Speaker 1: Today, I want to tell you about a journey that
Speaker 1: I've been on for most of my life. Ever since
Speaker 1: I was a kid, I've heard tales of bigfoot and
Speaker 1: wild men while spending time with my friends and family.
Speaker 1: As I grew older and read more about the paranormal,
Speaker 1: my interest in encryptids and other things strange only deepened.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm so excited to share with you what
Speaker 1: I've personally become involved with the Untold Radio Network. The
Speaker 1: Untold Radio Network is a live streaming podcast network that
Speaker 1: airs a new show every day across all podcast platforms, YouTube,
Speaker 1: and more. They have eight different shows on all sorts
Speaker 1: of exciting topics such as bigfoot, cryptids, UFOs, aliens, and
Speaker 1: much more. I even have my own show called Weird Encounters,
Speaker 1: where I talk about all things strange. This is more
Speaker 1: than just a podcast network. It's a community that allows
Speaker 1: me to meet so many amazing people who share their
Speaker 1: stories and experiences with strange. If you're interested in hearing
Speaker 1: more of these stories and learning more about the paranormal
Speaker 1: and encryptids, make sure you check out the Untold Radio
Speaker 1: Network for all kinds of exciting shows. It's free to subscribe.
Speaker 1: So what are you waiting for visit www dot untold
Speaker 1: radionetwork dot com today.
Speaker 2: Now, what are your reporting? I got a screen going
Speaker 2: on here. Something just kid with my dog, something to
Speaker 2: kill your dog? My dog. We're flying through there, over
Speaker 2: the tree. I don't know how it did it? Okay, damn,
Speaker 2: I'm really confused. All I saw was my dog coming
Speaker 2: over the fence, and name was dead once you hit
Speaker 2: the grill. I didn't see any cars. All I saw
Speaker 2: was my dog coming over the fence.
Speaker 1: Happen?
Speaker 2: What are you reporting? We got some wonder or something
Speaker 2: crawling around out here? Did you see what it was?
Speaker 2: It was enough out here. Look, I'm new to one
Speaker 2: doow now and I don't need anything. I don't want
Speaker 2: to go outside. Hello, hit the boddy out here? What quin?
Speaker 2: I'm out there? I've thought of a mention about text nine.
Speaker 2: I don't know easy annount there. Yeah, I'm walking right heady.
Speaker 1: Before we get into today's episode, I just want to
Speaker 1: take a moment to talk about what this show is
Speaker 1: all about. If you've been listening for a while, you
Speaker 1: know that I have a deep interest in the sasquatch phenomenon,
Speaker 1: not just in the encounter stories. Themselves, but in the
Speaker 1: bigger picture, I try to bring different perspectives to the table,
Speaker 1: whether it's through first hand accounts, interviews, or exploring theories,
Speaker 1: research and historical cases. Every Friday is and will always
Speaker 1: be dedicated to an encounter based interview with someone who
Speaker 1: has experienced something extraordinary. These personal stories are the heart
Speaker 1: of the show, and I know they're what many of
Speaker 1: you come here for. But in addition to those interviews,
Speaker 1: I also do these Wednesday Wisdom episodes where I share articles, ideas,
Speaker 1: and information related to Sasquatch. It's a way to dive
Speaker 1: deeper into the subject and explore aspects of the phenomenon
Speaker 1: that go beyond individual encounters. My hope is that you
Speaker 1: enjoy these episodes and that they add value to your
Speaker 1: experience as a listener. Ultimately, this show is and will
Speaker 1: always be about you, the listener. Your feedback is the
Speaker 1: most important thing, so please let me know what you
Speaker 1: think about the show as a whole, about these bonus
Speaker 1: episodes like Wednesday Wisdom, and about the narrated stories I share.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts help shape the direction of the podcast, and
Speaker 1: I truly appreciate every comment, suggestion, and review, so please
Speaker 1: send me an email at brianat Paranormalworldproductions dot com and
Speaker 1: let me know what you think about this episode and
Speaker 1: the show in general. You can also reach me via
Speaker 1: voicemail using the Leavis of Voicemail button right here in
Speaker 1: the show notes. Remember, if you're listening on Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: you can not only rate the show, but you can
Speaker 1: also write a review. And finally, if you're listening on Spotify,
Speaker 1: you can rate the show and you can also comment
Speaker 1: on each individual episode. No matter how you choose to
Speaker 1: do it, please reach out and let me know your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Legends are not born overnight. They do not simply appear
Speaker 1: fully formed in the minds of the people who tell them. Rather,
Speaker 1: they emerge from centuries of whispered stories, pass down from
Speaker 1: one generation to the next. They take root in the
Speaker 1: deep forests and the shadowed corners of human history, where
Speaker 1: mystery still lingers. Some legends stay confined within the cultures
Speaker 1: that birth them, shared only in the quiet moments around
Speaker 1: a fire, while others find their way into the larger world,
Speaker 1: growing and evolving until they take on a life of
Speaker 1: their own. This is the story of one such legend,
Speaker 1: the Tale of Sasquatch. That has become synonymous with North
Speaker 1: America's most enduring cryptid. But the creature that we call
Speaker 1: Sasquatch today was not always known by that name. Long
Speaker 1: before newspaper headlines and television documentaries, long before blurry photographs
Speaker 1: and controversial footprints, there was Saskeats, the mysterious being of
Speaker 1: the Shahalis people of British Columbia. The legend of Saskeats
Speaker 1: was more than just folklore. For the indigenous peoples who
Speaker 1: lived along the winding rivers and towering forests of the
Speaker 1: Pacific Northwest. This being was part of their reality, a
Speaker 1: presence as real as the bears and the elk that
Speaker 1: shared their land. The Shahalis described a large, powerful, hair
Speaker 1: covered figure that walked upright like a man, but lived
Speaker 1: in the remote wilderness, rarely seen except by those who
Speaker 1: ventured deep into its domain. Unlike the fearsome monsters of
Speaker 1: European folklore, Saskets was not necessarily malevolent. It was a guardian,
Speaker 1: a keeper of the land, a creature that existed in
Speaker 1: a world just beyond human reach. But how did this figure,
Speaker 1: once known only to the indigenous peoples of the Pacific
Speaker 1: Northwest become one of the most famous cryptids in the world.
Speaker 1: How did the word saskets transform into sasquatch, a name
Speaker 1: recognized across continents, and how did the study of creatures
Speaker 1: like sasquatch give birth to an entirely new field of
Speaker 1: research known as cryptozoology. To answer these questions, we must
Speaker 1: begin with the man who first brought sasquatch into the
Speaker 1: public eye, a Canadian teacher and Indian agent named J. W. Burns.
Speaker 1: John William Burns was no ordinary teacher. In the early
Speaker 1: twentieth century, he took a position as a school teacher
Speaker 1: at the shah Halis First Nation Reserve in British Columbia,
Speaker 1: a community primarily made up of the Shahalis people. But
Speaker 1: unlike many other white officials at the time, Burns did
Speaker 1: not see the indigenous people as subjects to be civilized
Speaker 1: or assimilated. Instead, he listened. The Shalis people shared with
Speaker 1: Burns their history, their traditions, and their stories, among them
Speaker 1: the tales of Saskets, the mysterious wild man that lived
Speaker 1: in the forests and mountains. Burns quickly realized that nearly
Speaker 1: everyone in the community had a story to tell about
Speaker 1: the creature. Some described hearing its eerie cries in the night,
Speaker 1: while others told of footprints left in the mud along
Speaker 1: riverbanks far too large to belong to any known animal.
Speaker 1: A few had even claimed to have seen the towering
Speaker 1: figure itself, its dark eyes watching from the trees, before
Speaker 1: vanishing into the wilderness. As Burns began documenting these stories,
Speaker 1: he wanted to share them with a wider audience. However,
Speaker 1: he encountered a challenge. The hal kame Limb language in
Speaker 1: which saskets was spoken was largely unwritten at the time,
Speaker 1: and English speaker struggled with its pronunciation. As he transcribed
Speaker 1: the word into English, a spelling error occurred, leading to
Speaker 1: the creation of a new word, sasquatch. This small mistake,
Speaker 1: one slight change in pronunciation, would forever alter the way
Speaker 1: the world knew the creature, but at the time, neither
Speaker 1: Burns nor the Shahalis people could have imagined the global
Speaker 1: impact this misspelling would eventually have. In nineteen twenty nine,
Speaker 1: Burns published an article in McLean's magazine titled Introducing British
Speaker 1: Columbia's Hairy Giants, in which he described the many eyewitness
Speaker 1: accounts he had gathered. Unlike earlier reports, of wild men
Speaker 1: in North America, many of which were dismissed as hoaxes
Speaker 1: or tall tales. Burne's article treated the subject with seriousness
Speaker 1: and respect. This was a turning point in Sasquatch history. Suddenly,
Speaker 1: the legend of the hairy giants was not just an
Speaker 1: indigenous tradition. It was a scientific mystery, a puzzle waiting
Speaker 1: to be solved. Inspired by Burne's work, more newspaper reporters, explorers,
Speaker 1: and amateur investigators began seeking out evidence of sasquatch in
Speaker 1: the wild. While Burns himself never considered sasquatch a mere myth,
Speaker 1: his work would lay the foundation for something even bigger,
Speaker 1: the birth of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is the study of animals
Speaker 1: that have not been confirmed to exist by mainstream science.
Speaker 1: These creatures, called cryptids, include both legendary beings like Bigfoot
Speaker 1: and the locknous monster, as well as animals thought to
Speaker 1: be extinct, like the thylacine Tasmanian tiger. But cryptozoology is
Speaker 1: not just about chasing myths. Many species once dismissed as folklore,
Speaker 1: such as the gorilla, the celacanth, and the giant squid,
Speaker 1: were eventually proven to be real. This has led cryptozoologists
Speaker 1: to believe that creatures like sasquatch may also be based
Speaker 1: on real undiscovered animals. The word cryptozoology was first used
Speaker 1: by Bernard Hoovelmans, a Belgian French zoologist, in his nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty five book On the Track of Unknown Animals. Hooflmans
Speaker 1: believe that science should not ignore legends, folklore, or eyewitness accounts,
Speaker 1: as they could provide clues to real hidden species. But
Speaker 1: Houfelman's was not the first to study cryptids. Before him,
Speaker 1: researchers like Charles Fort and Ivan T. Sanderson had already
Speaker 1: laid the groundwork for cryptozoology by collecting thousands of accounts
Speaker 1: of mysterious creatures. Born in eighteen seventy four, Charles Hoy
Speaker 1: Fort was a writer and researcher who dedicated his life
Speaker 1: to collecting reports of unexplained phenomena. Fort's work was wide ranging,
Speaker 1: covering topics such as UFO sightings before UFOs were a
Speaker 1: known concept, strange disappearances, mysterious lights, and aerial phenomena, out
Speaker 1: of place animals such as kangaroos appearing in North America,
Speaker 1: reports of unknown humanoids, including early bigfoot sightings, Fort's belief
Speaker 1: was simple scientific institutions were too quick to dismiss unusual data.
Speaker 1: He argued that there were too many strange, unexplained events
Speaker 1: in history for all of them to be hoaxes or misidentifications.
Speaker 1: Although Fort never used the term cryptozoology, his books, including
Speaker 1: The Book of the Damned, published in nineteen nineteen, compiled
Speaker 1: hundreds of strange reports that later cryptozoologists would use as
Speaker 1: reference points. Many of the earliest bigfoot reports in American
Speaker 1: newspapers were first compiled by Fort, decades before the term
Speaker 1: sasquatch became popular. His influence is still seen today in
Speaker 1: modern paranormal and cryptid research. Born in nineteen eleven, Ivan
Speaker 1: Terrence Sanderson was a British zoologist, explorer, and one of
Speaker 1: the first cryptozoologists to take bigfoot seriously. He traveled to
Speaker 1: Africa and South America in search of unknown animals, documenting
Speaker 1: real species that had never before been studied in the West.
Speaker 1: In the nineteen fifties, Sanderson investigated Yeti sidings in the Himalayas,
Speaker 1: collecting footprints and interviewing locals. He was among the first
Speaker 1: to propose that sas squatch, the Yetti and other wild
Speaker 1: men around the world were related species. In nineteen sixty one,
Speaker 1: Sanderson published Abominable Snowmen Legend Come to Life, one of
Speaker 1: the first serious books on sasquatch and similar cryptids worldwide.
Speaker 1: His work influenced modern bigfoot researchers, including Grover Krantz and
Speaker 1: John Green, and helped establish sasquatch as a legitimate cryptozoological mystery.
Speaker 1: Cryptozoology has evolved significantly since its formalization in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 1: Each decade has brought new discoveries, theories, controversies, and technological
Speaker 1: advancements that have shaped how the world perceived sasquatch and
Speaker 1: other cryptids. This is a brief but detailed exploration of
Speaker 1: how cryptozoology has developed over the years, from early field
Speaker 1: investigations to the modern use of DNA analysis and artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence in cryptid research. The nineteen fifties were a pivotal
Speaker 1: time for cryptozoology. Before this period, mysterious creatures were primarily
Speaker 1: relegated to folklore, myth and occasional newspaper articles. But as
Speaker 1: Bernard Hoovelman's introduced cryptozoology as a legitimate field of study,
Speaker 1: researchers and the public alike began paying closer attention to
Speaker 1: reports of undiscovered animals, especially sasquatch. In nineteen fifty five,
Speaker 1: The Birth of Cryptozoology, Bernard Hoovelman's published On the Track
Speaker 1: of Unknown Animals, coining the term cryptozoology and arguing that
Speaker 1: folklore and eyewitness reports could be valuable tools for zoological discovery.
Speaker 1: Hoovelman's book introduced the idea that many mythical creatures might
Speaker 1: be real animals awaiting discovery. In nineteen fifty eight, the
Speaker 1: discovery of the Bigfoot name. In Humboldt County, California, a
Speaker 1: construction worker named Jerry Crue discovered enormous footprints in the
Speaker 1: mud at a work site. The local newspaper, The Humboldt Times,
Speaker 1: published the story, referring to the creature as Bigfoot. This
Speaker 1: was the first recorded use of the name Bigfoot, which
Speaker 1: quickly gained popularity across North America. The footprints were later
Speaker 1: revealed to have been faked by Ray Wallace, a local prankster. However,
Speaker 1: the legend had already taken hold, and many researchers believed
Speaker 1: the footprints were similar to others found long before Wallace's prank.
Speaker 1: The nineteen fifties saw the first attempts at serious field
Speaker 1: research into cryptids, with researchers and journalists conducting interviews with
Speaker 1: indigenous peoples and logging bigfoot sightings in the Pacific Northwest.
Speaker 1: With the term bigfoot now firmly established, the nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: saw a surge in cryptozoological research, particularly focused on wild
Speaker 1: hominids like Sasquatch and the Yetti, the supposed abominable snowman
Speaker 1: of the Himalayas. In nineteen sixty one, Ivan T. Sanderson
Speaker 1: publishes Abominable Snowman Legend Come to Life. This book was
Speaker 1: one of the first comprehensive studies of wild men around
Speaker 1: the world, from the Sasquatch of North America to the
Speaker 1: Yetie of Tibet. Sanderson proposed that these creatures could be
Speaker 1: relic hominids, surviving members of ancient species such as Gigantopithecus.
Speaker 1: The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence was captured on
Speaker 1: October twentieth, nineteen sixty seven, in Bluff Creek, California. Roger
Speaker 1: Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed a large, hair covered bipedal
Speaker 1: figure striding across a riverbed. The footage remains one of
Speaker 1: the most debated and analyzed pieces of cryptid evidence in history.
Speaker 1: Some believe it to be a real Sasquatch, while skeptics
Speaker 1: argue it was a man in a suit. Despite attempts
Speaker 1: to debunk it, no one has conclusively proven how the
Speaker 1: film was made if it was a hoax. Throughout the decade,
Speaker 1: researchers began organizing expeditions into the Pacific Northwest in search
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot. Reports of footprints, strange vocalizations, and fleeting sightings
Speaker 1: fueled public interest in cryptids. By the nineteen seventies, cryptozoology
Speaker 1: had begun to capture the public's imagination. The rise of television, documentaries, books,
Speaker 1: and media coverage made Sasquatch and other cryptids household names.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy four, the first scientific Bigfoot research project,
Speaker 1: The North American Science Institute, launched an official Bigfoot research project,
Speaker 1: using scientific methodology to analyze footprints and sightings. Zoologist Grover
Speaker 1: Krantz became one of the first academics to publicly support
Speaker 1: the idea that Sasquatch could be real. He argued that
Speaker 1: Sasquatch might be a descendant of Gigantipithecus, a prehistoric ape
Speaker 1: that once lived in Asia. In nineteen seventy six, the
Speaker 1: FBI analyzed supposed bigfoot hair samples at the request of cryptozoologists.
Speaker 1: The results the hair was found to belong to a deer,
Speaker 1: but the fact that the FBI was willing to investigate
Speaker 1: it all gave credibility to Sasquat research. Stay tuned for
Speaker 1: more Sasquatch ott to see. We'll be right back. After
Speaker 1: these messages, the nineteen seventies saw a flood of Bigfoot
Speaker 1: related books, documentaries, and films, including the cult classic The
Speaker 1: Legend of Boggy Creek nineteen seventy two, which dramatized Bigfoot
Speaker 1: encounters in Arkansas. As technology improved, cryptozoologists began using better
Speaker 1: tools to investigate cryptid sidings. Infrared cameras, audio recording equipment,
Speaker 1: and motion sensors were deployed in the field. Nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: the rise of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization BFRO. BFRO
Speaker 1: became the leading group for documenting sasquatch sidings and conducting
Speaker 1: field investigations. In nineteen eighty two, we have the discovery
Speaker 1: of the Skukum cast, a partial body impression believed to
Speaker 1: belong to a sasquatch was discovered in Washington State. The
Speaker 1: cast showed what some researchers claimed were primate like dermal ridges.
Speaker 1: As I wrote about extensively in my book, Sasquatch unleashed
Speaker 1: the truth behind the legend. Through the years, cryptozoology gains recognition,
Speaker 1: and pop culture shows like Unsolved Mysteries and in Search
Speaker 1: of frequently covered Bigfoot and other cryptids, increasing public awareness.
Speaker 1: By the nineteen nineties and two thousands, advances in DNA
Speaker 1: analysis and Internet communication changed cryptozoology. Researchers could now share
Speaker 1: reports instantly, and scientists could test cryptid evidence in ways
Speaker 1: never before possible. As nineteen ninety five rolls in the
Speaker 1: Internet fuels cryptid investigations. Websites and forums dedicated to Bigfoot
Speaker 1: research allowed researchers to share sightings, photos, and theories globally.
Speaker 1: As we entered the two thousands, first attempts at DNA
Speaker 1: analysis arrives on the scene, hair and tissue samples purported
Speaker 1: to belong to Bigfoot were tested. Most results were inconclusive
Speaker 1: or identified as known animals, but the potential for forensic
Speaker 1: cryptozoology had begun. Two thousand and eight gave US the
Speaker 1: Georgia Bigfoot hoax. Two men claimed they had a frozen
Speaker 1: bigfoot body, which turned out to be a rubber costume.
Speaker 1: This hoax damaged the credibility of serious researchers. Today, cryptozoologists
Speaker 1: use cutting edge technology in their search for creatures like sasquatch.
Speaker 1: Over the last few years, we have seen drones and
Speaker 1: AI powered wildlife monitoring sweep through the world of cryptid research.
Speaker 1: Researchers now use thermal imaging drones to scan remote forests
Speaker 1: for evidence of large primates. In twenty twenty two, the
Speaker 1: Lockness EDNA project led to scientists tested environmental DNA or
Speaker 1: EDNA in lock nest to search for unknown species. This
Speaker 1: technique could one day be used in sasquatch investigations. Cryptozoology
Speaker 1: had come a long way since J. W. Burns first
Speaker 1: wrote about sasquatch. Whether science will one day confirm its
Speaker 1: existence remains to be seen, but the search continues. Legends
Speaker 1: often fade with time as civilizations advance. Old myths and
Speaker 1: folklore are cast aside, replaced by the certainty of scientific discovery.
Speaker 1: But some stories refuse to disappear. Some mysteries, no matter
Speaker 1: how thoroughly examined continue to haunt the human imagination. Sasquatch
Speaker 1: is one such mystery. From the mist covered mountains of
Speaker 1: British Columbia to the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest,
Speaker 1: from the rugged wilderness of Alaska to the rolling hills
Speaker 1: of the Appalachian Mountains, the legend of Sasquatch endures. What
Speaker 1: began as an oral tradition among the Shayless people has
Speaker 1: become a global phenomenon, its name known in every corner
Speaker 1: of the world, and yet, despite decades of research, expeditions,
Speaker 1: and technological advancements, the question remains un ABIs answered. Is
Speaker 1: Sasquatch real? J. W. Burns, in his early writings, may
Speaker 1: not have intended to ignite one of the greatest unsolved
Speaker 1: mysteries of modern times. He was a storyteller, a man
Speaker 1: who valued the voices of the indigenous people he worked
Speaker 1: with and sought to share their stories with a broader audience.
Speaker 1: In doing so, he gave the world a name, Sasquatch,
Speaker 1: and set in motion a search that has lasted for
Speaker 1: nearly a century. Over the years, cryptozoology has expanded beyond
Speaker 1: the study of Sasquatch to include creatures from every part
Speaker 1: of the world. From lake monsters to undiscovered primates to
Speaker 1: prehistoric survivors. The field has evolved alongside scientific advancements, embracing
Speaker 1: new technologies like DNA analysis, drone surveillance, and artificial intelligence.
Speaker 1: But even with all these tools at their disposal, researchers
Speaker 1: still lack definitive proof of Sasquatch's existence. For every blurry photograph,
Speaker 1: for every plaster cast of a footprint, every eyewitness account,
Speaker 1: skeptics remain unconvinced. They argue that the lack of a body,
Speaker 1: clear video evidence, or fossil record suggests that Sasquatch is
Speaker 1: nothing more than a cultural myth, perpetuated by misidentifications, hoaxes,
Speaker 1: and wishful thinking. But if Sasquatch is merely a legend,
Speaker 1: why does the legend persist? Why after thousands of reported
Speaker 1: sightings across North America does the story refuse to fade.
Speaker 1: Perhaps the truth lies not just in scientific evidence, but
Speaker 1: in the human need for mystery. Sasquatch represents something more
Speaker 1: than just an elusive primate. It is a symbol of
Speaker 1: the wild, a reminder that, even in an age of
Speaker 1: satellites and smartphones, the world still holds secrets. The idea
Speaker 1: that a large, intelligent, undiscovered creature could still exist beyond
Speaker 1: the reach of human civilization is both terrifying and exhilarating.
Speaker 1: It challenges our understanding of nature and forces us to
Speaker 1: consider the limits of what we truly need know, And
Speaker 1: so the search continues. Even today. In the dark forests
Speaker 1: of North America, there are those who venture out in
Speaker 1: the hope of catching a glimpse of the creature that
Speaker 1: has captivated humanity for centuries, Whether armed with trail cameras,
Speaker 1: thermal imaging drones, or just a deep curiosity. Modern Sasquatch
Speaker 1: researchers are carrying on a tradition that began long before J. W.
Speaker 1: Burns first wrote about the Saskets. Perhaps one day science
Speaker 1: will uncover the truth about Sasquatch, Perhaps a definitive discovery
Speaker 1: will be made and the world will finally have an answer.
Speaker 1: Or perhaps, as with all great legends, the mystery will
Speaker 1: remain just beyond our grasp, waiting in the shadows of
Speaker 1: the wilderness, just as it always has. The story of
Speaker 1: Sasquatch is as much about history and folklore as it
Speaker 1: is about ongoing investigation and analysis. From the earliest indigenous
Speaker 1: oral traditions to the work of pioneers like J. W. Burns,
Speaker 1: Charles Fort, and I Ivan T. Sanderson. The legend of
Speaker 1: a large, elusive, human like creature has endured through the ages,
Speaker 1: but today sasquatch is no longer confined to stories whispered
Speaker 1: around campfires or the speculative writings of early cryptozoologists. It
Speaker 1: has evolved into a subject of serious inquiry, attracting researchers,
Speaker 1: data analysts, and even forensic scientists who are determined to
Speaker 1: separate fact from fiction. For decades, those fascinated by sasquatch
Speaker 1: have relied on eyewitness accounts, footprint casts, and the occasional
Speaker 1: blurry photograph or video as their primary sources of evidence. However,
Speaker 1: as the field of cryptozoology has advanced, so too have
Speaker 1: the methods used to study these elusive creatures. Gone are
Speaker 1: the days when a single sighting would define an entire theory. Today,
Speaker 1: we have access to large scale databases, statistical analysis, and
Speaker 1: even artificial intelligence tools that allow us to recognize patterns
Speaker 1: and trends in sasquatch in count in ways that early
Speaker 1: researchers could only dream of. This shift in methodology is
Speaker 1: what led to a recent discussion I had with Neil,
Speaker 1: a dedicated researcher based in the United Kingdom who has
Speaker 1: taken a data driven approach to investigating the sasquatch phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Neil's work is not based on a handful of anecdotal
Speaker 1: reports or gut feelings. Instead, he has meticulously analyzed over
Speaker 1: five thousand sasquatch reports from various regions, looking for patterns
Speaker 1: that might provide clues about the creature's habits, movement, and behavior.
Speaker 1: His goal to determine whether there is a statistical foundation
Speaker 1: for the sightings, something tangible that could help separate credible
Speaker 1: reports from misidentifications and hoaxes. During our conversation, Neil shared
Speaker 1: some of the most fascinating trends and anomalies that emerged
Speaker 1: from his analysis. Some of these patterns confirmed long standing
Speaker 1: beliefs about sasquatch, while others challenged conventional wisdom, raising new
Speaker 1: questions about how and where these creatures might exist. What
Speaker 1: Neil discovered might change the way we think about sasquatch
Speaker 1: encounters and possibly even provide new leads in the search
Speaker 1: for definitive proof. Our conversation touched on everything from the
Speaker 1: classifications of sidings to the behaviors and conditions most often
Speaker 1: associated with encounters. Today, I'll be sharing highlights from that
Speaker 1: discussion and exploring how human perception, environmental factors, and even
Speaker 1: cultural phenomena shape the way we interpret these reports. One
Speaker 1: of the most intriguing aspects of the BFRO database is
Speaker 1: its classification system, which ranks sidings by their perceived credibility
Speaker 1: and detail Class A, Class B, and Class C. While
Speaker 1: these categories are invaluable for organizing the data, they also
Speaker 1: reveal interesting insights into how human perception and external factors
Speaker 1: influence what witnesses report. Class A sidings are those where
Speaker 1: witnesses report seeing bigfoot up close in detail and with
Speaker 1: minimal ambiguity. These are truly the gold standard and the
Speaker 1: most compelling cases, often including descriptions of the creature's size, color, movement,
Speaker 1: and facial features. For example, one organ resident observed a tall,
Speaker 1: black haired creature drinking from a stream. In another instance,
Speaker 1: a New York woman reported seeing a large, hairy figure
Speaker 1: walk past her bedroom window during daylight hours. However, even
Speaker 1: these detailed reports can be influenced by psychological factors. Confirmation
Speaker 1: bias plays a significant role if a person already believes
Speaker 1: in Bigfoot, they might interpret ambiguous shapes or sounds as
Speaker 1: evidence of the creature. Similarly, the sheer, size and rarity
Speaker 1: of bigfoot sightings can trigger emotional responses fear, awe, or
Speaker 1: excitement that may exaggerate or distort what the witness remembers. Finally,
Speaker 1: cultural saturation through movies, TV shows, and social media could
Speaker 1: shape what people cold to, leading them to unconsciously fill
Speaker 1: in the blanks based on preconceived ideas. Class B sightings
Speaker 1: involve encounters where Bigfoot is not clearly seen, but indirect
Speaker 1: evidence strongly suggests its presence. Examples include hearing wood knocks,
Speaker 1: spotting footprints, or catching glimpses of a shadowy figure. One
Speaker 1: notable case comes from campers in Oregon who heard loud screams,
Speaker 1: found bite marks on their camp table, and observed tree
Speaker 1: shaking in the distance. While these encounters are compelling, they're
Speaker 1: also more prone to misinterpretation. Animal behavior, whether phenomena or
Speaker 1: even human hoaxes, could explain many of these occurrences. For instance,
Speaker 1: a bear's growls or woodpecker activity might be mistaken for
Speaker 1: Bigfoot's distinctive sounds. Additionally, psychological factors like Heightened fear and
Speaker 1: isolated environments can amplify a person's sense of unease, making
Speaker 1: them more likely to interpret ambiguous sounds or movements as
Speaker 1: something extraord ordinary. Class C sightings are the least reliable,
Speaker 1: often based on second hand accounts or lacking sufficient detail
Speaker 1: to draw conclusions. For example, fishermen in Ohio found small,
Speaker 1: barefoot human like tracks near the river, but never saw
Speaker 1: the creature. While intriguing, such reports are more vulnerable to
Speaker 1: skepticism due to their lack of direct observation. Class C
Speaker 1: sightings also highlight the challenges of human perception. People may
Speaker 1: interpret vague evidence in ways that align with their beliefs
Speaker 1: or fears, and social influences can further distort the truth.
Speaker 1: Mental health factors like paranoia or hallucinations, while rare, could
Speaker 1: also play a role in certain cases. Importantly, cultural fascination
Speaker 1: with bigfoot can sometimes create a phenomenon where people want
Speaker 1: to see or believe in the creature, leading to embellished
Speaker 1: or even fabricated reports. Neil's analysis revealed consistent patterns and
Speaker 1: reported bigfoot behavior and physical traits. Witnesses frequently describe loud vocalizations,
Speaker 1: large footprints, and sightings of a massive bipedal creature with dark,
Speaker 1: shaggy hair. Let's delve into how these reports compare to
Speaker 1: other known animals and explore additional behaviors unique to Bigfoot encounters.
Speaker 1: The screams, howls, and growls attributed to Bigfoot are often
Speaker 1: described as powerful and unlike any known animal. While wolves, coyotes,
Speaker 1: and even foxes produce eerie calls that could be mistaken
Speaker 1: for something supernatural, Bigfoot vocalizations are often reported as deeper, louder,
Speaker 1: and more resonant. Some witnesses compare them to primate calls,
Speaker 1: which adds an interesting parallel. Apes and guerrillas use loud
Speaker 1: vocalizations to communicate, warn others, or establish dominance, behaviors that
Speaker 1: align with Bigfoot's supposed territorial nature. One of the most
Speaker 1: compelling pieces of evidence comes in the form of footprints,
Speaker 1: typically fourteen to sixteen inches long. These tracks often show
Speaker 1: dermal ridges, a level of detail that's difficult to fake,
Speaker 1: While bears or large humans could leave similar impressions, The size,
Speaker 1: stride length, and toe configuration reported in Bigfoot tracts often
Speaker 1: deviate from these known species. Interestingly, other animals like gorillas
Speaker 1: or Chimpanzees also leave distinctive tracts in their habitats, but
Speaker 1: these are much smaller and less pronounced. This raises the
Speaker 1: question if Bigfoot is real, is it an undiscovered primate
Speaker 1: or could it be a relic population of a now
Speaker 1: extinct hominid such as Gigantopithecus. Bigfoot is frequently described as
Speaker 1: a bipedal creature, standing seven to ten feet tall, covered
Speaker 1: in dark brown or black hair, with broad shoulders and
Speaker 1: a muscular build. This description aligns with no known species,
Speaker 1: but bears striking similarities to large apes. However, witnesses also
Speaker 1: report subtle human like features, deep set eyes, a pre
Speaker 1: renounced brow ridge, and a flattened nose, which blur the
Speaker 1: line between animal and man. Reports often include behaviors like
Speaker 1: tree knocking, which witnesses interpret as a form of communication.
Speaker 1: Other notable behaviors include stone throwing, following humans at a distance,
Speaker 1: and peering from behind trees. These actions suggest curiosity, intelligence,
Speaker 1: and even a playful or defensive nature, While certain animals
Speaker 1: such as primates and even birds like crows, exhibit tool
Speaker 1: use and strategic behaviors. The combination of these traits in
Speaker 1: Bigfoot reports sets it apart. Some witnesses also report more
Speaker 1: unusual phenomena, such as glowing red eyes or the ability
Speaker 1: to move silently despite its size. These characteristics remain controversial
Speaker 1: as they lack scientific parallels and often veer into the
Speaker 1: realm of folklore. A strong foul odour, described as a
Speaker 1: mix of wet animal and decaying matter, is another common detail. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: similar odors are associated with gorillas, which produce a musky
Speaker 1: scent when agitated or threatened. This parallel could lend credibility
Speaker 1: to the idea that Bigfoot uses scent as a form
Speaker 1: of intimidation. Many reported Bigfoot behaviors aligned with those of primates.
Speaker 1: For example, gorillas beat their chests and use loud vocalizations
Speaker 1: to assert dominance or ward off threats, much like bigfoots
Speaker 1: reported tree knocking and howls. Primates are known to use
Speaker 1: sticks and stones, a behavior echoed in reports of Bigfoot
Speaker 1: throwing rocks or manipulating objects. Most primates are highly cautious
Speaker 1: around humans, preferring to retreat or observe from a distance,
Speaker 1: similar to Bigfoot's elusive nature. Yet there are behaviors that
Speaker 1: remain unique or unexplained, such as the alleged glowing eyes
Speaker 1: or the ability to remain undetected for long periods. These
Speaker 1: elements keep the mystery alive in fuel debate over whether
Speaker 1: Bigfoot is a flesh and blood creature, a myth, or
Speaker 1: something more complex. Neil's data analysis offers a fascinating glimpse
Speaker 1: into the world of Bigfoot sidings. By comparing these reports
Speaker 1: to known animal behaviors and considering the psychological and cultural
Speaker 1: factors at play, we gain a deeper understanding of both
Speaker 1: the phenomenon and the people reporting it. While the mystery persists,
Speaker 1: one thing is clear. Bigfoot occupies a unique space in
Speaker 1: both nature and our imaginations. Whether it's an undiscovered species
Speaker 1: or a reflection of our collective fascination with the unknown,
Speaker 1: the search for Bigfoot continues to captivate and inspire. If
Speaker 1: you enjoyed this exploration and haven't already heard it, don't
Speaker 1: forget to check out my full interview with Neil for
Speaker 1: even more insights. The legend of Sasquatch has evolved over centuries,
Speaker 1: with early Indigenous oral traditions and folklore contributing to the
Speaker 1: creature's mystique. Over time, this cryptid entered popular nomenclature, largely
Speaker 1: due to media coverage, sensationalized reports, and the work of
Speaker 1: organizations like the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization BFRO, which has
Speaker 1: cataloged thousands of alleged encounters. While these accounts have provided
Speaker 1: a compelling case for the persistent belief in bigfoot, skeptics
Speaker 1: argue that anecdotal reports alone are insufficient to establish the
Speaker 1: creature's existence. With an extensive history of sightings, footprint discoveries,
Speaker 1: and reported encounters, the debate surrounding Sasquatch has persisted, fueled
Speaker 1: by both scientific inquiry and public fascination. But beyond eyewitness
Speaker 1: accounts in folklore, what tangible evidence exists to substantiate the
Speaker 1: claim that Sasquatch is real? How have researchers and skeptics
Speaker 1: alike analyzed this evidence. One notable discussion on this topic
Speaker 1: appears in an article from The Skeptical Inquirer written by
Speaker 1: Michael R. Dinnett titled Bigfoot Evidence? Are These Tracks? Real?
Speaker 1: In his article, Dinnett examines one of the most widely
Speaker 1: cited forms of bigfoot evidence, footprint discoveries, and explores whether
Speaker 1: they provide legitimate proof or are merely the product of
Speaker 1: hoaxes and misinterpretations. His work offers a critical look at
Speaker 1: how proponents like Grover Krantz have used footprint evidence to
Speaker 1: support their claims, while also shedding light on the arguments
Speaker 1: of those who refute such findings. Within the bigfoot research community,
Speaker 1: Krantz has both staunch supporters and vocal critics. One of
Speaker 1: his main opponents is Renee To Hindon, a well known
Speaker 1: sasquatch researcher. Dehindon takes particular issue with Krantz's endorsement of
Speaker 1: a set of tracks discovered in the Mill Creek Watershed
Speaker 1: in Oregon's Blue Mountains, which Krantz considers among the best
Speaker 1: evidence for sasquatch. Dehindon, however, dismisses them outright as fakes,
Speaker 1: stating any village idiot can see the Mill Creek tracks
Speaker 1: or fake one hundred percent fake, and stay tuned for
Speaker 1: more sasquatch to see what we'll be right back after
Speaker 1: these messages. The debate ultimately centers around Krantz's unwavering belief
Speaker 1: in his ability to discern genuine evidence from hoaxes. In
Speaker 1: a nineteen ninety two television interview, Krantz explained that his
Speaker 1: belief in sasquatch was initially sparked when he saw a
Speaker 1: pair of footprints in the wild that appeared to belong
Speaker 1: to a large, heavy, and crippled creature. He claimed that
Speaker 1: if someone had faked them, they would need to be
Speaker 1: an anatomical genius rivaling Leonardo da Vinci, which he deemed impossible.
Speaker 1: Controversy has long been a hallmark of bigfoot research, and
Speaker 1: few figures have been as central to the debate as
Speaker 1: Grover Krantz, an associate professor of anthropology at Washington State
Speaker 1: University in Pullman. Kranz's book Bigfootprints, A Scientific Inquiry into
Speaker 1: the Reality of Sasquatch, and his television appearances continue to
Speaker 1: fuel the ongoing debate surrounding the creature's existence. One of
Speaker 1: the more contentious aspects of Krantz's work is his call
Speaker 1: for obtaining a sasquatch specimen, dead or alive. He has
Speaker 1: been quoted as advising hunters to retrieve the largest possible
Speaker 1: part of a sasquatch body, suggesting that the head or
Speaker 1: at least half of the lower jaw would be most valuable,
Speaker 1: while some assumed Krantz himself would not kill a sasquatch.
Speaker 1: He acknowledged actively attempting to do so, driving back roads
Speaker 1: at night in hopes of spotting one. He meticulously prepared
Speaker 1: to stop, set the brakes, turn on extra lights, load
Speaker 1: his gun, and be outside the vehicle within fifteen seconds.
Speaker 1: Kranz's case rests primarily on two sets of footprints, Cripplefoot
Speaker 1: and Mill Creek, and two sets of handprints allegedly found
Speaker 1: by Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. He asserts that the
Speaker 1: footprints are unquestionably real and the hand prints most likely authentic.
Speaker 1: To bolster his argument, he introduced a new piece of evidence,
Speaker 1: a single big foot track from Bloomington, Indiana, which displayed
Speaker 1: dermal ridges and vast alleys similar to human fingerprints. However,
Speaker 1: as we will see, this track's authenticity comes into question.
Speaker 1: The Mill Creek tracks, discovered in nineteen eighty two by
Speaker 1: Paul Freeman featured dermal ridges. Krantz concluded they were genuine,
Speaker 1: citing their anatomical precision. However, Freeman's credibility was soon challenged.
Speaker 1: In nineteen eighty seven, he admitted to previously faking bigfoot prints,
Speaker 1: and a nineteen eighty nine skeptical Inquirer article presented evidence
Speaker 1: suggesting the Mill Creek prints were hoaxed. A US fourst
Speaker 1: Service investigation also concluded the tracks were faked. Further skepticism
Speaker 1: arose when Lonnie Summer, a graduate student at Washington State University,
Speaker 1: analyzed alleged sasquatch hair samples from the Blue Mountains. His
Speaker 1: tests revealed that the samples were synthetic fibers, leading him
Speaker 1: to conclude that someone was perpetuating a hoax. While Krantz
Speaker 1: acknowledged the hoax activity, he did not link the fake
Speaker 1: samples to the Mill Creek tracks, despite Freeman's connection to both.
Speaker 1: De Hinden provided further evidence against Freeman when in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty seven he observed Freeman discovering another set of tracks
Speaker 1: at Indian Springs Road. De Hinden noted that the prince
Speaker 1: did not display dermal ridges, and close inspection suggested the
Speaker 1: tracks had been artificially created. Photographic evidence later revealed an
Speaker 1: a logical sequence of left right left left footprints, which
Speaker 1: further discredited Freeman's findings. Strikingly, Krantz never mentioned the Indian
Speaker 1: Springs tracks in his book, despite their potential implications for
Speaker 1: Freeman's credibility. Krantz, however, defended Freeman, attributing his frequent track
Speaker 1: discoveries to his dedication to searching. Krantz also suggested that
Speaker 1: others had found tracks in the Blue Mountains, but he
Speaker 1: failed to provide any details or corroborating evidence. Krantz used
Speaker 1: the Bloomington track as further proof of Sasquatch. He claimed
Speaker 1: it showed dermal ridges and two undisclay traits that confirmed authenticity.
Speaker 1: His confidence was supported by fingerprint expert Ed Palmer and
Speaker 1: bigfoot tracker Bob Titmas. However, Tipmos was skeptical of both
Speaker 1: the Mill Creek and Cripple Foot tracks and had reservations
Speaker 1: about the Bloomington track. Palma, while supportive of Krantz's overall claims,
Speaker 1: admitted he could not specifically recall the details of the
Speaker 1: Bloomington track. The most damning revelation came when the source
Speaker 1: of the Bloomington track was uncovered. After extensive effort, Dinnett
Speaker 1: located J. W. Parker, the individual who had sent the
Speaker 1: track to Krantz. Parker admitted to fabricating the footprint and
Speaker 1: cast to test Krantz's ability to differentiate real from fake evidence.
Speaker 1: He described in detail how he created the imprint, even
Speaker 1: embedding a walnutshell to add realism. Beyond the findings in
Speaker 1: Dinnet's original article, further examination of Bigfoot evidence raises significant
Speaker 1: concerns regarding hoaxes and misinformation within the field. The persistent
Speaker 1: pattern of unreliable sources, questionable track discoveries, and the involvement
Speaker 1: of known hoaxers suggests that much of the Bigfoot evidence
Speaker 1: is tainted. While some cryptozoologists argue that a small percentage
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot evidence may still be genuine, the overwhelming presence
Speaker 1: of falsified footprints, doctored photographs, and unverifiable eyewitness reports make
Speaker 1: it difficult to separate fact from fiction. Many tracks attributed
Speaker 1: to Bigfoot, when analyzed, display signs of artificial creation, including
Speaker 1: inconsistent stride lengths, unnatural depth impressions, and repeating patterns that
Speaker 1: suggest molds or wooden cutouts were used. Furthermore, modern advancements
Speaker 1: in forensic analysis have enabled researchers to study dermal ridge
Speaker 1: patterns more accurately. In cases like the Mill Creek and
Speaker 1: Bloomington Tracts, forensic experts have pointed out discrepancies that suggest
Speaker 1: human interference rather than authentic biological impression. The psychology behind
Speaker 1: hoaxing also plays a significant role. The desire for fame,
Speaker 1: financial gain, and media attention often drives individuals to create
Speaker 1: elaborate fabrications. In some cases, hoaxers even claim responsibility for
Speaker 1: their actions years later, as seen with J. W. Parker.
Speaker 1: The phenomenon of self deception among researchers, including Krantz, may
Speaker 1: also contribute to the persistence of questionable evidence. Cognitive biases,
Speaker 1: such as confirmation bias, may lead even seasoned scientists to
Speaker 1: interpret ambiguous data as supporting their beliefs, rather than maintaining
Speaker 1: objective skepticism. Despite Krantz's claims of scientific rigor, his willingness
Speaker 1: to accept suspect evidence raises concerns about his approach. By
Speaker 1: repeatedly endorsing evidence linked to known hoaxers and failing to
Speaker 1: disclose relevant details, Krantz undermines his credibility. While he remains
Speaker 1: a prominent figure in the bigfoot field, his methodology leaves
Speaker 1: much to be questioned. As Cliff Crook aptly summarized, science
Speaker 1: is about discovering the truth, it is evident that Grover
Speaker 1: Krantz has consistently abused his scientific credentials by his constant
Speaker 1: failure to acknowledge plain facts. This analysis is an interpretation
Speaker 1: of Michael R. Dinnett's original article Bigfoot Evidence Are These
Speaker 1: Tracks Real? As published in The Skeptical Inquirer Volume eighteen
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety three. Additional forensic research, historical context and
Speaker 1: speculation on hoaxes and psychological factors influencing the belief in
Speaker 1: Bigfoot have been incorporated. While this article aims to provide
Speaker 1: a balanced overview, the interpretations and conclusions are ultimately left
Speaker 1: to the reader's judgment. The debate over Sasquatch's existence is
Speaker 1: far from settled. While Michael R. Didnnet's article provides a
Speaker 1: thorough examination of the evidence, I do not fully agree
Speaker 1: with all of his conclusions, particularly regarding Paul Freeman's alleged
Speaker 1: involvement in hoaxes or his broader assertions about Grover Krantz's research.
Speaker 1: While skepticism is healthy and scientific investigation, it is also
Speaker 1: important to acknowledge that not all evidence can be dismissed outright. Krantz,
Speaker 1: despite his critics, brought an academic rigor to the study
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot that few others had attempted. While he may
Speaker 1: have overestimated the reliability of certain evidence, his analytical approach
Speaker 1: to footprint morphology was pioneering. Likewise, Freeman, despite accusations of hoaxing,
Speaker 1: claim to have found multiple tracks over the years, and
Speaker 1: it is difficult to ascertain with absolute certainty whether all
Speaker 1: of them were fraudulent. Ultimately, the question of Sasquatch's existence
Speaker 1: remains open ended. The evidence, the skeptics, and the believers
Speaker 1: all contribute to an ongoing discourse that captivates both researchers
Speaker 1: and the public alike. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: it's up to you to critically evaluate the available data,
Speaker 1: the credibility of those who present it, and the motivations
Speaker 1: behind both the claims and counter claims. Until next time,
Speaker 1: keep questioning, keep exploring, and who knows, you might just
Speaker 1: stumble upon the next big discovery.
Speaker 3: They say, you don't gotta go home, but you can't stay. No,
Speaker 3: I don't want to be.
Speaker 2: We're outing.
Speaker 3: Job, this job, chid everything, choice me to stay right,
Speaker 3: you come in right away side steps still stay stays
Speaker 3: standing inside steps step still hess pssst in state pass
Speaker 3: set in state assst uss insist