Speaker 1: On this episode, we're going to do something a little
Speaker 1: bit different. I wanted Sean to join me to kind
Speaker 1: of go over the argument for bigfoot. Recently on the interwebs,
Speaker 1: I ran across someone posing the question is there any
Speaker 1: evidence of Bigfoot existing other than large footprints? I thought, Hey,
Speaker 1: let's tackle the question.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, but it is a fair question to ask,
Speaker 2: if we break it down to its core, there's some
Speaker 2: meat on that proverbial bone.
Speaker 1: This is Bigfoot Crossroads. My name is Matt and joining
Speaker 1: me is mister Sean Forker of the Sasquatch Experience. On
Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna do something a little bit different.
Speaker 1: I wanted Sean to join me to kind of go
Speaker 1: over the argument for bigfoot. Recently on the interwebs, I
Speaker 1: ran across someone posing the question is there any evidence
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot existing other than large footprints? Now you'll notice
Speaker 1: I had a little tone in my voice whenever I
Speaker 1: said that, Sean, And that's because I know you can't
Speaker 1: always interpret tone and inflection over the Internet and a
Speaker 1: text posting. But this came across as one of those
Speaker 1: questions of like, is Bigfoot even real? So you know,
Speaker 1: I thought, hey, let's tackle the question.
Speaker 2: You got to read it in that voice, you know,
Speaker 2: that voice things just as you read it as how
Speaker 2: I heard it in my head. That kind of pedantic.
Speaker 2: I don't know what's the word I'm looking for, seriously
Speaker 2: unserious way of asking a question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, kind of a backhanded comment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the backhanded compliment, like, yeah, it is it is?
Speaker 2: Is bigfoot real?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Besides footprints? Well, you know, but it is a fair
Speaker 2: question to ask if we break it down to its core,
Speaker 2: there's some meat on that proverbial bone, for sure.
Speaker 1: And I mean, whenever we're talking about bigfoot a lot
Speaker 1: of times we use the word skeptic. Now, skeptic to
Speaker 1: me isn't necessarily a negative thing. It's how you should
Speaker 1: approach most subjects, especially of this nature. But in the
Speaker 1: bigfoot world, skeptic has also kind of become the title
Speaker 1: to a person who is just extremely condescending, shoots down
Speaker 1: all evidence, and just doesn't think bigfoot exists. They think
Speaker 1: that everyone who says they saw a bigfoot is either
Speaker 1: lying or mistaken the jaded one. Yeah, and uh, being
Speaker 1: a bigfoot witness myself and also coming from the researcher
Speaker 1: slash investigator background, I understand it, but it still stings
Speaker 1: a little. Man, It still stings a little. So whenever
Speaker 1: I see someone ask the question, is there any evidence
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot existing other than just these large footprints that
Speaker 1: we find, it's like a call to action for me, Man,
Speaker 1: I want to I want to stand up for Bigfoot
Speaker 1: and uh, let the people know what the evidence actually
Speaker 1: is out there.
Speaker 2: It's the second most annoying question for me. The first
Speaker 2: most annoying question is is there more than one?
Speaker 1: Oh? Yeah, yeah?
Speaker 2: Hell do you think yes, there's more than one? What
Speaker 2: kind of a moron even asked that question?
Speaker 1: Calling myself a bigfoot researcher. You know, I'm no longer
Speaker 1: a field investigator. You still go out and you know,
Speaker 1: look for physical evidence and everything. You're still very active
Speaker 1: as an investigator. But let's be honest here, It's not
Speaker 1: something that has any requirements to be one other than
Speaker 1: just the act of going and doing it, calling yourself
Speaker 1: one so to speak.
Speaker 2: Right, there's no there's no degree you can get in
Speaker 2: bigfoottology cryptozoology. You can get one on the internet. Of course,
Speaker 2: there's those pretend classes you can take that make you
Speaker 2: feel special, But at the end of the day, there's
Speaker 2: no serious credentials you can get that allow you to
Speaker 2: call yourself an investigator or research. I think, as with
Speaker 2: all things, it's about the level of practice you put
Speaker 2: into it, right, and the amount of time you spend.
Speaker 2: Of course, people say if you spend longer the next
Speaker 2: amount of years, you're considered an expert. We all know
Speaker 2: that's the third rail of bigfooting. Nobody ever calls themselves
Speaker 2: an expert. But you can be an expert in subjects
Speaker 2: that allow you to enhance kind of your cv of
Speaker 2: bigfoot research, like anybody that's in law enforcement or has
Speaker 2: particular setup skills for forensics or evidence collection. That all
Speaker 2: builds to a good resume, but at the end of
Speaker 2: the day allows you to be an expert in a
Speaker 2: part of the mystery, not the overall arching mystery. Like
Speaker 2: doctor Melgin, right, he's got a PhD in anatomy and physiology, right,
Speaker 2: But at the at the end of it, it's not
Speaker 2: in bigfoot, right, because there's still no real type specimen
Speaker 2: to base that off of. It's all still I don't
Speaker 2: want to call it a pseudoscience, but it is a
Speaker 2: It's a form of citizen scientry that I think we're
Speaker 2: all trying to establish a something a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Then it definitely overlaps into you know, credible scientific areas
Speaker 1: of study. And that's why I think it draws the
Speaker 1: interest of some scientists every once in a while. But
Speaker 1: i mean, let's face it, whenever you're talking about just
Speaker 1: bigfoot in general. If you know Joe Blow is interested
Speaker 1: in the subject or saw something on TV about it,
Speaker 1: they're going to run to the Internet and you know,
Speaker 1: they're going to look up bigfoot or whatever, and that's
Speaker 1: going to lead them down the rabbit hole, so to speak.
Speaker 1: And eventually they're going to find the Bigfoot community. And
Speaker 1: as soon as you start asking questions and stuff, I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't get a lot of people just running across
Speaker 1: the path of doctor Jeff Meldrum. You get anybody and
Speaker 1: everybody answering with whatever they think, whatever they've heard, and
Speaker 1: so a lot of the evidence, in my opinion, the
Speaker 1: good stuff may have been buried over the years, you know,
Speaker 1: just underneath the pile of crabs in the bucket.
Speaker 2: To your point, folks run into the lowest common denominator
Speaker 2: and the most popular version of researcher that's out there
Speaker 2: on the internet. Whose Facebook page has a few thousand
Speaker 2: followers of people. Oh my god, they're hot stuff. They
Speaker 2: got all these followers. Yeah, there were followers at Jonestown too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Unfortunately that's the truth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, you know, don't base upon that. I think
Speaker 2: this is one of those hard areas that there's information
Speaker 2: out there, but it's not all good information. And there
Speaker 2: are people out there that are far more personality than
Speaker 2: they are brain and that's dangerous too. There's no real
Speaker 2: vetting and there's no real peer reviewing, and there's no
Speaker 2: real science behind things that they will tell you are
Speaker 2: the absolute truth. That's where I get That's where I
Speaker 2: get alarmed, Matt, is when you start hearing folks talk
Speaker 2: about these things as absoluteses. At the end of the day,
Speaker 2: boys and girls, guess what, no bigfoot body, No bigfoot
Speaker 2: for real?
Speaker 1: Right. A lot of my friends, you know, you're included
Speaker 1: in my group of friends for sure, but you're not
Speaker 1: necessarily like this. You and I speak absolutely candidly to
Speaker 1: one another in private, right, But you know, sometimes I
Speaker 1: have to vent a little bit on social media or whatever,
Speaker 1: and I'll say something and I'll leave names out, or
Speaker 1: I'll talk about something on the show, and I'll leave
Speaker 1: names out because I'm not trying to go after the
Speaker 1: person in particular as much as just whatever they might
Speaker 1: be doing or the evidence that they're putting out. But
Speaker 1: I can tell you right now, matter of factly, that
Speaker 1: there are people out there who are well known and
Speaker 1: well established in the bigfoot research community, not just the
Speaker 1: bigfoot content creation community, that are just putting out absolute
Speaker 1: garbage just to get followers, just to get popular, just
Speaker 1: to get asked to speak at conferences. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I've seen one individual that I don't know him personally,
Speaker 1: I know that he is extremely well respected and well
Speaker 1: liked in the bigfoot world. And I saw part of
Speaker 1: his presentation that he was giving that a conference where
Speaker 1: he's putting up these exclusive images you know, from a
Speaker 1: trail camera that he's you know, received from a person,
Speaker 1: you know, an anonymous tip or whatever. That's nobody's ever
Speaker 1: seen these photographs before. This is an exclusive And I'm
Speaker 1: looking at it and I'm just like, yeah, that's the first
Speaker 1: result in a Google image search for bigfoot costume. I mean,
Speaker 1: easily recognizable. And there's no way that this guy doesn't
Speaker 1: know that.
Speaker 2: No, And how many times have we been down that
Speaker 2: road over the years. You and I have the benefit
Speaker 2: of long term history, right over twenty years of this
Speaker 2: stuff coming and going. Does that make us an authority? No,
Speaker 2: it makes us educated on the topic and allows us
Speaker 2: to go back and draw on those because every time
Speaker 2: a new picture comes up, I could look at I
Speaker 2: could message it say, Matt, where have we seen this before? Yeah,
Speaker 2: we've seen this before. There is very little out there
Speaker 2: that hasn't been recycled in some way, shape or form.
Speaker 2: And the problem is it's never very good. But you
Speaker 2: get people that hold on to that hope that makes
Speaker 2: it viral again. It blows it up, and then we
Speaker 2: have to deal with the same crap we dealt with
Speaker 2: fifteen twenty years ago, over the same photograph that nobody
Speaker 2: wants to go and do any research on.
Speaker 1: Well, people will believe the story and they'll just automatically
Speaker 1: assume that certain things mean certain things. And what I mean.
Speaker 1: There's a group of photos in particular, these photos were
Speaker 1: manufactured by an artist who was doing sort of a
Speaker 1: viral gorilla marketing campaign for an upcoming gallery exhibit that
Speaker 1: he was putting on in Seattle, I think where he
Speaker 1: created all these bigfoot it was the Beacon Bigfoot Beacon,
Speaker 1: New York had a website and everything, multiple clear photos
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot. Now he had taken mannekins and used palmer
Speaker 1: clays to kind of sculpt them out and put hair
Speaker 1: on them and make them look somewhat lifelike. But he's
Speaker 1: been very transparent about this, and you could see the
Speaker 1: same exact figures in the art gallery, so it wasn't
Speaker 1: like hidden or anything. But people from the Bigfoot world,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, have grabbed some of these images and
Speaker 1: put them on the Internet and attach stories to them,
Speaker 1: or not attached stories to them, just presented them as
Speaker 1: like we don't know where they came from. And you
Speaker 1: see these photos pop up every year, multiple times, and
Speaker 1: it's been going on for like ten years now. One
Speaker 1: in particular is a small juvenile only about three feet
Speaker 1: tall in it, and in the photo it's standing close
Speaker 1: to deer that are looking at it. Well, deer wouldn't
Speaker 1: be standing that close to a human shawn, so it
Speaker 1: must be real, and that's what people think. They don't
Speaker 1: understand that, well, deer will stand close to humans if
Speaker 1: they're being fed by humans. Deer will stand close to
Speaker 1: a mannequin sitting out in the woods that has corner
Speaker 1: at its feet. This doesn't necessarily make it real.
Speaker 2: If there's no perceived threat, it's not going to run, right.
Speaker 1: And if you try to explain the background, I mean,
Speaker 1: how often should you have to do that? Is it
Speaker 1: your job every time you see these photos to go
Speaker 1: in depth and like find all the links and do
Speaker 1: all their No, nobody wants to go through all that,
Speaker 1: and so like maybe every now and then I'll just
Speaker 1: see it enough that I'll actually stop and leave a
Speaker 1: comment saying, hey, this is a fake. Well, then I
Speaker 1: get questioned, prove it, prove that it's fake, And that's
Speaker 1: that's just ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Why is it always on the burden of the person
Speaker 2: saying it's a fake, Like, there's obviously a reason for
Speaker 2: you to say it's fake. I believe it's fake because
Speaker 2: of this. Okay, I'm not the one saying it's real.
Speaker 2: I can clearly tell you that's fake because I see
Speaker 2: a mask, I see baggy arms. You could have some
Speaker 2: of the absolute worst costumes out there posed in a
Speaker 2: provocative way in the woods that would make people think
Speaker 2: it's a sasquatch. I don't mean provocative like playgirl I mean,
Speaker 2: or playboy I mean provocative, as in, like you know,
Speaker 2: the Patterson pose or what have you. And people will
Speaker 2: believe it's it's a bigfoot, and it could be the
Speaker 2: absolute worst image ever, but people will fight you truth
Speaker 2: and nail tooth and nail. I can't talk to me
Speaker 2: that it is in fact a real Bigfoot. Knowingly one
Speaker 2: hundred percent it's not. And that's where we've come to,
Speaker 2: that lack of being able to really discern what's fake
Speaker 2: and what's reality. And the problem is that's entering its
Speaker 2: way into many different realms of our lives now, not
Speaker 2: just Bigfoot, but it's very hard. It's like, all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, we have a whole I don't want to
Speaker 2: say generation, but a whole mass of people that lost
Speaker 2: the ability to critically.
Speaker 1: Think, or they're just too lazy to do so they
Speaker 1: want somebody else to do it for them, and they've
Speaker 1: picked a person or a group of persons to get
Speaker 1: their information from, and they just believe whatever that person
Speaker 1: happens to.
Speaker 2: Say, right. And I get a little salty over it
Speaker 2: because I hate one I hate repeating myself. So when
Speaker 2: I have to go and start bringing up topics and
Speaker 2: rehashing topics we've talked about twenty years ago. I get
Speaker 2: really frustrated. It was not long ago. I was lying
Speaker 2: in bed, It's like two o'clock in the morning, and
Speaker 2: my phone's digging off with some person I've never met
Speaker 2: before messaging me because they've listened to the podcast, wanting
Speaker 2: to know what I think about this. And my response
Speaker 2: to was kind of rude. It was, read a damn book.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do the work.
Speaker 2: You know, all the stuff you're asking me about, is
Speaker 2: it in all the literature that it's been written on
Speaker 2: this subject. Go read a damn book and leave me
Speaker 2: alone and don't talk to me again until you've read it.
Speaker 2: Like it's now hard. You come to us wanting information,
Speaker 2: when we tell you where to get it, go do it.
Speaker 2: It's that simple. We had to exactly. John Green wasn't
Speaker 2: narrating his books for.
Speaker 1: Us, No, not at all. And John Green wasn't going
Speaker 1: on the Internet and just copying and pasting stories to
Speaker 1: his database either.
Speaker 2: Right, right, right, And that's the other problem is like
Speaker 2: there's a lot of a problem that I've seen, is
Speaker 2: that just taking a story for what it is and
Speaker 2: posting it out there, and if you're somebody that's looking
Speaker 2: for real data. And yes, I know I say that
Speaker 2: tongue in cheek because all of it has the potential
Speaker 2: to be bs right. But if you're looking at it
Speaker 2: to form real pools, you're purposefully contaminating that now, and
Speaker 2: you're making it far less of a resource and far
Speaker 2: less of a reliable situation to gather information from.
Speaker 1: Well, let's get things kicked off with this list of
Speaker 1: evidence that I have provided other than large footprints. And
Speaker 1: at the top of that list, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: go ahead and get it over with. And it was
Speaker 1: actually something that I ran across again today. You always
Speaker 1: run across it. The Patterson Gimlin film nineteen sixty seven,
Speaker 1: fifty seven years old.
Speaker 2: We're never going to.
Speaker 1: Know, are we We're never going to know.
Speaker 2: Think of all the studies that have been done on
Speaker 2: it and all the recreations that have been attempted. And
Speaker 2: it wasn't even until recent but we actually found the
Speaker 2: actual film site, right, So like not you and I
Speaker 2: found it, but folks found it, you know, the Creek Project.
Speaker 2: I just think that. And honestly, here's another conversation we
Speaker 2: had almost twenty years ago. Does it matter anymore. I
Speaker 2: don't base my belief on Bigfoot or my foundation of
Speaker 2: Bigfoot evidence on the Patterson film at all. I think
Speaker 2: it's a great piece of a film to have and
Speaker 2: a good part of the lore of Bigfoot, but it
Speaker 2: shows nothing that is tangible today. That video, I don't
Speaker 2: think convinces anybody anymore of anything besides what people want
Speaker 2: to think on both sides of the aisle. You either
Speaker 2: look at it and see it's a hoax, or you
Speaker 2: look at it and you think it's the real deal.
Speaker 2: But there's nothing we can do to show you either way.
Speaker 1: Here's why I have it listed as a piece of evidence,
Speaker 1: simply because we're now approaching sixty years and it's still
Speaker 1: being debated. It has never been proven one way or
Speaker 1: the other.
Speaker 2: It's never been debumped, right, And I think that's the
Speaker 2: talent it is that it's not been debunked, right, like
Speaker 2: none of the recreations have been good enough. The issue
Speaker 2: I have with it as being evidence is that evidence
Speaker 2: is usually in the support of something, and this doesn't
Speaker 2: really support anything, Like to me, definitively, you can't look
Speaker 2: at it and say one hundred percent that's an ape
Speaker 2: or that's a Bigfoot or one hundred percent that's a hoax.
Speaker 2: That's the problem I have with it being evidence. I
Speaker 2: think it's a support structure. I just don't think to me,
Speaker 2: it's good enough to call evidence.
Speaker 1: Okay, but look at it from this perspective. We weren't
Speaker 1: around when it happened. Nope, neither was the internet, in fairness,
Speaker 1: But there were people that were communicating that were investigating Bigfoot.
Speaker 1: I mean that was how it got filmed. They were
Speaker 1: going out trying to film a documentary on Bigfoot, and
Speaker 1: there were people like Bob Titmas. I never knew the guy, obviously,
Speaker 1: but according to everything I was told by other people
Speaker 1: who did know him, he was a good tracker. He
Speaker 1: knew what he was doing, and he tracked the patison
Speaker 1: creature from the film site into areas where it was
Speaker 1: not filmed, followed the tracks for quite a ways. So
Speaker 1: there are plaster casts from the track site. You know
Speaker 1: that they were able to find the actual location. Like
Speaker 1: you said, they've done three D scans to line everything
Speaker 1: up to figure out the height of Patty, you know,
Speaker 1: which is also debated still to.
Speaker 2: This day, seven feet six foot three, like you know,
Speaker 2: which one is it? But to the point that you're
Speaker 2: making though Bob Tipmas followed tracks, but tracks of what
Speaker 2: and and that's where we start. You know, sure he
Speaker 2: did follow tracks, he did track them, but what were they?
Speaker 2: And that's where and then you start getting into all
Speaker 2: the things you hear over the years, you know, all
Speaker 2: the well it was, you know, a put on by
Speaker 2: by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, and Bob Gimlin's just
Speaker 2: kept it alive over all these years. Although it's a
Speaker 2: hell of a long w all of a long lie
Speaker 2: time to tell a lie, that's all. And he hasn't
Speaker 2: done a lot of slipping.
Speaker 1: Up as researchers. Uh, you know that in the in
Speaker 1: the research community, sometimes things come out and people may
Speaker 1: put on faces and smile publicly, but behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of what do you think about that?
Speaker 1: You know that that doesn't feel right to me? That
Speaker 1: you know, well, he actually said this, and you know,
Speaker 1: you get a lot of that quiet information going on.
Speaker 1: I wonder what that information was at the time that
Speaker 1: this happened.
Speaker 2: Right, But as we know, over the years, the relationships
Speaker 2: between the four horsemen and the relationships between the researchers
Speaker 2: soured that all of a sudden, Now, do you have
Speaker 2: some sort of you know, guided bias that's you know,
Speaker 2: clouding the clouding the story more, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Some of these guys just for some reason grew to
Speaker 2: hate each other. Does that hatred towards one another? Lend
Speaker 2: any kind of Well so and so believes this. I
Speaker 2: can't believe it because he does, right, you know. And
Speaker 2: as petty as it is, you and I both know
Speaker 2: that pettiness was a way of life for some of
Speaker 2: these guys.
Speaker 1: Well, I told you that I ran across it again
Speaker 1: today and what that is is that whole argument. So
Speaker 1: Bill Muntz, you know, famous Hollywood effects guy, did the
Speaker 1: most in depth research and analysis on the Parison film,
Speaker 1: along in coordination with many other people, including Jeff Meldrim,
Speaker 1: researching out this film different aspects of it, from the
Speaker 1: camera to the possibility of it being a costume, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and iran across some postings by Bill on
Speaker 1: a cinematography forum where he was trying to get technical
Speaker 1: information about the camera that was used to film it.
Speaker 1: He was not bringing up Bigfoot, He was just asking
Speaker 1: questions about the camera to other film experts, and even
Speaker 1: there the hate came forth. Here comes you know, one guy,
Speaker 1: why are you even talking about this? You're talking about
Speaker 1: a bigfoot film that we all know as a hoax.
Speaker 1: This is just a hoax, Wasn't it Roger Patterson's friend
Speaker 1: in a suit? Didn't he come out and admit that?
Speaker 1: And that's what you get whenever you bring up the
Speaker 1: Patterson film. Still to this day, it's almost like the
Speaker 1: side against the Patterson film, the people that think that
Speaker 1: it's a hoax. The argument is so weak and so misguided, Like, sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: people have said that they were wearing a costume Bob hoeronymous,
Speaker 1: but so have other people throughout history. Since this film
Speaker 1: has come out, there's been numerous people claiming they're the
Speaker 1: guy in the suit and getting there five minutes of fame.
Speaker 2: They can't get the suit right, they can't even describe
Speaker 2: the suit they wore right. That's silly.
Speaker 1: And a lot of the stories that you hear about
Speaker 1: it being a hoax are just internet rumor. It has
Speaker 1: no substance to it. There's nothing supporting it being a
Speaker 1: hoax other than so and so says so, which is
Speaker 1: just as bad.
Speaker 2: If I was a person that was claiming to be
Speaker 2: the guy in the Patterson suit. You damn well better
Speaker 2: believe I'd remember every detail of that suit. I wore
Speaker 2: the most famous suit in history. I'm going to tell
Speaker 2: you I wore a diaper. I'm going to tell you
Speaker 2: I wore shoulder pads, and I you know, I'm going
Speaker 2: to know how many pieces it was and what it
Speaker 2: was made of, because that's it's important, because at some
Speaker 2: point in time, that's going to be important.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have lots of answers, and that's the problem.
Speaker 1: You know, we're most experienced with Bob Heronymous claiming to
Speaker 1: be the guy in the suit. But Bob Heronymous didn't
Speaker 1: have any answers, and his explanation for the suit was
Speaker 1: just utterly ridiculous. It doesn't look anything like what is
Speaker 1: in the Patterson film to me. I mean, he said,
Speaker 1: like an old modified football helmet, you know, one of
Speaker 1: the old leather football helmets. And that's not what I
Speaker 1: see in a film. I mean, could it be just
Speaker 1: all of our eyes playing tricks on us? And that's
Speaker 1: not really a muscle movement, and that's not really what
Speaker 1: it is. It is just Bob Heronymous in a big
Speaker 1: monkey suit.
Speaker 2: Well that you know, it's always a potentiality.
Speaker 1: Right, Unfortunately, but the parison the Gimlin film is not
Speaker 1: the old film footage out there.
Speaker 2: It isn't. That's correct.
Speaker 1: There have been other pieces of video footage, not all
Speaker 1: were horrible. But unfortunately, whenever it comes to bigfoot videos,
Speaker 1: you have two situations going on. You have the pre
Speaker 1: Internet days and the post Internet days. The pre Internet days,
Speaker 1: by the time copies of that video gets to the
Speaker 1: Internet and gets posted on YouTube a thousand times, it
Speaker 1: is of such horrible quality that there's no chance of
Speaker 1: making anything out period.
Speaker 2: Rights.
Speaker 1: That's so true the stuff that's happened post Internet. There's
Speaker 1: so many people faking bigfoot videos. There's so many people
Speaker 1: that are just quite frankly gullible to a bigfoot costume
Speaker 1: what's obviously a bigfoot costume, that it just kind of
Speaker 1: muddies the waters for any good footage that does come out.
Speaker 2: What about some people that have credentials and working in
Speaker 2: film and just go into videos and enhance them to
Speaker 2: pull out stuff that isn't there.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and also what about people that are involved
Speaker 1: in the film industry who just for shits and giggles
Speaker 1: make a fake video and put it out on the Internet,
Speaker 1: just to you know, show everybody what they can.
Speaker 2: Do that would never happen never.
Speaker 1: Never, never in a million years never, and not everybody
Speaker 1: has to be in the film industry. I can get
Speaker 1: the same software that they get, you know. I can
Speaker 1: learn the same skills to put out a fake Bigfoot
Speaker 1: video if I really wanted to. I don't want to,
Speaker 1: but it's possible, and there's people out there that do it.
Speaker 1: There's definitely amateur and hobby special effects guys that make
Speaker 1: fake Internet videos all the time, and they're.
Speaker 2: Just as good as the people working in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: Is good. There's a guy who was former military who's
Speaker 1: kind of part of leading the charge of the UFO
Speaker 1: disclosure movement. Again, won't mention any names, but this information
Speaker 1: isn't hard to find if you google. And he recently
Speaker 1: came under fire after the Senate hearings because he was
Speaker 1: backing a photo that he had received from someone else
Speaker 1: that he trusted and it was just like the reflection
Speaker 1: of a chandelier in a window.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's where you start getting bought into it
Speaker 2: as so much yourself. You start losing your your ability
Speaker 2: to be objective. Yeah, your discernment, and that's incredibly dangerous
Speaker 2: and it's something that we all struggle with the spend
Speaker 2: time in this field. I think there's at least one
Speaker 2: or two times I think we could all say we've
Speaker 2: probably been duped mad oh for sure, Godwin pretty close
Speaker 2: down that rabbit hole, and then all of a sudden
Speaker 2: we're like, I don't.
Speaker 1: Know, I was due. I was part of a duping.
Speaker 1: Now I exposed this duping, but myself and a gentleman
Speaker 1: Steve Alcorn, who used to be pretty well known in
Speaker 1: the bigfoot world for his fair looks at things. You know,
Speaker 1: we got taken in by a guy from the paranormal
Speaker 1: community because he went through someone that we trusted and
Speaker 1: he produced a photo that we did not have an
Speaker 1: explanation for. Steve met up with the guy, interviewed him
Speaker 1: in person. He had this amazing story, and we went
Speaker 1: ahead and put the photo out. Which back in those
Speaker 1: days and I'm sure it's still the same today. If
Speaker 1: you received a bigfoot photo from someone, it was very
Speaker 1: iffy on whether you would actually post it publicly or not.
Speaker 2: I was never a public poster of those things, and
Speaker 2: I'll tell you why, because I always feared the backlash
Speaker 2: and I didn't want to spend my days and nights
Speaker 2: fighting something I didn't have one hundred percent validity over.
Speaker 2: And there was a time that we were sent game
Speaker 2: photos from a camera, a photo from a game camera,
Speaker 2: I should say that game photos, and there was something
Speaker 2: in the photograph, but we couldn't discern what it was.
Speaker 2: Was it interesting? Very but was it? You know, would
Speaker 2: it convince somebody beyond a reasonable doubt? No, no, it wouldn't.
Speaker 2: And so we just sat on it. And now we
Speaker 2: don't even have permission to use it anymore because the
Speaker 2: guy gave it to us has passed away. Never gave
Speaker 2: it to us. He just let us see him and
Speaker 2: hold on to him. You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, this guy had his name was Norm Glasser,
Speaker 1: and he is prominent in the paranormal community, and he
Speaker 1: had sent us this photo and, like I said, had
Speaker 1: a story. Steve interviewed him in person, recorded it all
Speaker 1: on audio. The guy sounded legit, and so we went
Speaker 1: ahead and posted the photo. But we posted it under
Speaker 1: the pretense of if anybody recognizes this, let us know,
Speaker 1: because we're on the fence. We're not saying it is.
Speaker 1: We're not saying it isn't. We're just presenting what we've
Speaker 1: been told. And of course the Bigfoot community came through.
Speaker 1: It is the head of the sugar Hill Flats monster
Speaker 1: that was on display and a little side show shop.
Speaker 1: This guy had gone and seeing the head. It's just
Speaker 1: a paper mache head, you know, just a sideshow gaff basically,
Speaker 1: that was posted in the window of this little museum
Speaker 1: and curiosity shop. And he just took a picture of
Speaker 1: it through the window and then cropped the photo and
Speaker 1: sent it to us and said it was a bigfoot
Speaker 1: looking at him through his car window.
Speaker 2: But the power of the community is that you were
Speaker 2: able to get that quick, right.
Speaker 1: But if it hadn't been recognized, I mean here we
Speaker 1: are now. Of course we exposed him and then doing
Speaker 1: a little deep dive into his paranormal stuff, I found
Speaker 1: where he was hoaxing paranormal events and videos and everything else,
Speaker 1: and did my best to expose him and run him
Speaker 1: out of the community. I don't know if that worked
Speaker 1: or not, but here we are. But are there any
Speaker 1: Bigfoot videos that stand out in your mind over the
Speaker 1: years that you believe might be the real thing?
Speaker 2: Oh? Hell's yeah. I still like the Freeman footage. The
Speaker 2: sad thing is like the quality of that over the
Speaker 2: years has not really been fantastic. I always liked that video.
Speaker 2: Just Paul Freeman's reaction, Oh there it goes, you know,
Speaker 2: was always just so genuine to me. And being able
Speaker 2: to talk to Michael Freeman years ago when I did
Speaker 2: a show called The Nocturnal Journal and Matz Adams and
Speaker 2: I were able to talk with Michael, and I always
Speaker 2: had an affinity. Never knew Paul, but I had an
Speaker 2: affinity towards him because I felt like he was somebody
Speaker 2: that got a bad rep and he was somebody that was,
Speaker 2: you know, really boots on the ground, spent a lot
Speaker 2: of time out there, maybe got a little excited over
Speaker 2: the stuff he found sometimes, but I just think he
Speaker 2: still had a true heart and he was really a good,
Speaker 2: down to earth guy. And I think his video is
Speaker 2: pretty top notch. Again, I think there's more to that
Speaker 2: video that people have taken liberties with. But to me,
Speaker 2: when I think of that video, I think of that
Speaker 2: very large, bulky bigfoot that just kind of saunters in
Speaker 2: front of the camera, and that that's what it is,
Speaker 2: not something picking something up and moving you know, picking
Speaker 2: up a baby or any of that bullshit. In my mind,
Speaker 2: pardon me, I really think I go back to just
Speaker 2: the core of that first instance. You says, Oh, there
Speaker 2: he goes, that's the Freeman footage.
Speaker 1: To me, Yeah, I don't even know if people remember this,
Speaker 1: but the Danny Sweeton video.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Bigfootville. Every time I see it. I have that
Speaker 2: video of that. And I was gonna ask you about
Speaker 2: that one while we were talking, because in my I
Speaker 2: don't know if I just had bad recalling it, but
Speaker 2: what was the deal on that video?
Speaker 1: He was going and buying some land with a friend
Speaker 1: of his. They were gonna buy a piece of property
Speaker 1: as a like a real estate investment type thing, I believe,
Speaker 1: and they might have wanted to buy some property for
Speaker 1: a gun range or something. I'm screwing up the story already.
Speaker 1: Bear with me, but.
Speaker 2: It's been a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, like his buddy couldn't make it, so he
Speaker 1: went out there and took a video camera with him
Speaker 1: because he was filming the property to show his buddy
Speaker 1: since he couldn't make it. And he's walking around out
Speaker 1: there and the story goes, he just kind of walks
Speaker 1: up on this creature that's like asleep, like taking a nap.
Speaker 1: It's like laying on the ground on its side. And
Speaker 1: whenever he saw it, it was like looking at him
Speaker 1: and it's laying on its side, and he said it
Speaker 1: was kind of playing with its fingertips, like it was
Speaker 1: nervous looking at him, like it was thinking, like what
Speaker 1: do I do? And he said, just in a flash,
Speaker 1: like he starts to pull the camera up, and this
Speaker 1: thing jumps up and punches him right in the chest
Speaker 1: and knocks him to the ground and takes off. And
Speaker 1: he gets back up and gets to his feet and
Speaker 1: gets the camera up and you can see it walking
Speaker 1: off in the distance.
Speaker 2: It's always a good piece of footage. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: I and again, you know, we talk about video of
Speaker 2: it's something we think to be credible. It's something I've
Speaker 2: always been fond of, but I don't have enough information
Speaker 2: to say, yeah, the the hell, yeah that's the real deal.
Speaker 2: But it's a very exciting piece of footage.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, well, there was some discrepancies supposedly in the story
Speaker 1: and providing, like you know, whenever people started digging and
Speaker 1: everything he mentioned about I think maybe having to have
Speaker 1: some dental work done like the thing had popped him
Speaker 1: in the mouth or something, and then you know, couldn't
Speaker 1: provide dental receipts or something like that. There's you know,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. And back then, this was in
Speaker 1: a period of time whenever tabloid television was really popular,
Speaker 1: and so you have like Current Affair and different TV
Speaker 1: shows reaching out to him wanting him to you know,
Speaker 1: to pay him for the footage and tell his story
Speaker 1: and everything. That's where I heard about it as a kid,
Speaker 1: and I do think that he may have tried to
Speaker 1: fabricate some things after the fact, after kind of you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, Like we've ran across the before
Speaker 1: where somebody gets a little bit a little taste, you know,
Speaker 1: that celebrity, that limelight, and whenever it's gone, they still
Speaker 1: craved that attention or whatever.
Speaker 2: Which was a lot harder back then. Yeah, it's not
Speaker 2: like today it could go viral, so you know, in
Speaker 2: a second, this was a lot harder for people to
Speaker 2: get that notoriety, so it was a lot more attractive
Speaker 2: to try to get it, sure, is the point, right.
Speaker 1: And I think some people also did it just to
Speaker 1: kind of like, you know, they didn't like people questioning
Speaker 1: them you know, they experienced a true event and they're
Speaker 1: wanting people to believe them so bad they were like, well, okay,
Speaker 1: well here here's a track and here's more film, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's it's just out of desperation, you know, trying
Speaker 1: to validate a true experience they had. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, story aside, the sweetened footage looked
Speaker 1: good to me. It always hass.
Speaker 2: Right, right, you know. The other problem is with people
Speaker 2: have a natural tendency to embellish to begin with. It's
Speaker 2: just our It's how we tell story. Right. To make
Speaker 2: a story exciting, sometimes you add more to it to
Speaker 2: make it a little bit more interesting or entertaining. It
Speaker 2: doesn't mean the story's false. It just means that you
Speaker 2: took some liberties with it to make it a little
Speaker 2: bit more interesting. And you know, I always worry about
Speaker 2: that when I'm recounting my encounter story. You know, I
Speaker 2: still go back to the court, did that really happen?
Speaker 2: Or is that something I added to make it seem
Speaker 2: more Because you tell a story for how long yourself,
Speaker 2: you get bored with it?
Speaker 1: Oh for sure, right.
Speaker 2: So you have to make sure you're kind of remaining
Speaker 2: to the integrity of the story, and you're not, you know,
Speaker 2: because that's all any diehard skeptic needs to do is
Speaker 2: always change the story about this or this details. Well,
Speaker 2: we're human, that's not true. We just, you know, have
Speaker 2: just this natural tendency at times to try to make
Speaker 2: stories sound more exciting because you've got tired of telling
Speaker 2: it the same way for twenty years.
Speaker 1: What do you think of the squeaky thermal footage?
Speaker 2: Which one's this? Which one's the squeaky.
Speaker 1: This is the thermal footage where it crawls up and
Speaker 1: takes a candy bar off of a tree stump.
Speaker 2: Who took that footage?
Speaker 1: I cannot tell.
Speaker 2: You it's not the Michael Green footage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think it is. I think it isn't
Speaker 1: the Michael greenfoot North Carolina.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think so, because I'll tell you I think
Speaker 2: that one, if we're talking about the same one, that
Speaker 2: one's pretty damn interesting to me, because I think it's
Speaker 2: a lot harder to fake a thermal than it is
Speaker 2: to fake an actual man in a suit, only because
Speaker 2: you have layers of you're trying to be able to
Speaker 2: maintain a bulkiness. Synthetic fibers aren't going to radiate heat
Speaker 2: or trap heat the same way as the human body.
Speaker 2: Like you got to really layer and think and to
Speaker 2: be able to produce that. Yeah, the thermals are really
Speaker 2: harder to to fabricate, and I really think there's something
Speaker 2: behind that that Squeaky footage.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing with all the thermal videos that are
Speaker 1: out there. I mean maybe there's some that I don't
Speaker 1: know about, but whenever you're talking about the Squeaky footage
Speaker 1: for instance, or the Stacy Brown footage, which.
Speaker 2: Is another interesting one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is either a bigfoot or as it's not
Speaker 1: a misidentification.
Speaker 2: No, and the Stacy Brown footed I just think the
Speaker 2: limb proportions on that one make that, even though it's quick,
Speaker 2: make that stand out and kind of stand alone. It's fleeting,
Speaker 2: but it's still there enough to get a profile of it.
Speaker 1: Well. Again, the thermal image itself does not show a
Speaker 1: person wearing clothing, just because of the way that the
Speaker 1: heats dispersed uniformly over the entire figure and everything, Like
Speaker 1: you were saying, with synthetic fibers and everything, it doesn't
Speaker 1: really radiate heat the same way. And with that footage,
Speaker 1: it seems pretty uniform and heat signature. To me, I
Speaker 1: would think that if it was somebody in a costume,
Speaker 1: it would appear entirely different, with like the hands glowing
Speaker 1: and around the feet glowing, in the face glowing.
Speaker 2: I concur with you on that, and I think that's
Speaker 2: the you know, you couple that then with the proportions,
Speaker 2: that one's harder to dispel, right, And that's what's going
Speaker 2: to be the key. Like we've talked about evidence, and
Speaker 2: we've only even just gotten to film. But you start
Speaker 2: taking enough pieces of each one of these components, you
Speaker 2: can build a pretty good case study is to start
Speaker 2: proving that, you know, maybe one piece of evidence does it,
Speaker 2: but the collective characteristics of these films and these pieces
Speaker 2: of evidence lead us to believe this. And this is.
Speaker 1: Why, right, it's the collection of all.
Speaker 2: Of this stuffy yep, the culmination of it all.
Speaker 1: You can't just look at a single thing because none
Speaker 1: of it will. I mean, you can talk your way
Speaker 1: out of anything, you know, unless you physically see a
Speaker 1: bigfoot do it, record the bigfoot on video doing it,
Speaker 1: and then shoot the bigfoot and dragging the body, there's
Speaker 1: always going to be a way to say, ah, that
Speaker 1: could have been something else that wasn't a bigfoot. This
Speaker 1: person's making it up whatever.
Speaker 2: Yes, James Baker, you know, my research partner, my good friend,
Speaker 2: my best friend, and we are at with Cliff Barackman
Speaker 2: at the ball in the Bar in Salt Fork, and
Speaker 2: we're having a pretty spirited discussion around you know, this activity.
Speaker 2: And the guy kept saying these trees, a bigfoot did that,
Speaker 2: and Cliff goes, until I see a bigfoot do it,
Speaker 2: we can't say that for sure. Right, we could say
Speaker 2: suspected activity or purported activity. But until we say you
Speaker 2: don't know what bigfoot did that? Well, yes I do, No,
Speaker 2: you don't, you really don't, And until we prove it,
Speaker 2: none of us can really say that. Right. We would
Speaker 2: like to think it is, but there's always that one
Speaker 2: percent chance world delusional.
Speaker 1: Well, the next item on the list is one that
Speaker 1: has always held a special place for me interest wise,
Speaker 1: and that's vocal as a Yeah, vocalizations, man, these are
Speaker 1: things that I've heard in person, they are things that
Speaker 1: I have recorded, I've heard other recordings, and I know
Speaker 1: for a fact that there are many vocalizations out there
Speaker 1: that have not been identified as anything known to exist.
Speaker 2: Right, So we go to David Ellis, we go to
Speaker 2: Scott Nelson, we go to stand Courtney, somebody who I
Speaker 2: don't think has gotten nearly enough credit and vocalization captures
Speaker 2: and collections. Right, you know these guys Ron moorehead right,
Speaker 2: these guys are are pretty much the forefront of the
Speaker 2: audio capturing of sasquatch. I guess you got to put
Speaker 2: Matt Moneymaker on there because of the ohio. But like,
Speaker 2: nothing else makes noises like that, And David Ellis is
Speaker 2: slowly starting to prove that that these things are at
Speaker 2: a different frequency and realm than the known animals that
Speaker 2: we know making these sounds. They are truly coming back
Speaker 2: as an unknown sound.
Speaker 1: Well, Cornell University is probably one of the top universities
Speaker 1: on the planet for nature audio.
Speaker 2: I hated Andy from the office. I hated and sorry Cornell,
Speaker 2: I'm just sorry, touchy subject. Oh I hated him. Go ahead,
Speaker 2: sorry digress.
Speaker 1: But I know people personally who I've been to the location.
Speaker 1: I've been there when the recordings were happening, and they
Speaker 1: have sent these recordings to Cornell, and Cornell could not
Speaker 1: identify them as anything in their database. And this is
Speaker 1: like out in the woods in Texas, so how difficult
Speaker 1: can it really be? So at the very least, bigfooters
Speaker 1: have captured audio the vocalizations of creatures that are either
Speaker 1: undocumented or the creatures are documented, and these particular vocalizations
Speaker 1: have never been documented.
Speaker 2: Right. I recorded some sounds in Keystone Forest and Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: And if you go watch one of the small Town
Speaker 2: Monsters documentaries, they actually play it and it's actually me
Speaker 2: going back and forth with something. At first, I had
Speaker 2: to be careful that it wasn't my echo across this
Speaker 2: lake or this body of water that's there. But it's
Speaker 2: clearly intelligent. It's going back and forth, back and forth
Speaker 2: with me. In fact, my buddy Chuck you can hear
Speaker 2: in the recording saying he locks you and as this
Speaker 2: thing and I are vocalizing back and forth. And the
Speaker 2: one time I listened to my partner research partner, Ernie
Speaker 2: at the time, I go, why the hell is there?
Speaker 2: How with the ones, I had this very kind of
Speaker 2: sound to it, right, that was so unusual, But it
Speaker 2: kept interacting with me to the point where I was
Speaker 2: making more guerrilla type sounds and it was coming back
Speaker 2: at me with them wow. And then it stopped and
Speaker 2: so like I don't know what it was we I
Speaker 2: don't know if I've ever had it tested or anybody
Speaker 2: had it tested. To me, it was interesting. If it
Speaker 2: came back as something something known, I would be happy.
Speaker 2: I think I would be happy to know, Oh, okay,
Speaker 2: that's what I recorded right, as opposed to, Hey, I
Speaker 2: just had this vocal in exchange with something that could
Speaker 2: literally rip my limbs apart.
Speaker 1: Well, whenever it comes to vocalizations and other items that
Speaker 1: we'll be talking about, I want people to try and
Speaker 1: understand something. You would think you would be a big
Speaker 1: deal if you sent a university or recording of something
Speaker 1: roaring out in the woods and they're like, yeah, we
Speaker 1: can't identify this, but they don't really have any interest
Speaker 1: in it. They don't really generally speaking, they don't want
Speaker 1: to have anything to do with it because they definitely
Speaker 1: don't want to be attached to it if it's Bigfoot
Speaker 1: or anything else for that matter that falls into the
Speaker 1: cryptosology realm, because they're you know, everything's on the line
Speaker 1: for them. It doesn't bode well for the future of
Speaker 1: their profession.
Speaker 2: Lose a lot of alumni money that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there's going to be multiple items on this list,
Speaker 1: vocalizations being at the top of things that have been
Speaker 1: sent to universities, been sent to laboratories and everything else where.
Speaker 1: They were not able to identify them and for whatever
Speaker 1: reason didn't care what it was. I mean, the Ohio
Speaker 1: how you know you brought you brought up to Ohio.
Speaker 1: How it's never been identified. The Sierra Sounds has never
Speaker 1: been identified. The only thing that the Sierra Sounds has
Speaker 1: is you have this vocalization. Experts god arn Nelson, you know,
Speaker 1: a crypto linguist from the military, huge accreditations a language,
Speaker 1: and he says it's a language. He says, this is right,
Speaker 1: real and it's not human. So I would consider it
Speaker 1: evidence at that point, right, me too of something.
Speaker 2: Vocalizations have always been very compelling to me because to me,
Speaker 2: that shows that validity, that it's a living creature, that
Speaker 2: it's physical, that it is existing in our realm, and
Speaker 2: we can collect it. It is evidence.
Speaker 1: We can collect, right, hair and feces samples you ever
Speaker 1: collected any poop.
Speaker 2: I have found? Glenn was talking about this. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: Glenn Barusso or researcher from Pennsylvania. One of the last
Speaker 2: episodes we did on sasquatch experience, and he was talking
Speaker 2: about these big gloppy pancake looking craps that they found,
Speaker 2: and we had found those in the Cook Forest in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: but we never tried to collect it because I didn't
Speaker 2: want to try to collect these big, gloppy, freaking bird pancakes.
Speaker 2: It was rather repugnant, to be honest with you. And yeah,
Speaker 2: I've never tried to. I've never been into the scat
Speaker 2: business man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not the scatman.
Speaker 2: I'm not the scatman.
Speaker 1: It is a very technical thinning whenever it comes to
Speaker 1: analyzing feces that makes it incredibly difficult for it to
Speaker 1: be worth going through the trouble of dealing with that
Speaker 1: for any reason. You know. I've heard a few comedic
Speaker 1: stories about different researchers why I was opening the freezer
Speaker 1: and finding the bag of poop up there. It never
Speaker 1: works well, and and they're just like, yeah, that's bear,
Speaker 1: that's a dog. You don't want that to happen. And
Speaker 1: the things that are required for anything to actually come
Speaker 1: of it. I mean, it can be worth it, but
Speaker 1: it was never worth it in my area. There was
Speaker 1: never a time I did spend about thirty minutes looking
Speaker 1: at a pile of poop, only to discern that it
Speaker 1: was definitely a pile of dog crap that I had
Speaker 1: been staring at for thirty minutes.
Speaker 2: Who do you send it to? Even, I guess it's
Speaker 2: maybe now you can send it to doctor Disstel. He
Speaker 2: can send it to Darby Orchid. Maybe. But we didn't
Speaker 2: have all those resources back then either. You know, you
Speaker 2: get on the big foot forums, have bigfoot crap to
Speaker 2: send somebody who's interested.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now, hair samples. Hair samples is something I have
Speaker 1: been a part of and gotten some interesting results.
Speaker 2: I have sent hair samples to well doctor Meldrum that
Speaker 2: got lost in the mail. I sent them registered mail.
Speaker 2: Probably shouldn't put them on an envelope that was addressed
Speaker 2: from the Keystone Bigfoot project. But they disappeared in roote.
Speaker 2: No bullshit, that really happened. And they were hairs taken
Speaker 2: from the same area as the Jacobs photo. Now the
Speaker 2: problem is, I think the Jacob's photo creatures a bear,
Speaker 2: but it was hair taken from that area that we
Speaker 2: sent anyhow, just to have a test, and doctor Belgium
Speaker 2: said he'd look at it. That's the only time I've
Speaker 2: collected hair samples, and one of the things that we
Speaker 2: try to do here in our group is try to
Speaker 2: learn how to do our best job at preserving that
Speaker 2: kind of evidence.
Speaker 1: This group of people that I used to research with,
Speaker 1: I was not there whenever the hair was collected, but
Speaker 1: it was collected near the same casino that's famous for
Speaker 1: having a bigfoot video that nobody's ever seen, but certain
Speaker 1: individuals saw security footage of a bigfoot. Years later, a
Speaker 1: group of friends of mine went there just to investigate
Speaker 1: the area and found hair attached to a barbed wire
Speaker 1: fence at the back of the property, on the opposite
Speaker 1: side of some dumpsters. The dumpsters were just a few
Speaker 1: feet away from the barb wire fence. The dumpster lids
Speaker 1: faced the opposite direction of the barb wire fence. The
Speaker 1: point is there would be no reason for a person
Speaker 1: to be back there, but not impossible because it was
Speaker 1: at dumpsters. So at the time, the hare was split
Speaker 1: into three different samples, I believe, and sent to three
Speaker 1: different laboratories. They were sent by a man named tal
Speaker 1: Bronco you may or may not have heard of him
Speaker 1: back in the day, and we got results back from
Speaker 1: two of the labs. One of the labs never got
Speaker 1: the sample lost in the mail.
Speaker 2: Funny how that happens.
Speaker 1: Funny how that happens. The two other labs. Now, keep
Speaker 1: in mind, we were just going for basic identification through microscopes,
Speaker 1: no DNA. The results that they sent in back stated
Speaker 1: that they could not determine what race or region of
Speaker 1: the body that it came from, but it was most
Speaker 1: similar to human hair, but did not show signs of
Speaker 1: shampoo use or chemicals or anything.
Speaker 2: Like that, so it was natural.
Speaker 1: It was natural. Yeah, so someone who's never washed or
Speaker 1: dyed their hair was behind these dumpsters and got a
Speaker 1: huge matted clump of hair on the barbed wire fence.
Speaker 1: But it was interesting that they couldn't tell us the
Speaker 1: race or the region of the body. Apparently hair coming
Speaker 1: from different areas of the body is different. The hair
Speaker 1: on your head is different than the hair on your arm,
Speaker 1: and different things that they look at and hair color
Speaker 1: they can usually determine, you know, one of the major
Speaker 1: races or whatever. They're just unable to Apparently, again, most
Speaker 1: likely human. So take that for what you will. But
Speaker 1: there's been many hair samples that have been looked at
Speaker 1: and studied and everything else. There's been entire collections that
Speaker 1: are believed to be bigfoot hair, where these hairs do
Speaker 1: not match anything in the known animal record, including humans.
Speaker 2: This is where it gets dicey, right, because what's to
Speaker 2: say it wouldn't appear to be almost human. We don't
Speaker 2: know how much of how close do they share genes
Speaker 2: with us?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: And that's where it gets a leaven more kind of
Speaker 2: kooky and conspiratorial when sketchy and scary, right, Like are
Speaker 2: they just to split away?
Speaker 1: Well? I do not have due to controversy, I do
Speaker 1: not have any DNA on this list. I do not
Speaker 1: have any DNA studies on this list. There have been
Speaker 1: DNA studies, right, but for years we've heard different DNA
Speaker 1: studies coming back as human contamination. Well, why are you
Speaker 1: saying human contamination exactly? Is it because you found one
Speaker 1: human DNA or you found something where you think this
Speaker 1: must be contaminated because it's close to human but not
Speaker 1: quite And then these things are human of some kind?
Speaker 1: What would that be? And they even look like if
Speaker 1: there's nothing on the record to compare it to.
Speaker 2: And I think that's where we're at, Matt, Like that
Speaker 2: contamination leads to that that gray area, right, that was
Speaker 2: it intent? You know, was was it accidentally contaminated or
Speaker 2: is it not contamination at all? And it's just that
Speaker 2: damn close. Yeah, which freaks people out more.
Speaker 1: No, for sure, for sure.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't think we want something to be
Speaker 2: that close to us. I think we've enjoyed the the
Speaker 2: privilege of being the apex predator on planet Earth, right,
Speaker 2: and now that you've got something that could be so
Speaker 2: close to us and be a lot more secretive and secluding,
Speaker 2: that makes all It makes a little pit in all
Speaker 2: our stomachs kind of become a rock.
Speaker 1: Well. At that same location, on those same dumpsters, we
Speaker 1: ran across these handprints that were much larger than the
Speaker 1: largest male individual in the group that was there at
Speaker 1: the time. The fingers were much longer than a human finger.
Speaker 1: The thumb was extremely long compared to a human thumb.
Speaker 1: The distance between the pointer finger and the base of
Speaker 1: the thumb was much longer than what is on a
Speaker 1: human's hand. There were side by side photos taken and
Speaker 1: in these handprints and fingerprints that were on this dumpster,
Speaker 1: it left some sort of residue and it was almost
Speaker 1: like it had been baked into the metal of the
Speaker 1: dumpster by the sun over the years. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: these were like fresh handprints or anything, but in some
Speaker 1: of these handprints you could see dermal ridges. And there
Speaker 1: have been fingerprint experts Jimmy Chill, you know, back in
Speaker 1: the day, who have looked at various bigfoot handprints and
Speaker 1: fingerprints and said, these are showing dermal ridges of something
Speaker 1: that's not human, and they're definitely real. They're definitely dermal ridges,
Speaker 1: they're not fake. So I consider that a form of evidence.
Speaker 2: Right now, we have David Zeigen out who's expounding on
Speaker 2: a lot of those things that you know through his
Speaker 2: work in forensics. That's bringing it even more to light now,
Speaker 2: and again I think that's another direction we could go
Speaker 2: to start getting ourselves in definitive proof. Do we need
Speaker 2: a body at this point anymore? Man? I think that
Speaker 2: the body is the ultimate definition. But if we get
Speaker 2: enough through these ancillary methods of evidence collection, is it
Speaker 2: good enough? Have we ever determined a species that way?
Speaker 1: You know? I've always argued that we have to have
Speaker 1: a body, and I'm just now starting to reach the
Speaker 1: point where I think maybe we don't. Maybe just maybe
Speaker 1: society has changed enough and technology has changed enough that
Speaker 1: we're not going to need a body. And I honestly
Speaker 1: think about you know, UFO disclosure. Again, people are so
Speaker 1: accepting that we're not alone in the universe, more so
Speaker 1: than they've ever been as a whole. You've got you know,
Speaker 1: the government looking into it and talking about it openly.
Speaker 2: Which I think from all that we can infer that
Speaker 2: there are unidentified flying objects and aerial phenomenon, right, and
Speaker 2: that they are from out of this world, right. I
Speaker 2: don't think upon it watching any of these and we're
Speaker 2: even talk about this, but we'll go there now that
Speaker 2: any of these congressional testimonials, they don't even try to
Speaker 2: be coy about it.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: In fact, the thing I hate the most is when
Speaker 2: they go to that mentioned we can't talk about this
Speaker 2: anymore here, but we could talk about it in a
Speaker 2: closed session, because just talking about it enough is you know,
Speaker 2: is not obvious that you guys are so close to
Speaker 2: you know, admitting or you are admitting that they're out there.
Speaker 2: Why can't we do the same with Bigfoot?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the thing. This is obviously, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: headed down the path of acknowledgment. It's never been a
Speaker 1: question for me but who cares what I think. But
Speaker 1: this is going to be an accepted thing, and they're
Speaker 1: certainly not going to bring in the body of an
Speaker 1: alien to prove it. They're not going to say, well,
Speaker 1: where's the body? We need the proof that.
Speaker 2: No, with UFOs, you can go to the national defense route,
Speaker 2: right or the global defense route, like we have to
Speaker 2: be able to protect ourselves from exus another and obviously
Speaker 2: this technology is far superior than us. We have to
Speaker 2: look at this as a threat, and because of that threat,
Speaker 2: we need to keep the information we have under wraps
Speaker 2: so we can be best prepared. So whatever with the sasquatch,
Speaker 2: think about the implications it has to the economy when
Speaker 2: it comes to not even science, just the economy. You
Speaker 2: have now an endangered species with an unlimited range in
Speaker 2: North America? What does that do for forestry? What does
Speaker 2: that do to the paper business? What does it do
Speaker 2: to fracking and natural gas? Like, now we have an
Speaker 2: endangered species with an unlimited range in all these areas.
Speaker 2: Does that shut down industry because of the own laws,
Speaker 2: our own laws we've created, And what's the economic impact
Speaker 2: on that? And then how does that impact us in
Speaker 2: every day And that's not even having to go into
Speaker 2: the religious implications or anything else.
Speaker 1: Should we even throw it off the table? I mean,
Speaker 1: like you were saying, if this is human or if
Speaker 1: this is something close to human, what implications does that have?
Speaker 1: If if it falls outside of the realm of just
Speaker 1: an animal, no offense to animal lovers out there or anything.
Speaker 1: But now you're talking about Okay, well do they have rights?
Speaker 1: Are our treaties Nolan void with the Native Americans? You know,
Speaker 1: who was here first? Are they part of the Native Americans?
Speaker 1: You know? There would be a lot of questions that
Speaker 1: would get asked in a hurry.
Speaker 2: How do we pay reparations to Sasquatch?
Speaker 1: Right? I mean, they would definitely have rights to land,
Speaker 1: the same constitutional rights that everybody else has. Take that
Speaker 1: for what you will, But like, how would the government
Speaker 1: even be able to respond just to the public outcry
Speaker 1: and the questions that would come up.
Speaker 2: Or becomes as you've known this, this has obviously been
Speaker 2: a public safety danger. And how long have you known
Speaker 2: this and acknowledged it and allowed us to live Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: in close proximity, particularly because we have things like missing
Speaker 2: four row one which scares the hell out of people.
Speaker 2: And if it turns out this has all been for
Speaker 2: some sas squaddal that have been you know, thugging and
Speaker 2: bugging our people out there. Then we have, you know,
Speaker 2: we have a whole other set of problems. Again, it
Speaker 2: spirals out of control. And I think that's why the
Speaker 2: benefit is to deny, deny, deny, because we don't have
Speaker 2: to deal with those problematic things right now. Right like
Speaker 2: we talk about the things that we you know, that
Speaker 2: are real everyday issues that we can't control, and now
Speaker 2: we want to throw something at it, like the public
Speaker 2: disclosure of sasquatch being real or extraterrestrials and go fooks,
Speaker 2: which I think they've done that low key acknowledged it
Speaker 2: in a way.
Speaker 1: So that brings us to body and hand impressions, and
Speaker 1: I have this gone, yeah, yeah, I have this on
Speaker 1: here because I think it's important to acknowledge that whenever
Speaker 1: it comes to uh the bigfoot footprint track casting card
Speaker 1: being played in the world of bigfoot evidence, you also
Speaker 1: have to acknowledge that there are castings and findings of
Speaker 1: other imps in the ground besides feet.
Speaker 2: Right, I have a knuckle print from I think it's
Speaker 2: a Paul Freeman knuckle print that I have, and there's
Speaker 2: hand prints out there. Cliff's Museum has a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of other interesting prints on display. To your point, Matt,
Speaker 2: there are more than footprints. You know. We have the
Speaker 2: Skukum cast, which you know has its own kind of
Speaker 2: controversy in itself, is at an elk Walo, so on
Speaker 2: and so forth, But it's interesting. There's the potential Achilles heel,
Speaker 2: like a lot a lot of information in that cast.
Speaker 2: But the hand prints themselves, how do you fake that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've seen handprints. I've seen some really impressive castings
Speaker 1: of hand prints. I've seen a body cast similar to
Speaker 1: the Scuokam cast, except it was here in Oklahoma and
Speaker 1: it was smaller in nature, but it did not have
Speaker 1: the same characteristics as the Skukum cast. You could see,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, what appeared to be two butt cheeks
Speaker 1: where it sat on the ground. You could see an
Speaker 1: elbow in a forearm, and you could see part of
Speaker 1: the palm where it pressed down on the ground and
Speaker 1: you know, got itself to its feet. So I I mean,
Speaker 1: I wasn't there to study the track itself. I only
Speaker 1: saw the casting. But like you're saying, there's lots of
Speaker 1: handprints out there, hand castings, There's all different kinds of
Speaker 1: body impressions that bigfooters have found over the years, not
Speaker 1: just footprints.
Speaker 2: Right, I mean. And when you couple that with and
Speaker 2: I don't know, those on your list are not the
Speaker 2: potential nesting sites? Yeah? Why not? Like these things need shelter,
Speaker 2: These things need to find some way to rest or
Speaker 2: relax like we do. Why would they not leave an
Speaker 2: impression on the ground. Would they not have a bet
Speaker 2: or a home.
Speaker 1: It's funny that you bring up nesting sites because just recently,
Speaker 1: again on the Internet, someone had posted an image of
Speaker 1: a bear nest that they had found, and they saw
Speaker 1: the bear eggsit the nest a small black bear. I
Speaker 1: don't believe the larger bears make nests or utilize ground
Speaker 1: nests of any kind, but black bears definitely do. And
Speaker 1: they took a picture of the nest they had never
Speaker 1: seen one before, and they posted it on the internet,
Speaker 1: and people started comparing this to the nesting site that
Speaker 1: the Olympic Project has studied. I know that they're not
Speaker 1: necessarily the only ones that have ever studied a potential
Speaker 1: bigfoot nest, but I thought it was interesting because apparently
Speaker 1: people know about the nesting site that the Olympic Project
Speaker 1: has studied, but they haven't taken the time to look
Speaker 1: into any of the research and study that they've actually
Speaker 1: done on the site. They just know about its existence.
Speaker 1: And so I had made a post about how, yes,
Speaker 1: bears do in fact make nests. However, the nesting site
Speaker 1: in question, you know, they were aware of that fact,
Speaker 1: and they've done the best they can to rule that out.
Speaker 1: They've had primatologists come out, they've had wildlife biologists come
Speaker 1: out and look at the site and look at the
Speaker 1: nests and everything, and they're different than what bears use,
Speaker 1: and they're much larger than what bears use. And there
Speaker 1: was other evidence such as, you know, the footprints and
Speaker 1: handprints and things like that. And it surprised me because
Speaker 1: the response wasn't what I was expecting. The response was,
Speaker 1: bears don't make nests. I've been a hunter for forty
Speaker 1: years and I've never seen a bear nest. What are
Speaker 1: you talking about? Bears don't make nests. You don't know
Speaker 1: what you're talking about. And it's just like, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: now we're just going to die on that hill. Trying
Speaker 1: to defend the bigfoot nest whenever. I'm not even arguing
Speaker 1: against the bigfoot nest.
Speaker 2: Right, well, maybe you've just been a shitty hunter for
Speaker 2: forty years, but ever think of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've never seen a barre nest either, but
Speaker 1: they exist. That doesn't change the fact.
Speaker 2: And I was just like, well, sometimes they're opportunistic, right,
Speaker 2: they'll sleep under porches and make a den. Why would
Speaker 2: they not do that with an already established semi structure.
Speaker 2: We're not saying they're ripping the trees off and making them.
Speaker 2: They're saying, you know, they're usually if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 2: you can correct me using the shelter that something else
Speaker 2: is created.
Speaker 1: Right, or you know, a bell hay and they just
Speaker 1: kind of walk it out or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's not like we're saying they're ripping them off trees
Speaker 2: and weaving these things. That's not what it's been said, right.
Speaker 1: And in the photo that was posted of this particular nest,
Speaker 1: you know, it honestly looked like a bell of that
Speaker 1: had been dragged out there or something. But the tree
Speaker 1: that it was right next to it was like at
Speaker 1: the base of a tree had beare cloth stratches all
Speaker 1: over it where it had been digging in the bark
Speaker 1: and stuff. I mean there signs, yeah, obvious signs of
Speaker 1: bear activity. But it's just interesting that people will really
Speaker 1: just defend anything blindly without actually knowing what they're talking about.
Speaker 2: Well, context is king, and when they missed the context,
Speaker 2: they just want to argue about, you know, whatever happens
Speaker 2: to be the foremost on their mind. And like to
Speaker 2: your point, I'm not defending this and saying it's not
Speaker 2: a big foot nest. I'm telling you I know it's
Speaker 2: a bear nest. Yeah, because here's evidence a B and
Speaker 2: c oh and a damn bear ran out of it.
Speaker 1: Well, it just kind of always takes me back. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Maybe I had a different approach whenever I
Speaker 1: was investigating out in the field. But my whole thing
Speaker 1: that I've pushed for years is if you're going to
Speaker 1: investigate an area, you have to research that area. You
Speaker 1: have to learn all the wildlife, all the things that
Speaker 1: are supposed to be out there, the sounds they make,
Speaker 1: the foods they eat, the way that they go about
Speaker 1: their day. You have to learn all that stuff so
Speaker 1: you can recognize what doesn't fit, what's not supposed to
Speaker 1: be there. And people just you know, I don't understand
Speaker 1: how you can go out and call yourself a bigfoot
Speaker 1: researcher or a field investigator whenever you don't even know
Speaker 1: what animals live in your area, or what their behavior
Speaker 1: patterns are or what their tracks look like.
Speaker 2: So it just goes to you know, I just received
Speaker 2: a siting report from a friend of my uncle who's
Speaker 2: been works out at Water Authority land. Okay, it's private land.
Speaker 2: You can't go out there under penalty of Cresspass. Like
Speaker 2: they keep it pretty serious out there. It's a main
Speaker 2: water source for the community. And he was out there
Speaker 2: doing his rounds because he works there, and he sighting
Speaker 2: of a bigfoot and hands down to him. There's no
Speaker 2: doubt in his mind what he saw. There's bears out there.
Speaker 2: He knows there's bears out there, but he knows what
Speaker 2: the damn bears look like. And you know how this
Speaker 2: thing moved. But he could eliminate it because he knows
Speaker 2: what's out there, right, he knows what he saw and
Speaker 2: what he didn't see. What he saw was not a bear.
Speaker 2: So how do you argue that. You know, again, it's
Speaker 2: the same thing you're talking about, Like, you know, you've
Speaker 2: been out there. You've worked out there for over twenty years.
Speaker 2: You spent out there, you know the creatures and the
Speaker 2: you know. So to our point, like it works in
Speaker 2: the pro Way as well as.
Speaker 1: The con right down in Sulfur. What This is a
Speaker 1: location in Oklahoma, Sulfur, Oklahoma. It's a small town and
Speaker 1: next to this small town is the one and only
Speaker 1: actual national park in the state of Oklahoma. This is
Speaker 1: where I had my initial sighting and where I did
Speaker 1: the vast majority of my Bigfoot recent at one of
Speaker 1: these locations. There was a group of us. We were
Speaker 1: going down mid morning. I think it was about ten am.
Speaker 1: It had rained the night before. It was I want
Speaker 1: to say late September maybe yeah, late September. I don't
Speaker 1: think we were into November yet. It was a pretty
Speaker 1: cool day, I would say low fifties. I was wearing
Speaker 1: like a hoodie and pants, and I had to stop
Speaker 1: at the store and get some medicine. On the way,
Speaker 1: everybody else was driving on out there. I stopped and
Speaker 1: got the medicine. I got out there maybe five to
Speaker 1: ten minutes after they did. Chaos, absolute chaos, couldn't find anybody.
Speaker 1: Eventually saw somebody walking in the creek bed went down
Speaker 1: to the creek bed. There's tracks everywhere. My friend had
Speaker 1: gone up creek following the tracks he had seen one.
Speaker 1: He was running towards the direction he had seen it.
Speaker 1: I went towards where he was. He met me coming back.
Speaker 1: We turned around started following the tracks. He was showing
Speaker 1: me where he had tracked it to. The tracks went
Speaker 1: up this huge embankment that we had to crawl up.
Speaker 1: This thing just stepped up the embankment. There's like a
Speaker 1: little dirt turnaround there, and you can see the wet
Speaker 1: footprints from the creek bed in the dirt of the
Speaker 1: road as it crossed the road and jumps off this
Speaker 1: little ledge back off into the woods. The other tracks
Speaker 1: went on the opposite side of the creek and turned
Speaker 1: and went through the mud and up into this cane
Speaker 1: thicket kind of like bamboo. There was one set of
Speaker 1: tracks that was about fourteen inches long, another set of
Speaker 1: tracks that was about twelve inches long, another set of
Speaker 1: tracks that was like seven inches long, and a set
Speaker 1: of tracks that were like five inches long, all barefoot
Speaker 1: in this creek bed. Fresh tracks. Late September, fifty degrees outside,
Speaker 1: horrible conditions, nobody's going to have their little kids out
Speaker 1: there running around barefoot in this creek bed. The particular
Speaker 1: creek bed had a lot of what we call shell
Speaker 1: in it, a type of rock that will just like
Speaker 1: cut the crap.
Speaker 2: Out of the bottom feet. Yeah, oh yes.
Speaker 1: And there's no signs of vehicles or anything. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not considering myself the greatest tracker in the world,
Speaker 1: but I'm pretty decent. I know what I'm looking at.
Speaker 1: And I mean there's just tracks everywhere, at least fifty
Speaker 1: or sixty tracks. We could track them all the way
Speaker 1: like walk in the water. We tracked them all the
Speaker 1: way back where they came out of the woods by
Speaker 1: the lake. We spent all day casting. I still have
Speaker 1: several of the casts here at the house all these
Speaker 1: years later. And that was one of the most exciting
Speaker 1: events that ever happened in my bigfoot career, you know,
Speaker 1: being part of that huge trackway find which is what
Speaker 1: I want to talk about. Trackways. We don't just find
Speaker 1: one footprint. Sometimes we find a miles worth of footprints.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we find fifty to sixty the London Trackway one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty two prints. There's a lot of trackways
Speaker 1: out there that don't really get that much attention, and
Speaker 1: I think they're like a huge deal because we have
Speaker 1: so much information and data that we can learn from them.
Speaker 2: Was the London Trackway inevitably proven to be a hoax?
Speaker 1: Or I don't know if it was ever proven.
Speaker 2: Right, I know it was suspected, and with Cliff, I'd
Speaker 2: have to ask Cliff to be honest with you, because oh,
Speaker 2: here we go, we're gonna sound uneducated, Matt. But it's
Speaker 2: so hard to keep track of these things sometimes.
Speaker 1: But there's other tracks besides that. There's other trackways besides that.
Speaker 1: Like I said, the one that I was a part
Speaker 1: of definitely wasn't a hoax. It was either Bigfoot or
Speaker 1: a fairal family of humans that live out in the
Speaker 1: middle of.
Speaker 2: The woods, which, as much as we don't want to admit,
Speaker 2: is a potentiality. But that's scarier than the reality of big.
Speaker 1: Fun for sure for sure. But yeah, trackways. I know
Speaker 1: there's another trackway. I don't really have any information on it.
Speaker 1: Cliff looked into it. It's like best Get Ridge or
Speaker 1: something in the appellations there. I know there's one outside
Speaker 1: of Seattle that doctor Bendernagel looked into and was a
Speaker 1: part of. There's been several discoveries of trackways over the years,
Speaker 1: not just single footprints. Like everybody on the internet seems
Speaker 1: to believe that you only find one footprint, you might
Speaker 1: only see one casting because that's the only one that
Speaker 1: was worth casting. But that doesn't mean that's the only
Speaker 1: thing that was there.
Speaker 2: Right, It's not uncommon, No, it's not uncommon to find
Speaker 2: many footprints. You know. We've talked about this several times,
Speaker 2: you and I and you know again, folks following footprints
Speaker 2: until they end and they just stop. And why that's
Speaker 2: another question, right, like why why do they just stop?
Speaker 2: And that gets a little wooish at times.
Speaker 1: Well, it's such a difficult question to even like take
Speaker 1: on if you weren't there at the time of the incident,
Speaker 1: because you don't you don't know who investigated it. You
Speaker 1: don't know did the tracks disappear or did the substrate
Speaker 1: just harden and they didn't leave impressions anymore, or did
Speaker 1: they jump up and grab a tree limb and crawl
Speaker 1: up a tree. Like There's a lot of variables that
Speaker 1: could take place before we get to the point of
Speaker 1: the tracks just vanished. But then there are situations where
Speaker 1: people who were very knowledgeable and really did know what
Speaker 1: to look for have said the tracks just stopped just nowhere.
Speaker 2: They just ended. Yeah, and you can't quantify after that.
Speaker 1: So these three things I have lumped together. There might
Speaker 1: be more, but this one's gonna get kind of tricky.
Speaker 1: Limb formations, tree knocks, and rock clacking.
Speaker 2: H I don't know, tree knocking. You know, somebody wants
Speaker 2: to take credit for tree knocking, that it was discovered
Speaker 2: by them. I'm not going to say their names, but
Speaker 2: you know there's been reports of that going back. You know, now,
Speaker 2: when we go back and we look at some of
Speaker 2: these historical reports, we can identify that as an activity happening.
Speaker 2: Rock clacking and the limb formations, I just don't know,
Speaker 2: like until see one break it and point it off,
Speaker 2: what do they mean? I mean? I knew Tom Lancaster,
Speaker 2: he was a researcher back in the mid two thousands
Speaker 2: who was trying to study and map them. You know,
Speaker 2: did these tree formations in these structures, did they actually
Speaker 2: have meaning? Did they lead somewhere? Were they the proverbial
Speaker 2: Bigfoot Highway? And you know, to me, Unfortunately, with these
Speaker 2: things like that, you can go mad trying to discover
Speaker 2: a pattern. Right, they're interesting, but until we see them
Speaker 2: move them, you know, it's hard to say what's not natural,
Speaker 2: what's not a natural formation? Nature is strange. I've seen
Speaker 2: this gigantic at one of the East Coast Bigfoot conference,
Speaker 2: this gigantic tree twist that was brought and to show everybody,
Speaker 2: and it must have weighed on thousand pounds or so
Speaker 2: and then bringing in on this rolling cart and to
Speaker 2: me look like it was done by a microburst. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and you probably know which to one I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: And you know, until you see something create that, it's
Speaker 2: really hard to even want to speculate on what could
Speaker 2: cause it when there are many different alternatives to that.
Speaker 2: The tree knocking, the rock clacking, that's behavior we see
Speaker 2: another primates. That's not unusual. So to think that would
Speaker 2: be part of the bigfoot behavior would definitely be an
Speaker 2: assumption I would go with.
Speaker 1: I put these three things together because we don't have
Speaker 1: the visual of what's making the sounds or making the
Speaker 1: limb formations. I've personally seen limb formations that I could
Speaker 1: not figure out how they can could have been created
Speaker 1: by nature. That doesn't mean that they weren't. I just
Speaker 1: couldn't figure it out. I've seen trees bowed over. Don't
Speaker 1: get that mistaken for a tree bow, but a tree
Speaker 1: that was pinned underneath a log that didn't seem to
Speaker 1: have fallen there naturally. It seemed like it had been
Speaker 1: moved in and it was holding the other tree down,
Speaker 1: and whenever you move the log, the tree basically sprung
Speaker 1: back up as much as it could. I've seen X
Speaker 1: formations where the two limbs were stuck into the ground
Speaker 1: at the bases. Again, that doesn't mean that that couldn't
Speaker 1: have happened naturally. I just I don't know. What I
Speaker 1: do know is that you do find similar formations in
Speaker 1: different areas across the United States, in areas that reportedly
Speaker 1: have Bigfoot activity. Yes, that doesn't mean that Bigfoot's making them,
Speaker 1: but that's the case. Tree knocks, rock clocking, these are
Speaker 1: things that have again been recorded uh witness firsthand. We
Speaker 1: don't know what's making the sounds, but it's interesting to
Speaker 1: me in the sense that nobody's disputing that the sounds
Speaker 1: are made. They're just disputing what is potentially making the sounds.
Speaker 2: Has there ever been a sighting report of a bigfoot
Speaker 2: being observed pre knocking.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure somebody has talked about it on
Speaker 1: a podcast.
Speaker 2: But that I mean, i'd have to listen to all
Speaker 2: the night, right right, I'm just just to me. You
Speaker 2: think that would stand out, right, you think that would
Speaker 2: stand out as a pretty predominant. So, folks, if you're listening,
Speaker 2: send us your email, yeah for sure, to Bigfoot Crossroads
Speaker 2: at gmail dot com and uh yeah thanks, tell us
Speaker 2: tell us that yes, it's here, because I want to
Speaker 2: hear it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I know that there's you know, the
Speaker 1: new theory that it's a vocalization, and then there's the
Speaker 1: theory that it's then chess slapping. What I have heard
Speaker 1: out in the field was definitely wood against wood. There
Speaker 1: was no mistaking it. And I've had people trying to
Speaker 1: fool me. I've had people send me recordings. You know,
Speaker 1: owls will slap their wings together, and I've had people
Speaker 1: send me recordings of that and asked me, is this
Speaker 1: what you heard? I was like, No, that sounds like
Speaker 1: leathery or fleshy kind of that's not the right sound.
Speaker 1: And it turns out there were trying to trick me.
Speaker 2: So which is discernible? Right? You can tell the difference
Speaker 2: of a chest slap to a tree beat to a
Speaker 2: you know it is, it is differential. You can tell
Speaker 2: there's kind of like a wetness to a sound when
Speaker 2: your ears slapping a fletch, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Like right, it's definitely ashy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, right, right right.
Speaker 1: Next on the list. Even though they said other than footprints,
Speaker 1: I had to put footprints.
Speaker 2: We're going to tie it back up with the bow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, We're going to put the bow on it. Because man,
Speaker 1: there's more to the footprint stuff than I think people
Speaker 1: actually realize.
Speaker 2: Well, there's such a diversity in it, right, Like, just
Speaker 2: like human feet, if they all look like the Ray
Speaker 2: Wallace tracks, I would say, yeah, footprints are the world's
Speaker 2: biggest hoax, right, But the Ray Wallace prints, you know,
Speaker 2: we know they were used to fake footprints around the
Speaker 2: constructing sites. But that doesn't mean every other footprint that
Speaker 2: was found in Northern California or across the United States
Speaker 2: was done by Ray Wallace. That's just stupidity. But there
Speaker 2: is diversity of these footprints. But then also when you
Speaker 2: look at some of the prints that have been found
Speaker 2: in different areas across the United States that doctor Meldrim
Speaker 2: has been able to identify what is it the Onion
Speaker 2: Mountain print. Yeah, that you know it was found there
Speaker 2: and then found somewhere else to show very similarities in
Speaker 2: the print. That's interesting and to me that shows you know,
Speaker 2: maybe that you know, we're able to determine some patterns
Speaker 2: and identity in some of these some of them, these beings.
Speaker 2: It's fascinating because there is a lot you talk about
Speaker 2: dermal ridges, and you talk about mid tarsal breaks and
Speaker 2: biomechanics and locomotion. The feet really are one of the
Speaker 2: bigger proponents to the evidence of the.
Speaker 1: Mystery, oh for sure. And again this goes back to
Speaker 1: knowing and doing the research about different aspects that can
Speaker 1: be tied into this, and tracking and foot impressions and
Speaker 1: how feet interact with different substrates. These are all key
Speaker 1: elements to looking at tracks because whenever it comes down
Speaker 1: to it, if you know what to look for. I
Speaker 1: don't believe you can really be fooled by a hoax.
Speaker 1: And we have definitely found footprints out there and cast
Speaker 1: them and had experts study them that could not have
Speaker 1: been hoaxed. Just plain and simple. They weren't hoaxes.
Speaker 2: Today's folks may not understand than just the difference and
Speaker 2: the arguments that used to happen by casting artifacts and
Speaker 2: determining whether an artifact and the casting could create dermal ridges.
Speaker 2: You know, there was a lot of argument going on
Speaker 2: in that in the early to mid two thousands about
Speaker 2: you know, unintentionally creating some of these artifacts in in
Speaker 2: these footprint castings, which were you know, whether it was
Speaker 2: you know, the finite striations in the volcanic ash, if
Speaker 2: it was really dermal ridges. You know. So there were
Speaker 2: some really good arguments that were happened back in the
Speaker 2: day they were tested. People went out and tried this stuff,
Speaker 2: and I don't know, I guess we were just lucky
Speaker 2: to be a part of that at that point in
Speaker 2: time being able to see that stuff happening firsthand.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're not common in general, but there's been
Speaker 1: plenty of tracks that have had dermal ridges that have
Speaker 1: showed sweat pores even that have been you know, looked
Speaker 1: at under a microscope. Dermal ridges are really interesting whenever
Speaker 1: you recognize patterns in dermal ridges that already exist in
Speaker 1: known primates. In these tracks. You know, whenever you find
Speaker 1: a footprint in Oregon, and the dermal ridge spacing is
Speaker 1: the same spacing that it is in all primates. You know,
Speaker 1: how do you come up with an explanation for that?
Speaker 1: You know, people talk about the potentiality of people using
Speaker 1: latex molds of some kind and then like enlarging them
Speaker 1: to create the dermal ridges. You know, but even then,
Speaker 1: if you enlarged the dermal ridges, you enlarge the spacing
Speaker 1: as well, and that's not the case in these tracks.
Speaker 1: The dermal ridges themselves are larger than a human or
Speaker 1: any other known primate, but the spacing stays the same,
Speaker 1: you know, ratio that it's supposed to be. The sweat
Speaker 1: pores are the same. The valleys between the dermal ridges
Speaker 1: are round it and not sharp edged like you would
Speaker 1: have if somebody had taken some sort of instrument, for instance,
Speaker 1: and like carved the ridges out themselves. And these are
Speaker 1: some of the differences that you would look at to
Speaker 1: determine if it was just casting artifacts like you were
Speaker 1: talking about, which has been studied ad nauseum.
Speaker 2: To say nothing of the fact that's enough to capture
Speaker 2: the attention of people from law enforcement and science to
Speaker 2: take their time and their efforts and their knowledge and
Speaker 2: try to apply it, to use it to help us
Speaker 2: document this being as an existence, Like it's good enough
Speaker 2: to convince people of that background. That's telling in itself.
Speaker 1: I you know, I'm not just trying to promote this group.
Speaker 1: I have no skin in their game, so to speak.
Speaker 1: But the North American would ape conservancy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, good group of people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, They've done a tremendous amount of scientific study and
Speaker 1: provide all the data and all their research on their
Speaker 1: website where anybody can look at it. And I think
Speaker 1: they do a tremendous job. I think they've kind of
Speaker 1: set the bar whenever it comes to how a group
Speaker 1: should present their evidence. Agree with you, I just took
Speaker 1: a couple of experts off of their website as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, about some footprint studies that they have done,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to read that Thus far, every specialist
Speaker 1: who has examined these casts agrees that their detailed anatomy
Speaker 1: has all the characteristics and appearances of being derived from
Speaker 1: an imprint of primate skin. These now include thirty police
Speaker 1: fingerprint workers, mostly from the Western States, thirty not just one,
Speaker 1: twelve of whom might be considered experts. Also included are
Speaker 1: six physical anthropologists with expertise in this area, as well
Speaker 1: as four pathologists and two zoologists. At present, two of
Speaker 1: the police experts are willing to state categorically that the
Speaker 1: prints actually represent the existence of a real but unknown animal,
Speaker 1: regardless of the implications. Interestingly, these two are not only
Speaker 1: among the most highly qualified, they are also the two
Speaker 1: who have studied the material more thoroughly. Even the strongest critic,
Speaker 1: a mammalogist at the Smithsonian Institute, agrees that the cast
Speaker 1: represent primate skin, but he thinks that it must have
Speaker 1: been transferred from known animals by silicone rubber casting and
Speaker 1: combined somehow to form the tracks. His examination of the
Speaker 1: cast were brief. Another strong critic, a leading medical authority
Speaker 1: on skin in the Pacific Northwest, also agreed that the
Speaker 1: impressions were undoubtedly of primate friction skin, but left open
Speaker 1: of the question of how they came to be located
Speaker 1: on these tracks. So a person from the Smithsonian and
Speaker 1: another person with a medical background of some kind are
Speaker 1: the strongest critics to this particular track study, and even
Speaker 1: they say, yes, this is definitely primate skin. We just
Speaker 1: don't have an answer of how it came to be.
Speaker 1: We don't believe it's real, but we don't know how
Speaker 1: it happened.
Speaker 2: That's a strong statement.
Speaker 1: That's a strong statement. So the research is out there,
Speaker 1: the peer review is out there. It's not just bigfooters
Speaker 1: saying this evidence exists. It's qualified experts that have examined
Speaker 1: this stuff and it's held up to scrutiny. So even
Speaker 1: if it's just a large footprint, some of those large
Speaker 1: footprints are pretty amazing evidence in support of this thing
Speaker 1: actually existing.
Speaker 2: Agreed. I mean, hands down, it's not called bigfoot for nothing.
Speaker 2: But that was such a bad delivered line. It's not
Speaker 2: called bigfoot for nothing, but I mean about it. I
Speaker 2: mean the footprints that started this whole question than the
Speaker 2: whole reason we did this show tonight. Is there anything
Speaker 2: more out there than just the footprints? But even from
Speaker 2: the footprint itself, what more does there need to be
Speaker 2: except the body? And we're actually able to discern so
Speaker 2: much from the footprints now, we're able to tell so
Speaker 2: much more from the footprints than we are from any
Speaker 2: freaking video. That's what's funny.
Speaker 1: And we haven't even talked about the history, the global
Speaker 1: history since the beginning of time, all over the planet
Speaker 1: of stories and folklore of these creatures existing. People were
Speaker 1: talking about these things being there long before we ever
Speaker 1: got here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean in about every culture there's something like
Speaker 2: a sasquatch.
Speaker 1: Every culture. The witnesses themselves, myself included, come from all
Speaker 1: different walks of life. Doctors, police officers, you know, scientists.
Speaker 1: So I think the witness record should be included as
Speaker 1: evidence at this point.
Speaker 2: Right, I mean, it's just like anything else. It's to
Speaker 2: what degree of evidence does that serve? You know, to
Speaker 2: convince a jury, you have to do it beyond a
Speaker 2: shadow of a doubt, you know, not a reasonable doubt,
Speaker 2: a shadow of a doubt, right, Like, I mean you're
Speaker 2: talking about people get put away for life based on
Speaker 2: witness testimony. That's enough to convince a jury or a judge.
Speaker 2: And we have just as good of evidence in that
Speaker 2: realm for sasquatch. We just don't accept it because it
Speaker 2: fits without outside the realm of what we as a
Speaker 2: society deemed to be real, because we don't look at
Speaker 2: it through the right lends.
Speaker 1: All right, I think that about wraps it up. Man.
Speaker 1: I don't want to beat this horse anymore. I appreciate
Speaker 1: you jumping on here and covering all these different topics
Speaker 1: under them.
Speaker 2: Always a good time, yeah, always a good time to
Speaker 2: hang out and talk, Matt. And you know, I think
Speaker 2: the one thing I want to stress them, the listeners, is
Speaker 2: you and I aren't experts. We're just two guys that
Speaker 2: love to talk about big food. And we have our
Speaker 2: different experiences and different beliefs and different levels as we've
Speaker 2: talked about what we both considered to be evidence. But
Speaker 2: we just gave you our reasons why we think that.
Speaker 2: You know, is the evidence good enough or not? And
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, Matt, I guess to
Speaker 2: frame a bow on it. For myself, I think the
Speaker 2: evidence is overwhelmingly positive to the effect that there is
Speaker 2: something out there we collectively call big food. Whether anybody
Speaker 2: wants to believe it or not is surely on them.
Speaker 2: But I think if we had to convince a juria
Speaker 2: of it, we would be probably more successful today than
Speaker 2: we would have ever been in the past.
Speaker 1: Tell everybody where they can hear the Sasquatch Experience.
Speaker 2: Oh, you can go to Sasquatch experience dot com and
Speaker 2: click all our social media links Facebook, Instagram, x formerly
Speaker 2: known as Twitter, and you can find me everywhere at
Speaker 2: at Sean Forker. I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
Speaker 1: I me.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty easy to get a hold of, and I
Speaker 2: do like talking to people. I know sometimes I might
Speaker 2: sound like I come across as antagonistical. Matt, you can
Speaker 2: vouch I'm really not. I just you know, I love
Speaker 2: the subject and I get a little passionate about it.
Speaker 1: I think we all do. Man, that that last episode
Speaker 1: you did with Glenn was a good one.
Speaker 2: Well thanks Glenn. I have yet to find a somebody
Speaker 2: else that could tell his stories. But as Glenn, he
Speaker 2: had all of us enthralled last night listening to him
Speaker 2: recount his story. And I'm not saying it to get
Speaker 2: people to go listen, but honestly, I think Glenn is
Speaker 2: rather I agree with him wholeheartedly about what he believes
Speaker 2: in Bigfoot. Is is not the question. The point is
Speaker 2: the guy could tell a story, and man if he
Speaker 2: tells some good ones last night, So.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I'll say it. Go check it out the
Speaker 1: Sasquatch Experience. You can find it right where you find
Speaker 1: Bigfoot Crossroads. You can find it on YouTube. Hit the
Speaker 1: subscribe button while you're there, do me a favor. We
Speaker 1: need to get the Sasquatch experience more subscribers on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's get some good research out there and some
Speaker 2: good That's the one thing that I think I try
Speaker 2: to separate Matt as you do here. You know, we
Speaker 2: used to say back in the day, support great research.
Speaker 2: We still do research. We get boots on the ground
Speaker 2: to get out there. It chose an outlet for us
Speaker 2: to talk about some of our findings, but also talk
Speaker 2: to all the cool people in the field.
Speaker 1: That's a great time, awesome group of folks.
Speaker 2: Except James Baker.
Speaker 1: Except James Baker. Well, and if you've had your own
Speaker 1: running with bigfoot, sasquatch, dog Man, or anything else you
Speaker 1: can't explain you'd like to share that story, send me
Speaker 1: an email at Bigfoot Crossroads at gmail dot com. Check
Speaker 1: out the website Bigfoot Crossroads dot com. You can find
Speaker 1: links to social media, past episodes, merchandise, everything you need
Speaker 1: all in one place. And until next time, remember there's
Speaker 1: something in the woods.