Speaker 1: Big Food and Beyond.
Speaker 2: With Cliff and Bobo. These guys are your favorites, so
Speaker 2: like to subscribe and rain it.
Speaker 3: Live star S and Me.
Speaker 1: Greatest Gone Yesterday and listening watching Lin always keep its watching.
Speaker 4: And now you're hosts Cliff Barrickman and James Bobo Fay.
Speaker 2: Well, hello everybody, this is Cliff, And of course you're
Speaker 2: listening to Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and usually Bobo.
Speaker 2: Today is another one of the circumstances. Bobo is unavailable
Speaker 2: for us, so we're just gonna move ahead without him.
Speaker 2: And I'm certain at some point you'll get Bobo without me,
Speaker 2: So all the Bobo fans keep listening. So I think
Speaker 2: you're gonna enjoy today's episode. Today, I am thrilled to
Speaker 2: have a doctor Haskell Heart on the program here. He
Speaker 2: of course is the author of the Sasquatch Genome Project,
Speaker 2: a failed DNA study kindly kind of a controversial book
Speaker 2: based on a controversial study by doctor melbur Ketcham of course,
Speaker 2: so I wanted to get in deep with that, and
Speaker 2: of course any chance we have to talk to somebody
Speaker 2: with a legitimate PhD, we want to jump on more.
Speaker 2: Science needs to be brought into this field. There's nothing
Speaker 2: wrong with amateurs doing the work, but when scientists get involved,
Speaker 2: it just brings our subject, the Bigfoot subject, to a
Speaker 2: brand new level. So with that, doctor Hart, welcome to
Speaker 2: Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and usually Bobo. Thanks for
Speaker 2: taking some time for us today.
Speaker 3: Well, it's a pleasure to be here, Cliff, and.
Speaker 1: I'm really honored to be on your program.
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I'm thrilled to have you on. When
Speaker 2: I heard about this book, I bought it. I've read it,
Speaker 2: and I'll be honest with you, a lot of it
Speaker 2: went over my head because I don't have the chemistry background.
Speaker 2: I took a year of chemistry in college, well in
Speaker 2: high school too, but in college. But that's all I have.
Speaker 2: So I but I you know, one of my superpowers
Speaker 2: I've been told is that I can take very complex
Speaker 2: information and kind of distill it for normal people, you know,
Speaker 2: people without advanced degrees, for example, because I was a
Speaker 2: teacher for a long time. So I'm hoping to do
Speaker 2: a little bit of that today with some of your work.
Speaker 2: But before we get into the meat of it, doctor,
Speaker 2: can you tell us a little bit about your background
Speaker 2: and what makes you qualified as a scientist specifically to
Speaker 2: look into something like this.
Speaker 3: Well, I have a PhD in chemistry.
Speaker 2: Any particular kind of chemistry, like organic chemistry or.
Speaker 1: What Actually it was physical chemistry, Okay, but I did
Speaker 1: research that was also in organic chemistry, and I talked
Speaker 1: for ten and a half years at the University of
Speaker 1: North Carolina at Wilmington and General Chemistry, Physical chemistry, a
Speaker 1: couple of other seminars. Then I took a position with
Speaker 1: Shelle in Houston and Research as analytical chemist and spent
Speaker 1: over twenty years solving chemical problems for shell So I
Speaker 1: have a good background and analytical techniques, of which really
Speaker 1: the biochemistry in this controversial papers based on analytical chemistry. Really,
Speaker 1: I'm not a biochemist, but I believe that I'm fully
Speaker 1: capable of learning what I need to learn in that
Speaker 1: area based on my background. Quite frankly, I had not
Speaker 1: followed the Bigfoot phenomenon very closely.
Speaker 3: I kind of heard headlines from time to time.
Speaker 1: Until the catch and paper came out, and that's how
Speaker 1: I got enervated and involved.
Speaker 2: Now, from reading your book, you write about your sasquatch
Speaker 2: siting that you actually had when did that occur? In
Speaker 2: can you tell us little bit about that? Please?
Speaker 3: Yes, that occurred much more recently. Of course.
Speaker 1: Her paper came out in twenty thirteen, and my sighting
Speaker 1: was in two thousand and eighteen. And well, I was
Speaker 1: in southeast Oklahoma in the Wachitaw National Forest and walking
Speaker 1: down a trail, and all of a sudden, out of
Speaker 1: my peripheral vision, I saw this motion and I saw
Speaker 1: I saw the animal in clear sunlight, which is unusual,
Speaker 1: especially in that area, since there's a lot of high
Speaker 1: trees and it's very dense. There's very few sunny areas,
Speaker 1: so this was fortunate. It had a nice reddish brown
Speaker 1: color to it, as a lot of people have previously reported,
Speaker 1: contrasted against a green lit background, which couldn't ask for
Speaker 1: better contrast.
Speaker 3: This is not dark gray on light gray or whatever
Speaker 3: most people see.
Speaker 1: And I only saw it for I'd have to estimate
Speaker 1: between two and three seconds.
Speaker 3: As it darted back into the woods.
Speaker 1: I tried to see it again by walking around, and
Speaker 1: I did not, so later some colleagues and I measured
Speaker 1: the distance and it was thirty yards.
Speaker 2: Oh that's nice and clothes great, which is close.
Speaker 1: I thought it was fifty yards, but I'm not good
Speaker 1: at estimating, and we did this twice. One guy stepped
Speaker 1: it off and also he said, point to a tree
Speaker 1: that's about the same distance, and I did.
Speaker 3: This was back at the camp, and.
Speaker 1: He measured it and it was exactly thirty yards too,
Speaker 1: So I'm pretty confident that's about, you know, plus or
Speaker 1: minus a little air there, that's how far it was.
Speaker 3: And that's also very fortunate.
Speaker 1: And there were no obstructions in front of me that
Speaker 1: would have obscured the animal. So I'm very confident that
Speaker 1: that's what I saw.
Speaker 3: It was large.
Speaker 1: We had a another guy stood out there. He's over
Speaker 1: six feet tall, and it was a lot taller than
Speaker 1: him and a lot broader too, So.
Speaker 3: And the vertical posture, the.
Speaker 1: Aspect ratio vertical rather than horizontal, you know, makes it
Speaker 1: clear it was not a bear or.
Speaker 3: Something like that. And it walked.
Speaker 1: Very fast, and I which a bear does not on
Speaker 1: two feet if it ever cuts on two feet, and so.
Speaker 3: And I heard a snap a twig or a branch
Speaker 3: that it.
Speaker 1: Stepped on, coming right from the same place, so you know,
Speaker 1: that's another sensory confirmation.
Speaker 3: So that's the long and the short of it.
Speaker 2: Were you able to locate any footprints or markings in
Speaker 2: the ground of any sort.
Speaker 1: The ground was disturbed, but there were no obvious footprints
Speaker 1: that we could detect.
Speaker 2: I see. Okay, One last question about your signing the well,
Speaker 2: maybe a couple more thinking about it, But did you
Speaker 2: get to see the entire you know, head to head
Speaker 2: to toe body as it ran away or walked quickly
Speaker 2: away into the brush again or no.
Speaker 1: I saw it from the top of the head to
Speaker 1: I would say around the knees. There was some lower
Speaker 1: lying brush that obscured the feet.
Speaker 2: Did it walk like a human? I know, superficially it
Speaker 2: walked like a human, But did you notice any distinctions
Speaker 2: like well, that was seemed very unhuman like.
Speaker 1: Well, the arms were very long, and it was swinging
Speaker 1: them as in a fast gate. I did see the hair.
Speaker 1: There was some sort of clumped up hair that stood
Speaker 1: out and glistened in the sunlight.
Speaker 3: I didn't get a good look at the head.
Speaker 1: It was going away at forty five degrees, so I
Speaker 1: saw more of the back of the head, and I
Speaker 1: didn't see the face, so I can't comment on that
Speaker 1: the arms were long.
Speaker 3: Is about the only other thing I could.
Speaker 2: Add, now, were you looking for sasquatches when the sighting occurred,
Speaker 2: or is this an accidental thing you were hunting or something?
Speaker 3: In a general way, I was.
Speaker 1: I went to this area because it's known to have sasquatch.
Speaker 3: Other people have seen.
Speaker 1: Them and observed their doings, and so yes, on this
Speaker 1: particular trip, I you know, it was sort of like
Speaker 1: I'm always alert.
Speaker 3: I'm a pretty keen observer of nature, but.
Speaker 1: I wasn't just you know, keyed in ninety nine percent
Speaker 1: to finding a sasquatch.
Speaker 3: So it came as a little bit of a surprise.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, no matter how well you think you
Speaker 2: prepare yourself for seeing such a thing, if you're lucky
Speaker 2: enough to actually have it happen, there's no way you
Speaker 2: can prepare yourself. It's like, well, that was silly that
Speaker 2: I even thought I could figure out whether.
Speaker 1: I mean, I had a camera but no time to
Speaker 1: get it out in a couple of seconds like that.
Speaker 1: You know, if I had been a little bit more
Speaker 1: on the ball, I might have had it ready in
Speaker 1: my hands. But then you walk around like that and
Speaker 1: you're so focused on your camera you don't see other things.
Speaker 1: So I the way it was no picture.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, And two or three seconds really isn't long
Speaker 2: enough to get dracked together, to know.
Speaker 1: Your camera can barely focus in that amount of time.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when I'm driving the roads, and when I when
Speaker 2: I go out bigfooting or whatever, and I'm alone, I'm
Speaker 2: driving the roads, and I keep a video camera right
Speaker 2: next to me, right next to me on the on
Speaker 2: the center console, and I tell myself, I'm going to
Speaker 2: video any animal I see, an owl, a deer, whatever,
Speaker 2: And through it throughout the years, I've failed ninety five
Speaker 2: percent of the time because the counters are so brief,
Speaker 2: and you have to fumble for the camera and you know,
Speaker 2: you have to turn the camera on and has a
Speaker 2: cycle through it of the software and all that kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. It's just ridiculous to think that we should
Speaker 2: have all these pictures of these things when you kind
Speaker 2: of had an average sighting in a way, it lasted
Speaker 2: two or three seconds, the thing walked away, you never
Speaker 2: saw it again. That's kind of the story for eighty
Speaker 2: percent of all sightings, it seems.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say you that's true. Yes, you're very
Speaker 1: right about that. And one other approach one could have
Speaker 1: is to use one of these go pros, or you know,
Speaker 1: a camera that's on constantly on your head, directed in
Speaker 1: the direction that you're looking. Had I done that, I
Speaker 1: might have got some sort of video. I don't know
Speaker 1: how good it would be, but that's another approach.
Speaker 3: And then you do that and for days and days
Speaker 3: and still come up with nothing.
Speaker 2: Usually that's the story, isn't it. I'm a huge advocate,
Speaker 2: and I think I harp on it quite often on
Speaker 2: the program here that I think every car driving in
Speaker 2: the woods should be equipped with a dash cam, since
Speaker 2: you know, almost half of sightings happened from cars on
Speaker 2: the side of the roads. If you know, if all
Speaker 2: these cars had dash camps, like they do in a
Speaker 2: lot of European and Asian countries, we would have I
Speaker 2: think a fair body of footage of sasquatches, and the
Speaker 2: Georgia dash camp video would be proof in the pudding
Speaker 2: on that one. But yeah, I personally use a Garment
Speaker 2: dash camp. I don't I'm not sponsored by Garment or anything,
Speaker 2: you know, but that's the one I happen to have.
Speaker 2: It's fantastic. But if you want to spend less money,
Speaker 2: our listeners out there get an eighty dollars dash cam,
Speaker 2: you know every they're so cheap nowties I bet, I
Speaker 2: bet you can get them for cheaper than eighty dollars,
Speaker 2: and you can drive roads at night and suddenly you're
Speaker 2: big footing and have a better chance of getting footage
Speaker 2: than almost anybody else.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a great tip I'm going to pick up
Speaker 1: on myself. I hadn't thought about that much. Now, do
Speaker 1: you keep them on constantly or do you switch them
Speaker 1: on when you need them?
Speaker 2: The way that most dash cams work nowadays is that
Speaker 2: they're constantly recording, and so if you you know, they're
Speaker 2: obviously be for accidents and things like that, you know,
Speaker 2: insurance purposes, But that's secondary to me. Bigfoot's number one
Speaker 2: on my list, especially considering where I live. So if
Speaker 2: you're driving down the road and say a sasquatch or
Speaker 2: a bear or anything else you want to capture runs
Speaker 2: out in front of the car, the camera is already recording,
Speaker 2: and so most of them you just push a button
Speaker 2: on the camera itself, and what it does it saves
Speaker 2: the footage fifteen or twenty seconds, sometimes thirty seconds before
Speaker 2: and after you push the button, And that way you
Speaker 2: don't have to go screen through, you know, twenty hours
Speaker 2: of you driving, you know, in the freeway right there.
Speaker 2: It goes in a special file and those files are
Speaker 2: about a minute long or forty seconds long, and they
Speaker 2: are saved in a separate spot, so you can go
Speaker 2: back and just go into that one folder and look
Speaker 2: at the things that you actually wanted to save.
Speaker 1: Well, that sounds like a bargain for eighty two one
Speaker 1: hundred dollars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And there's all sorts of cheap ones that
Speaker 2: are available out there, you know, Amazon or your local
Speaker 2: electronics store. And again, I think statistically speaking, it is
Speaker 2: one of the most effective ways one can go bigfooting.
Speaker 3: That days though, sounds great, I'm going to do it.
Speaker 2: Let's get into the Ketchum study. And you know, and
Speaker 2: for listeners are out there who are preparing us to
Speaker 2: gore their sacred cow, so to speak. We're not going
Speaker 2: to slam Melbour or anything like that. We're going to
Speaker 2: talk about the science here, just the science, because what
Speaker 2: doctor haskell Hart has done here is essentially one of
Speaker 2: the steps of the scientific process of peer review. Science
Speaker 2: is not a body of knowledge that these people in
Speaker 2: ivory towers protect at all costs because that's their worldview.
Speaker 2: Science generally speaking, doesn't squash unpopular opinions if it stands
Speaker 2: up to peer review. It generally speaking, if science is
Speaker 2: a process of getting to the truth by taking your data,
Speaker 2: taking the things that you have here, and forming a model.
Speaker 2: In this case the DNA stuff aside for sasquatches, we
Speaker 2: have this stuff. People say they see these things, that
Speaker 2: giant ape like things in the woods. They are these footprints.
Speaker 2: Native people tell stories about these sort of things. There
Speaker 2: is this evidence here, and so we're going to come
Speaker 2: up with a hypothesis, which of course is like a theory,
Speaker 2: but not as strong, shall we say, And hopefully we
Speaker 2: can go gather more evidence and if the evidence supports
Speaker 2: our hypothesis andhypothesis, and in this case, our hypothesis is
Speaker 2: that there's a wild animal responsible for this stuff, some
Speaker 2: sort of primate almost certainly right, And so we can
Speaker 2: go gather evidence that might support or not support the
Speaker 2: presence of some sort of primate in the woods. And
Speaker 2: if it supports it, great, We're going to continue trying
Speaker 2: to collect more evidence that supports our hypothesis, our guess.
Speaker 2: But if we run across evidence that does not support
Speaker 2: our hypothesis, then we need to modify our model, modify
Speaker 2: our hypothesis, and then try to go collect more. And really,
Speaker 2: one of the things that about science, and I don't
Speaker 2: think people appreciate, is that scientists are not trying to
Speaker 2: prove themselves right most of the time. They're literally trying
Speaker 2: to prove themselves wrong most of the time. And if
Speaker 2: they can prove themselves wrong, then they have to modify
Speaker 2: their hypothesis. But if they cannot prove themselves wrong, well
Speaker 2: maybe they're correct, but they continue trying to prove themselves wrong.
Speaker 2: So I want to get that straight out there, because
Speaker 2: in society today there is this anti science bias, the
Speaker 2: distrusting of scientists and specialists or whatever, because our phone
Speaker 2: tells us that kind of thing, and I want to
Speaker 2: get that out that science in this case, in most cases,
Speaker 2: is not a body of knowledge that scientists are protecting
Speaker 2: because that's their worldview. It is actually a process of
Speaker 2: finding out what the truth is. And doctor Haskell Hart
Speaker 2: here has done some of that peer review work, and
Speaker 2: that's what we're going to talk about today. So we're
Speaker 2: talking about the scientific process. We're not attacking individuals, So
Speaker 2: everybody can relax Okay, so thanks for letting me rant
Speaker 2: for a moment about that. I just want to set
Speaker 2: the record straight, doctor Heart. But how did you first
Speaker 2: hear about the sasquatch genome project.
Speaker 1: Well, I think, like a lot of people, I heard
Speaker 1: about it on the news TV news, because it was
Speaker 1: widely reported there by a number of TV networks, and
Speaker 1: so that that was my introduction.
Speaker 3: And I thought, well, this is great, you know, because
Speaker 3: I knew.
Speaker 1: Enough about the subject that it was controversial, and that
Speaker 1: other than the Patterson Gimlin film there was and some footprints,
Speaker 1: there was little to go on. So I thought, great,
Speaker 1: you know DNA, that's the answer here.
Speaker 3: This will.
Speaker 1: Solve the problem of what kind of an animal this is,
Speaker 1: and that it's different from human or other apes or whatever.
Speaker 1: So I got involved basis everybody else. I paid my
Speaker 1: thirty dollars and at the time you had to to
Speaker 1: get a copy of the online copy of the paper,
Speaker 1: and so then I went to work from there.
Speaker 2: Your background isn't necessarily in DNA, as you said, it's
Speaker 2: physical chemistry, not the organic chemistry. So how much of
Speaker 2: a learning curve re looking? Yet at the time.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the thing as a chemist and a chemistry
Speaker 1: student way back in the sixties. I knew about DNA.
Speaker 1: I knew its structure, I knew what its function was.
Speaker 1: I remember when the Nobel Prize was given for the structure,
Speaker 1: and so it wasn't exactly a foreign subject to me,
Speaker 1: although I had never done any actual research in the area.
Speaker 1: And the biggest learning curve, which wasn't all that bad,
Speaker 1: really was how to use the National Center for Biotechnology
Speaker 1: databases to search a sequence to find what it matches.
Speaker 1: And these are this is free access. Your taxes are
Speaker 1: paying for it, and I'm happy to say in this
Speaker 1: case you're getting your money's worth if you take the
Speaker 1: time to learn how to use the software, the search engine,
Speaker 1: and how to interpret your results, which is a little
Speaker 1: bit more difficult. So I'm the owner of two pats
Speaker 1: in databases, So I mean using databases is not a
Speaker 1: strange subject. And quite frankly, you're comparing two strings of
Speaker 1: just four different characters each.
Speaker 3: Repeated.
Speaker 1: You know, A, TG and C the four bases, and
Speaker 1: you don't have to be a biochemist to do that.
Speaker 1: It's a mathematical problem, quite frankly, And so that's how
Speaker 1: I approached it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just as a very brief primer just for
Speaker 2: anybody and maybe some young people who haven't got into
Speaker 2: chemistry or biology at or anything like that. Your DNA
Speaker 2: are basically strands inside of the cells, inside your bodily cells.
Speaker 2: And these strands are like the code of how cells
Speaker 2: replicate themselves. And your DNA is in every single one
Speaker 2: of these little strands. And I think it's safe to
Speaker 2: say there are billions of these strands throughout your body.
Speaker 2: And again, if doctor Hart, if I'm saying anything that's
Speaker 2: incorrect because I'm reaching back in my memory twenty years
Speaker 2: to college and whatever else, if I say anything incorrect,
Speaker 2: please jump in and correct me or add to it
Speaker 2: if there's something else that's correct. Everybody's seeing these double
Speaker 2: helix things look looks like a ladder that's twisted, and
Speaker 2: then the rungs of the ladder are actually chemicals that
Speaker 2: bond to one another. And when doctor Hart mentioned the
Speaker 2: AGC and T, those are abbreviations for I forget. I
Speaker 2: don't know what kind of stuff they are, but I'm
Speaker 2: sure you do. But they're basically the code. And by
Speaker 2: having billions of connections of these four different chemicals that
Speaker 2: make the rungs of the twisty ladder. The helix in
Speaker 2: other words, or the double helix that gives us a
Speaker 2: unique code code that basically tells the cells how to
Speaker 2: reproduce themselves exactly. And of course, every once in a
Speaker 2: while everything mistakes are made and the mistakes are introduced,
Speaker 2: and that's what we call well, that's basically some sort
Speaker 2: of change in the in the in the pattern, and
Speaker 2: that's how evolution happens because those changes become more prominent,
Speaker 2: et cetera. This is literally the basis of all biology essentially,
Speaker 2: is what we're talking about. So all biological sciences rely
Speaker 2: on this information and evolution, including human evolution. Sorry folks,
Speaker 2: but it's true. So if you like going to the doctor,
Speaker 2: can you owe the doctor's knowledge and education to this
Speaker 2: subject that we're talking about now. So, but at the
Speaker 2: basis of it, all's chemistry. We're big bags of chemistry
Speaker 2: that are doing stuff, and our chemistry replicates ours, replicates
Speaker 2: itself through this DNA. The DNA is the code that
Speaker 2: tells how to replicate itself.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's very true.
Speaker 1: It codes for protein and proteins are what make your
Speaker 1: body work structural as in muscles and bones and things,
Speaker 1: and then enzymatic which are the catalysts for all your
Speaker 1: biochemical reactions. And just to pick up on what you said,
Speaker 1: your description of it is called the central dogma of
Speaker 1: modern biochemistry, and you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: Everything is traced back to that.
Speaker 1: And speaking of chemistry and the relationship and my background
Speaker 1: and so on. Actually, it's interesting that the two Nobel
Speaker 1: Prize winners were a microbiologist and a physicist who applied
Speaker 1: principles of organic chemistry, which I studied and did very well,
Speaker 1: and to understand how these bases hydrogen bonded together and
Speaker 1: how the structure wrapped around that. And so they're operating
Speaker 1: in the field that was not their own, and they
Speaker 1: got interestingly, the Nobel Prize in medicine and physiology, yet
Speaker 1: another area. So this just shows you how modern science
Speaker 1: is very interdisciplinary. And don't ever let anybody tell you,
Speaker 1: as some have done on this in this controversy, that
Speaker 1: you don't have the background to do this, because the
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize winners on paper didn't either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's fair to say that many of
Speaker 2: science's greatest advances have come about because someone who didn't
Speaker 2: study that particular field got their nose into it and
Speaker 2: applied their own knowledge towards something else. And like, as
Speaker 2: you said, one of the people who got the Nobel
Speaker 2: Prize was a physicist dabbling in basically, you know, organic chemistry.
Speaker 2: But he had certain knowledge and you wanted to apply
Speaker 2: it to this subject. And I think Bigfoot is like
Speaker 2: that too. There's so many different aspects of the subject.
Speaker 2: And so you're a physical chemist who's now looking into
Speaker 2: the DNA stuff with your own perspective and your own expertise,
Speaker 2: and that kind of stuff should be welcomed. People of
Speaker 2: all backgrounds and bodies of knowledge should be welcome to
Speaker 2: look at anything, because you never know what new eyes
Speaker 2: put on something are going to reveal.
Speaker 3: Yes, I totally agree. I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo.
Speaker 4: Will be right back after these messages.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, so you downloaded the paper, you paid your
Speaker 2: thirty bucks, and you started reading through it. What were
Speaker 2: your first thoughts on either the data or the procedures
Speaker 2: or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of the details were unknown to me.
Speaker 1: I had to go look up for re and study
Speaker 1: them by a couple of books and download some papers
Speaker 1: from the internet and so on, because like I've said,
Speaker 1: I'm not a biochemist, but I was able to understand
Speaker 1: it after a while. It was to me at first
Speaker 1: a very wonderful discovery, and I felt that this would
Speaker 1: be a good opportunity for me to delve a little deeper,
Speaker 1: to take the published sequences and in fact check the
Speaker 1: results and the matches to the database, and that I
Speaker 1: would learn a lot about the whole subject of DNA
Speaker 1: by doing this, and also species identification, and so that's
Speaker 1: what interests me and what.
Speaker 3: Got me started.
Speaker 1: And to be honest, and I've mentioned this before, at
Speaker 1: first I thought she the paper was correct and its
Speaker 1: identification a lot of things were like ninety five percent
Speaker 1: matches and so on that to somebody just getting into
Speaker 1: this particular database seemed like a good enough match. To me,
Speaker 1: I later realized that that's not true. If you want
Speaker 1: a species match, you really have to be above ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent. In most cases, like all of the humans
Speaker 1: in the world their DNA matches by ninety nine and
Speaker 1: a half percent. All our differences are in a half
Speaker 1: percent or so.
Speaker 2: Something that you mentioned is because ninety five percent, you know,
Speaker 2: for people who going to school and stuff. That's an
Speaker 2: a that's a solid on whatever paper you get or
Speaker 2: you know, DESI digg and it sounds good enough to
Speaker 2: me too. But then again you have to take a
Speaker 2: few steps back and and is this why that ninety
Speaker 2: five percent is not good enough? I think is my question.
Speaker 2: You have to take a few steps back and realize
Speaker 2: that these these pairs, these matchings that were getting ninety
Speaker 2: five percent matches on, aren't there billions of those? And
Speaker 2: ninety five percent out of a billion is kind of
Speaker 2: a big miss in a lot of ways.
Speaker 3: Well, you're right.
Speaker 1: The human nuclear genome is three point three billion based
Speaker 1: pairs long. The mitochondrial genome that's in the mitochondria and
Speaker 1: what you inherit from your mother.
Speaker 3: Only is much smaller.
Speaker 1: It's sixteen thousand, five hundred and sixty eight base pairs
Speaker 1: only a lot shorter, so it's used a lot more
Speaker 1: for identifications.
Speaker 2: And that's what doctor Ketcham was doing, is that, well
Speaker 2: she did both.
Speaker 1: She did nuclear sequencing and mitochondrial sequencing.
Speaker 3: But getting back to the ninety five percent.
Speaker 1: There are genes that are called conserved because they don't
Speaker 1: change much through evolution. They're working so well, that there's
Speaker 1: no biological drive for them to change, because all mammals
Speaker 1: have a lot of similarities. Okay, even though we look
Speaker 1: and eat differently, and this and that, our breathing apparatus,
Speaker 1: our heart, and a lot of this stuff doesn't change
Speaker 1: that much. Maybe only the five percent change, you know,
Speaker 1: also ninety five percent. I can show you sequences human
Speaker 1: and there that match ninety five percent, and not the whole.
Speaker 3: Genome, but certain regions of it.
Speaker 1: And that's where I think the problems came in this paper,
Speaker 1: not recognizing that fact and accepting.
Speaker 3: Ninety five percent.
Speaker 1: When it matched so many different things, and throwing up
Speaker 1: your hands and saying, well, it must be a new
Speaker 1: species because it doesn't match anything, but it matches everything
Speaker 1: ninety five percent.
Speaker 2: Okay, And I think you just brought up something really
Speaker 2: important as well, is that we're talking about sequences of
Speaker 2: DNA versus the entire genome. Maybe we can clarify that
Speaker 2: for our readers, because ninety five percent of the entire
Speaker 2: genome may be a different story. Because people have probably
Speaker 2: heard I say to my presentations all the time that
Speaker 2: you know, humans and chimpanzees are a ninety eight point
Speaker 2: something percent identical in their DNA, so ninety five doesn't
Speaker 2: seem that far off. We're sixty percent identical to earthworms
Speaker 2: for an I understand. So when you talk about a
Speaker 2: sequence of DNA, contrast that, for our audience, please with
Speaker 2: the entire genome. What are we talking about here?
Speaker 1: Very good question, because the paper in its title even
Speaker 1: said it had sequenced three complete genomes, nuclear genomes, which
Speaker 1: are as I said, would have been if we're human
Speaker 1: or like human, about three point three billion base spaars.
Speaker 3: Actually they didn't do that at all.
Speaker 1: They used only chromosome eleven reference, which has one hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty five million bay spaars, and of that the
Speaker 1: sequences they got were much smaller still, two point seven million,
Speaker 1: point five million and two point one million, respectively base pairs,
Speaker 1: nowhere near the three point three billion and not even
Speaker 1: near the whole chroma so eleven. So right away there's
Speaker 1: there's a bit of an offset, and this is where
Speaker 1: the problem came. They used a human reference, so all
Speaker 1: the sequences they got were what I just mentioned, were
Speaker 1: conserved genes that didn't differ that much between a bear
Speaker 1: and a monkey and a human and an ape. And
Speaker 1: so it's a it's a preconceived notion there that led
Speaker 1: to the problems.
Speaker 2: Now, when you say a human reference, what what is
Speaker 2: that are there? They're comparing their their their strands to
Speaker 2: a human and looking for similarities.
Speaker 1: Yes, when when you do this uh sequencing of these
Speaker 1: large genomes, you essentially break up the DNA into small
Speaker 1: sentiments and somatically and then.
Speaker 3: You won approach.
Speaker 1: Is to take those small sequences and if you're pretty
Speaker 1: sure of what you have or that it's close to something,
Speaker 1: you use a complete reference sequence.
Speaker 3: And human DNA is known all three point three.
Speaker 1: Billion base and you match these little segments to various
Speaker 1: regions of this reference and that allows you to then
Speaker 1: put them back together and come up with a larger sequence, sometimes.
Speaker 3: A whole genome, sometimes not.
Speaker 1: And so it's a quick way to match these segments up,
Speaker 1: and since they overlap, you can get a longer segment
Speaker 1: from smaller ones. Now, this is only appropriate if you
Speaker 1: know what you're dealing with, or at least what genus
Speaker 1: or family of animals. Otherwise, the sequence if it's far,
Speaker 1: if the reference is far from your actual unknown sequence,
Speaker 1: the only things that are going to match are going
Speaker 1: to be these conserved genes or fragments of genes that
Speaker 1: haven't changed very much, and you won't get a complete
Speaker 1: genome like they didn't because the bear doesn't match the
Speaker 1: human very well.
Speaker 2: So it sounds like they started off with an assumption
Speaker 2: that if these are sasquatched, you know, samples, then we
Speaker 2: should be able to compare to them a human because
Speaker 2: humans are also primates, which seems like a logical assumption,
Speaker 2: but it sounds like maybe what happened is almost like
Speaker 2: comparing like maybe a human to a tree. Obviously, humans
Speaker 2: and trees, you know, our last common ancestor is a
Speaker 2: long time ago, not really good comparison, but when you
Speaker 2: look at a human, we kind of have a trunk
Speaker 2: and we kind of have branches, and we can see
Speaker 2: the similarity is owing in hair because of the leaves.
Speaker 2: We can kind of see the similarities between humans and
Speaker 2: trees structurally. And so they were looking for something and
Speaker 2: they found it, even though if it wasn't there is
Speaker 2: that was kind of similar.
Speaker 1: They found fragments of it, these conserved genes, but they
Speaker 1: got so little of.
Speaker 3: The total genome, you know, two point.
Speaker 1: Seven at most million out of you know, one less
Speaker 1: than one tenth of a percent of the whole genome.
Speaker 1: For even the largest of their three sequences, two point
Speaker 1: seven million out of three point three billion is less
Speaker 1: than a tenth of a percent. It's less than one
Speaker 1: one thousandth So yes, it's a preconceived notion. And when
Speaker 1: you have an unknown species and you want to just
Speaker 1: open the book to anything, there's another technique called dnovo,
Speaker 1: which doesn't use a reference, but looks at all theseents
Speaker 1: in the computer, of course, and looks at where they overlap.
Speaker 1: You know, where several bases are the same at the
Speaker 1: end points of two.
Speaker 3: Of the small sequences.
Speaker 1: And then you link those two together based on their
Speaker 1: common several bases at the tips, and then that forms
Speaker 1: a bigger sequence and then you can link it up
Speaker 1: on its ends with some more of the fragments. So
Speaker 1: dnovo means just a priori and without any assumptions, and
Speaker 1: that's what should have been done, and then their results
Speaker 1: would have been much clearer as to the species involved.
Speaker 2: So you would and you actually took doctor Ketchum's data
Speaker 2: itself and you ran that through the system again, Is
Speaker 2: that is that what you did for the next step.
Speaker 1: Yes, I took I would call it her results that
Speaker 1: is her sequences and I and you know, there was
Speaker 1: no way to question those in terms of their accuracy.
Speaker 1: You can question how they were obtained, but actually I
Speaker 1: just assumed that the sequencing for.
Speaker 3: What it was was correct limited.
Speaker 1: And then I searched the National Center for Biotechnology Information's databases,
Speaker 1: and you have to search more than one there, and
Speaker 1: I came up with these matches which were for one
Speaker 1: of the sequences was a black bear, another was human
Speaker 1: and so close to human you really couldn't tell, now
Speaker 1: sasquatches that close to human, well, that could be one.
Speaker 3: And then the third one matched a match dogs very
Speaker 3: very well.
Speaker 1: And that's the one that came from the down spout
Speaker 1: with the bite marks.
Speaker 3: And you know primates used the bite in the metal,
Speaker 3: dogs bite everything, so that.
Speaker 1: Kind of matches. You know, that's not proof, but it's
Speaker 1: it's consistent, let's say. So that's that's what I did.
Speaker 1: And then I took chro mitochondrial results, which you know
Speaker 1: you're in your minded chondria and your cell are these
Speaker 1: other sequences which are circular and fifteen.
Speaker 3: Six sixteen thousand viral on sixty eight.
Speaker 1: Bases plus her mind is a couple and those are
Speaker 1: inherited from your mother because the.
Speaker 3: Egg has mitochondria but the sperm does not.
Speaker 1: And they're a very good way to identify species and
Speaker 1: you don't need to sequence that whole sixteen thousand, just
Speaker 1: small segments are characteristic of various species. And she did this,
Speaker 1: and of course she sent it to a have that
Speaker 1: only deals in human things. Family Tree DNA is one
Speaker 1: of these genetic ancestral type sequencing labs, and they do
Speaker 1: a good job on humans. They did mine, I did
Speaker 1: my wife's. We you know, I use those as kind
Speaker 1: of references. And the problem there is their methodology. Their
Speaker 1: sequencing technique is designed for humans only.
Speaker 3: And I prove that because I sent them some horseesome.
Speaker 1: Cat, and dog DNA and they didn't sequence at all,
Speaker 1: it didn't amplify, which proves that, you know, it's not
Speaker 1: a general technique. It's only for humans. And what they
Speaker 1: got could easily be attributed to human contamination, or at
Speaker 1: least you couldn't exclude that because only a human technique
Speaker 1: was used, and you could have, you know, a bulk
Speaker 1: of their DNA and just a little bit of human DNA.
Speaker 1: This method is so sensitive that if it's specific for.
Speaker 3: A human it's going to pick that human d A
Speaker 3: and sequence it.
Speaker 2: Now, what if we had a close relative to a human,
Speaker 2: like maybe I'm an advocate, for example, of the paranthropists
Speaker 2: hypothesis as sasquatches are probably paranthroposines or might be paranthropasines.
Speaker 2: I should say, would would the human I'm going to
Speaker 2: say primers? Is that the right word? Would the human?
Speaker 2: Would the human primers amplify DNA from a paranthropis scene
Speaker 2: I know there's no way to test that, but or
Speaker 2: from a chimpanzee for a bonobo for example, would what
Speaker 2: would be effect? What would the effect of a human
Speaker 2: primer on a bonobo sequence be?
Speaker 1: If the primers were chosen appropriately, they could also sequence
Speaker 1: our amplify and sequence apes and possibly you know, if
Speaker 1: you had it some more ancient humans.
Speaker 3: It might depend on what region you prime.
Speaker 1: But because apes, for example, are so close to human genetically,
Speaker 1: you would probably with those human primers you'd probably get amplification.
Speaker 1: You'd have to do an experiment, you know, with some
Speaker 1: ap DNA and the human primers, and that would answer
Speaker 1: the question. You know, it's a good question, by the
Speaker 1: way that I don't know anybody's done anything about I
Speaker 1: could look at it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but again, I think maybe this is an example.
Speaker 2: It's like, you know, Cliff with a degree in music,
Speaker 2: offering questions to someone with a deep level expertise, new
Speaker 2: eyes on the same subject often yield you results. And
Speaker 2: I think that's we're talking about that a little bit earlier.
Speaker 1: Certainly raise good questions as you do. I didn't know
Speaker 1: your degree was in music.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I played jazz guitar.
Speaker 3: Oh that's right now, remember. Yeah, So it's all in
Speaker 3: the primers. And when.
Speaker 1: Bart Katino and independently Tyler Huggins sent what were reported
Speaker 1: to be part of the same sample that Melbo Ketchum
Speaker 1: got number twenty six, when they sent them to independent
Speaker 1: labs and their primers were used, they got bear DNA
Speaker 1: sequences and they got a little bit of human too
Speaker 1: when they used human primers, but there was much less
Speaker 1: of the human DNA than there was the bear DNA.
Speaker 1: So that kind of proves the case that the human
Speaker 1: was the contaminant and the bear was the bulk and
Speaker 1: not the opposite.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that sure sounds like it. And you know, one
Speaker 2: of the astounding things that I took away from your
Speaker 2: book is that apparently the correct me if I'm wrong again,
Speaker 2: please But when she ran the results, black Bear was
Speaker 2: not part of the database at all. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: It was, but there were far fewer sequences in there
Speaker 1: than any of the other major bears. For example, polar
Speaker 1: bear and Panda have been studied more because they are threatened,
Speaker 1: and so the black bear data was limited, and the
Speaker 1: largest sequence that I found that match was only two
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety base pairs, and being a little bit
Speaker 1: new in this, I thought that that was not enough
Speaker 1: to prove anything that Even though this two hundred and
Speaker 1: ninety matched, I thought it was probably a conserved region
Speaker 1: and I missed the boat there, of carse, so did she.
Speaker 1: Until I started looking later at other databases and data
Speaker 1: from outside sources, was I able to show much better
Speaker 1: match to black Bear.
Speaker 3: So essentially there was one database in that.
Speaker 1: Collection at the National Center that had she looked, she
Speaker 1: would have found the black bear.
Speaker 3: But I didn't find that database and explored until later
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not the most common of their databases
Speaker 1: that are searched. Now however, there's more black bear data,
Speaker 1: and in fact, one of the databases has the complete
Speaker 1: black bear genome, and I addressed this in one of
Speaker 1: the chapters in my book where I searched that, and boy,
Speaker 1: you get excellent. A lot of the subsequences match one
Speaker 1: hundred percent. The reason they all don't are just the
Speaker 1: same as the reason all humans don't match exactly one another,
Speaker 1: because we have mutations from one another and so the
Speaker 1: Black Bears. So you know, getting over ninety nine point
Speaker 1: five percent is really quite good.
Speaker 3: And I got a lot of hundreds. I got a
Speaker 3: lot of ninety nine point nines.
Speaker 1: And you know, so that that was really the I
Speaker 1: was so thrilled when they finally came out with that
Speaker 1: entire nuclear genome, which was not available to Melow to
Speaker 1: catch them, but there were other sources that you could
Speaker 1: have searched.
Speaker 2: So the longer the sequence, as well as in combination
Speaker 2: with the number of I guess samples, I guess all,
Speaker 2: that helps really solidify and zoom in on the actual
Speaker 2: creature that we're doing the testing on.
Speaker 3: Actually, yes, you're very right.
Speaker 1: The longer the sequence that you match, the more likely
Speaker 1: you are to have.
Speaker 3: A correct match and that you can draw a conclusion.
Speaker 1: And this is something I'm sorry to say, how being
Speaker 1: a newcomer and stuff to some of this a lot
Speaker 1: of the current geneticists.
Speaker 3: They all want to break up.
Speaker 1: A sequence into little sixty base pair nuggets sixty to
Speaker 1: one hundred, and then they search those and they try
Speaker 1: to put it all back together. And it's really I
Speaker 1: can match a human sixty base pair sequence to almost
Speaker 1: any mammal you choose, because it's if I pick a
Speaker 1: conserved gene, they're going to be the same. People were
Speaker 1: making comments, these are geneticists that mails catch them. Sequences
Speaker 1: matched a pig apossum all kinds of stuff, Well, a
Speaker 1: short segment of it could, but not the whole length
Speaker 1: of what even her whole sequence two point seven million
Speaker 1: based pairs, or even a large fracture. Most of the
Speaker 1: sequences that I got matches for were the best ones
Speaker 1: were in the thousands of base pairs over a thousand,
Speaker 1: and that's very convincing.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Speaker 4: Bogo will be right back after these messages. Now, I
Speaker 4: thought that it was very charitable in your book because
Speaker 4: people on the outside are the people who are strong
Speaker 4: advocates of the Ketchum study.
Speaker 2: They'll see this as a takedown, and I don't see
Speaker 2: it as that at all. I see this as a
Speaker 2: peer review, a necessary step in the scientific process, and
Speaker 2: if we are advocating for the introduction of science into
Speaker 2: the Bigfoot subject, this is it. This is the growing pains.
Speaker 2: You know, sometimes you're going to be wrong, and that's
Speaker 2: just part of game. And I think it's a femem quote.
Speaker 2: It says, if you're doing science, you're not being wrong,
Speaker 2: you're not doing it right. And I think this is
Speaker 2: an important thing. But I think it's very charitable of you.
Speaker 2: In the middle of this book, you said she may
Speaker 2: very well have sasquatch samples, but these particular ones that
Speaker 2: I'm speaking to are not sasquatch. What do you think
Speaker 2: that the chances of that are and what steps might
Speaker 2: be taken to verify that or explore that possibility.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a good question too.
Speaker 1: One of the chapters that I think you're probably referring to,
Speaker 1: I found some very unusual mutations in several of her
Speaker 1: mitochondrial sequences. These are the ones that are sixteen thousand
Speaker 1: plus base bears very unusual, and in combination, the database
Speaker 1: have no humans that had even two of them. These
Speaker 1: the three major ones, and certainly none had all three
Speaker 1: of them. However, I also searched the other primates by family,
Speaker 1: and I found that these mutations were much more common
Speaker 1: in other primates. Not so much in chimps or gorillas,
Speaker 1: but in other primates, the monkeys, the lorises, all the others.
Speaker 2: Did you test to ringetans many chance, Yes, I.
Speaker 1: Did, and the sequences didn't They were better. There were
Speaker 1: more of them in orangutangs than humans, but still not
Speaker 1: very many, so not very good matches over a number
Speaker 1: of samples.
Speaker 3: So there's a possible HYPOTHETI.
Speaker 1: Is there that maybe Bigfoot has some latent primate.
Speaker 3: Sequences and it's mitochondrial.
Speaker 2: DNA, because that's that's something that I don't think of
Speaker 2: bigfooter is explore because I said just five minutes ago
Speaker 2: that I'm an advocate of the paranthropist theory of sasquatch,
Speaker 2: And of course everybody knows about gigantic Gigantipithecus and all
Speaker 2: that jazz. But something that I don't think is given
Speaker 2: enough press so to speak, or you know, or enough
Speaker 2: talk or enough attention, is that sasquatches maybe something completely novel,
Speaker 2: completely new in some ways, and however unlikely that is,
Speaker 2: and I'm not saying like a new family or something
Speaker 2: like that. But I'm saying, is what if some sort
Speaker 2: of you know, monkey and I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's other possibilities, however unlikely they are. There's other possibilities
Speaker 2: than the apor human sort of thing. I think is
Speaker 2: extraordinarily unlikely. Actually, but it's p and maybe this isn't.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not saying this is supporting that idea
Speaker 2: at all, but results like this right when I found
Speaker 2: these mutations and are more common in monkeys and apes,
Speaker 2: that at least opens the door to that maybe we're
Speaker 2: looking at something completely unexpected, and I think that's an
Speaker 2: interesting and exciting possibility. I don't think that the data
Speaker 2: supports it at this point, but it's at least something
Speaker 2: to kind of kick around to see if any data
Speaker 2: might result that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree, it's uh.
Speaker 1: There needs to be a lot more data collected and
Speaker 1: results and interpretations of that before we could draw any
Speaker 1: kind of conclusion. But I find it very interesting that
Speaker 1: of the samples that shared these unusual mutations, they were
Speaker 1: from different areas.
Speaker 3: One was from New.
Speaker 1: Mexico, a couple of them are from California, And I
Speaker 1: think I think there was one from British Columbia too,
Speaker 1: So it just you know, it's unlikely that these were
Speaker 1: all sequencing errors, all the same base position positions.
Speaker 3: There's something there.
Speaker 1: These samples are related, even though they come from different
Speaker 1: areas of North America, and so much more data needs
Speaker 1: to be collected, But it just seemed like an interesting possibility.
Speaker 3: That's all, a possibility.
Speaker 2: Like you say, do you think there's any avenues of
Speaker 2: exploring these three mutations that might yield some results we
Speaker 2: can work with somehow well?
Speaker 1: I think if people collect what they think, you know,
Speaker 1: hair samples or vcs or whatever. Of course, the closer
Speaker 1: you can get to a provincing of it, you know,
Speaker 1: like a ing the sasquatch rub against a tree or
Speaker 1: something and then getting the hair would be a lot
Speaker 1: better than just picking up a hair in the woods
Speaker 1: not knowing where it came from. But if some if
Speaker 1: these mutations persist in other samples, even if you don't
Speaker 1: know exactly where the sample came from, but it comes
Speaker 1: out to be close to human like that, then I
Speaker 1: think we have something. Because these are extremely rare on mutations.
Speaker 1: I mean, no human in the database has more than
Speaker 1: one of them, and very few have even one of them,
Speaker 1: and none have two or three of these like they
Speaker 1: appear in those sequences in the paper, so you know
Speaker 1: it's a possible avenue. I think people should keep these
Speaker 1: in mind as they do their own DNA sequences.
Speaker 2: Have you explored in investigated and do a needy research
Speaker 2: into the DNA sequencing of ancient humans? And I think
Speaker 2: primary amongst these would be homodenisovans because that entire species
Speaker 2: was initially identified by DNA. They had a phalangi bone
Speaker 2: I remember a fingerbone in a cave, and they initially
Speaker 2: thought it was Neanderthal, but when they ran a DNA
Speaker 2: sequence on it, they having the entire Neanderthal genome. Then
Speaker 2: comparing this to that, they said, this is not that,
Speaker 2: this is a new species. And since then, of course,
Speaker 2: other samples have been discovered. A jawbone. It turns out
Speaker 2: what we had possession of a jawbone since the nineteen
Speaker 2: eighties and misidentified it. I think they identified it as
Speaker 2: a Homo heedelber against. This turned out to be homodenisovan
Speaker 2: upon DNA testing, and even as recently as July twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one. The thing that made the big news is
Speaker 2: that the dragon man, you know, Homo. I forgot what
Speaker 2: the name of it that they gave it to this thing,
Speaker 2: a big, big skull out of China. Some people think
Speaker 2: that it's a new speed sees of human and others
Speaker 2: think that perhaps is that's the first, you know, skull
Speaker 2: remnants of a Denisovan being discovered. So there's a there's
Speaker 2: a growing field in palaeoanthropology about DNA sequencing of ancient humans.
Speaker 2: Have you explored those avenues at all and how they
Speaker 2: might be useful for what we're all trying to do
Speaker 2: to prove the Sasquatch.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Actually, I am aware of the Denosovan results and
Speaker 1: I've looked at them, and I always include Neanderthal and
Speaker 1: Carl Magnum Denosovan in my search. Is I'm not, I
Speaker 1: wasn't aware of this recent discovery in July. Maybe you
Speaker 1: can send me something that would lead me to the
Speaker 1: published result there and was d NA sequence from that
Speaker 1: sample or not?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: No, they just dug up a skull basically, or the
Speaker 2: at least the back part of skulls.
Speaker 1: It may be too old, but they it might be
Speaker 1: worth trying and anyway, so that's interesting too. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I have I have when I do some searches that
Speaker 1: I'm not sure and I think it's human like, maybe
Speaker 1: I always include these other.
Speaker 3: Humanoids let's call them.
Speaker 2: Do you do what kind of primers they used? Probably
Speaker 2: probably a human one, I imagine, probably probably.
Speaker 3: Or you can also use universal.
Speaker 1: Primate primer if you pick the right region and form
Speaker 1: a primer based on that, it can sequence prime aids,
Speaker 1: but nothing else.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
Speaker 4: We'll be right back after these messages.
Speaker 2: If you're if you're using a more general primer, do
Speaker 2: you get more general results?
Speaker 3: That's right, you do.
Speaker 1: You can use a mammalian primer, a fish primer, all
Speaker 1: vertebrates if you're if they're carefully selected, you can pick
Speaker 1: the group that you're focusing on and eliminate everything else.
Speaker 2: But then after that you can have to drill down
Speaker 2: a little bit to get specifics.
Speaker 1: Or yeah, yeah, actually, if you pick a more general one,
Speaker 1: then and this is what I'm doing now. I have
Speaker 1: some environmental DNA samples from water sources in southeast Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: and I'm working through that data. Now, environmental DNA we
Speaker 1: hadn't talked about, but It's somewhat like ancient DNA in
Speaker 1: that it's got more than one kind of DNA in it,
Speaker 1: and so stream water, of course has everything that ever
Speaker 1: went into that water, and so it takes I found.
Speaker 1: It's a data you get, and I'm writing computer programs
Speaker 1: to sort through it so I don't have to do
Speaker 1: it manually, because from one sample you get tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of sequences by this what's called next generation sequencing.
Speaker 1: It's in a flow cell and there are little sites
Speaker 1: that are laser scanned, and each site produces a sequence
Speaker 1: for you. And some of them are the same as others,
Speaker 1: and some of them are different, and you've got to
Speaker 1: get rid of the duplicates and focus on the unique ones.
Speaker 1: And I've been working on this for months now and
Speaker 1: I'm getting there. I'm not ready to report anything yet,
Speaker 1: but I'm getting a pretty good focus on the human
Speaker 1: like sequences in these water samples.
Speaker 2: Now, are these water samples taken from running water or
Speaker 2: still water? And does that even matter?
Speaker 3: Yeah, A good, good question. Mostly running water.
Speaker 1: The more interesting areas were running water, but I do
Speaker 1: have some from lakes and ponds as well. I kind
Speaker 1: of wanted to compare them you know, and my biggest
Speaker 1: hopes are from certain running as streams and river.
Speaker 2: Just me thinking about this process, wouldn't running water disperse
Speaker 2: the genetic material too much? They are still like genetic
Speaker 2: material is so prevalent in the environment you can't get
Speaker 2: rid of it, no matter what the ladder the ladder, Okay.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just amazing.
Speaker 1: If I put a fingerprint on a glass slide, they
Speaker 1: can sequence that at least the mitochondrial sequence.
Speaker 3: You know. It is so the techniques are so sensitive.
Speaker 1: The amplification process takes sequences and every cycle doubles them,
Speaker 1: and so you know, in just an hour or so
Speaker 1: or two you get billions and billions of replicants of
Speaker 1: that sequence. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So it's an exponential growth as opposed to linear then,
Speaker 2: because if you're doubling and doubling and doubling.
Speaker 1: Two times two times too, Yeah, geometric or you know,
Speaker 1: you could call it exponential, it's geometric.
Speaker 3: It's a mathematical terminology.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that's what's so powerful about this. You know,
Speaker 1: they can take fingerprints even and I've seen the paper
Speaker 1: where they took some old forensic samples where the cases
Speaker 1: are all solved and they kept them anonymous, but they
Speaker 1: were able with half a centimeter of hair to do
Speaker 1: a mitochondri DNA sequencing half a centimeter of hair getting
Speaker 1: the medulla out of that.
Speaker 3: So it's that sense now.
Speaker 2: Of course, on sasquatch hair, one of the characteristics that
Speaker 2: doctor Henter Fahrenbach has determined is that there's a fragmentary
Speaker 2: or complete lack of medulla. Does does that pretty much
Speaker 2: confound our efforts here to get DNA out of hair
Speaker 2: for sasquatches or is there another Is there a workaround
Speaker 2: for that?
Speaker 3: It makes it extremely difficult. I would say.
Speaker 1: If you can find a region where there is some medulla,
Speaker 1: then that would be good. And there may be some
Speaker 1: DNA even when there's no medulla.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure about that, but I think there may
Speaker 3: be some.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because the hair it sells protein. Am I right?
Speaker 1: Largely that there's our keratin it's called, and in the
Speaker 1: follicles and the cuticle I mean, and then inside there's
Speaker 1: there's DNA in that medulla.
Speaker 3: The cortex I don't think has much.
Speaker 1: I think it's mostly protein, but inside the medulla the
Speaker 1: some DNA. And of course with a hair sample like that,
Speaker 1: you might also have some good DNA on the outside
Speaker 1: of it from the same animal. Got to be careful
Speaker 1: because there could be other animals that at ate or
Speaker 1: came in contact with.
Speaker 3: The hair, you know.
Speaker 1: But you know, animals rub their hair and stuff and
Speaker 1: sweat on it and whatever, and so the outside can
Speaker 1: be studied too by dissolving the DNA off of it.
Speaker 2: Would you have any tips for our Bigfooter listeners about
Speaker 2: how to go about collecting samples of whatever that could
Speaker 2: potentially yield DNA results.
Speaker 1: Well, there's some that are just not my ideas by
Speaker 1: any means that a lot of people like Todd Disstel
Speaker 1: had mentioned and some of his podcasts and Jeff Melderman others.
Speaker 1: You have to be careful you don't contaminate it. The
Speaker 1: best thing is to use some sterile forceps. You can
Speaker 1: buy them in individual packets from a forensic warehouse supply warehouse,
Speaker 1: and gloves and a mask so you don't breathe on it,
Speaker 1: and I put something on your head to make sure
Speaker 1: you don't drip sweat or hair or anything or dander
Speaker 1: if on it either, so you kind of go in
Speaker 1: like a doctor does at an operation. You could even
Speaker 1: put on a special scrub suit, you know, if you
Speaker 1: really want to be good about it and try to
Speaker 1: try to keep you know, a really clean front to
Speaker 1: the sample, and of course put it in a sterile
Speaker 1: container and preserve it in alcohol is usually.
Speaker 3: The way they do it.
Speaker 1: And this has been described online, so this is not new.
Speaker 1: But I would really think hard about what kind of
Speaker 1: analysis you want to do, because when you say a
Speaker 1: DNA analysis, that's very general, and as we've mentioned, primers
Speaker 1: are all important, and whether you want to do mitochondrial
Speaker 1: or whole nuclear genome, I'd start with the mitochondrial frankly,
Speaker 1: and what region of it do you want to sequence,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So there's a lot of details
Speaker 1: that need to be thought about and discussed with the analysts,
Speaker 1: the laboratory.
Speaker 2: And not the least of which is the funding of
Speaker 2: all this, because this whole process is quite expensive still,
Speaker 2: isn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I found that out.
Speaker 1: I self funded these environmental samples, and you know, I
Speaker 1: can afford it, but I'm I can't.
Speaker 3: Do that all the time. It'd be nice to get
Speaker 3: a group of people.
Speaker 1: And a go fundme some of this work, and I
Speaker 1: think I'm hoping that I can get some results that
Speaker 1: are promising enough to encourage other people to go out
Speaker 1: and do this kind of thing. And if I get
Speaker 1: this software that these programs completed and refine, some.
Speaker 3: Average people can use them.
Speaker 1: This could be a huge advantage to people collecting these
Speaker 1: environmental samples. And you know, a stream is kind of
Speaker 1: nice in that you get stuff from could be miles away.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't have to be right on top
Speaker 1: of your source. What happens is all these animals slough
Speaker 1: off DNA when they go through the water, the fissure
Speaker 1: already there, and aquatic animals and so on. I got
Speaker 1: some beaver results, for example, I got black bear too,
Speaker 1: and other other mammals, deer, mice and stuff. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of nice that way. But also you've got
Speaker 1: to go through your results very carefully and understand what
Speaker 1: you have. And since there are other people in the woods,
Speaker 1: you know, urinating, defecating, fluffing off hair and hair and
Speaker 1: dandriff and stuff, and going through the water, it's on
Speaker 1: their clothes, their DNA and everything, you know you're going
Speaker 1: to get some other human results.
Speaker 3: And what one needs to do is.
Speaker 1: Fine sequences that are different, even just a mutation or
Speaker 1: two from from other humans and also find them more
Speaker 1: than once. As I said, in one sample, you're getting
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of sequences. Well, if just one of
Speaker 1: these shows something unusual, it's not convincing.
Speaker 3: You also have to look at the air scores.
Speaker 1: On these and see if it was a good call
Speaker 1: as they call it, for the base and you got
Speaker 1: to have more confirmation of that same sequence in the sample,
Speaker 1: and then to compare different samples at different times or
Speaker 1: different places in the stream and hopefully.
Speaker 3: There's some similarities there. So that's what I'm going through now.
Speaker 2: Now, if you're testing stream water, as I'm listening to
Speaker 2: this and thinking, okay, there's DNA material permeates the environment essentially,
Speaker 2: maybe does it make any sense to actually test water
Speaker 2: from larger rivers because there's a higher chance with all
Speaker 2: the feeder streams and whatever else, that our target species
Speaker 2: has sunk their feet into some sort of tributary of
Speaker 2: that larger river, kind of like a bigger net in
Speaker 2: a way, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, both, And there is something to be said for
Speaker 1: the larger river just as you say, it collects from
Speaker 1: a lot more tributaries. However, you're also going to get
Speaker 1: a lot of other things that, of course you won't
Speaker 1: know what tributary you've got the interesting DNA from, but
Speaker 1: you're going to get a lot more human stuff just
Speaker 1: from people who live in the area, and septic systems
Speaker 1: and stuff.
Speaker 2: That maybe say background noise kind of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you use smaller tributaries, you can focus on
Speaker 1: an area and it'll also lead you, hopefully to a
Speaker 1: place where you're more likely to actually observe some sasquatch.
Speaker 1: So I think both are in order as far as
Speaker 1: I can tell now.
Speaker 2: Now, if we have a water source for the city
Speaker 2: of Portland nearby called Bull Run Watershed, and most of
Speaker 2: the bigfoot activity in this particular part where Oregon where
Speaker 2: I live, it's kind of centered around the watershed. It's
Speaker 2: pretty solid. At this point, I think it's safe to
Speaker 2: say that there are sasquatches in the watershed fairly frequently,
Speaker 2: because it's tens of thousands of acres where no one
Speaker 2: is allowed. It's literally a twenty four to twenty five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars fine for fishing a tributary to this particular river.
Speaker 2: It's well, you know, national insecurity is a really good
Speaker 2: reason to have high national security and they're worried about
Speaker 2: poisoning or I don't know what it is, but the
Speaker 2: bull Run supplies the city of Portland with its water,
Speaker 2: and there are sasquatch reports all around it, all around it,
Speaker 2: and I've even gotten a handful from within it from
Speaker 2: the people who work for the Portland Water Company. So
Speaker 2: if you have a target area where you're pretty confident
Speaker 2: sasquatches are a pretty sizeable river, I might add, well,
Speaker 2: this is no creek or a trickle. Would you target
Speaker 2: particular river systems and hopes of higher results, or like
Speaker 2: the Mill Creek water shed outside of wall Wallet where
Speaker 2: a ton of evidence has been taken. Have you tried
Speaker 2: that avenue of actually targeting specifical ones.
Speaker 1: Yes, Actually, the area that I collected these samples from
Speaker 1: has been thought reported by others to have a lot
Speaker 1: of sightings and rocks thrown at them and all kinds
Speaker 1: of activity. And it's also where I saw my near
Speaker 1: where I saw my sighting. So yeah, targeting certain area,
Speaker 1: I mean I wouldn't go. I wouldn't go in the.
Speaker 3: Middle of Kansas and just do any river. You know,
Speaker 3: I think you're right.
Speaker 1: You focus on at least areas that in a larger
Speaker 1: or smaller scale have a lot of promise.
Speaker 2: Yes, would a sasquatch have to step in the water
Speaker 2: to slough off any DNA material, or it could have
Speaker 2: just been nearby.
Speaker 3: It could be washed in.
Speaker 1: You know, Let's say they urinated nearby and then it rains, Well,
Speaker 1: that's going to get at the end of the stream.
Speaker 1: Same with defication and other ways of losing DNA in
Speaker 1: the woods.
Speaker 3: If it's close enough, it'll wash into the stream.
Speaker 2: That's interesting because I'm not sure you're aware of who
Speaker 2: Glenn Thomas is, but he's a witness. He's most famous
Speaker 2: about his he saw sasquatches stacking rocks and tacking out
Speaker 2: rodents from this tayless slope up in Mountain Hood National Forest.
Speaker 2: But he had more than one siding. And another one
Speaker 2: of his sidings he had he saw a sasquatch and
Speaker 2: it basically took a dump in a river, right in
Speaker 2: the river. And I thought that was interesting because I
Speaker 2: know when I put my feet in water, i have
Speaker 2: to pee, you know, So there might be some sort
Speaker 2: of connection between those two things there. But if a
Speaker 2: sasquatch did defecate into a river, how long could one
Speaker 2: expect for that DNA material to stay in the river system.
Speaker 2: I mean, has there everybody studies already investigation into that question.
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean there
Speaker 1: aren't anybody.
Speaker 3: I'll say, this DNA will degrade in time.
Speaker 1: There are microbes that eat it and other things so
Speaker 1: and chemically as well. It can hydrolyze and and so on.
Speaker 1: So the sooner you get it the better. That's another
Speaker 1: unknown here. When you sample a water stream, you know
Speaker 1: how how recent was the DNA deposited, but it may
Speaker 1: affect whether you get any results or not.
Speaker 3: But yeah, defication, that would be excellent.
Speaker 1: And if you don't get the actual stool, then the
Speaker 1: water coming off it should have DNA in it, a
Speaker 1: lot of it.
Speaker 3: But you'll get DNA from everything he ate as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's the thing I think this hotel said.
Speaker 2: You have to collect the stools hable form, like the screen,
Speaker 2: the outside of it, because that's the part that would
Speaker 2: have scraped against the intestinal walls or something.
Speaker 1: And that's the part that would get dispersed in the
Speaker 1: water the easiest as well, or the quickest for sure.
Speaker 2: And of course the dispersion of the DNA material throughout
Speaker 2: the river system would take some time as well. If
Speaker 2: you're like three miles downstream, we wouldn't expect it to
Speaker 2: be instantaneous, but maybe a few days later.
Speaker 3: Perhaps.
Speaker 1: Now I understand there's some software that allows you to
Speaker 1: design your sampling procedures in a water shed based on
Speaker 1: I think things like water flow rates and so on,
Speaker 1: and typography and the topology of the network. And I
Speaker 1: don't know what other parameters are involved, but it's used
Speaker 1: by people interested in fish and if.
Speaker 3: They want to know the source of.
Speaker 1: The FIA shore where they breed, or this kind of question,
Speaker 1: they use this software.
Speaker 2: Another example of the interdisciplinary studies involved in bigfoot stuff
Speaker 2: is like hydrologists can participate in this as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely, because you know, I didn't do any extensive.
Speaker 3: Experimental design.
Speaker 1: I just knew that these bodies of water were near
Speaker 1: where sightings were and I just kind of randomly really
Speaker 1: selected locations. And obviously locations are important and timing. You know,
Speaker 1: things don't last forever, and so you probably have to
Speaker 1: take things over a period of time and make sure
Speaker 1: you don't miss something. And this was really a survey,
Speaker 1: and I'm developing my methodology for interpreting the results.
Speaker 3: But it's pretty obvious that more data.
Speaker 1: Will have to be collected to be to be very
Speaker 1: meticulous and complete.
Speaker 2: So that that sounds like that's your main focus at
Speaker 2: this point. Moving ahead, you're working with the e DNA
Speaker 2: studies with river systems and things like that. Is there
Speaker 2: anything else that you're working on that would our audience
Speaker 2: would be interested in?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: Quite.
Speaker 1: Frankly, this is my first field study. I'm not a
Speaker 1: field biologist by any means. I'm a naturalist and an observer.
Speaker 1: But so this this was a new experience, and obviously
Speaker 1: I've learned a few things that I might do differently.
Speaker 3: So but yes, at the moment, this is it.
Speaker 1: I'll have to see how this works out as to
Speaker 1: whether I want to do some more of this kind
Speaker 1: of work and who I might also encourage to do it,
Speaker 1: some other people that I would share some methodology with
Speaker 1: and hopefully they might look in some different places. And
Speaker 1: the ones you mentioned up there in Oregon near Portland
Speaker 1: and in Washington State sound like excellent sources of water
Speaker 1: born DNA to me.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah. I've literally had retired people from the
Speaker 2: Portland Water Department email me and say and they called
Speaker 2: the Bill Run water shed a Bigfoot preserve.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well I would. I would start there if I
Speaker 3: were going to.
Speaker 1: Get involved in this, and that sounds sounds great, and
Speaker 1: hopefully I'll have some methodology worked out. People complain that
Speaker 1: this kind of data environmental DNA takes too much time
Speaker 1: to sort through, and I think are doing it manually,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure what their focus or their objectives
Speaker 1: are always as to what they're looking for, a survey
Speaker 1: of everything that's there.
Speaker 3: Or some specific species or whatever.
Speaker 1: But I think I'll have some pretty good recommendations when
Speaker 1: I'm done with this, and some software that I hope
Speaker 1: will be easy enough to use.
Speaker 2: Well. Have you spoken to doctor Meldrum about his A
Speaker 2: DNA samples from the Olympic Project nests now.
Speaker 1: Not specifically, but I'm going to and soon because I
Speaker 1: would like to see if they did get any interesting
Speaker 1: DNA sequences that may be unusual, and I certainly would
Speaker 1: like to compare them to what I find that any
Speaker 1: unusual DNA sequences, So that's going to happen, and I
Speaker 1: was one of the funders of the project. Do not
Speaker 1: believe it was promised that has also been given to
Speaker 1: all of the funders, So I think I'm probably entitled
Speaker 1: to something, and I don't think it's been written up formally,
Speaker 1: has it?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. And I know Distel is
Speaker 2: the guy who ran the sequences, and uh, I guess
Speaker 2: they got fragmentary, fragmentary sequences and Distel said they are
Speaker 2: they seem to be human. This Hotel told me in
Speaker 2: a private conversation that he could tell me the ethnicity
Speaker 2: of the human based on what's going on. But I
Speaker 2: know doctor Meldrim has also been looking at other avenues
Speaker 2: with other geneticists whatever, gentlemen from UC Davis in particular,
Speaker 2: I believe saying that that maybe we're missing certain segments
Speaker 2: or something, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, all in this data is fragmentary in the sense
Speaker 1: that these are fragments of the d NA and the genome.
Speaker 1: You won't get a whole genome in one shot. It's
Speaker 1: all broken up, okay for the most part anyway, And
Speaker 1: so that's not unusual. But if he can tell ethnicity,
Speaker 1: then he must be doing a fairly complete mitochondrial DNA study,
Speaker 1: because if you're just doing a short region to identify
Speaker 1: whether it's a human or a bear or a beaver.
Speaker 1: You won't have enough information to say what the ethnicity
Speaker 1: is in most cases anyway.
Speaker 2: Well, see, maybe to reach out to doctor Destel and
Speaker 2: the doctor Jeff Milterman's.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's a good suggestion, and I intend to
Speaker 1: follow up on it. I need I do need to,
Speaker 1: and I hope I would have something to share with
Speaker 1: them as well.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
Speaker 4: We'll be right back after these messages.
Speaker 2: Oh, I think you've done a huge service to the
Speaker 2: community and the science of the of the big foot
Speaker 2: field as well by writing your book. And it was
Speaker 2: just a fantastic read, although I'll tell you a lot
Speaker 2: of it went over my head, man, But the nuggets
Speaker 2: that I took away from this, they said, oh well,
Speaker 2: perhaps better work could have been done, maybe a missed opportunity.
Speaker 2: But is it too late? Should we just write this off?
Speaker 2: Or is there something that we can get out of
Speaker 2: the Sasquatch genome project? Is there something of value that
Speaker 2: we can take away at this point?
Speaker 1: Well, melboul Ketchum claims that she has four terabytes of
Speaker 1: data and not all of.
Speaker 3: It appeared in the paper. If there's some more data there.
Speaker 1: There's possibly sequences that might match something different than a
Speaker 1: bear and a dog. So I mean, she's very reluctant
Speaker 1: to share any of that data. I've heard from other
Speaker 1: sources who ask for it. But I think, you know,
Speaker 1: if she opened up her raw data, not just the sequences,
Speaker 1: but the data that went behind them, I think some other.
Speaker 3: People might be able to look at it. Now.
Speaker 1: I know one geneticist who would like to get a
Speaker 1: hold of it and look for other things.
Speaker 2: So is that part our papers when they publish, like
Speaker 2: journal papers, usually completely transparent with their data and whatnot.
Speaker 2: Or is it just like I found this and they
Speaker 2: don't let other people try to replicate the results.
Speaker 1: Or most journals require you to submit in supplementary data
Speaker 1: because most of it is too extensive to go into
Speaker 1: a paper, which they try to limit to just the
Speaker 1: concise results and conclusions and some description of the method.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it should be available, the sequences and even
Speaker 1: the raw the raw data that leads to the sequences.
Speaker 1: Now I don't again, that was part of the publication,
Speaker 1: the dilemma that she had, I believe, and so yes,
Speaker 1: the reputable journals you should be able to reproduce their
Speaker 1: results from their raw data.
Speaker 2: That's why you publish it. I mean I'm not a scientist,
Speaker 2: of course, but that's literally why you published, like I
Speaker 2: found this, here's my data. You go do it too,
Speaker 2: and you're going to see that I'm right, and you're
Speaker 2: going to see that I'm wrong, in which case you
Speaker 2: take the criticism and you adjust things.
Speaker 1: Well, the best scientists have that attitude. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: all of them do, but the ones who really don't
Speaker 1: care about who did this first and who gets all
Speaker 1: the credit, who gets some of the credit, are very
Speaker 1: open about out their results and their raw data, and
Speaker 1: they welcome constructive criticism. And I certainly myself wouldn't want
Speaker 1: to have something out there in the literature that's wrong,
Speaker 1: it's proven to be wrong, I would join in with
Speaker 1: those who have proven it to be so and commend
Speaker 1: them for their efforts. You know, it's just a matter
Speaker 1: of ego. I guess I'm interested in the truth and
Speaker 1: I don't care if I find it or somebody else does,
Speaker 1: or how many mistakes I make along the way. But
Speaker 1: you know, you just that's my attitude. I think the
Speaker 1: better sidists all feel that way too, well.
Speaker 2: Let's hope that she does share all the raw data
Speaker 2: at some point, because if she's right, I say it
Speaker 2: all the time on this problem, this podcast, the truth
Speaker 2: can withstand the scrutiny. And if you don't share your data,
Speaker 2: that is functionally the same as not having data at all.
Speaker 2: It seems to me that all this stuff should just
Speaker 2: be out there for other people like yourself and other
Speaker 2: interested parties with other qualifications to look at and dissect.
Speaker 2: And again, if it's true, if it's right, it's gonna
Speaker 2: it'll withstand the scrutiny. It'll still be there being right
Speaker 2: after people are done looking at it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's very true. And so I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think we do need some new data. However, I'm
Speaker 1: not too optimistic about what you're gonna find in her data.
Speaker 1: I might, you know, I might be wrong. There could
Speaker 1: be some gems in there. But if I were starting
Speaker 1: out unless scratch, I think i'd try to get some
Speaker 1: of my own samples and try to get some some
Speaker 1: of my.
Speaker 2: Own new data, which is exactly what you're doing with
Speaker 2: the stream study.
Speaker 3: It sounds like, yes, that's that's what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: And I didn't, you know, I just did this this year,
Speaker 1: So I mean I spent eight years looking at other
Speaker 1: people's results and trying to learn from them, especially catch
Speaker 1: from results.
Speaker 2: All right, well, doctor Hart, I cannot thank you enough
Speaker 2: for coming on and talking about your studies and clarifying
Speaker 2: some of the things you've been delving into, and of
Speaker 2: course any of our listeners out there who want to
Speaker 2: listen or who want to check out this stuff to
Speaker 2: an extraordinary depth. By the way, far over my head.
Speaker 2: And I'm kind of a science nerd, a general science
Speaker 2: nerd in general, but this book, The Sasquatch Genome Project,
Speaker 2: a failed DNA study, is a fantastic book. Even though
Speaker 2: I don't understand a lot of the chemistry and what
Speaker 2: and the deep dives in here, there is a lot
Speaker 2: to take away out of this book. And I hope,
Speaker 2: I hope my listeners who are sincerely interested in digging
Speaker 2: deep into the science and learning a little bit about
Speaker 2: this stuff and they pick up this book and check
Speaker 2: it out. I don't think it's they're going to be
Speaker 2: disappointed at all. So, doctor Hart, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for sharing your knowledge and spending some time with me today.
Speaker 1: Well, it's been a pleasure of Cliff talking with you
Speaker 1: and getting some of your thoughts on these interesting subjects.
Speaker 1: I really thank you for having me on the program,
Speaker 1: and hopefully I can report some results, maybe justify another discussion.
Speaker 2: I'll keep my ear to the ground for your next
Speaker 2: round of interesting results. That's for sure. You are definitely
Speaker 2: on my radar now. I think you've done fantastic work.
Speaker 2: So thank you so much, doctor Hart.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right, folks, there you go again. Check out this book,
Speaker 2: Doctor Haskell Heart's book, The Sasquatch Genome Project, a failed
Speaker 2: DNA study. Doctor Meldrum did the forward in this thing,
Speaker 2: and it is a lot to chew on. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to lie to you like this is a book
Speaker 2: that is deep. So if you are a geneticist, if
Speaker 2: you are a chemist, if you are a biologist of
Speaker 2: any sort, you're gonna love this. You're gonna love this.
Speaker 2: But even if you're just a generalist science nerd, a
Speaker 2: citizen scientist like my self, you are going to enjoy
Speaker 2: this book. It kind of dispels a lot of the
Speaker 2: myth and rumor, et cetera with real hard numbers in science.
Speaker 2: Because everybody's heard about the everybody's heard about doctor Ketchum's study,
Speaker 2: and there's all sorts of rumors and people saying this
Speaker 2: about it and people saying that about it, and it's
Speaker 2: just the gossip machine rolls. You know. We're the Bigfoot community.
Speaker 3: That's what we do.
Speaker 2: We gossip about other bigfooter errs because so little bigfoot
Speaker 2: stuff happens. Well, this gets right past all that junk,
Speaker 2: that outer layer of conspiracy and weirdness that surrounds the
Speaker 2: Ketchum study. This gets past that, goes into the science,
Speaker 2: crunches the numbers and talks about methodology, and it just
Speaker 2: so much, so much is in this book. I cannot
Speaker 2: recommend it enough. If you are a Bigfoot nerd like
Speaker 2: me who's interested in science, get this book. I can't
Speaker 2: recommend it enough. And I don't get anything for it.
Speaker 2: Don't get me wrong, you didn't not sponsored or anything
Speaker 2: like that. I just am recommending this book because it
Speaker 2: this is fantastic. Yeah, and there you go, guys. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Bubo couldn't make it obligations or obligations. He's doing production
Speaker 2: work and that's just the way it is. Sometimes that's
Speaker 2: but that's what we have. Two hosts. Bobo does it.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I do it some other times and most of
Speaker 2: the time we're together, but every time you're here and
Speaker 2: we really really appreciate you listening and join the podcast.
Speaker 2: If you have questions or comments, you can email us.
Speaker 2: Go to Bigfoot and Beyond podcast dot com and push
Speaker 2: the contact button and don't forget about Once a month
Speaker 2: or so, Bobo and I answer your questions. So if
Speaker 2: you want to ask Bobo and I a question about
Speaker 2: anything at all, there are no questions that are off limits.
Speaker 2: You can again go to the website Bigfooted Beyond podcast
Speaker 2: dot com, push the contact button and ask us questions there.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for listening everyone, and as Bobo says,
Speaker 2: keep it squatchy. Thanks for listening to this week's episode
Speaker 2: of Bigfoot and Beyond. If you liked what you heard,
Speaker 2: please rate and review us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot
Speaker 2: and Beyond wherever you get your podcasts, and follow us
Speaker 2: on Facebook and Instagram at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You
Speaker 2: can find us on Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's
Speaker 2: an N in the middle, and tweet us your thoughts
Speaker 2: and questions with the hashtag Bigfoot and Beyond.