Speaker 1: You're listening to an airwave media podcast.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Monster Talk, the science show about monsters. As
Speaker 2: we record this episode, it's almost Christmas time and we've
Speaker 2: got a lengthy interview with one of the co hosts
Speaker 2: of the popular podcast, The Bigfoot Show, documentarian comedian Scott
Speaker 2: Harriet ben Radford and I have a long chat about
Speaker 2: Scott's thoughts on the field a Bigfoot study, his own
Speaker 2: Bigfoot sighting, and the relationship between skeptics and bigfoot proponents.
Speaker 2: I do want to address one thing first. I got
Speaker 2: a lot of mail requesting that we do an episode
Speaker 2: on the Crampus. I wish we had time to do
Speaker 2: that this year, but we were just too busy. I'd
Speaker 2: want to research the folklore, find an expert who could
Speaker 2: tell us about the history of the creature. There's so
Speaker 2: much to cover. It would be easier to do these
Speaker 2: shows if we could just ring up the monsters and
Speaker 2: talk to them, wouldn't it. I wonder what that would
Speaker 2: be like. Listeners have been crying out from Monster Talk
Speaker 2: to coverage of one of the most feared monsters of Europe,
Speaker 2: the demonic assistant to Santa Claus, known as the Crampus.
Speaker 2: Here in America, we get stories of benevolent Santa Claus
Speaker 2: bringing toys to all the good children and bad children
Speaker 2: at the worst are given a love of coal and
Speaker 2: left to puzzle out why Santa has such a terrible
Speaker 2: eco footprint. But in the shadow of Europe's Alps, there's
Speaker 2: another legend, a darker side to Christmas. There, as Santa
Speaker 2: comes with toys and treats for good children, he's accompanied
Speaker 2: by the frightening creature known as the Crampus, a terrifying
Speaker 2: demon bedecked in chains and bells who carries a sack
Speaker 2: and a whip. And where Santa gives toys, the Crampis
Speaker 2: gives lashes, and if that's not enough, the worst children
Speaker 2: are thrown into a sack and carried away. Joining us
Speaker 2: now on Monster Talk is the crampas.
Speaker 3: Christmas.
Speaker 2: Oh, hello, and welcome to Monster Talk. So you're the Crampus.
Speaker 2: How long have you been working with Santa Claus?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: Forever. I've been working these winter Solstice holidays since the
Speaker 3: people were first belged out from the Earth's room and
Speaker 3: came to live in the shadow of the mountains.
Speaker 2: Fascinating, So you actually pre date Santa Claus of.
Speaker 3: Course, he's only been famous since Fazi eighteen hundreds. It
Speaker 3: was natural for him to want to ride my coattails
Speaker 3: until he could establish himself.
Speaker 2: Huh. I have to say I didn't expect that. Does
Speaker 2: it bother you that Santa Claus has become more famous?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, no, not at all. In your
Speaker 3: America he's quite famous. But here in Europe, I'm involved
Speaker 3: in some very enjoyable festivals doing early December. I am
Speaker 3: a little more famous than him. Over here in Europe,
Speaker 3: I am a sort of like the uh it's a
Speaker 3: funky bunch to his moggy mark.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 3: Yes, the Funky Bunch is more famous than you're a
Speaker 3: ten in America. I don't know if you knew that.
Speaker 1: I did not.
Speaker 3: It's very it's it's true. Let me tell you a joke.
Speaker 3: You say, the Funky Bunch are coming to town. I
Speaker 3: think I am going to buy tickets. This is an
Speaker 3: old German joke.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm ready, The Funky Bunch are coming to town.
Speaker 2: I think I'll buy some tickets.
Speaker 3: You cannot, it's sold out.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, I don't understand German humor.
Speaker 3: It's very funny here in Germany. Anyway, that is a
Speaker 3: good fellow. But he never forgets where he came from.
Speaker 3: Without me and my VIPs and my chains, what would
Speaker 3: he be confusing? That's fun, My my punishments and my
Speaker 3: frightening aspects give give him some context.
Speaker 2: I see, do your festivals whip up a lot of
Speaker 2: Christmas enthusiasm?
Speaker 3: I do not like puns. I'd leather you didn't speak
Speaker 3: in such a vay. You'll see what I did there?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yes, very afraid.
Speaker 4: Of me a little bit.
Speaker 2: Okay, moving on. So you have a bag for the
Speaker 2: worst children.
Speaker 1: What do you do with that?
Speaker 3: Well, let me connect you. I have a sack.
Speaker 1: Mmmmm okay.
Speaker 3: I put the very verse children in the sack and
Speaker 3: drag them off to help, and I devour them alive.
Speaker 2: But that's terrible.
Speaker 3: Perhaps, But keep in mind that these are the very
Speaker 3: verse children. These are the children who disobeys their parents,
Speaker 3: don't put the toys away, don't help out around the house.
Speaker 3: You say, hey, pick up your skateboard, and they're like,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to do that, and then they give
Speaker 3: you a th You see, These kinds of children do
Speaker 3: not be missed.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, on that case, well tell me more about
Speaker 2: your festivals.
Speaker 3: Well, it's a usual thing. A men dress in furs,
Speaker 3: suits with fantastic long curved horns, and the march down
Speaker 3: the street with lips whipping spectators who gather around files
Speaker 3: drinking hot punch. There is smoke, the sounds of it
Speaker 3: spells chains. You know, it's dunny Christmasy.
Speaker 2: Wow, I mean, just wow. I tell you, I can't
Speaker 2: believe people don't do that here in America.
Speaker 3: Oh, but they do, they do. These festivals are becoming
Speaker 3: more and more popular every year. I look forward to
Speaker 3: a day when my power stretches across the fodders of
Speaker 3: the mean I mean to a Dave. And it's a
Speaker 3: true story of Christmas. It's spread all across the world.
Speaker 2: Ah okay, okay, Well, thanks for coming on to Monster
Speaker 2: Talk to talk about yourself, mister Crampus. One final question
Speaker 2: we'd like to ask all our guests, what's your favorite monster?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 3: I did not expect that question. I suppose it would
Speaker 3: have to be Is that a fat monster from the
Speaker 3: Ghost of Baston's.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, Slimer, I love that little green ghost.
Speaker 3: No no, no, no, no, no, Slimer, that's dynachroid.
Speaker 2: It's actually quite unlike anything we've ever seen before.
Speaker 5: A giant hairy creature party party mat in Luckness, a
Speaker 5: twenty four mile long bottomless lake in the highlands of Scotland,
Speaker 5: get a creature known as the Luckness Monster. MOREBSTT.
Speaker 2: Today we're talking with Scott Harriet. Let me tell you
Speaker 2: that I first saw Scott on tech TV a long
Speaker 2: time ago. I used to watch tach TV a lot
Speaker 2: before it disappeared. I occasionally would see you on the
Speaker 2: screen Savers and I want to say it was either
Speaker 2: the Screen Savers or Unscrewed where you came on and
Speaker 2: mentioned that you had a big foot documentary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think at that Yeah, at that time, I
Speaker 1: had done one called Squatching yep, that's the one at
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com okay, which also has by the way,
Speaker 1: Journey Towards Squatched Them, which was a mockumentary I made.
Speaker 1: I mean, as someone who does think that it's probable
Speaker 1: that these things exist, much like you guys on the
Speaker 1: other side of the fence. At times I get fed
Speaker 1: up with the guys who come in. I've had eighteen
Speaker 1: sightings and he lives in my SHD. You know. I
Speaker 1: just so I wanted to have a little fun with
Speaker 1: those guys who I felt gave the phenomena, you know,
Speaker 1: too much crack potism. So that's what Journey towards squatchrom is.
Speaker 1: Along with squatching it's a steal at nineteen ninety nine.
Speaker 2: We'll put a link in the show notes too. Oh awesome,
Speaker 2: Thanks guys, that's awesome and the reason what happened. Then
Speaker 2: later on in life, I started this Monster Talk podcast,
Speaker 2: and very early on some people suggested that we have
Speaker 2: one of you from the Bigfoot Show on to sort
Speaker 2: of talk about the show, and I didn't get around
Speaker 2: to it. And then earlier this year I started listening
Speaker 2: to the show and I thought, well, that's not a
Speaker 2: bad idea. That's how you got invited. So maybe you
Speaker 2: can tell us how did you get involved with Bigfoot
Speaker 2: in the first place.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's a good question. I was captured by one
Speaker 1: when I was three. Now, I think like a lot
Speaker 1: a lot of kids, a lot of kids in the sixties,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm fifty two. You know, there was the talk
Speaker 1: of the Patterson film, which, by the way, I think
Speaker 1: is in all strong probability of hoax. If you've listened
Speaker 1: to the if you if you listen to the big Foot. You.
Speaker 1: I hammer that home at nauseum. But I actually, if
Speaker 1: I could pinpointed a one thing, it was probably a book,
Speaker 1: one of John Green's book that my dad bought me
Speaker 1: called The Year of the Sasquatch, and I found just
Speaker 1: kind of John's I felt, you know, just documentation of these,
Speaker 1: you know, alleged encounters dating back into the eighteen hundreds
Speaker 1: in the Native American stories, and I found it compelling.
Speaker 1: And then I remember years later, I'd always been kind
Speaker 1: of interested in it for many different reasons, anthropologically, sociologically, psychotically,
Speaker 1: and I was curious. At one point there was a
Speaker 1: story on CNN in the mid eighties about a report
Speaker 1: in the Southern Sierra. I said, I have a big
Speaker 1: fun I wondered what's going on in that thing? And
Speaker 1: I was curious. I went to my science library at
Speaker 1: the university I had gone to, and I was just
Speaker 1: curious if there was any actual books on the phenomena,
Speaker 1: and there was Green's Sasquatch the Apes among Us, and
Speaker 1: that kind of blew me away. There's this five hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty five page book, and I read the whole
Speaker 1: thing and I thought, that's pretty that's pretty darn interesting.
Speaker 1: So kind of since then, I've been pretty hooked on it.
Speaker 1: As mentioned, Yeah, I leaned toward it, but like you guys,
Speaker 1: or any others of a skeptical bent, I would agree
Speaker 1: fully that the argument via strong physical evidence is weak
Speaker 1: at best. What compels me is something that happened to
Speaker 1: me in nineteen ninety two, along with the sheer volume
Speaker 1: of sightings dating back to the eighteen hundreds in the
Speaker 1: Pacific Northwest area. Whether or not they exist elsewhere, I
Speaker 1: don't know, or I yeah, I kind of. I've talked
Speaker 1: to some people who's allegedly at some encounters find them interesting,
Speaker 1: but having spent a lot of time in the Pacific
Speaker 1: Northwest British Columbia, Oregon, Washington, Northwest California, I'm and this
Speaker 1: is where the thing had happened to me in ninety two.
Speaker 1: I'm short of scientific verification. I'm pretty damn convinced that
Speaker 1: there's something to it. Good Night, that's our show.
Speaker 2: Thanks, all right, have one guys, Now, you saw something
Speaker 2: in nineteen nine two.
Speaker 4: What do you think you saw that?
Speaker 1: God? I meant, do you want me to do it?
Speaker 1: Because it's hard to kind of condense the story without
Speaker 1: begging questions, but I'll do my damnest. I was interested.
Speaker 1: There were there were some people who were investigating this
Speaker 1: phenomena in the early nineties, and I'm sure Ben knows
Speaker 1: about this, you know, with an advent of call blasting
Speaker 1: had coming on YouTube as well. You know, this idea
Speaker 1: that well, maybe if we blast gorilla cries or other
Speaker 1: higher primate cries into the wild, along with some purported
Speaker 1: sasquad screams, perhaps something would find it interesting to investigate.
Speaker 1: Something might answer black back blah blah blah. So I
Speaker 1: called a small town of Willow Creek in northwest California
Speaker 1: kind of known as an alleged Bigfoot area along with
Speaker 1: it not to mention, and oddly enough it's a uh
Speaker 1: you know, it has a lot of businesses with the
Speaker 1: name Bigfoot involved as well. And I talked to the
Speaker 1: lady at the at the information boot there, and I
Speaker 1: wanted to know if there were any mule or horse
Speaker 1: packers in the area that would be willing to take
Speaker 1: someone like myself back dump me off for a few
Speaker 1: weeks in some of these areas where there's been these
Speaker 1: alleged encounters, where I could do some of its experimentation,
Speaker 1: and she said, now, I don't know of anybody who
Speaker 1: does that. She goes, but it is weird that you're
Speaker 1: asking me about bigfoot, because I don't get a lot
Speaker 1: of bigfoot questions. And I go, why is that weird?
Speaker 1: And she says, well, this guy called here yesterday because
Speaker 1: he knew kind of the reputation of Willa Free, and
Speaker 1: he was very emotional, very bent out of shape, saying
Speaker 1: that his son and his son's friend had just come
Speaker 1: back out of the woods and had claimed to see
Speaker 1: this approximately six foot tall whitish, grayish, whitish manlike things
Speaker 1: staring at them and they were freaking out and blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. I was able to get in contact with
Speaker 1: the father, talked to him for about a half hour,
Speaker 1: and what I came away from that phone call was
Speaker 1: that I was fairly convinced of that the kids had
Speaker 1: probably seen something big, probably alive, that they couldn't explain
Speaker 1: whether it was bigfoot or not, but based on the description,
Speaker 1: it was meeting what the typical bigfoot description was. So
Speaker 1: I had a few days off, I drive up there,
Speaker 1: took a buddy of mine up with me, a skeptic
Speaker 1: I m had had, and we interviewed these kids, and
Speaker 1: we interviewed them separately, and was surprised to find, well,
Speaker 1: not surprised because I kind of felt there was maybe
Speaker 1: perhaps something to it, but their stories lined up. Really,
Speaker 1: there were no contradictions. They were saying in essence that
Speaker 1: they were looking for snakes. The twelve year old kid
Speaker 1: looked up and he said, about one hundred feet away,
Speaker 1: up on the bankment, in full view, not like lurking
Speaker 1: behind a tree or next. It was the only thing
Speaker 1: down around its knees, allegedly around its feet were ferns,
Speaker 1: and it was very muscular, they said. And it was
Speaker 1: like a man, but clearly not a man, and its
Speaker 1: only movement was a slight arm movement. And so you know,
Speaker 1: we were trying to trip the kids up when we interviewed,
Speaker 1: and they seemed very believable. I mean, they just seem
Speaker 1: like this kid's not lying, this other kid's not lyon
Speaker 1: didn't seem like they were lying. So that added another, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's kind of interesting. So have I lost you yet?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry? It built, it gets better and better, you think, no,
Speaker 1: you go ahead, okay, So so did I mention we
Speaker 1: were on poti at the time.
Speaker 4: No, no, that you didn't mention that. Okay, no, but
Speaker 4: we were the kid, you were right.
Speaker 1: So we went to where they said this thing was standing,
Speaker 1: and there were some interesting indentations where in the foliage there.
Speaker 1: But you know, unless you have you know, really definitive
Speaker 1: like toe prints, which would still not prove it was
Speaker 1: a big foot. Somebody could have hope something like that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot you can find in the forest that
Speaker 1: people could say, oh, that's a big when in fact
Speaker 1: we don't know what it is. But still they were
Speaker 1: pretty Both of these kids were compelling. So I had
Speaker 1: to go back home, back to La I kept in
Speaker 1: contact with the father about what, if anything, to do
Speaker 1: next as far as follow up. Now, the where this
Speaker 1: happened was right at the base of this very steep,
Speaker 1: gnarly densely vegetated hill that just goes up and up
Speaker 1: and up and up, and so we decided, look, if
Speaker 1: there's something to the kid's story you could tell from
Speaker 1: down below in the floor of this valley, you can
Speaker 1: look up and see where this old logging road still existed.
Speaker 1: And because the hill had been logged approximately about twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five years earlier, and all this underbrush had grown up.
Speaker 1: So we figured, look, if there's somebody to the kids story,
Speaker 1: perhaps there's some footprint evidence up on the old these
Speaker 1: old road or roads which hadn't probably been driven on
Speaker 1: in many, many years. So Darrel the father, finds out
Speaker 1: that this area that extends back, we find out there's
Speaker 1: actually some barbed wire, intermittent barbed wire at the base
Speaker 1: of the hill near where the kids said this thing
Speaker 1: was standing. And we found out this older couple owned
Speaker 1: this property that extended back for miles, very very wild,
Speaker 1: and so we decided we would go to them and
Speaker 1: ask them for permission and just tell them straight up
Speaker 1: what the kids had told us. So we go there,
Speaker 1: we tell the lady and she looks at us and
Speaker 1: she goes, oh, yeah, we know they're there, like matter
Speaker 1: of factly, like she's talking about a coffee table in
Speaker 1: front of her. So that was another hmm, okay, well
Speaker 1: have you ever seen one note we've lived here thirty
Speaker 1: five years. We have two friends, you're either your Hoopa
Speaker 1: Native Americans who said they each had a sighting a
Speaker 1: road siding at night, one crossing in front. So that
Speaker 1: was another okay, So that was kind of interesting. So well,
Speaker 1: we want to go up this hill and look on
Speaker 1: this road. Now, we didn't tell them when we were
Speaker 1: going to be going up. They said, you can go
Speaker 1: up anytime. All we ask is, you know, don't bring
Speaker 1: a ton of people, don't bring any firearms. But you're
Speaker 1: more very very cool country.
Speaker 4: I have a question.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you said they lived there for thirty to thirty
Speaker 6: five years, they had never seen it, but they yet
Speaker 6: they knew what they were there.
Speaker 4: How did they know what they were there if they'd
Speaker 4: never seen it?
Speaker 1: Well, I agree that stating in a in a definitive
Speaker 1: sense that they knew, but they felt. I mean she
Speaker 1: felt they were there because she found those two people credit.
Speaker 1: But I would agree there was there was no direct
Speaker 1: eyewitnessing from them. It was just that what she said
Speaker 1: I added another layer of credibility for me as someone
Speaker 1: you know. So, so we go up the hill and
Speaker 1: we started off there and it's it's a gnarly, very
Speaker 1: steep hill, and I bring my high eight camera. If
Speaker 1: you guys remember Hiate from the early nineties, and Darryl
Speaker 1: actually had a VHS camera where you actually load the
Speaker 1: VHS in the side of the of the cameras.
Speaker 4: Old school, old school, old.
Speaker 1: School hernia inducing. So we start up and I don't
Speaker 1: recall actually talking to Daryl about this. I'm sure he
Speaker 1: probably felt the same way. I know I did. We
Speaker 1: both felt or I felt, assuming he felt this way,
Speaker 1: that you know that we're not going to see anything.
Speaker 1: If you told me you saw a bear at Point
Speaker 1: A and I go back a few weeks later, probably
Speaker 1: not going to see the bear. I mean, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep I'm gonna be keeping an eye out because you know,
Speaker 1: I believe there was somebody said there was a bear.
Speaker 1: I'm going to keep an eye out. But so we're
Speaker 1: going up this hill and it's very as I mentioned
Speaker 1: it's it's it's thankfully very maltchie, so you could dig
Speaker 1: your feet in and huge ferns where you pull yourself,
Speaker 1: very rainforesting, and it takes us about an hour and
Speaker 1: a half two hours to get to the top. This's
Speaker 1: an apex actually, it's kind of several hills kind of
Speaker 1: contoured together, where there is this large I believe it's
Speaker 1: a Douglas fir, well over one hundred feet tall, and
Speaker 1: that was kind of our beacon as we headed up
Speaker 1: because the undergrowth of the stuff was really, really dense.
Speaker 1: So we get to this tree, and at that point
Speaker 1: the hill begins to level off a little bit, kind
Speaker 1: of starts a little bit of a ridge heading toward
Speaker 1: where we know these roads are. And about sixty feet
Speaker 1: past this tree, just getting ready to head into some
Speaker 1: really really dense vegetation, I notice about forty feet up
Speaker 1: ahead of me this darkness, which is low down, part
Speaker 1: of which is shadowing caused by a big old tree
Speaker 1: that had fallen, and the shadowing underneath it was there,
Speaker 1: so it just caught my eye relative to the greenery,
Speaker 1: and then I noticed in this darkness what appeared to
Speaker 1: be two pretty big brown eyes looking out of it
Speaker 1: at me. Now, the first thing I'm thinking, well, there's
Speaker 1: no real squatch alarm going on because it's low right,
Speaker 1: but whatever this is seems pretty big, and it just
Speaker 1: doesn't move for about thirty seconds, and then it starts
Speaker 1: to slowly sway back and forth, like really about maybe
Speaker 1: moving inch one way, an inch another way, So it's
Speaker 1: clearly an animal. It's moving. Videotape this and for ten
Speaker 1: minutes we're sitting there looking at this thing and trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what it is because it's back at
Speaker 1: shadowed you're really only getting the reflection off the eyes.
Speaker 1: You see little dap bits of light reflecting off what
Speaker 1: would be its face. I was pretty convinced, having done
Speaker 1: a lot of backpacking, after about a minute, pretty convinced
Speaker 1: it was not a bear. A bear would have been
Speaker 1: gone super fast. Bears don't check you out, especially bears
Speaker 1: northern California. It didn't have the eyest of a cougar,
Speaker 1: and yet it seems still pretty big, but again it's
Speaker 1: relatively low. So we're sitting there and I'm taping it,
Speaker 1: and we're, you know, just kind of how were we
Speaker 1: gonna do. We weren't really feeling scared or apprehensive at
Speaker 1: this at this point, so we just thought, well, what
Speaker 1: the hell. After about ten minutes, let's move toward this thing. Well,
Speaker 1: we take one, perhaps two steps toward this whatever it was,
Speaker 1: and God and or Brothman or the void is my witness,
Speaker 1: the eyes of this animal gave off. Coupled with what
Speaker 1: I think was a dilation of the eyes, this weird
Speaker 1: ass red glow, and I mean like there were two
Speaker 1: as though there were two lit cigarettes in the back
Speaker 1: of the head of this thing, and somebody was inhaling simultaneously.
Speaker 1: It was just this very reddish and it happened twice
Speaker 1: in about ten seconds, and.
Speaker 2: It was very odd and you, yeah, did you have
Speaker 2: a light on your camera?
Speaker 1: No, this was This was two thirty in the afternoon,
Speaker 1: filtered sunlight coming down through the canopy of largely rhododendron.
Speaker 1: It was fairly like. But again, whatever this was, it
Speaker 1: was shadowed underneath this tree. So but this red, I mean,
Speaker 1: it really did appear like bioluminescence. It really looked red.
Speaker 1: I mean, another example i'd give you know, when you're
Speaker 1: sitting in a darkened movie theater and you see how
Speaker 1: red the exit sign is about I'd say about sixty
Speaker 1: percent of that intensity. So it was really red. And
Speaker 1: it didn't it didn't look to me like when I've
Speaker 1: seen eyeshine from a deer on the road at night,
Speaker 1: or a dog or a cat. It wasn't like a glint.
Speaker 1: It was like sh and thankfully it didn't make that noise.
Speaker 1: But it happened twice, and then at that point the
Speaker 1: plausibility for me that this might in fact be one
Speaker 1: of these things increased somewhat substantially, based on the fact
Speaker 1: that people have rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly have
Speaker 1: reported this odd red eyeglowiated with these alleged animals. It's
Speaker 1: somewhat pervasive in the in the record of sightings, not
Speaker 1: tons of it. I would say, I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: fifteen twenty percent of sighting Some report this, especially people
Speaker 1: who have been close report this weird red eye glow,
Speaker 1: so that it was creepy enough. Whether this is bigfoot
Speaker 1: or not, it was creepy. It was just like, okay,
Speaker 1: let's stop. What are we going to do that? Well,
Speaker 1: we didn't want to go any farther because we did.
Speaker 1: What does the red mean? Is it pissed off? Is
Speaker 1: it scared? So I thought, well, if I go down
Speaker 1: to the right, like we're basically right next to each other, Daryl,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of stuff in between us and
Speaker 1: this thing whatever it is, but you could see it
Speaker 1: through an opening through the vegetation. I figured if we go,
Speaker 1: if I go to the right and Daryl goes to
Speaker 1: the left, perhaps whatever this thing is might think that
Speaker 1: we're trying to surround it and as a result, it
Speaker 1: might get up out of that log reveal itself. We
Speaker 1: get video when you find out what it is so
Speaker 1: I get about fifteen feet down to the right of Daryl. Darryl,
Speaker 1: as he told me later, tried to go left, but
Speaker 1: it was so dense, he said, it was like a
Speaker 1: wall there too much, So we actually actually think he
Speaker 1: was a little scared to He turned back to his
Speaker 1: right and started heading toward me. And again I'm approximately
Speaker 1: fifteen feet away from him when I hear him suddenly
Speaker 1: just kind of going huh, okay, excuse me now. And
Speaker 1: I look back at him and he's holding up his
Speaker 1: camera and he's obviously taping something, this time not down
Speaker 1: at the ground, but up in the air, and he's
Speaker 1: pointing with his finger. I can see him, and he's
Speaker 1: clearly shaken up. This stuff we were in. This vegetation
Speaker 1: was so thick that if you move three or four
Speaker 1: feet from your point A and you move to point B,
Speaker 1: you can't see what you just saw. So and again
Speaker 1: I'm roughly fifteen feet away from him, so I don't
Speaker 1: know what the helly it is he's seeing. I'm just
Speaker 1: trying to calm him down because he's pointing with his finger.
Speaker 1: Excuse me if I'm crying at this moment. It's right here.
Speaker 1: Blah blah, Blah says that he tapes her about thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: The camera goes limp in his hand, and then he
Speaker 1: starts crying. He looks at me and tears in his eyes.
Speaker 1: He's whispering. I've moved up a little closer to him,
Speaker 1: probably six feet, but he is not literally, thankfully, but
Speaker 1: he goes, it's right there. He's like, was it right?
Speaker 1: Standing up the butt. I'm go, what is I got?
Speaker 1: It's right, I got, you know, And he goes this
Speaker 1: thing or whatever, And now I'm getting scared, and I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to calm myself down, calm him down. And
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, okay, the rational side of my brain's going, well,
Speaker 1: he apparently just tapes something. We have no pepper spray,
Speaker 1: and we have no gun. We don't know what exactly
Speaker 1: it is. I have no idea what exactly is going
Speaker 1: on here, but he just taped something for about thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: Discretion being the better part of valor, Why don't we
Speaker 1: get the hell off this hill? So we start down
Speaker 1: the hill, we'd stop, we'd go down a bit. Stop listen,
Speaker 1: didn't hear anything? Come after stop, listen, come back. So
Speaker 1: I'm really anxious to see this videotape. Get get down
Speaker 1: to the bottom, pop the videotape in. Based on his reaction,
Speaker 1: I'm expecting to see something kind of latantly there. And
Speaker 1: if I recall correctly, I'm pretty close to the TV
Speaker 1: and I play it and I'm like, what the hell
Speaker 1: are you talking about?
Speaker 3: It?
Speaker 1: Look like there's a lot of foreground vegetation. There's foreground
Speaker 1: background vegetation, luckily a lot. It's kind of a still life.
Speaker 1: There was no wind on that on that hill. This
Speaker 1: will come into play in just a little bit why
Speaker 1: this was important. But it's just all these ferns and stuff,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, what the hell is he talking about it?
Speaker 1: I'm like, I watch it through, then I rewind it
Speaker 1: and I freeze it, and then I step back from
Speaker 1: the TV. I get about ten feet away from the TV,
Speaker 1: and I'm looking around and all of a sudden, I'm like,
Speaker 1: ohly crap. And I actually remember looking down to my
Speaker 1: rights and telling myself, be objective, be objective, be objective,
Speaker 1: don't roar shark this thing. Yes, we're investigating an alleged
Speaker 1: Sascott squad report. Yes I'm interested in this phenomena. Yes
Speaker 1: I think these things are probably true. That said be
Speaker 1: objective as possible. And I look back at this image
Speaker 1: and roughly I would say, thirty thirty five feet where
Speaker 1: he's pointing the camera, sticking out of the side of
Speaker 1: this huge rhododendron plant is what appears to be a
Speaker 1: huge ash of schwartz Enagrian mountain guerrillion whitish upper arm,
Speaker 1: just hanging out to the side.
Speaker 4: So you have you have, so you have video of this?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, there's you know in fact, then I would
Speaker 1: hate to say, you know, and it's available on squatching,
Speaker 1: but I will send you a free copy because I
Speaker 1: respect you or anyone who who you know applies the
Speaker 1: scientific method, which they always did, and by the way,
Speaker 1: scientifically as evidence, this is worthless, I think, because what
Speaker 1: can how can you prove it's a person as opposed
Speaker 1: to not a person? There's all this stuff, but I.
Speaker 2: Mean, right, how do we know it's not just a
Speaker 2: well armed roaded endum eactly?
Speaker 1: That is the best line I've ever heard pertaining to
Speaker 1: the rhododendron in this story. Anyway, Ben, I'll send you that.
Speaker 1: So so again I'm looking at it and again trying
Speaker 1: to analyze it. At the same time. It's like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: what does it look like? It looks you know, I'm
Speaker 1: like on a mountain gorilla or an orangutang. The deltoid
Speaker 1: muscle in the upper arm really bulges out, right, They
Speaker 1: kind of really stick out, and this object really sticks
Speaker 1: out in that shape. Our glasses down to kind of
Speaker 1: a bicep tricept to If you're looking at the point
Speaker 1: of view of the camera, you see like a darkness
Speaker 1: which should be kind of like just below the armpit,
Speaker 1: and then the beginning of what would be the torso
Speaker 1: same color as the arm, but then it's the thick
Speaker 1: rhododendron bush. Now, this arm, if in fact it's an arm,
Speaker 1: is not hanging all the way down. It's bent at
Speaker 1: the elbow. So what you have for sure in this
Speaker 1: is an object. You can clearly see the object. I
Speaker 1: would pretty could pretty much estimate it's about two and
Speaker 1: a half three feet long and probably you know, seven
Speaker 1: eight inches wide, And again with this general shape of
Speaker 1: like an upper arm. So having seen that on there
Speaker 1: and trying to apply reason as much as possible, going okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's test this. If that is an upper arm, then
Speaker 1: it would stand a reason that if you go from
Speaker 1: the tip of that purported shoulder up into the left
Speaker 1: about forty five degrees. There should be something, however, obscured,
Speaker 1: resembling a head, correct, especially if you would think so. Well,
Speaker 1: you go up and behind two or three at approximately
Speaker 1: six feet tall I would estimate, given Daryl's height, behind
Speaker 1: two thin rhododendron branches, there is this chrome domey same
Speaker 1: color as the upper arm, head shaped object right about
Speaker 1: where the brow is, which appears to be protruding. And again,
Speaker 1: I mean you'll have to see it for yourself, Ben
Speaker 1: and again obviously, and anybody listening don't take my word
Speaker 1: for it. And that's not a plug for the film.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying from where the brow ridge is down
Speaker 1: around the face, it's black. I mean, it's just black.
Speaker 1: So you've got this very chrome domie and it's contiguous
Speaker 1: with this alleged upper arm. You can't see the connectings
Speaker 1: if there is a connecting shoulder or you know, a
Speaker 1: soulder blade or whatever, because the plant is there. So
Speaker 1: then we look, okay, so that I'm looking at the video, Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: there is this thing that looks like ahead same color
Speaker 1: as the arm. Now I'm looking for movement. And this
Speaker 1: is what I alluded to earlier about the plants not moving,
Speaker 1: is that I'm gonna be focusing when I watched this again,
Speaker 1: just focus on this alleged head and see if it moves,
Speaker 1: because when you watch the video, you can see none
Speaker 1: of the plants move at all, because it's just still.
Speaker 1: It's a still day. You play the tape and twice
Speaker 1: in that actually I think it's twenty nine seconds, this
Speaker 1: purported head tilts out not only once, but goes back again,
Speaker 1: holds for eight seconds, and then tilts out again. And
Speaker 1: now I'm understanding a little better Daryl's responses because when
Speaker 1: I was standing at fifteen three when he says like,
Speaker 1: huh uh, I mean he's like reacting to something, And
Speaker 1: now coupled with seeing the video, now I'm understanding what
Speaker 1: he was saying so or at least what was happening
Speaker 1: with the movement. I got interviewed on Sightings about this video,
Speaker 1: and I remember when they were looking at the video.
Speaker 1: The guy the initially he was some German dude, and
Speaker 1: he goes, he goes, well, you know, if the camera
Speaker 1: is moving a bit, it can give the illusion that
Speaker 1: the object is moving. And I knew what he was
Speaker 1: talking about, because if the camera's moving, it can give
Speaker 1: that illusion that an object is moving in the foreground
Speaker 1: or in the background. And he was also like ultra skeptical,
Speaker 1: and he's right, it can't happen. But just from a
Speaker 1: common sense point of view, when you walk it, watch it,
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear whatever that is is moving by itself.
Speaker 1: But he had some kind of software where he something
Speaker 1: where you use the edge of the video and they
Speaker 1: could run parameters to determine whether or not that object
Speaker 1: is moving by himself. So he runs this test and
Speaker 1: I remember he had to be somewhat defeated. He as well,
Speaker 1: whatever it is, it's moving byself, So not that it
Speaker 1: means it's bigfoot or anything, but it heever, it was right, yeah,
Speaker 1: whatever was. So we went back the next day with
Speaker 1: two other people. There was where the eyes were, There
Speaker 1: was nothing there. The next day would be the case
Speaker 1: with any animal. But we went about twenty feet i
Speaker 1: would say, past where the shoulder head object was through
Speaker 1: extremely thick, literally on our hands and knees, vegetation, and
Speaker 1: we found what was clearly some type of net. What
Speaker 1: made it, I don't know, but it was clearly matted down.
Speaker 1: It was approximately twenty five feet long fifteen feet wide.
Speaker 1: We crawled into it, looked around. It reminded me quite
Speaker 1: a bit of like gorilla's nests had that kind of
Speaker 1: look to it, and again top of the hill of
Speaker 1: prime defensive positions, kind of where mountain gorillas hang out.
Speaker 1: And as you sit in it, you could see at
Speaker 1: the bottom of it where everything had been matted down.
Speaker 3: Some of the.
Speaker 1: Vegetation appeared to be was disturbed, like in this wall
Speaker 1: of vegetation. It kind of circular, as though something or
Speaker 1: things had been crawling in and out. And if you
Speaker 1: went straight through that hole and down slightly to the right,
Speaker 1: that's where the eyes were. And if you went out
Speaker 1: straight out of it and then slightly to the left,
Speaker 1: that's where the shoulder head was. We went up close
Speaker 1: to where the log was, and in my opinion, having
Speaker 1: gotten close to that log, being right up on it,
Speaker 1: I don't think what Daryl got on video the shoulder
Speaker 1: head thing, which was again approximately six feet tall, could
Speaker 1: have fit down there. It just didn't. It seemed too
Speaker 1: small of an area. But something about the size of
Speaker 1: a chimp could have fit down there. So it's great.
Speaker 1: I mean I know it's great. This must write the
Speaker 1: skeptic's crazy when you say somebody has a sighting. But honestly,
Speaker 1: having been there, considered all other possibilities, I honestly think
Speaker 1: in all strong probability that there were not one but
Speaker 1: two of these things there that day.
Speaker 6: And so ye, if it was a nest, then presumably
Speaker 6: there would be maybe some hair scattered y.
Speaker 4: Any well, yeah, there was.
Speaker 1: In fact, the day we went up, there was some
Speaker 1: hair actually found and there was a guy. And again
Speaker 1: you can check this and I don't know, as you know,
Speaker 1: if he's considered a crackpot or not. But Darryl and
Speaker 1: I got interviewed on the Ancient Mystery Show, which was
Speaker 1: they did a show on Bigfoot. This was like ninety four.
Speaker 1: I think it came out.
Speaker 2: I have that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, if you look on it. Well, there's two
Speaker 1: things about it. I want to say. The first thing
Speaker 1: is the hairs that we found that day were given
Speaker 1: to a guy, a gentleman named Sterling Bunell. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you know him. Apparently he's a primatologist and
Speaker 1: he lives somewhere in the Bay area. I did verify
Speaker 1: that there is a Sterling Bunell, who was a primatologist
Speaker 1: who lives in San Francisco. Whether he again he's a
Speaker 1: crackpot or not, I don't know.
Speaker 4: But he.
Speaker 1: Gave a report on these hairs and this is what
Speaker 1: he said. And again it was a morphological analysis. It
Speaker 1: wasn't it wasn't genetics. So again, scientifically, it's just this
Speaker 1: one guy's opinion. He said that the internal structure of
Speaker 1: the hair was very similar to samples of chimpanzee and
Speaker 1: mountain gorilla hairs that he had. He said, similar yet distinguishable.
Speaker 1: So again, for whatever that's worth, there's that guy's opinion.
Speaker 2: Were these hairs that you collected or someone else.
Speaker 1: I found? I think one, maybe two. Daryl found a
Speaker 1: few of them, and I don't remember how many of
Speaker 1: it were. It was got nineteen Jesus Christ nineteen years ago.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, the reason I ask is because you know, there
Speaker 2: was a time when you had to have the root
Speaker 2: of the hair to do any DNA analysis, and apparently
Speaker 2: now you can use hair and not have the root
Speaker 2: and still get fifty percent of the time successful DNA extraction.
Speaker 1: Dude, you should seriously post that on Brave the Bigfoot
Speaker 1: Forms or wherever they're and go on there because that, wow,
Speaker 1: that's not my understanding is that or up until this
Speaker 1: point that it had to be roots preserved and alcohol
Speaker 1: and even if you have the root, it was going
Speaker 1: to be you know, dicey at best. But that's that's awesome,
Speaker 1: especially with a lot of the claims that come out
Speaker 1: when people say they have and is that what the
Speaker 1: the ketchum DNA folks are using? No, I don't know.
Speaker 2: That was one of the things we wanted to ask
Speaker 2: you about it or what you had heard, because the
Speaker 2: very little is leaking out of there.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I'm kind of on board with you
Speaker 1: guys on this. There's too much.
Speaker 6: Actually, Scott, before we go, why don't we not all
Speaker 6: our listeners know about the whole catching DNA stuff. So
Speaker 6: if you can give us a little concise background on
Speaker 6: it and then talk to us about what do you
Speaker 6: think it's so?
Speaker 1: I hope I do it justice. I remember we talked
Speaker 1: about it on the show. It's basically there. There's this
Speaker 1: film project called the Ericsson Project, correct, and there's this
Speaker 1: guy he claims to have had some you know, film
Speaker 1: or video of a sasquatch, you know, face up close
Speaker 1: somewhere I think Kentucky, somewhere back east a bit, and
Speaker 1: it's been talked about, it's been kind of hyped, it's
Speaker 1: gonna come out. It's come out. And then Melba Ketchum,
Speaker 1: who's a lady who has done been involved to a
Speaker 1: degree with DNA analysis, got involved with this project and
Speaker 1: supposedly they've been sending out you know, you know, sending
Speaker 1: it to labs and get it, getting stuff done, and
Speaker 1: she keeps hinting that, oh, it's gonna be it's big,
Speaker 1: and which I think, well, why don't you wait until
Speaker 1: the test is done before you know?
Speaker 2: You know, there were a lot of red flags though,
Speaker 2: I mean, oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, tons of them. Yeah. So I mean it kind
Speaker 1: of gives those interested in this phenomena a little hope
Speaker 1: at times. But just the amount of time it was
Speaker 1: dragged out, and also how definitive she was that she
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, wait for the results, don't say
Speaker 1: you know that they're going to be And so yeah,
Speaker 1: my feeling is probably nothing's going to come of it. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry if I didn't wrap up the story that
Speaker 1: was pretty much that I have been back up that
Speaker 1: hill several times. Since I had purchased game cams. And
Speaker 1: again this is like in the years preceeding that nothing
Speaker 1: beyond what happened that day. I think it was of
Speaker 1: interest where I've always when I've gone back and again,
Speaker 1: I went back probably about seven times, the last time
Speaker 1: about ten years ago. What I was interested in seeing
Speaker 1: is whether there was any reuse of the nesting area,
Speaker 1: and there was no evidence to suggest.
Speaker 4: That that was the case.
Speaker 1: In fact, that when I went back up, which is
Speaker 1: actually documented in squatching with a fellow researcher up there,
Speaker 1: you could see vegetation actually sprouting up fairly well through
Speaker 1: the old matted down vegetation.
Speaker 2: So you went back, did you measure the rhodendron bush?
Speaker 1: No? I didn't. I didn't. That is is just a yeah,
Speaker 1: pure pure quasi educated guests on how far it was
Speaker 1: away from the camera having stood there and again, I'd
Speaker 1: say proximately thirty feet and given the slope you know
Speaker 1: of the hill. And if I mean again, I probably
Speaker 1: looked at that videotape over a thousand times. And dude,
Speaker 1: I am open to other theories. Open you know, someone said,
Speaker 1: well what if you what if they? I mean, I
Speaker 1: know for a fact I saw an animal whose eyes
Speaker 1: glowed red. You cannot convince me otherwise. I was there,
Speaker 1: there was red glow, but that's all I saw were
Speaker 1: the actual eyes.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Just for the record, I'm a skeptic, but I mean
Speaker 2: there's that's actually fairly common with mammals to have eye shine,
Speaker 2: and several of them have read. So that doesn't shock me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, really, like like really red, I've never read red.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can send you some pictures from Yeah, there's
Speaker 2: a it's it's got a name. I forget what it's called.
Speaker 2: Hold a second, it's it's not really important. Well, rabbit.
Speaker 2: I mean the name, the Latin name was taped them
Speaker 2: something less see them, I guess I shine is what
Speaker 2: it's called. But the but different species have different colors.
Speaker 2: There's owls that have read. I've seen some mammals that
Speaker 2: have read. Dogs, some types of squirrels.
Speaker 1: I would rule out. I would rule out owls simply
Speaker 1: due to the size of what I saw.
Speaker 2: Sure, Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying I'm not saying that,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm not trying to say it was an
Speaker 2: hours grow I'm just saying it doesn't shock me that
Speaker 2: you saw eyeshine. That's all right, Oh yeah, yeah, dude, dude.
Speaker 1: It's still to this day that was the creepiest thing
Speaker 1: of the whole thing. And it wasn't like a quick glint.
Speaker 1: That's what was weird it really, And again I think
Speaker 1: it was in association having researches after this happened, you know,
Speaker 1: learning that you know, when mammals get scared, their eyes dilate.
Speaker 1: It's a common thing to let more light in apparently
Speaker 1: for you know, a defense mechanism. So when this was happening,
Speaker 1: I mean it was like red, I mean red red,
Speaker 1: and again two thirty in the afternoon, filtered sunlight. And
Speaker 1: then you know, I had to then get to take
Speaker 1: into into consideration, well could it have been while you
Speaker 1: were removing your apparent movement? And I don't think so,
Speaker 1: because it happened while I was taking a step. Then
Speaker 1: I stopped, and then the second event of it happened.
Speaker 1: In other words, it was like the eye dilated red,
Speaker 1: and then it went back down again diminished, and then
Speaker 1: it it opened up again and it was red. And I.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know, I'm not a biologist, but like,
Speaker 2: but the the the as I understand it, that the
Speaker 2: red eye shine or all those eye shines are for
Speaker 2: animals that are supposed to be able to see in
Speaker 2: the dark. Uh, their eyes, the backs of their eyes
Speaker 2: kind of worke like mirrors and and collect the light
Speaker 2: better than ours do. Right, And so when you see that,
Speaker 2: you're always seeing a reflection of light sources that are available.
Speaker 2: As far as I know, there's no mechanism for any
Speaker 2: species that would cause the eyes themselves to be bioluminescent, right, exactly.
Speaker 1: That. Well, that's why I said it appeared bioluminous, And
Speaker 1: I mean relative to other bits of eyeshine that I
Speaker 1: that I've witnessed in my life, you know, driving on
Speaker 1: the road or seeing something at night last night with
Speaker 1: other animals. Uh it Yeah, it was just whatever it was,
Speaker 1: it was pretty creepy. And and again non glinty, I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: you see that glint and this was like it was
Speaker 1: like and again what came in mind again because I
Speaker 1: mentioned it in the big Foot phenomena, is that you
Speaker 1: do get these people who said they've seen these things.
Speaker 1: I mean not just people who said they've or I
Speaker 1: saw something. And then a red eagle like it was
Speaker 1: standing right there fully in front of them, and its
Speaker 1: eyes gave off this weird red glow either at night
Speaker 1: or game. Does that prove anything? No, But at least
Speaker 1: there are those eyewitness accounts. How valid or invalid they
Speaker 1: are to compare it to?
Speaker 6: Well, let me ask you, so the uh, how how
Speaker 6: long was it? How long were you on the property
Speaker 6: before you saw this?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 1: I would say it was roughly an hour and a
Speaker 1: half to two hours. Again, getting up that hill was
Speaker 1: a real trial and error thing because we we it
Speaker 1: was a really steep hill and you go off. We
Speaker 1: remember we kind of tried to take it. It's almost
Speaker 1: like imagine a cone, okay, like an upside down cone.
Speaker 4: That's kind of what the hill was like.
Speaker 1: So you've got this, it kind of curves around, so
Speaker 1: let's try it over to the left, and it was
Speaker 1: literally too steep over to the left, And then we
Speaker 1: went over to the right and it was too dense.
Speaker 1: We didn't have anything like a machete or anything, so
Speaker 1: we just had to kind of weave our way up
Speaker 1: and trying to be quiet in case anything was going
Speaker 1: to But again we were really thinking that we're just
Speaker 1: trying to get to the roads to look for.
Speaker 4: Possibly for evidence.
Speaker 6: I guess, yeah, I guess one thing that that sort
Speaker 6: of sort of surprises me is that is that you
Speaker 6: know that these these people can live on the property
Speaker 6: for thirty or thirty five years and never see.
Speaker 4: It, and you're on there for an hour and a
Speaker 4: half and you find one.
Speaker 1: Right, but this is where but this property and I
Speaker 1: didn't say it was right next to theirs. This is
Speaker 1: property that extended for miles they lived. I was just
Speaker 1: saying they lived approximately three to four miles. As the
Speaker 1: crow flies away, this was the edge of it.
Speaker 6: But they're still in the area. I mean three miles
Speaker 6: for an animal, you know, ranges, that's not much.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say this too. I don't know how
Speaker 1: many of those have actually gone up woul it'd be
Speaker 1: steep narley hills. I would bet neither of the husband
Speaker 1: or wife ever went up one of these hills. And
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm saying, if these things exist, they're really smart.
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of them, and they're very wary.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're just going to be like strolling
Speaker 1: through people's you know, backyards. Well, you know, the best
Speaker 1: thing is, if you're ever up there, I totally recommend
Speaker 1: and tell you exactly where this hill is to give
Speaker 1: a little better idea of just how dense and steep
Speaker 1: it is. It was. I remember as we started up
Speaker 1: the hill, I was saying, God, you know. And another
Speaker 1: thing with this is as we went up, there was
Speaker 1: no evidence anybody else had ever been up the sill,
Speaker 1: I mean recently, there was no there was no litter,
Speaker 1: there was no human footprints there. It was just it's
Speaker 1: just like, what a pain of the ass to go
Speaker 1: up this thing. But again, the reason we were going
Speaker 1: up was because allegedly two kids at the base of
Speaker 1: the sill a few weeks later I supposedly seen one
Speaker 1: of these sings.
Speaker 4: So, you know, well, it's interesting.
Speaker 6: Let me fill up on that because you sort of
Speaker 6: brought up an interesting point about about about sightings, because
Speaker 6: there seems to be a sort of profound contradiction in
Speaker 6: a lot of the bigfoot literature and the proponents.
Speaker 4: On one hand, they.
Speaker 6: Say that that bigfoot are very rare, and they're very shy,
Speaker 6: and they're almost never seen, they're very elusive, and they
Speaker 6: travel at night, and they're nocturnal and and this and that,
Speaker 6: and so that they use that as a reason why
Speaker 6: there are so few sightings. But on the other hand,
Speaker 6: if you look at it, they're actually reported in in
Speaker 6: in uh, They're reported all over the place. They're reported
Speaker 6: in you know, all throughout North America. They're imported in
Speaker 6: virtually every state, I think, so that maybe Hawaii and
Speaker 6: there may be one there. They're reported in Pennsylvania, they're
Speaker 6: reported in New Jersey. So on one hand, you know,
Speaker 6: the argument is, well, these things are very lusive, that's
Speaker 6: why they're rarely seen. But on the other hand, then
Speaker 6: you have to explain why are they regularly seen and photograph?
Speaker 1: Well, well, see, actually, I think and if you listen
Speaker 1: to that Bigfoot show who we last recorded together, I
Speaker 1: actually a lot of skeptical arguments I think have a
Speaker 1: lot of that validity. But that particular argument you just made,
Speaker 1: I think is actually one of the weakest. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you why I think it is.
Speaker 6: Well, I wasn't. I wasn't I wasn't making an argument.
Speaker 6: I I was just trying to understand the contradiction.
Speaker 1: Well, no, well, I just think this. I think that Well, well,
Speaker 1: people say there's a bunch of I and I said
Speaker 1: this at the beginning of the broadcast, is that or
Speaker 1: the podcast Rather that I think there's a healthy. If
Speaker 1: not a majority of sightings are misinterpretations, hallucinations or pure bs,
Speaker 1: that would not surprise me at all. But to say,
Speaker 1: if if that, let's say, like I mentioned earlier, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure whether or not or whether I believe or
Speaker 1: it's worthy of further investigation in areas of the east
Speaker 1: to further that, because if there's a lot of sightings elsewhere,
Speaker 1: therefore it's it's an either or proposition. Why is it
Speaker 1: impossible that there could be a lot of actually valid
Speaker 1: sightings that say, in the Pacific northwest and heavy heavy
Speaker 1: bullet quotient in the southeast. That's the cultural reasons. Why
Speaker 1: why is that impossible?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: That's the one percent argument where you get a lot
Speaker 2: in ghost hunting that ninety nine percent of them are crapped,
Speaker 2: and then there's one percent that are mysterious and real
Speaker 2: and worth investigating. And I don't know, I mean, the
Speaker 2: the the thing is like you've got this scale of
Speaker 2: people who are let's say one hundred percent credulous regarding
Speaker 2: Bigfoot and then very skeptical regarding Bigfoot, and the people
Speaker 2: who clicked data. Let's just say the BFRO for example,
Speaker 2: they have they had their database of sightings and they
Speaker 2: classify them by it was ABC and D if I
Speaker 2: remember correctly, So you know, most of them are not
Speaker 2: your class A. I saw a big foot, it was Harry,
Speaker 2: It was five feet away and I got a good
Speaker 2: look at it. You know, the majority of them are
Speaker 2: I saw something fur in the woods, or I heard
Speaker 2: something right, you know, and or I remember the thing
Speaker 2: that happened to me when I was a kid, and
Speaker 2: all those things. You know, maybe they may be true
Speaker 2: to those people, but that doesn't make them particularly compelling.
Speaker 1: Dude, I completely agree with you. I think the BFRO well,
Speaker 1: I've known Matt for many years, Matt Moneymaker, the who
Speaker 1: in really a lot of ways is the bfr O,
Speaker 1: because any decision that's made goes through Matt and all that.
Speaker 1: And I think Matt is a genuine believer, but he's
Speaker 1: got such a big dose of hype in his soul.
Speaker 1: For I think he takes the route of what by
Speaker 1: whatever means possible or the end justifies the means. And
Speaker 1: I think that's horrific. Not only is it wrong, it's
Speaker 1: also completely anti scientific. Yes, everything does count, how can you,
Speaker 1: I mean, every one of their freaking expeditions, someone oh,
Speaker 1: we heard knocking, we heard there were rocks thrown at us.
Speaker 1: I mean, you you start with the assumption that there
Speaker 1: are some of these things, the odds of the astronomical,
Speaker 1: that every one of these things, every one of these
Speaker 1: expeditions would would have something like this happened. So you know,
Speaker 1: we share a general belief in it. But the science applied,
Speaker 1: I think in the BFO and then the the Goal,
Speaker 1: the only scientific group investigated it. I mean, it's so funny.
Speaker 1: I mean, they have to be joking. But you know,
Speaker 1: if you've got someone like Bobo and your team, you've
Speaker 1: got to be taken seriously, right.
Speaker 2: H Yeah, I think because he is the living Bigfoot scale.
Speaker 1: So can I ask you guys a quick question? Sure?
Speaker 1: As as skeptics. So, I mean, when you hear someone like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know, Jane Goodall say that she thinks these
Speaker 1: things probably exist, what do you say to that?
Speaker 2: Well, now you will be amazed when I tell you
Speaker 2: that I'm sure that they exist.
Speaker 4: You are, yeah?
Speaker 1: Did you always have this belief that they're that they
Speaker 1: that they exist?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. Oh,
Speaker 2: actually I love that quote she gave. But She also
Speaker 2: goes on to say that she hopes they exist. I mean,
Speaker 2: but that that'sither she believes or not. Doesn't put a
Speaker 2: body on the slab.
Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely, I'm just saying as someone as as someone
Speaker 1: who is I think rightly deemed an expert in primatology.
Speaker 1: And she comes out, in fact her first words, if
Speaker 1: you remember, which was actually very unscientific in that NPR interview,
Speaker 1: she goes, I'm sure that they exist, and then you
Speaker 1: could almost hear the wheels in her head. Wait a minute, All,
Speaker 1: I just admitted I think there's something to this phenomena,
Speaker 1: and then she backpedaled to a position of probability.
Speaker 6: But oh, go ahead, No, I was just saying, I mean,
Speaker 6: I I'm frankly not that impressed with that quote for
Speaker 6: a couple reasons. Number one, again, if you if you
Speaker 6: begin with the premise that you're sure they exist, then okay,
Speaker 6: I mean you, you're welcome to your opinion. The disconnect
Speaker 6: that I see is that Bigfoot is not known to exist,
Speaker 6: It's not even known to be a primate. I don't
Speaker 6: question doctor Goodall's expertise and her knowledge in primates and
Speaker 6: little and guerrillas. I would question her knowledge and expertise
Speaker 6: in bigfoot research, and I witnessed testimony and psychology and
Speaker 6: all the things that go into it.
Speaker 2: I would say that I know she doesn't believe in them.
Speaker 2: And here's why, because she's still in Africa looking at gorillas.
Speaker 1: She's like seventy two.
Speaker 2: In the United States, and she knew it for real,
Speaker 2: she'd be there looking at them.
Speaker 1: I mean, seriously, that's that's an assumption. Come on, man,
Speaker 1: She's got all these other things shell but here's a
Speaker 1: who knows how secretive, how smart higher primates are, and
Speaker 1: she probably is gone. In fact, she says in the interview,
Speaker 1: she's interviewed Native Americans, not speaking from her perspective anyway,
Speaker 1: not from a mythological point of view, but from other
Speaker 1: people who've heard the streams, have had alleged direct encounter.
Speaker 1: And if you go to those areas, she at all
Speaker 1: because I am her agent, Apparently she knows how relatively
Speaker 1: easy it would be for these things to remain undetective.
Speaker 1: Not that that that you know, we can just go
Speaker 1: in and oh, you know, you hear people go, I
Speaker 1: want to be satellite to be seeing them. And I mean,
Speaker 1: these are just such lame arguments you know, like it.
Speaker 1: It somewhat surprises me somewhat that a body hasn't been
Speaker 1: found yet, but not to the point where it overrides
Speaker 1: the sheer volume of eyewitness accounts. I think there's I
Speaker 1: think there's too many to ignore it, and and finally,
Speaker 1: I have one living in my basement.
Speaker 6: So I just wanted to go, well, I again, I
Speaker 6: guess to my mind that the issue is that, you know,
Speaker 6: if if Bigfoot were known to be a primate, then
Speaker 6: a primatologist opinion on that is relevant. Bigfoot is not
Speaker 6: known to be a prime.
Speaker 1: But ben if you take the vast majority, the vast,
Speaker 1: if not all accounts, clearly, if these things exist, it's
Speaker 1: a primate. Based on the descriptions. It's up it's upright,
Speaker 1: it's covered in hair, it's manlike. Hence primate. Why would
Speaker 1: you think it would be something else if it exists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're only taking the part that fits the primate.
Speaker 2: There's other descriptions that have them being to get out
Speaker 2: of a spaceship. Okay, right, well right, I'm just saying,
Speaker 2: you get you're picking and choosing the descriptions that match
Speaker 2: the primates, and then give me hold on.
Speaker 1: Give me aspects Bigfoot sidings that are you know, generally
Speaker 1: occur in Bigfoot sidings that are non private.
Speaker 6: Well, there's a variety of them. But the question that
Speaker 6: the point, the statement that I made was that Bigfoot
Speaker 6: is not known to be a primate.
Speaker 1: Do you just where you didn't answer my question? Give
Speaker 1: me give me a couple of we're trying to you.
Speaker 4: Never answered my question.
Speaker 1: What was your question?
Speaker 4: My question was?
Speaker 6: I mean again the statement that you objected to what
Speaker 6: I said was that Bigfoot is not known to be
Speaker 6: a primate. As far as I know, that's a factual statement.
Speaker 6: Do you agree or disagree?
Speaker 1: Well, it's not no to be, but based on a descriptions,
Speaker 1: it stands the reason that it's probably a primate because
Speaker 1: it needs descriptions of a primate.
Speaker 6: I mean, that's fine, I mean, I I don't I
Speaker 6: don't you know, I'm I'm not going to dispute that,
Speaker 6: uh that many descriptions would suggest that it might be
Speaker 6: a primate.
Speaker 4: That that's not the question.
Speaker 6: The question is is there a necessary link between a
Speaker 6: a primatologist opinion about Bigfoot and Bigfoot?
Speaker 4: I see the same thing. Well, let let me let
Speaker 4: me give you an example. I see the same thing.
Speaker 6: And for example, ghost research where people tell me, well,
Speaker 6: you know ghosts or ghosts, can you know they can
Speaker 6: matimplate lest manetic.
Speaker 4: Fields because ghosts are energy? And my question is who
Speaker 4: told you ghosts or energy?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 6: What what facts are you pointing to that you know
Speaker 6: for a fact that ghosts are energy? And the answer
Speaker 6: is there is no. And so if so, if you're gonna,
Speaker 6: if you're going to assert some cert some some certainty
Speaker 6: that Bigfoot is a primate, then my question to you
Speaker 6: is how do you know? And if you if you
Speaker 6: just want to say I don't know, it's speculation, then
Speaker 6: that's fine.
Speaker 4: I'll I'll agree with you.
Speaker 2: I think we've been if I could sum up for
Speaker 2: ben if you correct me if I'm wrong. But I
Speaker 2: think you're saying it's kind of like saying dragons are reptiles. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they look at the reptiles, but we don't really know
Speaker 2: they're real animals. So it really doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Okay, So when back in the eighteen hundreds or whatever,
Speaker 1: when people were reporting these man like beings on the
Speaker 1: on the folk the volcanoes of Rwanda, and they were
Speaker 1: describing them a primatology shouldn't have looked at that, right,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have even considered it.
Speaker 2: No, No, you should look. I'm all for looking. I
Speaker 2: absolutely am for looking.
Speaker 1: We all agree on that. Yeah, right, So we just
Speaker 1: differ on I think we know what we're different.
Speaker 2: I think we differ on certainty spectacle that.
Speaker 1: I get paid for being comedic about it.
Speaker 2: Do you actually get paid for that? That's awesome?
Speaker 4: We don't get paid either, YEA, Like, what are you
Speaker 4: talking about that?
Speaker 1: I wish?
Speaker 6: I think no, But but I guess my point was
Speaker 6: that was that if we're gonna have these discussions, and
Speaker 6: we're gonna have these debates, and we're if we're going
Speaker 6: to move move forward towards understanding these things, we need
Speaker 6: to be very clear about what things were saying are
Speaker 6: facts and what things we're saying are actually speculation and theory.
Speaker 6: And as long as long as everybody is on the
Speaker 6: same page, and as long as everyone admits, because I
Speaker 6: can tell you how often you know, well, they found a.
Speaker 4: Big foot hair, what do you mean they found it?
Speaker 4: They did not find a big foot hair. They found
Speaker 4: a hair that someone claimed was a bigfoot. That is
Speaker 4: not the same as claim we found a bigfoot hair.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I'm just saying that it's back to the
Speaker 1: good old thing. If you're going to investigate an animal
Speaker 1: that possibly exists and the vast, if not all, of
Speaker 1: the side of the characteristics attributed to it fit a
Speaker 1: certain type of animal, and then you which clearly I
Speaker 1: mean in this case, points to a primate. I mean
Speaker 1: it's if, if speculatively, then when someone who is in
Speaker 1: that field, who is an expert, which I think you
Speaker 1: would agree Jane Goodall is and she says they probably exist,
Speaker 1: I'm just curious what you guys thought about.
Speaker 4: It, and you've I think she's welcome to her opinion,
Speaker 4: and that's fine.
Speaker 2: She she does say in the end that she maybe
Speaker 2: they don't exist, but she wants them to, right.
Speaker 1: That's true. She did say that too, but she but
Speaker 1: in the body of what she says, it's clear that
Speaker 1: she thinks they probably.
Speaker 5: Oh it is.
Speaker 2: It is clear that she's read a lot about them,
Speaker 2: and what she's read has been compelling to her.
Speaker 6: I would I would, I would actually be interested to
Speaker 6: find out what of these skeptical arguments she's read. I
Speaker 6: don't doubt that she's heard of bigfoot, and I don't
Speaker 6: doubt that she knows something about it. I would I
Speaker 6: would suggest you that probably I and Blake and you
Speaker 6: and probably your listeners have probably read more about bigfoot
Speaker 6: than she has.
Speaker 4: Bet I could be wrong.
Speaker 6: I could be wrong, but my guess is that that
Speaker 6: she doesn't spend her time researching bigfoot in evidence and reports,
Speaker 6: but would also.
Speaker 1: Standard reason she's also been in areas where these things
Speaker 1: allegedly exist a hell of a lot more than any
Speaker 1: of us have, and is therefore in a better position
Speaker 1: to glean whether or not the probability of such things
Speaker 1: existing without being found by us could be well.
Speaker 2: I would say that even if she came out and
Speaker 2: said she saw a bigfoot, it's still you know, that's
Speaker 2: an anecdote and it's an argument.
Speaker 1: You no, that's true. I mean, I would agree. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: we are totally as far as look part.
Speaker 4: And I don't want to get caught up in this.
Speaker 2: I really called you to talk about the Bigfoot show.
Speaker 4: Let's talk about bones and bodies show man.
Speaker 1: I don't know, could we have five people on it
Speaker 1: once or one of you guys should come on the
Speaker 1: Bigfoot show man. I think that would be would be
Speaker 1: awesome because there is I mean where we I think
Speaker 1: really strongly agree on a lot of points. Is that
Speaker 1: there is just so much horrible science in relation to
Speaker 1: this phenomena. It's a lot of fun. There's so many
Speaker 1: different dimensions to Bigfoot. There's the goofy kitchy aspect, there
Speaker 1: is the anthropological, there's the mythological, and it just so
Speaker 1: easily stuff you know TV shows that are just friggin
Speaker 1: I mean, finding Bigfoot. I mean it's just it's it's
Speaker 1: just laughable. So I anyway, I'm sorry, I'm rambling. It's okay, Well,
Speaker 1: let me.
Speaker 6: Let me ask you something I've I've been I've been
Speaker 6: wondering for a while now, and this is this is
Speaker 6: a it's sort of philosophical argument, but it's also a
Speaker 6: very very very germane to Bigfoot, and that is that
Speaker 6: the quality of the photographic evidence and the very evidence
Speaker 6: for Bigfoot has not gotten any better. These days, everybody
Speaker 6: has a five megapixel HD camera in their pockets with
Speaker 6: their iPhones, and at no time in history have so
Speaker 6: many people had so had high quality cameras on them
Speaker 6: virtually all the time. And and if you look at
Speaker 6: the history photography over the past decades, uh photographs of
Speaker 6: everything just about everything have gotten better. Photographs of sunsets,
Speaker 6: of of people, of animals, of the earth. There, all
Speaker 6: of those things that the the objective quality of the
Speaker 6: photographs and the information in those photographs has dramatically improved
Speaker 6: in the last twenty thirty forty fifty years. The sole
Speaker 6: exceptions are things such as bigfoot. The quality of bigfoot
Speaker 6: photographs and evidence has has not improved, as is glaringly
Speaker 6: not improved. Certainly, certainly, you know if they're still pointing
Speaker 6: to the Patterson Gimlin film from nineteen sixty seven, back
Speaker 6: when Lyndon Johnson was president.
Speaker 4: So I'm trying to figure out why, why is that?
Speaker 3: Why?
Speaker 6: Why in the world would it be that if these
Speaker 6: if these creatures are out there and they're really seeing,
Speaker 6: you know, on a very regular basis, depanging where you are.
Speaker 6: And again you can say some of them are you
Speaker 6: mistakes or hoax that that's fine. But but assuming that
Speaker 6: these creatures actually are out there, why in the world
Speaker 6: would it be that that bigfoot are one of the
Speaker 6: very few things in the entire world for which the
Speaker 6: quality of photographs of them does not improve.
Speaker 1: Well. First of all, though technology exits or improves via
Speaker 1: camera if an animal is relatively small in nature secretive
Speaker 1: to begin with, if it's that doesn't mean you're necessarily
Speaker 1: going to be getting better pictures of it.
Speaker 4: I mean I would disagree.
Speaker 6: I would challenge you to find me to name me
Speaker 6: a single animal that is known to humans for which
Speaker 6: the quality of the photographs have not improved.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but that's like yeah, because they know they
Speaker 1: exist and they found the ways to get close to them.
Speaker 1: I mean that these things exist, I think it's safe
Speaker 1: to stay based on observations of them. I mean, I
Speaker 1: personally think that these things are more proto human, therefore
Speaker 1: very smart, small in number. I kind of agree somewhat
Speaker 1: with Krantz's speculation that old sway that if for every
Speaker 1: hundred bears whose brains are about the size of water walnut,
Speaker 1: maybe a little bigger, there's probably one of these things,
Speaker 1: if not less than that. So we're talking about something
Speaker 1: which also may and again it's anything to do with bigfoot.
Speaker 1: Apart from hard physical evidence, it's going to be speculative obviously,
Speaker 1: Although I would disagree with you on anecdotal evidence. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is evidence, it is the weakkeest, but the load
Speaker 1: of it, I think anyway, Sorry, is this a clean show?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 6: No, no, no, I didn't actually say anything about anecdotal evidence.
Speaker 6: I'm just trying to figure out what your explanation is
Speaker 6: for why the photographic evidence for Bigfoot has.
Speaker 1: Not But it also assumes is though. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're walking around, no matter how good the camera is,
Speaker 1: to get it to shoot, to be ready when you actually,
Speaker 1: let's say, see something that's incredibly rare, probably on average
Speaker 1: for your average person, takes at least ten seconds at least.
Speaker 1: People aren't walking around with headcams and they don't have
Speaker 1: them mounted, although there are those things that have the
Speaker 1: infrared stuff on the car, although that still wouldn't hold
Speaker 1: up as far as evidence, because if they exist, they're
Speaker 1: very obviously bipedal, and how could you say it's not
Speaker 1: a guy in a suit, So they're wary. If they're
Speaker 1: if they're real, they're very wary, don't hang along around
Speaker 1: for a long time. So I just assume somebody can
Speaker 1: get one out take a picture. And even if they did,
Speaker 1: I think we'd still agree photographic evidence is not going
Speaker 1: to be verification. Like you guys said earlier in the show,
Speaker 1: it's body or a part of body, or strong DNA.
Speaker 6: Right, No, I I I wouldn't disagree that the you know,
Speaker 6: I would never suggest that a photograph of Bigfoot is
Speaker 6: going to be hard evidence. I'm just But the fact
Speaker 6: of the matter is that you can point to dozens,
Speaker 6: if not hundreds of alleged Bigfoot photographs, and again, they
Speaker 6: don't improve over time. They have not gotten any better,
Speaker 6: despite advances in technology, despite more people having cameras on them.
Speaker 4: You name it. So again, I'm I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 4: I'm not trying to I'm not trying to badger you,
Speaker 4: but I answer.
Speaker 1: I just want to answer. I Actually, I think I
Speaker 1: think it's safe to say that again, well, we would
Speaker 1: agree that a percentage I think probably you think a
Speaker 1: lot higher percentage than me, But we both say it's
Speaker 1: a fair statement that a large percentage of sightings or misinterpretation, hoax,
Speaker 1: perhaps even hallucination. So let's say these things are out there,
Speaker 1: a small percentage of a smaller percentage of these things
Speaker 1: are let's assume actual. So someone where would they actually
Speaker 1: then see them? Well, I think, based on personal experience
Speaker 1: and having been in these places, a lot of it's
Speaker 1: going to be in harder to reach places. The ones
Speaker 1: that tend to be well, I saw them there, I
Speaker 1: saw them. You know, they might cross a road at night.
Speaker 1: In fact, according to Green's book, that's the most common
Speaker 1: is that is the one crossing a road at night.
Speaker 1: But who's got their camera? However good it is ready
Speaker 1: to roll at that point. These things don't hang around.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're not like what you know. Again, if
Speaker 1: it's true, they're not sitting around waiting for the photo
Speaker 1: to be taken. Maybe there's maybe there's a genetic basis
Speaker 1: why they're so elusive in regards to us. I mean
Speaker 1: I would, in fact go ahead.
Speaker 6: I'm not disputing that they can be elusive and whatever else.
Speaker 6: I'm just saying that all other factors being equal, whether
Speaker 6: it's you know, in twenty eleven or nineteen seventy four,
Speaker 6: people are still hiking in the wilderness, people are still
Speaker 6: driving on freeways, that all other factors being equal, you
Speaker 6: would expect it's logical to assume that the quality of
Speaker 6: the photographs and video evidence would dramatically improve, if not
Speaker 6: improve somewhat, And yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
Speaker 1: That's all right, but it's still kind of a paradox though,
Speaker 1: because what does it matter since it's not going to
Speaker 1: be it's not going to be worth the evidence anyway.
Speaker 6: But logically whether or not it would be considered definitive
Speaker 6: evidence is not relevant to whether or not there should
Speaker 6: be increasingly good photographs.
Speaker 1: Oh, you can see a lot of them. To go
Speaker 1: to YouTube. There's tons of shots of Bigfoot on there.
Speaker 4: Maybe it obviously hopes, is what right?
Speaker 1: I mean bet, it's almost like Okay, let's say, like tomorrow,
Speaker 1: a guy with a totally strong HD camera got one.
Speaker 1: Let's say he got one on camera and it, unbeknownst
Speaker 1: to us because we wouldn't be able to verify it anyway,
Speaker 1: was actually a sasquatch and it was shown to you.
Speaker 1: What would be your response, Well, it's only a photograph.
Speaker 1: It's not proof.
Speaker 4: No no, no, no, no no no.
Speaker 6: In fact, that's that's not true at all. It would
Speaker 6: depend on the photograph. I mean, I would I would
Speaker 6: love to find Oh absolutely, I.
Speaker 1: Would you I don't. I don't see how any pure
Speaker 1: reviewed group would take a still photograph as verification that
Speaker 1: these animals exist.
Speaker 6: No, My point is that I would not reject a
Speaker 6: photograph at all. I would, I would, I would love
Speaker 6: to see any and all evidence that people bring forth.
Speaker 4: Whether it's photographs, I don't care. I want to see
Speaker 4: the evidence.
Speaker 1: So what would well hold on? What would be then
Speaker 1: a still photograph? What would have to be the characteristics
Speaker 1: of the still photograph that you could conclusively deduced was
Speaker 1: not photoshopped that would serve as strong evidence that bigfoot exists.
Speaker 4: I'm not following your question.
Speaker 1: Well, you're saying that you wouldn't rule out a photograph,
Speaker 1: So I'm asking you what are the characteristics that would
Speaker 1: have to be in that photograph that would be strong
Speaker 1: evidence for you that it's a big foot?
Speaker 4: Oh well, well I couldn't.
Speaker 6: I couldn't certainly couldn't prove that it's a big foot
Speaker 6: as opposed to something else. So that the question would be,
Speaker 6: you know, is it a photograph of ann known animal?
Speaker 6: What are the other you know, what are some of
Speaker 6: the other photographs taken the series? Is their forensic evidence
Speaker 6: that we can go to?
Speaker 4: Is it clear? Is it another blob squadch?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 6: Can we see actual details? I mean, this is the
Speaker 6: problem is that is it? These These are exactly the
Speaker 6: sorts of photographs and videos that are not emerging, and
Speaker 6: they they have never emerged, and this is this is
Speaker 6: one of the problems.
Speaker 1: Well, I I, well, I don't know. I kind of
Speaker 1: get your point, and I but I don't think it's
Speaker 1: that I don't know. I don't think it's because it's
Speaker 1: not gonna ultimately matter. The only thing I think that
Speaker 1: could because especially with Hollywood costuming today CG capabilities photoshopping.
Speaker 1: To me, the only bit of video that I think
Speaker 1: that could actually make a really strong impact in the
Speaker 1: scientific community, and again assuming they could rule out manipulation
Speaker 1: of the video, would be if somehow you had a
Speaker 1: stationary camera and this object, which was clearly meant the
Speaker 1: average description of what people reporting as being a big foot,
Speaker 1: you could and have to be a stationary camera to
Speaker 1: deduce that it moved from point A to point B
Speaker 1: at a speed which humans have not been able to
Speaker 1: do yet.
Speaker 6: Well, there's actually well, there's actually another thing, which is size.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 6: One of the big red flags to me for the
Speaker 6: Patterson Gimlan film is that the bigfoot or guy in Issu,
Speaker 6: depending on which position you take, is human size. Now,
Speaker 6: but hold on here, if if if it were clear
Speaker 6: and it could be determined that that bigfoot is twelve
Speaker 6: or fourteen feet high. That to me would be again
Speaker 6: this thing you could rule that it wasn't photoshopped. That
Speaker 6: to me is very very compelling evidence that is is
Speaker 6: in fact a bigfoot or certainly something that people are
Speaker 6: calling hi bigfoot. So there is to answer your question,
Speaker 6: there is definitely some criterion that I would apply to
Speaker 6: bigfoot photos and videos if they can be authenticated, that
Speaker 6: that would definitely point that direction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, but I would agree with you too as
Speaker 1: far as the corroborative, like if there was this although
Speaker 1: it gets like the whole like for example, the Patterson
Speaker 1: film stuff, people talk about these these measurements, well, you know,
Speaker 1: and they're basing it. There was no tape measure there.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a lap. So when they're using these, well
Speaker 1: Bob Gimlin says it was one hundred feet away. They
Speaker 1: use that, and then they deduce that it's like seven
Speaker 1: feet three and it's just it's it's it's not, I
Speaker 1: mean it's not it could be one hundred feet away,
Speaker 1: but it's it's guesswork. There was no measuring tape out.
Speaker 1: I think Daigling does a great job in Bigfoot Exposed
Speaker 1: making that argument and again, it goes personally as someone
Speaker 1: who works with video and filmed, just that as far
Speaker 1: as being proof, it's never going to get the job on.
Speaker 1: And then to add even an otter fact, I'm actually
Speaker 1: against killing one. So I'm in a quandary here. Dammit,
Speaker 1: we need to find it.
Speaker 2: What do you think the most compelling evidence for bigfoot
Speaker 2: is currently currently to me.
Speaker 1: Is the sheer volume of the sidings, historical sidings and
Speaker 1: not going back to like Grendel and stuff in the
Speaker 1: Pacific Northwest. I find people I've talked to, the compellingness
Speaker 1: of them, the amount of footprints, although I'm fairly certain
Speaker 1: a good majority of those could in fact be faked.
Speaker 1: It's just I don't find a parallel phenomena. And again
Speaker 1: it's not something I don't put it in the same
Speaker 1: Roman's ghosts because we're dealing with something that's either part
Speaker 1: of another dimension or I think what we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: if it exists, is simply an unclassified primate. And when
Speaker 1: you take the areas supposedly they live in the amount
Speaker 1: of sidings. Having been up there, having talked the witnesses
Speaker 1: and the personal experience I had, I lean toward it strongly. Existing,
Speaker 1: probably existing. I do leave over the possible possibility that
Speaker 1: it's all whoy, but I I find that a lot
Speaker 1: less probable, so that that's interesting.
Speaker 6: So so you're saying that the the most compelling evidence
Speaker 6: that you see for Brikfoot is the sidings, right, it's
Speaker 6: the volume of sidings. Okay, now what about what happened
Speaker 6: to me combined? Okay, all right, that's fine. So one
Speaker 6: thing that I find interesting about sidings, as as you know,
Speaker 6: as a I think you know from some of my stuff,
Speaker 6: is that you know I'm part of partly from my
Speaker 6: background in psychology, but also just from doing this a lot,
Speaker 6: is that I'm I'm not dis impressed.
Speaker 4: With with a lot of sightings. Theres a lot of
Speaker 4: people are you'redd, but but but.
Speaker 2: Here, but here.
Speaker 6: Here's what I find interesting is that if you look
Speaker 6: at sidings from an evidentiary point of view, that is,
Speaker 6: if if you look at what you know, what, what
Speaker 6: do we know about Bigfoot? Well the answer is we
Speaker 6: we do not know anything definitively about big anyway. But
Speaker 6: that being said, if you look at the evidentiary history
Speaker 6: of sightings in terms of what value has have historically
Speaker 6: have sightings given us what you find, and you might disagree,
Speaker 6: and I will ask about that is the answer is zero.
Speaker 6: One bigfoot sighting on some level is as good as
Speaker 6: a dozen or one hundred or a thousand big foot sightings.
Speaker 6: Because if you're simply talking about someone reporting and experience,
Speaker 6: I saw something, I saw something weird, I saw something
Speaker 6: I couldn't explain whatever else. I'm not saying that's true
Speaker 6: or not true, but I'm just saying that from an
Speaker 6: investigating point of view. You know, when I do these investigations,
Speaker 6: whether it's you know, big you know, whether it's Cuba
Speaker 6: Coabra sidings or ghost sightings or Bigfoot sightings or lake
Speaker 6: monster sidings. At the end of the day, to my mind,
Speaker 6: in my investigations, they're only useful insofar as they lead
Speaker 6: to other evidence. You know, I saw bigfoot, and you
Speaker 6: know where did you see it?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 6: I saw it here and look there's there's a track.
Speaker 6: But but the the the quality of sightings that that
Speaker 6: I've seen is is is incredibly poor and and frankly
Speaker 6: universally poor. And so my question is is how how
Speaker 6: do you reconcile that? I mean, if if you're considering
Speaker 6: the volume of sightings as being the most compelling part
Speaker 6: of bigfoot evidence. Well then then then what what what
Speaker 6: what have these what have these sightings proven to us?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 4: What have these sightings demonstrated?
Speaker 1: Well, they haven't proven anything. I mean I think we
Speaker 1: we we agree with that, but it's the not just
Speaker 1: the sheer volume, but also people I've talked to directly
Speaker 1: that I find it hard to believe that they were
Speaker 1: misinterpreting something. Someone a guy uh In, for example, in
Speaker 1: western Pennsylvania, along with his wife, who struck me as
Speaker 1: incredibly sane, no reason to be as me, that they
Speaker 1: saw one of these things literally within four feet of them.
Speaker 1: It was just compelling. I mean, it's obvious. I agree,
Speaker 1: it's not. It's not verification, uh scientific verification, but you know,
Speaker 1: I mean again, like I want to throw in with
Speaker 1: this as well. I mean, the discovery of higher primates
Speaker 1: has always been a slow process. This doesn't obviously mean
Speaker 1: there is a sasquatch or such things as sasquatch, But
Speaker 1: it's not like, well they first heard stories about orangetic
Speaker 1: yeah right, wild metaborneal bullshit blah blah blah. Took a
Speaker 1: long time. Same with mountain grillas until one jackass shot one.
Speaker 1: So it's I think we're talking about. I mean, when
Speaker 1: you're talking about the type of animal based on the descriptions,
Speaker 1: it doesn't surprise me this could go on for years
Speaker 1: and not be verified if in.
Speaker 6: Fact, and it's gone on for decades in fact, I mean,
Speaker 6: that's and that's that's when the.
Speaker 1: Story, the stories of mountain gerrillas went on for a
Speaker 1: couple of hundred years before there were stories about that,
Speaker 1: long before there was verification.
Speaker 6: Well right, except for the fact that the lowland mountain
Speaker 6: guerrillas in Rwanda and South Africa are very different than
Speaker 6: tall bipedal creatures north of that.
Speaker 1: You said, we don't know anything about it. How do
Speaker 1: you know they're that much different? Aha? No, I know.
Speaker 6: The point that I'm making is that is that the
Speaker 6: circumstances you're talking, you're comparing, you know, an animal that
Speaker 6: was you know in Central Africa, you know, one hundred
Speaker 6: and fifty two hundred years ago or longer, depending on
Speaker 6: you know, when you want to start your age of
Speaker 6: exploration to an animal that is allegedly living in twenty eleven,
Speaker 6: you know, in the Pacific Northwest. These are very very
Speaker 6: different circumstances.
Speaker 1: They're not. I would totally disagree with that. There's a
Speaker 1: hunt over one hundred and fifty thousand square miles of
Speaker 1: forested land in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. There's
Speaker 1: over one hundred and thirty five thousand miles of inland
Speaker 1: beaches that area. I really if you've never been up there,
Speaker 1: I assure you've been on some expeditions. But I talked
Speaker 1: to a I don't recall his name. I talked to
Speaker 1: a Canadian primatologist once at a zoo at the Calgary
Speaker 1: zo and I said, Okay, here's a hypothetical. You're a
Speaker 1: mad scientist and you're able to clone mountain girls, and
Speaker 1: again assuming for them that a mountain gorilla and a
Speaker 1: sasquatch or somewhat similar. Harry, we know gorillas exist. People
Speaker 1: are describing these things which are bipedal or whatever. But
Speaker 1: just as give me a little room here, and you
Speaker 1: clone the thousands of these a thousand of them, and
Speaker 1: then you parachuted them in safely in various areas of
Speaker 1: the Pacific Northwest. They were able to survive it. How
Speaker 1: often would you see them? And his response was, oh God,
Speaker 1: you'd hardly ever see them. You might find a footprint
Speaker 1: every once in a while, but they're super smart, they're
Speaker 1: super reclusive in relation to human beings, and it could
Speaker 1: go on for a long long time before there was verification.
Speaker 1: And I just want to throw this in there too,
Speaker 1: is I don't know if you've heard this before, but
Speaker 1: I think it's a good argument on the pro side,
Speaker 1: as people, we were to find bodies lying around. Well,
Speaker 1: George Shaler in the sixties, head of the World Wildlife Fund,
Speaker 1: actually witnessed two mountain gorillas covering a dead mountain gorilla
Speaker 1: with vegetation, so the possibility and we know Neanderthals buried
Speaker 1: their dead, so if we are talking about a higher prime,
Speaker 1: perhaps a proto human, it's not that big of a
Speaker 1: stretch to suggest they might conceal their.
Speaker 4: Dead, right. Yeah, I guess again, I don't want to
Speaker 4: be a dead horse about it. I guess.
Speaker 6: I guess that I'm just slightly surprised or beat a
Speaker 6: dead big foot about it.
Speaker 4: But I guess.
Speaker 6: But I mean, how how is it that I'm trying
Speaker 6: to reconcile? I mean, if if if we all acknowledge
Speaker 6: and you admit that eyewitness reports have essentially zero eventuary value.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't not there the law. I would agree with
Speaker 1: you that they're the lowest four, but they are evidence.
Speaker 1: If if people didn't listen, well hold on, if that
Speaker 1: people didn't listen to stories before Mountain guerrillas discovered, they
Speaker 1: never would have been discovered. Maybe that would have been
Speaker 1: a better thing.
Speaker 6: I don't know, no, no, no, no, he I think
Speaker 6: you you're confusingly you you've talked about it. You this
Speaker 6: is that that's actually the second time that you sort
Speaker 6: of suggested that that skeptics are saying that we shouldn't
Speaker 6: listen to them. I have never ever suggested. I don't
Speaker 6: think Blake has either that anyone should ignore eyewitness reports.
Speaker 4: No one is saying that, but.
Speaker 1: None of that. But because there's no physical evidence, so
Speaker 1: it's like, it's like, well, no, no.
Speaker 6: What what I'm trying to reconcile is that is that
Speaker 6: you said that you consider that to be to be
Speaker 6: the most compelling type of evidence, which is fine, that's
Speaker 6: that's fine, But I'm just saying that Wait.
Speaker 1: I also said coupled with my own experience, which was
Speaker 1: that's fine.
Speaker 6: But I'm just trying to figure out again, given the
Speaker 6: fact that that you know, I witnessed reports and sightings,
Speaker 6: to the best of my knowledge, have never led to
Speaker 6: any you know, any known fact about Bigfoot?
Speaker 4: Where? Why why is it so compelling? Is it just
Speaker 4: because the volume of or well, I think.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's uh, there's nothing really to reconcile, I
Speaker 1: would say for me, because it sounds like you're just
Speaker 1: too damned patient.
Speaker 4: Ben, Yes, I am damn it, you're damn it.
Speaker 1: I mean it's good to have what results? Is uh it? Again? People?
Speaker 1: What not show? What are people saying? You've got a
Speaker 1: lot a lot of people saying they've seen primate like creatures.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the history of primate discovery. It's a
Speaker 1: slow process. I don't buy the argument we're so technologically
Speaker 1: advanced we'd be finding the net doesn't apply to this
Speaker 1: particular scenario because dense vegetation and steep slopes are in
Speaker 1: unbelievable abundance in the Pacific Northwest. And if we're talking
Speaker 1: about a viable preeding population of only let's say fifteen hundred.
Speaker 1: You do the math, it works out to something like
Speaker 1: a social group of these things, assuming they have like
Speaker 1: four or five per social group. Let's say like I'm
Speaker 1: a a girl. Again, assuming you could have one social
Speaker 1: group for every seven hundred roughly seven hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: square miles of forest, they occasionally have the rogue mail
Speaker 1: go out. Crance's theory on this hypothesis, it doesn't make
Speaker 1: it's not that unusual. It's just not that well, we
Speaker 1: would find them right away, no, we're not. With the
Speaker 1: brains of these things would be a hell of a
Speaker 1: lot bigger. You know that a bear obviously less in
Speaker 1: number to the bigger an animal is. There's less of
Speaker 1: them in a particular ecosystem. So it's it's not all
Speaker 1: that surprising to me that if in fact they exist,
Speaker 1: that I'm just more patient.
Speaker 6: Well, and the other thing that I have to I'll
Speaker 6: just throw this in there is that, you know, in
Speaker 6: researching the chupacaba my I mean, I I came across
Speaker 6: dozens and dozens of people who, uh, you know, I went,
Speaker 6: I interviewed many of them. I read the reports who
Speaker 6: were absolutely convinced that they've reported seeing something that resembled
Speaker 6: a chupacabra, and in various.
Speaker 2: Forms available at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 6: It is a dot com. But but but my point
Speaker 6: here is that is that you know this is I don't.
Speaker 6: I don't doubt for a second their sincerity. These are honest, sincere,
Speaker 6: good people. They're not liars, they're not hoaxers. They're But
Speaker 6: I mean, I know people who looked me dead in
Speaker 6: the eye and swore that they saw a creature that
Speaker 6: I am virtually certain and I've more or less proved
Speaker 6: in my excellent book Track than Chupacabra does not exist.
Speaker 6: And this is the problem that I have as again,
Speaker 6: don't I don't doubt for a second that people see
Speaker 6: things they don't understand, don't recognize. I know that for
Speaker 6: a fact. I know that better than most people do.
Speaker 6: But at the point in what you're going to tell
Speaker 6: me that you know that someone's saying they saw something
Speaker 6: they can't explain or can't identify is good evidence, that's
Speaker 6: where things get a little hazy for me.
Speaker 1: Well no, well, again, it's a sliding scale. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: put it as good, but it's a starting point, and
Speaker 1: it's been so in the history of science. I mean,
Speaker 1: the hit part of the scientific process, as you guys know,
Speaker 1: is the investigated process. Is there enough to further, you know,
Speaker 1: further looking around and it maybe unfairly. It's it's weird.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of believers will look at you
Speaker 1: guys so they oh, they're just scoff dicks and all that,
Speaker 1: you know, but they point out, you know, when there's
Speaker 1: bad pieces of evidence, like, for example, when Meldrum is still,
Speaker 1: for some friggin reason, holding out that Paul Freeman's footprint
Speaker 1: casts are real. I mean, it's like it's embarrassing. Come on,
Speaker 1: it's like a clown went through the forest.
Speaker 6: But it's like there's these bigfoot clowns and they have
Speaker 6: thoses and Seltzer bottles.
Speaker 4: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: But but I got to tell you that Jeff has
Speaker 1: gotten better, his gullibility has gotten lesson. In fact, I
Speaker 1: don't know if you guys saw this, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to get too far away from your point. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but he actually the first time I've ever seen him
Speaker 1: come out this whole thing in Siberia with the YETI thing,
Speaker 1: he actually spoke out. I mean, not that it wasn't
Speaker 1: pretty obvious from the beginning, you know, when there's only
Speaker 1: one like right foot making the prince. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think he's agree with you. Yeah, I think Jeff
Speaker 1: is getting is getting better, and I don't think. My
Speaker 1: guess is he was never or anyone in his family
Speaker 1: was ever pranked when he was when he was He's
Speaker 1: like one of the people in that movie the invention
Speaker 1: of line is like they just would tend to believe
Speaker 1: everything that's that's told him. But anyway, I think it's
Speaker 1: it's just it's an interest. Speaking of psychology, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, why you know we agree in a lot. Hey,
Speaker 1: there's no proof for Bigfoot. The physical evidence, I would
Speaker 1: agree is weak. But to me, I find the anecdotal
Speaker 1: evidence is strong. Plus personal experience and having talked to people. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think that leads to further investigation, and I think
Speaker 1: that there probably is something. But that's admittedly purely an
Speaker 1: intuitive thing. It's purely intuitive, So doesn't mean I'm right,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean I'm wrong. But I just think that greatest
Speaker 1: irony would be would be awesome if I read in
Speaker 1: the newspaper one day Ben Radford hits actual Sasquatch with
Speaker 1: car and British Columbia.
Speaker 4: Yes, or killed by a Bigfoot?
Speaker 1: No, you know what's gonna happen. You're gonna get all
Speaker 1: these die hard believers. They'll pummel your body and they'll
Speaker 1: try to make it look like a sasquad did it
Speaker 1: and lost control of the car. No.
Speaker 4: No, I, I I think you're right.
Speaker 6: And again I think we actually agree on on on
Speaker 6: quite a bit. And and I agree with you about Jeff.
Speaker 6: I mean, I I know Jeff Meldrum.
Speaker 4: I like him. He's a nice guy.
Speaker 6: I I happen to think fairly highly of him, except
Speaker 6: in certain circumstances when I don't think his sciences is good.
Speaker 6: But but you know, on the whole, I mean I
Speaker 6: I think he did the right thing by stepping up
Speaker 6: and saying, look, you know this is bogus and uh,
Speaker 6: and good for him. I wish I wish more people
Speaker 6: in the Bigfoot community would would would come forward and say,
Speaker 6: you know what, this is bullshit and you know what
Speaker 6: I got used here and and you know, and and
Speaker 6: try and sort out the the good evidence from the bad.
Speaker 6: And I think that's one thing that I try to do.
Speaker 6: And Monster Talk and Blake and others and you as
Speaker 6: well as they say, look, guys, I mean I think
Speaker 6: at the end of the day, I think it really
Speaker 6: we're on the same page. Uh, you know, we're trying
Speaker 6: to find the truth to Bigfoot, and and I'm trying
Speaker 6: to figure it out, and you're trying to figure it out.
Speaker 6: And and you know, this is why I sometimes get
Speaker 6: baffled when people suggest that, well, you know, I'm somehow
Speaker 6: like I'm paid to like debunk Bigfoot or something like,
Speaker 6: what does does.
Speaker 4: That even mean? You know, I'm not.
Speaker 6: First of all, I'm not paid. Second of all, you
Speaker 6: think I would love to find Bigfoot? I mean, I
Speaker 6: just come at it from a from a you know,
Speaker 6: a slightly more I think science based, skeptical in view.
Speaker 4: But at the end of the day, you know, to
Speaker 4: my mind, you're open to it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, and and and and frankly, I think that
Speaker 6: that that not sorting through the bulk and the truth
Speaker 6: and the myths and trying to point these into different
Speaker 6: categories is a disservice. We we need people to step
Speaker 6: up and say, you know what, this may not be
Speaker 6: definitive evidence, but it's pretty good. And you know what,
Speaker 6: these videos, these photos, these are all crap. And and
Speaker 6: let's just clear out the hoaxes, clear out the fakes,
Speaker 6: and and focus on the good evidence.
Speaker 4: And that's what I try to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, no, that's good man, it's it's uh, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a great mystery. It's very fascinating. And uh, you
Speaker 1: reminded me when you're talking about something there that I
Speaker 1: think really comes into play here. Well, not only on
Speaker 1: the believer side, I think, perhaps more on the believer side,
Speaker 1: but also the skeptical side too.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And not with you guys per se, but whenever you
Speaker 1: get a groups of people with particular bent one way
Speaker 1: or another believer non believer, then you get the group
Speaker 1: thing and and and and the snarkiness on both sides
Speaker 1: that oh, and he just doesn't know what he's talking about,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah and blue blah. And you know, to me,
Speaker 1: it always shows the danger of group thing whatever is.
Speaker 1: You have to individually analyze every specific incidence individually. How
Speaker 1: often do I see it in this phenomena, It's just
Speaker 1: you know, again, like the BFR expeditions, you can just
Speaker 1: kind of, my god, what are the odds that you're
Speaker 1: getting that much, you know, evidence when you go out.
Speaker 1: It's it's so astronomical if assuming these things are real,
Speaker 1: that it would just it's ridiculous. It's I guess one
Speaker 1: thing I would say to whatever whoever's listening to this,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 4: Both of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, always look, you know, look at what the person's claiming,
Speaker 1: and then what what are they offering up? And then
Speaker 1: and see if there's either you know, they being It's
Speaker 1: hard to determine if someone's lying or not. But you know,
Speaker 1: just like you said, Ben, you know, try to separate
Speaker 1: the bullshit from me. And in this phenomenon, it's all
Speaker 1: been to this point. I happen to believe that there
Speaker 1: will be verification, probably in two months now. Actually I
Speaker 1: was God, I would think a I imagined a question
Speaker 1: you guys might ask me today and something along the
Speaker 1: lines of, well, how long would this have to go
Speaker 1: on without verification before you would give up the ghost
Speaker 1: as it were, I'm fifty two, I'm gonna I Actually
Speaker 1: I've said this years ago, though I really honestly think
Speaker 1: it could go on a long time if there's a
Speaker 1: small number of them and they are super smart and
Speaker 1: they like I believe, because we know there's evidence of
Speaker 1: suctions Cougar's will you know, don't leave tracks at certain times,
Speaker 1: and freaking Cougar can do it, then an alleged higher
Speaker 1: prime make it definitely not want to leave tracks at
Speaker 1: certain times perhaps, or be conscientious of it, conscious of
Speaker 1: it other I think it could go in a long time,
Speaker 1: but it's got to be I guess be tough for
Speaker 1: you guys, because it's hard to prove it negative. I said,
Speaker 1: It's like, you know that a believer could always go
Speaker 1: all he's always just right over the hill. He just
Speaker 1: you just missed it. You know. It's like kind of
Speaker 1: the Santa you know.
Speaker 2: Actually, the thing that bugs me is having had experiences
Speaker 2: that were very unusual that I would have classified as
Speaker 2: paranormal and later figuring out what really happened or what
Speaker 2: I think really happened. But I know how deeply unsatisfying
Speaker 2: it is to be told that the thing that you
Speaker 2: experienced wasn't what you thought it was, you know. The
Speaker 2: you know, for people like, for example, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of people who've had ghost experiences or haunting type experiences
Speaker 2: who have nothing to show for it except they were
Speaker 2: scared and something weird happened.
Speaker 1: And how frustrating is that, you know.
Speaker 2: So, you know, from the big foot side, there's something
Speaker 2: about a bigfoot siding, like you mentioned your friend coming
Speaker 2: to tears. It's it almost seems like a quasi religious experience.
Speaker 2: Sometimes when when people describe their their experiences with seeing Bigfoot,
Speaker 2: even if it's just a parcel sighting or you know,
Speaker 2: you know, a possible sighting, I think.
Speaker 1: Of that instance he was actually crapping his pants.
Speaker 2: But go, well, it wasn't so much the tears as
Speaker 2: the involuntary urination.
Speaker 4: This episode brought you. It depends.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it puts us an awkward position to skeptics
Speaker 2: to say, that's great, I'm glad you had that experience.
Speaker 2: If it was okay for you, I'm sorry if it wasn't.
Speaker 2: But to us, we need a body, right, you know
Speaker 2: that that's it's a very unsatisfying answer on our side,
Speaker 2: even though it's the one we're stuck with.
Speaker 1: No, but it's but I you know, I agree as
Speaker 1: far as you know shared knowledge in the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: I am a huge fan of the scientific method. That's
Speaker 1: how we share things. Well, you know because why because
Speaker 1: people can mis perceive, people can lie, people can hallucinate.
Speaker 1: So if we're going to share something, you know, in
Speaker 1: one sense, we should all be from Missouri, you know,
Speaker 1: show it to me. So because so often in the
Speaker 1: history of man there have just been those instance things
Speaker 1: were believed for Soult's just believe. Well, why well, you know,
Speaker 1: Joe Blow said it. We are, the Earth is at
Speaker 1: the center, the sun goes around us. Dude, the pre
Speaker 1: set it, you know. So it's just you know, always
Speaker 1: being I guess open to you know, I guess certain
Speaker 1: to a degree in your own direct experience, but also
Speaker 1: being willing to question it and look at it from
Speaker 1: other possible perspectives. And if it still comes back, like
Speaker 1: for example, with me, I literally have done that, and
Speaker 1: I still think that's what probably happened. Do I know it? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Did I see a six foot tall thing standing directly
Speaker 1: in front of me. No, But I looked at the
Speaker 1: videotape immediately afterwards. I saw glowing red eyes. It was
Speaker 1: the two kids were very believable at the bottom of
Speaker 1: the hill. I find it hard to look at it
Speaker 1: as being a psychological phenomenon. I mean, I could be
Speaker 1: fooled just like anybody else, but I just don't think
Speaker 1: that was the case there.
Speaker 6: And frankly, I mean, you know, to be honest, if
Speaker 6: I had been there with you, I probably would I
Speaker 6: probably would have thought the same thing.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 6: That's the thing is that I it's not like I'm
Speaker 6: sitting back here saying, oh, that's crazy, you know. I mean,
Speaker 6: I you know, for all I know, I would have been,
Speaker 6: you know, blubbering like a like a you know, schoolgirl
Speaker 6: along with it.
Speaker 4: I don't know, but I mean that's the thing. Unless
Speaker 4: you're in that situation, you don't know, yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and it's like, you know, and it must be
Speaker 1: really uh frustrating, like Blake was saying. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: for example, UFOs, if in fact UFOs exist, and if
Speaker 1: there's a man and a woman you know who without
Speaker 1: a doubt, I mean unless I mean again, how do
Speaker 1: you really know unless there's some you know, but that
Speaker 1: some craft was right in front of them right there,
Speaker 1: said something got out and let and you know, you know,
Speaker 1: I think what's the lesson to be learned? You have to.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I think Ricky Nelson said it best in Garden Party.
Speaker 1: You can't please everyone, You gotta please yourself. Good night, everybody?
Speaker 2: All right? Well, I think the sun's coming up and
Speaker 2: I still have to go to work, right okay, Well, Scott,
Speaker 2: thank you for talking to us today.
Speaker 1: Hey, it was fun, man, it was Yeah. It's one
Speaker 1: of those topics I never really get tired of yacking
Speaker 1: about and uh it was. It was good man, It
Speaker 1: was a lot of fun, and I think one or
Speaker 1: both of you guys should definitely come on. I think
Speaker 1: it would be awesome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you don't think it would be too much,
Speaker 2: I would be interested for sure. I bet you it
Speaker 2: could be entertaining for your listeners.
Speaker 1: So yeah, no, no, no, it would. Dude, believe me,
Speaker 1: I mean we have actually, you know, we're how would
Speaker 1: I characterize this? I mean, like Brian is that we're
Speaker 1: all well, Brian and I are admitted believers. Paul doesn't
Speaker 1: say he's believe. I actually think he does believe, but uh,
Speaker 1: you know, he remains it, but he does a good
Speaker 1: job on the show of remaining pretty like on the
Speaker 1: fence and looking at it that way. We have a
Speaker 1: new guy just came on. Great guy. Sam Rich, like myself,
Speaker 1: thinks these things probably exist, but thinks a lot of
Speaker 1: the evidence, you know, is pretty damn weak. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll talk to Uh, Brian's got of the main dude,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, he runs the recording and all that,
Speaker 1: so uh yeah, I'll run it by him, and I
Speaker 1: think it would be great.
Speaker 2: Okay, do well, thanks again, for joining us and oh
Speaker 2: good lord, yeah, what's your favorite monster?
Speaker 1: Oh? My fuck? Oh man all the time. But that's
Speaker 1: when that came to mind. The scariest still to this day,
Speaker 1: the scariest is Lawn Cheney Junior. Is the wolf Man?
Speaker 1: Still the scariest classic favorite monster? Am Maybe the wolf Man?
Speaker 1: It could be a pattern, very bipeds. It's a wolf man.
Speaker 1: Wolf Man. That creature from the Black Lagoon.
Speaker 2: That's pretty creepy too. Yeah, I like the one from
Speaker 2: Monster Squad. Did you see that movie Monster Squad with
Speaker 2: the kids. It's like, oh, you should watch it is classic.
Speaker 1: Did you see Super Have you seen Super eight?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh yeah, I just saw that today. That was
Speaker 1: a pretty good monster.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very cool monster.
Speaker 3: You know. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And they did a great job of capturing the seventies,
Speaker 2: didn't they.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I kept I was torn. I was like,
Speaker 1: I know that's what they were going for a little
Speaker 1: homage to spielberghism. Yeah exactly.
Speaker 2: It was like, let's have one more nineteen seventy Spielberg film.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it was. It was just so much. There
Speaker 1: was so much like, oh, here's a little bit of Jaws.
Speaker 1: Now they're thrown a little bit of close encounters in
Speaker 1: Oh and it here comes et and you just see
Speaker 1: the scenes that were influenced by the various Spielberg films.
Speaker 4: Was there any Howard the Duck?
Speaker 1: God wait, I changed my answer, Howard the Ducks scarious monster.
Speaker 2: And scene. Okay, Well, thanks a lot, Scott.
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Hey, have a good holiday season. And yeah
Speaker 1: you did the same. All right, take squatching at Amazon
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 4: There, squat chick out.
Speaker 1: Okay, take care morest.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks to listening to this extra long episode of
Speaker 2: Monster Talk on behalf of Ben Radford and Karen Stolesno
Speaker 2: and myself Blake Smith. I want to give my deepest
Speaker 2: thanks for your continued support. If it weren't for all
Speaker 2: of you making yourselves known on Facebook, Twitter, and email,
Speaker 2: my wife probably wouldn't be so willing to let me
Speaker 2: put this show together. And in case this turns out
Speaker 2: to be the time she actually listens all the way through,
Speaker 2: I love you, honey. Thanks for helping me have the
Speaker 2: time to do this show, and thanks again for everyone
Speaker 2: who's contributed to the transcription project. Your donations are really helping,
Speaker 2: and I'll be working with Skeptic Magazine's webmaster to build
Speaker 2: a producer page to give you fine folks and more
Speaker 2: lasting tribute. And speaking of Skeptic magazine, Monster Talk is
Speaker 2: produced with their help and if you like our show,
Speaker 2: you'll like their magazine over at Skeptic. I want to
Speaker 2: thank William Bull, the webmaster who slaves all day over
Speaker 2: a hot keyboard to make sure this show gets out
Speaker 2: to you listeners. And Daniel Loxton, the editor of Junior Skeptic,
Speaker 2: who gave this show a chance to flourish when it
Speaker 2: was only barely germinated. Monster Talk theme song is by
Speaker 2: Pete Stealing Monkeys and Brian Thompson as the Crampus.
Speaker 1: Hungry for more skepticism.
Speaker 5: Want to learn the truth about the scientific controversies of
Speaker 5: our time, then subscribe.
Speaker 2: To Skeptic, the quarterly magazine Stephen J.
Speaker 1: Gould called the best journal in the field.
Speaker 2: To subscribe visit skeptic dot com today.
Speaker 1: Hello, Hello, I can't hear anything. Hold on, hello, still
Speaker 1: can't hear anything.