
Speaker 1: of time in the woods. These individuals, hunters, loggers, or
Speaker 1: military personnel often established their credibility by emphasizing their expertise
Speaker 1: in the wilderness. One such account comes from Todd Nice,
Speaker 1: a retired soldier and founder of the American Primate Conservancy.
Speaker 1: Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, I heard all the
Speaker 1: stories about Bigfoot, but I never paid any attention to them.
Speaker 1: That changed in April nineteen ninety three. I was working
Speaker 1: as a combat engineer and we had special permission to
Speaker 1: use a rock quarry and Clatsup County for training. That day,
Speaker 1: we were setting off large explosions, several hundred pounds of
Speaker 1: plastic explosives at a time. It was a clear day,
Speaker 1: and I had my window open, naturally looking for wildlife
Speaker 1: as I had hunted in that area before. Then, as
Speaker 1: we descended the road toward the blast site, I saw them,
Speaker 1: three dark figures standing exactly where we had just detonated
Speaker 1: explosives an hour earlier. My first thought was, what the
Speaker 1: hell are those people doing there? But we had two
Speaker 1: rings of security ensuring no civilians were in the area,
Speaker 1: and we had one hundred percent integrity. Everybody was accounted for.
Speaker 1: That's when I realized what I was looking at were
Speaker 1: not people. They were bipedal standing three abreast watching us.
Speaker 1: As we approached the one in The center was about
Speaker 1: nine feet tall. The two flanking it were a foot
Speaker 1: or so shorter. Their proportions were all wrong for humans.
Speaker 1: Arms too long, legs too long, massive shoulders. Their traps
Speaker 1: were so developed that their heads seemed to sit directly
Speaker 1: on their shoulders. The middle figure stood completely still, like
Speaker 1: a statue, while the other two swayed from side to side.
Speaker 1: I watched them for about twenty five seconds before we
Speaker 1: lost sight of them. As the convoy took a turn.
Speaker 1: I just collapsed back in my seat, trying to process
Speaker 1: what I had seen. When we reached the staging area,
Speaker 1: I instinctively started logging back up the road, straining to
Speaker 1: get another look. That's when my sergeant approached me. He
Speaker 1: called out, I don't suppose you saw what I saw
Speaker 1: back at the second blast sight.
Speaker 2: I nodded.
Speaker 1: Then he took a drag from his cigarette, looked around
Speaker 1: to make sure no one else could hear, and said,
Speaker 1: I saw three huge, hair covered bigfoot. I guess Nice
Speaker 1: describes himself as a skeptic, someone who never believed in
Speaker 1: bigfoot and had no reason to, but when faced with
Speaker 1: a site that defied explanation, he could only eliminate what
Speaker 1: he knew to be impossible. The account is made even
Speaker 1: more compelling by the corroboration of his sergeant, reinforcing the
Speaker 1: credibility of what he saw. Another compelling account comes from
Speaker 1: Mark de Werth, a bigfoot researcher with the BFRO. His
Speaker 1: sighting in Coshocton County, Ohio in nineteen ninety seven was
Speaker 1: the turning point in his search for the elusive creature.
Speaker 1: I wasn't looking for bigfoot that day. I was out
Speaker 1: looking for badger dens. There were three of us hiking
Speaker 1: when we started hearing movement above us. At first we
Speaker 1: assumed it was deer, but whenever we stopped, it stopped.
Speaker 1: Whenever we moved, it moved. Eventually, we split up, thinking
Speaker 1: we might.
Speaker 2: Flush out whatever it was. I sat for a.
Speaker 1: Few minutes and nothing happened. But the moment I started
Speaker 1: walking again, I heard something large moving parallel to me.
Speaker 1: My first thought was great, I'm being stalked by a
Speaker 1: mountain lion. I decided to get out of there. As
Speaker 1: I approached the road where my jeep was parked, I
Speaker 1: could still hear movement behind me. Then I heard heavy
Speaker 1: footsteps crunching above me on the slope. I turned to look,
Speaker 1: and that's when I saw it, about seventy feet away,
Speaker 1: a dark shape squatting. At first I thought it was
Speaker 1: a black bear, but as I went to take off
Speaker 1: my pack, it made noise. That's when the figure stood up.
Speaker 1: The first thing I noticed was its ears positioned on
Speaker 1: the sides of its head. Then I saw the flat face.
Speaker 1: It turned and looked directly at me. In that instant,
Speaker 1: I almost fell backward off the trail. My adrenaline was pumping.
Speaker 1: I grabbed my camcorder and took off running after it,
Speaker 1: but it was already gone. I don't even remember the
Speaker 1: two hour drive home. I was in complete shock. De
Speaker 1: Wert's encounter solidified his belief in Bigfoot. He had been
Speaker 1: a researcher, but at times his faith wavered. That day
Speaker 1: everything changed. Like the other witnesses, his credibility is reinforced
Speaker 1: by his familiarity with the outdoors and his careful elimination
Speaker 1: of other possibilities. And like Nice, he acknowledges that once
Speaker 1: you've seen something like this, you can't unsee it. From
Speaker 1: the Pacific Northwest to the forests of Nova Scotia, encounters
Speaker 1: like these raise questions that science has yet to answer.
Speaker 1: Skeptics may dismiss them, but for those who have come
Speaker 1: face to face with something inexplicable, the experience is undeniable.
Speaker 1: When everything they know about the world is upended in
Speaker 1: an instant, they are left with a question. If it
Speaker 1: wasn't a bear, and it wasn't a man, then what
Speaker 1: was it. Most of the bigfoot encounters we collected in
Speaker 1: our interviews revolve around an absence, something missing at their core.
Speaker 1: These absences exist because bigfooters anticipate the ways in which
Speaker 1: their audience might try to explain away their encounters. Their
Speaker 1: stories are grounded in anticipated stigma. Witnesses acknowledge that their
Speaker 1: experiences might be dismissed as misidentifications. They anticipate that skeptics
Speaker 1: will say they were fooled by nature by their own senses.
Speaker 1: What one interview we referred to as self hoaxing, but
Speaker 1: they push back. It was not a cougar. It walked
Speaker 1: on two legs. It was not a bear. It had
Speaker 1: hands with thumbs. It was not a human. It was
Speaker 1: too tall, its arms disproportionate. These witnesses feel they have
Speaker 1: the right to make these assertions because they are not
Speaker 1: amateurs in the woods. They know the terrain, the sounds,
Speaker 1: and the wildlife. They are legitimate interpreters. Equally, they reject
Speaker 1: the idea that it was a prank or a man
Speaker 1: in a monkey suit. These are seasoned individuals, some military trained,
Speaker 1: who are not easily fooled or frightened. They present themselves
Speaker 1: as skeptics first, not easily convinced. They doubt their own senses,
Speaker 1: They question their own memories. They doubt even their families
Speaker 1: and friends. But their encounters, unforgettable, life changing moments erase
Speaker 1: that doubt. It takes an experience of that magnitude to
Speaker 1: turn them into believers. Their stories methodically construct an absence
Speaker 1: that is credible even against the strongest objections. They are
Speaker 1: engaged in impression management, shaping their testimony to withstand scrutiny.
Speaker 1: As Sherlock Holmes famously said, when you have eliminated all
Speaker 1: which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be
Speaker 1: the truth. Historian Carlo Ginsburg twenty thirteen refers to this
Speaker 1: this is the conjectural paradigm, a method of assembling clues
Speaker 1: from frequently overlooked traces and signs to construct a broader
Speaker 1: understanding Bigfoot witnesses use a similar process. They invite us
Speaker 1: to follow their reasoning, eliminating what it was not, leaving
Speaker 1: room only for what it must have been, and in
Speaker 1: collaboration with the storyteller, the audience is expected to do
Speaker 1: the same, to fill in the absence with a shape,
Speaker 1: one that is widely recognized, even if not widely believed.
Speaker 1: The absences in these encounters create the space for bigfoot
Speaker 1: in the absence of seeing Bigfoot. It is found in
Speaker 1: what is missing science as the ultimate knowledge making institution
Speaker 1: is fundamentally social Merten, nineteen seventy nine. Trust, credibility, and
Speaker 1: disciplinary norm shape scientific knowledge, which is produced within a
Speaker 1: particular social context Shapen, nineteen ninety four. Likewise, bigfoot encounters
Speaker 1: follow a similar structure. Witnesses define the absences in their
Speaker 1: experiences and then work to fill them, transforming the unexplained
Speaker 1: into something they can count as evidence. But making an
Speaker 1: encounter with the unknown unusual sounds, strange events, or a
Speaker 1: fleeting sighting into an encounter with bigfoot requires prior knowledge
Speaker 1: of bigfoot. This knowledge does not come from personal experience alone.
Speaker 1: It comes from immersion in a community where Bigfoot exists.
Speaker 1: It grows through storytelling investigation and collective agreement. It is
Speaker 1: refined over time, just like scientific knowledge. How tall is Bigfoot?
Speaker 1: What color is its fur? What does it sound like?
Speaker 1: Even if Bigfoot does not exist as a biological entity,
Speaker 1: within certain knowledge making communities, its characteristics are known, imperfectly, tentatively,
Speaker 1: but known. This knowledge helps shape interpretations of unexplained encounters,
Speaker 1: forming a framework that excludes alternative explos nations. In this way,
Speaker 1: belief in Bigfoot is not just about what people see,
Speaker 1: but about what they know or what they have come
Speaker 1: to understand through the stories and testimonies of those who
Speaker 1: claim to have seen. After hearing from some of the
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty six bigfooters interviewed by Lewis and Bartlett,
Speaker 1: it's clear that belief in Bigfoot isn't just about evidence.
Speaker 1: It's about experience, culture, and personal conviction. But why does
Speaker 1: the legend persist even as modern science and technology make
Speaker 1: it harder than ever to hide a large, undiscovered primate.
Speaker 1: What is it about Bigfoot that continues to capture the
Speaker 1: imagination of so many people? Sixty years ago this fall,
Speaker 1: Bigfoot stomped into the public consciousness giant footprints puzzle residents
Speaker 1: read a headline in the Humboldt Times, a small northern
Speaker 1: California newspaper. The article described how a road construction crew
Speaker 1: had discovered massive human like footprints, each an astonishing sixteen
Speaker 1: inches long. It was this article that first coined the
Speaker 1: now iconic name Bigfoot. From that moment on, the creature
Speaker 1: became a fixture in American folklore, lurking in the shadows
Speaker 1: of our collective imagination. Today, Bigfoot is everywhere. The shaggy
Speaker 1: figure appears in two children's films released this year, The
Speaker 1: Son of Bigfoot and small Foot. Animal Planet recently wrapped
Speaker 1: up Finding Bigfoot, a series that lasted eleven seasons, despite
Speaker 1: never actually finding Bigfoot. The Bigfoot Field Researchers organization has
Speaker 1: documented at least one siding in every state except Hawaii
Speaker 1: over the past two decades. The most recent report came
Speaker 1: in June twenty eighteen, when a Florida woman described seeing
Speaker 1: something that looked like a large pile of soggy grass.
Speaker 1: The organization's database also includes supposed Bigfoot scat nests and
Speaker 1: strange noises.
Speaker 2: If a tree falls in the.
Speaker 1: Forest and no one is around to hear it, someone
Speaker 1: will probably claim Bigfoot knocked it over and stay tuned
Speaker 1: for more sasquatch ot to see. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: after these messages. Despite all this interest, paleontologist Darren Nash notes,
Speaker 1: there's nothing even close to compelling as goes the evidence.
Speaker 1: Of course, the legend of the wild man existed in
Speaker 1: North America long before nineteen fifty eight. Indigenous groups of
Speaker 1: the Pacific Northwest had long told stories of Sasquatches, mysterious
Speaker 1: hairy beings that roamed the wilderness, But it was the
Speaker 1: footprints near Bluff Creek, California that propelled Bigfoot into the
Speaker 1: modern media spotlight. Decades later, the truth behind those prints
Speaker 1: came to light. They had been planted as a prank
Speaker 1: by a man named Ray Wallace. His children revealed the
Speaker 1: hoax after his death in two thousand and two, calling
Speaker 1: it just a joke. Yet by then the Bigfoot myth
Speaker 1: had taken on a life of its own. The most
Speaker 1: famous piece of evidence, the nineteen sixty seven Patterson Gimlin film,
Speaker 1: captures a hairy, bipedal creature striding through the woods near
Speaker 1: Bluff Creek, the very same area where Wallace staged his hoax.
Speaker 1: Skeptics argue that the figure in the film is simply
Speaker 1: a person in a costume, while believers insist that the
Speaker 1: creature's proportions and movements are too unusual to be human.
Speaker 1: The debate has raged for over half a century. As
Speaker 1: Benjamin Radford, a research fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,
Speaker 1: puts it, how is it that the evidence has not
Speaker 1: gotten any better despite the exponential increase in the quantity
Speaker 1: and quality of cameras. It's true that the absence of
Speaker 1: evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. Wild animals don't pose
Speaker 1: for photos, and new species are still discovered in remote regions.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety two, scientists found the siola, a rare
Speaker 1: relative of the cow, in the forests of Vietnam, But
Speaker 1: the key difference is that no one was searching for
Speaker 1: the siola for centuries with cameras at the ready. The
Speaker 1: continued belief in Bigfoot suggests that this is more about
Speaker 1: human imagination than zoological reality. Nash argues that Bigfoot is
Speaker 1: not an undiscovered species, but rather a modern American version
Speaker 1: of a widespread cultural concept. The Australian yowie, the Himalayan yetti,
Speaker 1: and Bigfoot all share common traits bipedal movement, shaggy hair,
Speaker 1: and oversized feet. These creatures serve as reflections of our
Speaker 1: own species, what humans might have been if civilization had
Speaker 1: never intervened. For some, cryptohominids like Bigfoot represent the ultimate freedom,
Speaker 1: beings that live by pure instinct, evading every attempt to
Speaker 1: capture them. Searching for Bigfoot is not just about finding
Speaker 1: a creature, It's about connecting with nature. Bigfoot hunters become
Speaker 1: hyper aware of their surroundings, the scin of scat, the
Speaker 1: sound of snapping branches, mysterious tracks.
Speaker 2: In the dirt.
Speaker 1: As long as wild places remain, so too does the
Speaker 1: possibility of Bigfoot, a legend that cannot be entirely disproven.
Speaker 1: The hunt also echoes an earlier era of exploration, when
Speaker 1: discovery was driven not by degrees and laboratories, but by
Speaker 1: sheer curiosity and survival instincts. In the nineteenth century, America's
Speaker 1: vast landscapes were uncharted by Europeans and ordinary settlers ventured
Speaker 1: into the unknown. Tracking Bigfoot today allows enthusiasts to relive
Speaker 1: that frontier spirit, though sometimes at the expense of appropriating
Speaker 1: Native American traditions. But not everyone sees Bigfoot as a
Speaker 1: noble pursuit. Some argue that the legend survives because of
Speaker 1: something less romantic, human gullibility and the desire for attention.
Speaker 1: There are so many fake videos, says Lauren Coleman, founder
Speaker 1: of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine. Social media
Speaker 1: has only made the problem worse, allowing hoaxes like drone
Speaker 1: footage of an alleged Bigfoot in Idaho to go viral
Speaker 1: and rack up millions of views. Even believers struggle to
Speaker 1: focus on what they consider real evidence amid a flood
Speaker 1: of obvious fakes. Technology has ruined the old cryptozoology. Coleman
Speaker 1: laments his words reflect a broader issue in modern society.
Speaker 1: We live in an age where technology, which once promised
Speaker 1: to clarify a truth, has instead made it more elusive.
Speaker 1: In this new digital wilderness, Bigfoot has found a habitat
Speaker 1: far more hospitable than North American forests. The creature doesn't
Speaker 1: need to exist to live forever online. Bigfoot will never
Speaker 1: go extinct. Bigfoot is not the only supposed missing link
Speaker 1: to captivate audiences. In the late nineteen sixties, A new
Speaker 1: sensation emerged. The Minnesota Iceman in November nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 1: showman Frank Hanson unveils a frozen Bigfoot like figure encased
Speaker 1: in ice at the International Livestock Exposition in Chicago, claiming
Speaker 1: it was found in Siberian waters. The display catches the
Speaker 1: attention of Ivan T. Sanderson of the Society for the
Speaker 1: Investigation of the Unexplained. In December of that same year,
Speaker 1: Sanderson and Bernard Hoovelman's of the Royal Institute of Natural
Speaker 1: Sciences of Belgium examined the creature in a trailer in Minnesota.
Speaker 1: Convinced they've discovered a new species, they name it Homo
Speaker 1: pongoides and alert primate biologist John Napier at the Smithsonian.
Speaker 1: In the winner of nineteen sixty nine. Napier launches an investigation,
Speaker 1: but Hanson refuses him access to the body. US Customs
Speaker 1: takes interest since the specimen was allegedly imported. In April
Speaker 1: of sixty nine, the Smithsonian asks FBI Director J Edgar
Speaker 1: Hoover for help. Hoover declines, citing a lack of federal jurisdiction. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Hanson replaces the real iceman with a model in May
Speaker 1: without physical access. Napier analyzes photos and videos. A Hollywood
Speaker 1: special effects company eventually admits it created the Iceman in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty. The Smithsonian concludes the whole thing was a
Speaker 1: carnival exhibit made of latex and hair. Today, the Minnesota
Speaker 1: Iceman resides in Austin's Museum of the Weird, a relic
Speaker 1: of a bygone.
Speaker 2: Era of hoaxes.
Speaker 1: Yet Bigfoot lives on because the legend is not about proof,
Speaker 1: it's about possibility. As we wrap up today's episode of
Speaker 1: Wednesday Wisdom, I want to leave you with some final thoughts,
Speaker 1: not just about the research we've discussed, but about the
Speaker 1: bigger picture of sasquatch encounters and belief itself. We've explored
Speaker 1: the work of Jamie Lewis and Andrew Bartlett, who have
Speaker 1: shed light on the social dynamics of bigfoot encounters, how
Speaker 1: these experiences are framed, validated, and communicated within different communities.
Speaker 1: Their findings underscore and important reality. Belief is not just
Speaker 1: about what we see, but about how we process, share,
Speaker 1: and defend those experiences in the larger social world, and
Speaker 1: in that sense, sasquatch research is just as much about
Speaker 1: people as it is about the creatures themselves. For many years,
Speaker 1: I stood firmly in the camp of the skeptic, not
Speaker 1: just skeptical, but an ardent skeptic. I questioned, I doubted,
Speaker 1: and I remained unconvinced. My skepticism was always twofold. It
Speaker 1: was about whether these creatures could exist, and it was
Speaker 1: about whether the evidence truly supported such claims. And then
Speaker 1: something happened that changed everything. I saw them with my
Speaker 1: own eyes. No grainy photos, no fleeting shadows, no ambiguous
Speaker 1: tracks in the dirt. I saw them, and in that
Speaker 1: moment I left behind the realm of the believers and
Speaker 1: stepped into the camp of the knowers. Because once you
Speaker 1: see them for yourself, belief is no longer necessary.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: But here's where my skepticism remains, and where it will
Speaker 1: always remain, in man, in the claims that go beyond
Speaker 1: what the evidence can support, in the sensational stories that
Speaker 1: ask for blind faith rather than careful conceiler. I am
Speaker 1: not skeptical of sasquatch. I am skeptical of those who
Speaker 1: make extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence to.
Speaker 2: Back them up.
Speaker 1: Because at the end of the day, truth doesn't need embellishment,
Speaker 1: it doesn't need theatrics. It simply is so now I
Speaker 1: turn the question to you, what do you choose to believe?
Speaker 2: Do you rely.
Speaker 1: Solely on personal experience? Do you trust the accounts of others,
Speaker 1: or do you demand the kind of evidence that would
Speaker 1: hold up under the scrutiny of science. I challenge you
Speaker 1: to make that decision for yourself. To examine the evidence,
Speaker 1: to listen to the stories, to think critically, but to
Speaker 1: also keep your mind open, because sometimes the greatest discoveries
Speaker 1: come not when we seek to prove what we already believe,
Speaker 1: but when we are willing to confront what we once
Speaker 1: thought was impossible. Until next time. Stay curious, stay questioning,
Speaker 1: and as always, stay wise.
Speaker 4: They say you go home, but you can't stay.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: To be a world up its try this chart, that
Speaker 4: chart everything, call me, ride back right back the joy
Speaker 4: for me joy stay right.
Speaker 3: There, come it right away.
Speaker 4: Yes, still storms stas st.
Speaker 3: St stas.
Speaker 4: Games and games STSSTS
Speaker 3: Things, US news