Ep. 306 - Q&A - March, 2025

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bubo. These guys
are your favorites, so like to subscribe and raid it.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Live stock and me righteous on Yesterday and listening watching
always keep its watching. And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman
and James Boobo Fay.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Greetings earthlings and Bobo. How you doing pretty good?

Speaker 4 (00:34):
Pretty good?

Speaker 3 (00:34):
And I'm a nursling too, only temporarily right, take me
to your leader, Bobes. What's happening?

Speaker 4 (00:41):
Not much, just I got some good weather down here.
It's pretty nice out, get a little out for work
for a minute or two and coming in for a
little podcast.

Speaker 3 (00:50):
And excellent, excellent. You got to take advantage of the
weather and get outside and look for some sasquatch footprintcess
has been dumping rain for the for the past X
number of days. This is a great opportunity to do so.
I know Freeman found a lot of his footprints because
the snow melts and stuff. He tried to be the
first guy on a certain road after the snow is
melting and everything and just kind of walking and stuff.

(01:11):
This is the opportunity. So I'm trying to get out,
but having some trouble with my barn situation, getting the
roof back on it. But other than that, I'm going
to try to get down the woods as soon as
possible to walk these roads and look for prints.

Speaker 4 (01:22):
That's quite a project, you get there, Cliff that roof.

Speaker 3 (01:25):
Yeah, yeah, and they're they're yeah. A long story, man,
long story. There's just always something with this thing, you know,
construction is, you know, you like everything's in order, then
suddenly you run out of something. Everything's in you reorder that.
Then suddenly what turns out what you got is the
wrong size, and it's like, oh man, it's just brutal. Right,
but so far, so good. They were supposed to finish today,
but again, wrong size is something. So now I have

(01:46):
a seventy foot long, one foot wide hole in my roof.
The rain's coming in a couple of days, so we'll see,
we'll see what happens. Man. It's just always an adventure.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
Sounds like everything was fine when Bobo's trailer was in there.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
Oh yeah, everything was always better when Bobo's trailer was there.

Speaker 4 (02:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
It was like a talisman that had a protective shield,
like a spell. It cast like a wide net of
protection over your outbuilding.

Speaker 4 (02:10):
Unfortunately, Cliff has to learn the hard way. We all do.

Speaker 3 (02:14):
I know, I know we all have to learn the
hard way. I'm a lifelong learner too, I'll tell you.
But you know, maybe we can do a little bit
of learning and teach them today too. It's a Q
and A today, of course, and all the questions are
submitted by you, the listeners. If you want to submit
a question, to hit that link that Matt Prude always
puts down in the show notes there, and you can
of course write as an email as many of you

(02:34):
have chosen to do. Or the cooler and more fun option,
perhaps maybe is to actually record a voicemail for us
asking your question. We have a couple of those today
as well.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
Should we just.

Speaker 3 (02:45):
Hop right into it?

Speaker 2 (02:46):
We should? I want to throw a caveat in there
real quick, because we did get a couple of additional
voicemails that just the audio was very bad and haven't
really had that happen before. So I would just say
to folks, if you're going to submit a voicemail, just
makes you're at home in a quiet room and not
like driving or with the TV on in the background
or something super noisy, because it does use your phone

(03:07):
mic and those are pretty sensitive, and so a couple
of them were just like unlistenable for all you would be.
Voicemail submitters go somewhere quiet.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
You know who you are, whoever you are.

Speaker 2 (03:18):
So anyway, here is the first voicemail. Hi Cliff, Hi Bobo.

Speaker 5 (03:23):
This is Josh Kiltmaker, longtime fan of both of you
and your work. My question is a kind of a
comment that leads into a question. Over the past fifteen years,
we've seen a lot of projects, missions, and areas that
start off with a big bang, a lot of promising

(03:44):
reports and excitement surrounding them, i e. The Olympic Project
Area x, Melbo, Ketchem, et cetera, and they just kind
of sort of fade away and nothing ever is resolved
or achieved big moment. So my question is, is anything happening

(04:04):
now that you either of you know that might be
the winning ticket.

Speaker 4 (04:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (04:10):
I appreciate your input and thank you so much for
your podcast.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
Have a good one, guys. I say, first off, that
last name of kilt Maker. That's the best thing I've
heard in a long long time. That's awesome.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Yeah, I've never heard that last name before, but I
have been known to Donna kilt or two in my time, at.

Speaker 4 (04:28):
Least one for sure. Some Yeah, you can ask this
question better the big clip because you're talking to Derby.
It's communication with him.

Speaker 3 (04:37):
Yeah, I think Darby is the thing I have the
most hoping that there's actually going to be some sort
of resolution or some serious, serious progress. I do speak
to Derby in a fairly regular basis. In fact, he listens,
he tells me straight out. I listened to almost all
your Q and A, so he's probably listening now to
this very question. I think Derby is the thing right
now that I have the most hope in that we're

(04:58):
going to actually get somewhere. Whether proves the species, well,
I certainly hope it does, but I think we might
be able to learn something actually from this.

Speaker 4 (05:05):
Now.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
Keep in mind, though, so a couple of the things
you mentioned. The only two that I can remember is
the Melbow thing, and that just turned into a mess,
and you can read, you know, books about it like the.

Speaker 4 (05:16):
Sasquatch Doctor Hearts.

Speaker 3 (05:19):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, Haskell Heart's book at a brain fart there.
But the Olympic Project stuff. I think the Olympic Project stuff.
I know that it started with a bank, so to speak,
and from the outside perspective, it kind of fizzled, but
it didn't really. It didn't. It started with a bank
because they announced it essentially, but it had been going
on long before the announcement, so you got to keep

(05:40):
that in mind. There's a public face of this stuff
and then there's a behind the scenes stuff that it's
always going on. Oh the other thing was Area X too,
So they have a good spot basically. That's what that
came down to. They had a good spot and they
were doing a concerted, organized effort essentially. But both of
those situations are still ongoing. But as far as the
Olympic Project stuff goes, Yeah, yeah, there was a nest stuff.
They studied that for quite a while. They found a

(06:01):
bunch of these things, and then later they announced it
to the public, which was the bang part, And the
fizzle part is that the public doesn't get a lot
more information about it unless they're actually out, you know,
going in here in Shane or Derek or Chris or
some of these people speaking, you know, Dave Ellis for example.
But the Nest stuff is still going on, and it's

(06:21):
just one of a couple of things they have on
the burners as well. I think it's amongst the more
important things they have on the burner. But let's look
at what we actually got out of that. We got
a really interesting behavior that had been reported sporadically in
the literature for a long time and never really supported
very well by other stuff. And also, much like this

(06:44):
whole stick structure thing that I'm always kind of like
casting a sidelong, dubious glance at, there had been very
very few, if any, to my knowledge, direct one to
one correlations with nests. With the nests, it's a little
bit different the nests. There were, and there were several
supporting pieces of information. Obviously, there were sightings in the area,

(07:05):
which is interesting in itself because it's a closed area
that's private land. Blah blah blah, unusual artifacts found. I
guess we can say the nest situation. We had biologists
go to the location and say, yeah, that this is
bear behavior, this is undocumented bear behavior, and bears are
really the only other culprit that might be responsible for
this kind of thing. There were those stones that were

(07:27):
knocked together. There were when they dissected how the nests
was made, they found that sticks were shoved into the
ground and other sticks were woven around them. That's very
unusual for any sort of animal out there that doesn't
have hands. And then, of course the next nest site
that was discovered I personally was involved in much more
heavily than the first nest site. I saw the first

(07:48):
nest but long after they were discovered, but I was there,
I think within a week or something of the second
nest site being discovered, and I personally found and documented
hand prints at the location, several footprints from underneath the
NeSSI material. So we have a direct one to one
correlation now with these nests and sasquatches, which is something

(08:09):
that was missing before and never documented to my knowledge beforehand.
So there's several footprint casts and handprint casts from this location,
and a couple of those are on display at the
North American Bigfoot Center. It might add too, they're publicly displayed.
And then on top of it, Okay, so we have
interesting behavior, these nests are somehow associated with sasquatches, and
then that second nest site in particular that sasquatch was

(08:31):
repurposing a bear den. That's super interesting. That's really interesting
behavior that never been documented before, but makes a lot
of sense, and of course, now you know, years after
all this stuff is kind of like settled down. There
have been visual observations of sasquatches in this property or
on this property. There have been footprint finds from this property.

(08:55):
Chris Spencer most of his audio work or a lot
of his audio work has been from this same property,
so this is an ongoing location. I think that the
fizzle down part might be dism misinterpreted. So it's not
like there was a bang and then you hear then
there's nothing going on. There's actually a bang, a big
announcement of some sort, and then the Olympic Project in

(09:17):
particular gets deployed long term in this location, visiting it
as much as as they possibly can, and then studying it.
I've seen some of Chris Spencer's Excel files about audio
vocalizations and they're fantastic. These guys are still working the
area now. Is there are more nests being found? Not

(09:38):
that I've heard, of course, you know, but they're getting
patterns down, and I think that that's something you got
to keep in mind. Just like what I said a
couple of weeks ago in the last the Q and A,
and I'll say it again too, that like the Darby
thing I think right now holds the North Carolina State
University thing holds the most promise. But just like the
Olympic Project thing, just like the long term study at
the area X for an AWAC, real science takes a

(10:02):
long time, and it's not that there's going to be
a finding from the Olympic Project, nest site and Darby studies.
There are many of them. Some of these hold a
lot of promise to have a finding that would be
a cool announcement. The rest of these are like, okay,
sasquatches are there. Now we have to document their behavior
over a long period of time, which to me is

(10:24):
by far the most interesting thing. You can show me
a picture of a bigfoot.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
I think it.

Speaker 3 (10:28):
Might think it's cool, but the most interesting thing about
these animals is what they're doing day to day. To me,
I think a long term study, years and years and
years study of one particular area is to me probably
the most fascinating thing one can do. And that's what
at least both of these areas, to my knowledge, are
being subjected to well.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
I think too. A big part of it is that
when the initial announcement is made or the first set
of findings. A lot of the commentators, let's say, like
podcasters or YouTube channel hosts, et cetera. They'll all reach
out and they all want to talk about it, and
so the people are sort of reiterating those initial findings,
and because those make the rounds, it seems like there's

(11:09):
a big buzz, but really it's multiple iterations of a
description of the same initial findings or initial observations, et cetera.
And then as they get focused on things, you know,
there's less to report on without just reiterating what's already
been reiterated multiple times. And so I can see how
to an outsider it would seem like, oh, there was
all this buzz and then it just went quiet. But

(11:30):
it's a little bit more complex than that.

Speaker 3 (11:33):
Yeah, so don't lose heart. Don't lose heart. I think
that's the big takeaway from what I'm trying to say least,
is that a big splash is great. It makes a
lot of noise all at once, but then you're swimming
for a while. That's cool too. And I think with
patients and hope and a good dash of luck, maybe
more stuff that will come out of there, you know,
maybe more nests will be found in that area, or

(11:54):
someone like myself or you know, whoever I had, or
you know, various Olympic Project members and stuff who are
familiar the nest. Maybe they're going to find other locations
similar to these, where there are other nests. That would
be a huge find as well. A discovery begs questions,
and questions are the basis of hypotheses, and that's when
you get to start testing what's going on, what's going

(12:16):
on here, and then trying things in different areas or
in different locales in that same area. I think there's
a lot going on in all of these cases. Maybe
not the Melbow things so much. I don't know what's
going on with that. I don't really care. But these
other things, I particularly the Olympic Projects stuff, since I
know all these people and I've been up there and stuff,
I'm very interested in what they're doing. And they are

(12:37):
not sitting on their laurels. They are not being idle.
Stuff is going on and it's a long term, slow drip,
and so far, I think it's fascinating what they've been doing.
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Bogo will be right back after these messages.

Speaker 4 (13:00):
Different things about their appearance. But if you're a guy
who really cares about your hair and find out it's
slowly going away or worse quickly, you might be feeling
discouraged when you look in the mirror. And that's where
hymns comes in. Check out their personalized hair loss solutions
and you can start seeing your hair go back in
as little as three to six months.

Speaker 3 (13:16):
Hymns provides you with convenient and quality access to a
range of hair loss treatments that work all from the
comfort of your couch or leisure chair or baby carriage,
whatever you're into.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
I guess. Hymns makes treating hair loss simple with doctor
trusted options and clinically proven ingredients like finast ride and
monoxid ill that can regrow hair in as little as
three to six months.

Speaker 4 (13:38):
This process is simple and one hundred percent online, so
there's no uncomfortable doctor visits.

Speaker 3 (13:43):
Answer a few questions, and a medical provider will determine
if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment
is sent directly to you for.

Speaker 4 (13:52):
Free, No insurance is needed, and one low price covers
everything from treatments to ongoing care.

Speaker 3 (13:58):
Hymns has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers and they
can help you get your confidence back with visibly thicker
and fuller and squatchier hair. Nice searcher free online visits
today at hymns dot com slash beyond. That's hims dot

(14:18):
com slash beyond for your personalized hair loss treatment options.

Speaker 4 (14:23):
Hymns dot com slash beyond.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
Results vary based on studies of topical and oral monoxidal
and finastera ride. Prescription products require an online consultation with
a healthcare provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate.
Restrictions apply. See website for full details and important safety information.
It's funny that this was the other new voicemail that
came in because we just talked about this on a

(14:46):
member's only episode with Steve Coles. So if you're not
members you want the deep dive, you can get it there,
but we can chat about it here as well.

Speaker 4 (14:54):
Hey, guys, love the podcast. This is Gregan Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Click question, what are your thoughts on the Miller documents?

Speaker 2 (15:02):
Let me know take care. Yeah, I don't know, squad
about that man some for the audience if you're not familiar.
The quote unquote Miller documents were quote unquote submitted to
a prominent bigfoot blog that this person said, Hey, I
received this email, and according to the writer of the email, like, oh,

(15:22):
my uncle or grandfather, you know, some older relative passed
away and we found these documents among his belongings. And
I've typed this up for you, the writer of this blog,
as you are the most credible person in all of sasquatry,
and you're the only person that can be trusted with
this information. And it basically was written in like a

(15:42):
first person sort of narrative about a guy who claimed
that you know, he went to Yale and then began
working for I believe it was like the Department of Agriculture,
and that he and his colleagues had essentially discovered the
sasquatch and like six subspecies thereof. But we did a
bit of a discussion of that with Steve Coles for
the members only episode that accompanied Steve Coles's main episode,

(16:05):
which by now listeners will have heard, So if you
want to hear a little bit more about that. But
now there's no reason to think that that was anything
other than a fabrication, likely based on a real person
who really was a scientist and did some real writings,
and someone took his writings and took some playful creative
license and adapted it to be this top secret Sasquatch document.

(16:29):
It's poorly written, full of errors and things of that nature.
So unfortunately that's the story with the Miller doc. But
if you want to hear more of the details and
essentially why we know that it's a hoax and where
the works that it was derived from, go listen to
the members only episode with Steve Coles.

Speaker 4 (16:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:47):
I am blissfully unaware of all of that, and I
couldn't be happier about it because it sounds like a
bunch of hohoha.

Speaker 4 (16:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
This was a little over a decade ago and it
made a big buzz. A lot of people were talking
about it and thought it was legitimate. That's why when
I was talking with Steve, I said, oh, yeah, we
get questions about that all the time. And it was
after we recorded that episode with Steve that this voicemail
came in just you know, another example of asking about that.

Speaker 3 (17:10):
Yeah, I remember Steve talking and you talking about that
on the podcast. I just had no experience or knowledge
of it at all, so I just tried to set I
tried to sit that one out.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
But yeah, that's that's the story with that Greg. So
if you do want the deeper story, check out the
members only episode.

Speaker 4 (17:24):
Even I didn't fall for that one, soul got into
this first written one, I think. So Okay, this first
one's for Jamie Incs. Hello, Cliff, Matt, and Bobbo. What
are some of the funnier sasquatch of condo stows you
have experienced or have heard about? Thanks for the show
and have a beautiful day. I think again, what I

(17:44):
heard was when we were in Virginia about a sasquatch
getting into some still illegal whiskey still in the mountains,
some moon shiners, and the thing was drunk way in
the middle of the mash pile, and it came like
daybreak morning, and thing was just super hammered, stumbled off.
I've heard I've heard like two or three of those

(18:05):
about them getting it was stills getting hammered.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
Yeah, I've never heard anything like that, but I'm sure
it does happen. It does happen all the all sorts
of other wildlife, you know, bears and hogs and all
that sort of stuff.

Speaker 4 (18:15):
You heard it, you're at the cliff is. A witness
told us that we were like that carnival thing with
the band playing Bigfoot songs.

Speaker 3 (18:22):
There's a lot going on that day. Man. I don't
remember that one, but I believe it. But yeah, I
think the the funniest one I heard is that I
heard a story from somebody who's probably a little little
little weird that uh, he didn't see it, but he
took he supposedly took a report of a sasquatch walking
across the road in an orange puffy jacket wearing sunglasses. Yeah,

(18:44):
no pants or anything like that though, So let's hope
it was a sasquatch though, instead of just somebody else
just wearing an orange buffy jacket, sunglasses and no pants.

Speaker 4 (18:53):
There's a lot of reports, or several of them, where
they have like a shirt sort of too small form
with like just like stretched out, like the collar ripped
and just draped over the over their like you know,
over their head, draped over their shoulders because they're way
too big for it. I've heard at least four or
five there had human stuff like that, like clothing on, like,
but never pants sort of thing. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Of course, other apes do occasionally put on a shirt
or something if they you know, if they have access
to that kind of thing. It's been documented before. But
the sunglasses thing, that's what got me.

Speaker 4 (19:23):
That's a little much.

Speaker 3 (19:24):
Yeah, and an orange puffy come on. So I don't know.
That are some pretty weird stories out there that. So
there was a reported sighting by the way, a couple
a couple of days ago in the Warm Springs Reservation.

Speaker 4 (19:34):
There was.

Speaker 3 (19:35):
I got wind of it on Monday morning, and actually
I think the person might be a listener. He's a
his Sun are museum members, and I guess is they
were driving back towards town on Highway twenty six just
they're still on the reservations, but they're reservation, but there
were still a few miles shy of mountain Hood National Forest,
so they're head in that direction, kind of heading roughly

(19:57):
west and uh, and the young man in the passenger seat,
the dad told me that he noticed that his eyes
were following something on the side of the road and
it was like five five point thirty at night or
something like that, so getting a little dusky, and the
guys he said that he saw, well, he saw, I guess,
a rather large person ish thing. It looked like he

(20:17):
was wearing a puffy jacket and his hood was up
and like all kind of all one color, like either
black or dark gray pants, but walking on the side
of the road in the ditch, and it could very
well be a person. So they didn't really get a
great look at it. But he apparently the young man
who actually observed it actually turned around in his seat
to make like like followed it, like, what the heck

(20:38):
is that? That's really weird looking. We got word of it,
and Nico and I went out there on Monday night
to the location and looked around. We didn't see any
footprints or anything like that. And where the thing was
walking initially sounded kind of weird until I was there
and I go, wait a minute, this is exactly where
I would be walking, because you know, the cars are
going by real fast, and there was a bottle of

(21:00):
rain going on at the time, and so maybe it
was a person, maybe it was a sasquatch. We don't
have enough information, but did my due diligence. Had to
go out there and look, you know too. A couple
hours of my time and a bunch of gas money.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
To get out there.

Speaker 3 (21:10):
But it was worth it, because that's what bigfooting is
a lot of wild goose chases or things that you
follow up on and just don't get to the bottom of.

Speaker 4 (21:19):
At least it's usually a beautiful drive.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
Not this time. Man, it was dumping. Oh my god,
it was raining so hard.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Speaking of dumping, the funniest one I've ever read, you know,
I didn't hear it from the claimant, but I read
it on a website that collects sasquatch reports. And we've
had lots of laughs about this over many campfire or
I mean, the last time that someone asked me this
question I told the story. We were all laughing so hard,

(21:47):
we were crying. I was with my friends Micah and
Jeff and Smokey from the podcast Sasquatch Tracks at cryptocon.
But there was a report from like the mid twentieth
century in Oklahoma from this farm, and these two witnesses
claim they had gone out they had peach trees on
this farm, and one day they had gone out to
that area, you know, the orchard or whatever, and that

(22:08):
there was a sasquatch kind of laid back with his
back against a peach tree, eating a peach with one
hand and then the other hand doing the unspeakable. And
next to it there was a dug hole in the
ground with a giant turd in it. And so when
they encountered this sasquatch who was eating a peach and
enjoying himself, he left up started yelling at them in

(22:32):
the classic gibber it's like, you know, and also covering
the turd in the hole with dirt with his foot simultaneously.

Speaker 6 (22:41):
That's plausible, the whole image of like, you know, he'd
just taken a dump, found some fruit, like life's pretty good.
These people show up and he's like immediately trying to
clean up the places. Just the whole thing is like
the most preposterous, hilarious thing, and so like, man, maybe
we should just leave out buckets and peaches.

Speaker 4 (23:04):
It's not that it's totally believable.

Speaker 6 (23:07):
I just wonder what, you know, if they do have
a language or a proto language, Like what what do
you think he was saying, like, oh, sorry, like the
place isn't usually this dirty, or.

Speaker 4 (23:15):
He said, so doesn't it one knock anymore?

Speaker 2 (23:18):
Yet? Exactly? I believe it that I mean, I just
think it's funny that the priority was to cover up
the turt It didn't just get up and run away.

Speaker 6 (23:29):
It was like, well, I started kicking dirt over the
turtle than me.

Speaker 2 (23:36):
If only it had had a pizza box.

Speaker 4 (23:39):
Let's keep it classy.

Speaker 2 (23:41):
Now that I've revealed the full spectrum of my immaturity,
you put the next question in the chat here, all right.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
This one comes from Jeff Martin's Police departments use a
technology called shot Spotter to pinpoint gunshots across an entire
city using microphones and AI. This gives the near real
time location for an acoustic event so they can respond.
Have you heard of anyone using this type of technology
to track real time Bigfoot activity? I believe if you

(24:10):
could train the AI using known Bigfoot acoustic events, you
could pinpoint activity. You could also tell it to ignore
known animal noises.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
You know, there was a guy who he was a hoaxer,
and he ran like a hoax on a number of
people for several years. And I almost brought it up
in the conversation with Steve Colls because I was the
one who figured out who the guy was, and Steve
found some additional information and published a blog about it.
But in his lies, I mean, he was basically just
a yarn spinner. But a lot of the ideas that

(24:43):
he he claimed that he was a multi millionaire and
was the head of a massive research project that had
gathered a lot of sasquatch information they were going to
release it any day.

Speaker 3 (24:52):
Now.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
That was kind of the extent of his hoax, But
the ideas that he floated were really good ideas where
I thought, man, like, if I had, you know, endless resources,
I would try some of these things. And now AI
didn't exist back then, but one of the things they
claimed is that he would use these sort of like
ladder deer stands, not the kind that you affixed to
a tree, but the standalone like deer towers, and that

(25:14):
they would mount those up and have these microphones that
would be pointing in like various directions and basically lay
out a grid, and that you know, using software, if
a sound happened within that grid, based on the proximity
you know, the volume level, they could tell the proximity
to any given microphone and like pinpoint it on a
map in real time exactly where it happened. And I thought, man,

(25:35):
if you had the resources that would absolutely work. Now,
you'd need a lot of them. You need to cover
a big area, So something like Jeff is describing here,
I'm like, I think that would be useful.

Speaker 4 (25:44):
They had that because Romo National Park had I'm going
for a elk poach or something, bald Hills right up
by us, and they got all kinds of they don't
have going now, but they had multiple recorder like microphones
out there and they ad pinpoint where the shots are
come from, so they could try to move in on
the poachers like real time. I know they have like
all kinds of problems with it, and I'm sure they

(26:05):
got they must have gotten some squatch knocks and wood
knocks and rock knock's or hand collapse, and sure they
got some of those two, but they weren't looking for squatch.
But that's all the place they deploy it, Like where
they have elk or moose or any kind of poaching,
they can put those for service. Law enforcement can put
that out and triangulate where these guys are shooting.

Speaker 2 (26:28):
Yeah, I mean, I don't know what the cost of
something like that would be. I would imagine that would
be pretty exorbitant for what Jeff's describe. I think it's
a great idea. But if you could imagine an area
like the size of the nest site or the size
of something like the active portion of the valley that
constitutes area X, like you would need a lot of microphones,
depending on how sensitive they are, but you know, you'd

(26:50):
need a number of them, and they all have to
be powered, and they don't have to feed to this
AI and wherever that is housed and receiving the data
or transmitting the data would have to be powered. And
so you're talking about a lot of expense and maintenance.
Let alone the manpower of deploying it, but the power
of the expense and the maintenance. It's like, that's why
no one's doing things like this, because ninety nine point

(27:12):
nine ninety nine percent of sasquatchry is amateurs doing what
they can in their free time with what little free
income they have to spare on something like this.

Speaker 3 (27:21):
The mesh of that net that you would have to
use it, it would be an insurmountable I think obstacle
because you know, knocks, as loud as they might be
at the source, don't really travel that far unless you
have fantastic acoustics essentially, and most of the places in
the woods are you know, you just don't have that
because the trees act as sponges and really suck up

(27:44):
the noises of the forest very quickly. I would be
very surprised to hear a knock at anything more than
maybe four or five hundred yards. I guess it could
be possible, but I know that I've personally been in
the woods yelling for friends or even using emergency whistles.
I think I talked about in the podcast maybe a
month or two ago, and I was within a few

(28:04):
hundred yards and they had no idea I was making
noise at all. So Knox, Yeah, I mean, just like
you would have to have so many of these things,
so many of these things, and how do you know
bigfoots are in that one particular valley, that particular night.
You just don't at this point, you know. But I
mean it's a great idea. It would be fantastic, but

(28:24):
I see some logistical problems.

Speaker 2 (28:27):
So you know, if you're using it in a city
like law enforcement is doing in Jeff's comment, then you
have an existing infrastructure and you have access to an
entire grid, and it would be a wildly different story
in a wilderness area, you know, just the power supply
and whether or not these things are wired, because if
they're wireless, then you have to have individual power for

(28:48):
every single microphone. But if they're all wired, like there's
a logistical issue, etc. Because I can imagine in a
city you've got these things deployed and they're each connected
to a power source and a hub that's connected to
Wi Fi, and they're all feeding back to a server.
But it's a different ballgame in the wilderness. But I
love the idea. I think something like that could work
for sure.

Speaker 3 (29:08):
We tried to do that with people before, positioning people
in various places and putting a compass in their hand
and say, if you hear a knock, take a compass
bearing on it and you can triangulate. We just on
a map if you know where everybody is. You know,
we're doing that with those Garman Rhinos for a long time,
but it didn't happen often enough that two people could
actually hear the same knock. Actually, and you know, it

(29:31):
might work in some places, like if you have a
meadow situation or something like that, where a large vast
area that there's not a lot of trees to absorb
the sound on the way to your ears. But okay,
so you get a general location of where the sasquatch was.
By the time you get there, is it's still going
to be there? I mean maybe I guess, But can't
you do that? I mean just think it out loud here?

(29:51):
And I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I
think it's a great idea with some serious logistical problems.
But you can kind of do that with your own
ears anyway. Oh, there's a knock over there, you can
go over there now right. It can't be that far
away from you if you're hearing the knock, is what
I'm thinking. What are your thoughts on that?

Speaker 4 (30:08):
It totally depends on the terrain and topography, like how
far travels are, Like we know, like you got the
Sierra Nevadas, get those just huge rock faces canyons. It
can go for a couple of miles, and then you
get like thick like Olympic Peninsula stuff, And so one
two hundred yards away you can't hear anything like knocks yells.
It's just all absorbed.

Speaker 3 (30:29):
And even if you did hear a knock or something,
what's stopping in you from going that direction now and
pinpointing the activity that way.

Speaker 4 (30:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
What we would do a lot of times on the
BFR expeditions that I would lead is if we were
working like a particular river valley or a certain drainage,
if you could get people on the ridges up above it,
on either side of it, and we would exchange calls
back and forth. And if you heard of a howl
or a knock or something like that from the valley
down below, yeah, everyone should shoot an asthmith and then
in the morning we'll line it up on the map

(30:57):
and like that's where we go start looking for tracks.
Is like the sound came from somewhere near where these
lines intersect. So like the method you describe.

Speaker 3 (31:06):
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo.
We'll be right back after these messages. You know, Moneymaker
is using something. He's not using technology as a listening
device sort of thing, but I know on the expeditions
that he goes on, he's gotten varying the drones, like

(31:28):
thermal drones in the last six or eight months or
something last year or so. So when they hear a knox,
they deploy the drone in that direction to go see
if they can go film it. That might be a
useful application for this kind of technology. Should something like
that get off the ground and overcome the deployment.

Speaker 2 (31:48):
Issues, Oh, that would be great.

Speaker 3 (31:50):
Yeah, So Matt's kind of doing that now, I guess
in a way, but he's not using listening technology. He's
using drone technology in combination with human observers on the ground.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
The other thing with that when you're listening for Knox
and Pals and that sort of thing, is that it's
all subjective. Like I think it was about a quarter
mile that way or a mile or two mile. You know,
it's like people just giving like a gus, you know,
even direction. You know, a lot of times you're sitting
there with three people and get through, like, you know,
I thought it came from the northwest, so I thought
it came from the northeast. I thought it came from

(32:20):
the west. You can get all, you know, different answers
where they thought it came from, and so there's a
little subjectivity to it too. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (32:28):
I guess that's where the computer would come in and
hopefully eliminate that. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
Yeah, that would definitely be helpful. Because I've I've been
standing in a circle with friends in the field. Before
you know, we're all facing each other in like a
circle or semicircle, talking and then a sound happens and
there's like no agreement on which direction because everyone's ears
are pointed in a different direction. You know what I mean?

Speaker 4 (32:46):
Totally that's from the Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
So there's the next question for you.

Speaker 4 (32:51):
Bobes from Frank Pavlika, your boy, Hey, clip Bubo, and Matt.
I enjoyed your answers to my question from last month
about the best bred bigfoot shoes as the teenager. Back
in the eighties, my scout troop and I went camping
in Michigan. What did a few of us went out
into the woods and our flashlights hit would looked like
a big refrigerator box. We did for a closer only

(33:12):
to realize it was a cement altar that had weird
symbols graved on it. We all froze, heard a noise
in the distance, and we all just ran as fast
as we could get to get out of there. What
are some of the most unusual and out of place
things you have found in the woods that were either
built by humans or abandoned who.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
It was a little unsettling at first, big footing in
the in the in the northeast, running across abandoned and
overgrown graveyards. That was a little spooky at first because
we just don't get that out here in the west
really so much. But back of east, you know, you
come across these flimsy they're rather thin, you know, tombstones
and stuff, and they say, you know, like seventeen sixty

(33:52):
four on it and things like like whoa, and it's
like all overgrown and creepy and very blar witchy. But
along those lines, there's a spot out in Mountain Hood
National Forest. It's actually not very far from Esticada. The
years and years and years ago, I was out there
and we're doing calls into this one valley. It was
like a little clearing, like a dead end sort of thing,

(34:13):
like a turnaround place on the end of this road
overlooking this valley. It looked good on a map. So
we're trying some calls and there didn't get anything or
you know, but at this location, like we're there kind
of just hanging out listening and stuff. I was walking
around looking and on the on the mountain side you know,
like obviously this little plateau thing overblooks this valley, but
you know, I'm on a mountain. So if you go
to the backside of the turnaround, there's a grave there,

(34:36):
and and it's like, I'm not sure it's a human
grave or a pet grave. I hope it's a pet grave.
I don't know it is, but it's so close to
esticata could go either way. Like there's like a grave
marker and a name, and I think there's a date
and you know whatever this thing. I forget the name
that was on it, but it was probably like eight
or like six eight years old or something whatever it

(34:58):
was that was buried there because they had the and
die to thinking did somebody just bury their child out here?
You know, it's kind of a very rural Claquemus County
thing to do, you know, in some ways. And whoever
it was that made the grave put a layer of
cement over it, presumably to keep the animals from digging
it up or something. I don't know, but a lot

(35:18):
of that ground underneath the cement covering of the grave
was like eroded through, but there's like marbles and stuff
on it, and like little Chotchkey's that thinking, like, why
would you put marbles on that like a dog's grave,
Like it's like they're like a little girl buried here
or something. Is that even legal? So that was one
of the unusual and out of place things that I

(35:40):
found in the woods, and needless say, I didn't even
go to that area anymore, but yeah, that's creepy.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
I was driving around a really remote place in northeast
Georgia one time with my dad and we found like
the remains of basically like an old rock quarry. It
wasn't like a big, massive quarry. It was just almost
like an exposed vertical wall that you can tell they
had quarried out. And I was like, oh, there's you know,
there's activity around quarries and places, and I just wonder

(36:06):
what's around here. And so we parked the car and
I ended up like climbing up this super steep slope
to get up above this rock wall of the quarry
and up top there and there's it's a ridge top
it just drops down the other side. It's all forceded
down into a drainage and then on our side there's
a single for service road up at the top. There

(36:27):
was this massive pile of belongings that included like stethoscopes, microscopes,
medical textbooks, a whole bunch of like medical equipment that
was all associated with a medical school in Temple, Texas.
And this was so out of the way, like I
can't believe I stumbled on it and then just imagining,

(36:48):
like how did someone haul all this stuff up here?
Like you haul up a big chest or like a
pelican case or a bunch of bags and dump it
here to go through it. But we were like, something
very strange happened here, Like did somebody rob a place
and this is where they dumped the stuff they didn't
want to keep. Who knows, But that was one of
the wilder things I've seen where it's like there's some
something nefarious happened up there.

Speaker 4 (37:10):
Yeah. I think the weirdest thing I found was he
had a bunch of property on the edge of like
where the Redwoods transition, like oak Zone, and he had
an old skid road I was. He said, like he
had hundreds of acres, and he said I could go
cruise around his next you never had like eight or
seven thousand acres or some cattle stuff, And so he
said there's no problem. You can walk for wherever you

(37:30):
want down that way. I was walking down. I was
in the Redwood Park still, and I felt like that's
like satanic like coming to this old skidro like upside
down crosses painted on trees. There was a bunch of
dolls that had their exes over their eyes and they
were hanging from noises like around. And there's like an
altar with like red look like it's supposed to be

(37:51):
like blood, and like red paints splashed on it like
sacrifices and all this weird stuff like bones, like animal bones.
And I was like, dude, something with that. It's like, oh,
I know, some guys are cutting through there trying to
rip off my wei because he had he was growing
weed out there and so he he staged like a
satanic cult looking to scare off the guys coming in.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
Nice.

Speaker 4 (38:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
I found a capsized boat up in the mountains once weird.
That was kind of weird. It was a pretty small boat.
It's probably about fifteen feet long or something, and it
was made out of a fiberglass, so it wasn't aluminum
boat or anything like that. I'm assuming somebody just trailered it.
There or something and dumped it or something. But it
was pretty far out, man, it was pretty far out.
This is like kind of near the border of Oregon

(38:38):
in California. But yeah, yeah, kind of a weird place
to find a boat. I figured out. Talk about high.

Speaker 4 (38:44):
Tide, yogurt dryers, flood.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
All right, let me grab the next one. We'll do
a couple more here. This one would be a fun
thought experiment, Okay. Jeff Davies asks, greetings from Whales. Thanks
for the amazing show. I have learned so much about
the subject of bigfoot from listening to you guys, and
really enjoy your take on things. I'm in the same
camp as you when it comes to these creatures in

(39:09):
that they are flesh and blood and a relic hominid
of some kind. Since some people see them as supernatural entities,
my question to you is what tests or procedures would
be needed to prove its existence as supernatural, if at
all that could be proved. Well, I think you'd have
to probably capture one and then watch it evade you,

(39:31):
like through the bars of the of the of the cage,
or I don't know. I think you'd have to have
one solidly there and it can somehow do all the
things that people claim they can do. You know, That's
what probably it would take for me at least, you know,
like if you had one right in front of you
and see, I don't know, I mean, because all those

(39:53):
tests are subjective to it. I don't know.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
I don't know. How do you test that? How do
you test that they're superhuman magic harry people?

Speaker 4 (40:01):
You know, Yeah, you have to catch one for sure
of so you never know.

Speaker 2 (40:09):
But by the very nature, if it is like metaphysical,
then it can't be trapped by any physical means or
tested by physical means in the way that you would
test or measure or detect any natural phenomena. So it
would be like a self defeating thing, and any attempts
that fail would only confirm the suspicions of those who

(40:29):
believe that they are metaphysical. They'd go, yeah, well, it
never would have caught them, because you can't catch them
because they're metaphysical, And so even the failures would just
be seen as confirmation. And so I don't necessarily think
you could design a test to validate a lot of
the claims that people make, or validate the beliefs that

(40:51):
people hold associated with the metaphysical or supernatural, even as
it pertains to sasquatch let alone. I mean, first, you'd
have to definitively validate or verify the existence of the
supernatural realm, so to speak of all phenomena that fall
into that versus. We know mammals exist, and we know
apes exist, and this proposition only requires either that one

(41:13):
of the fossil apes we know about survived, or that
there's just one more ape that we didn't know about
that survived, and that this ape got into North America somehow.
Those are the only two things you really need. Everything
else you don't have to invent any sort of like
new science or new tests or new procedures. If the
relictomenoid hypothesis is correct, you know, there's nothing new that

(41:36):
needs to be found. It's just we've reconfirmed the existence
of an ape we already knew about, or a lineage
we already knew about, and we've just discovered that they're
on one additional continent. It's that simple, versus the other
side of the coin is much much more complex. See.

Speaker 3 (41:49):
I think the problem is that the paranormal community, as
lovely as some of those people are are using, are
conducting the experiment now and as evidence to support their
claim sasquatches are still an unknown, you know, like, oh, well,
we would have known about them, we would have gotten
one by now. The only way they could have existed

(42:11):
this long without us having better proof or evidence of
them or better evidence is if they were paranormal. So
I think that the ongoing experiment that they're running in
their mind is what supports these claims.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
Very much so. And the truth is that people have
failed to properly test the relictomenoid hypothesis. And I think
that's a hard pill for a lot of people. And
I see it in myself too, So I'm not pointing
fingers anywhere but at myself. But you know, to properly
test that hypothesis takes a lot of time and effort
and resources, frankly, And so like a good analogy is

(42:49):
like maybe the way that we conduct ourselves in the
field is in itself counter productive to eliciting an approach
that's documentable. And so one of the analogies I use
with people's like if you were in law enforcement and
you had a frequent caller every night saying there's a
prowler coming to my house every night. He tries to
get in, he jiggles the door handles, he peaks in

(43:11):
the windows, and then you say, oh, well, let's go
humor this person. And you go sit in there driveway
with the blue lights on, wait all night, and no
such prowler shows up. You go, Ah, that person's lying.
There's no such thing. There was never a prowler to
begin with. And it's like, well, no, you didn't actually,
you didn't actually run the experiment correctly. You didn't test
the hypothesis correctly. Because if there is someone with nefarious

(43:32):
intentions coming in the guise of darkness, trying to take
advantage of someone, they're probably not going to do that
when there's a police cruiser with the blue lights on
sitting in front of the house. And so I think
a lot of the things that researchers do trying to
observe or encounter a sasquatch, it actually ends up having
the opposite effect. Even if there are sasquatches in eyeshot

(43:53):
or earshot, which ninety nine percent of the time there's
probably no sasquatches within eyeshot or earshot. And so I
don't think we can could say as a field research
community that we've properly tested the hypothesis as such, although
there are individuals making progress like yourself, casting and documenting
tracks and other impressions, trying to collect physical evidence, EDNA

(44:16):
associated evidence, substrate, et cetera. But for the most part,
by and large, it's not that we've run the experiment
correctly for seventy years and failed because they're supernatural. It's like, no,
we really haven't run the experiment correctly yet. We haven't
properly tested it yet. We're all trying to. We have
little bits and pieces, but you know, I don't think
it would be fair to say that, like the Sasquatch

(44:38):
as a species has seen, the best of human science
is thrown at it. Not by long.

Speaker 4 (44:43):
Shots, No, absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (44:46):
It reminds me of a story I heard out of
Yosemite Valley, and I don't know if it's true, but
I've heard this maybe it is. It seems true to
me that they had a problem Bear kind of going
through and raiding the campsites in Yosemite Valley. You know
there's tours Servey, we're in Thesemity Valley right album, Bear
would kind of come by at a certain time, so
the rangers showed up, and of course the bear didn't come,
you know, And then basically what they had to do

(45:08):
is they had to modify their own behavior to make
the bear come. They essentially had food out and then
dressed as tourists and played frisbee and did tourists stuff,
and then the bear came, you know, the same sort
of thing like sitting in your driveway with the blue
lights going, you know, the problem is not going to show. Well,
the bears didn't either, you know. And people don't give

(45:28):
bears enough credit for being as smart as they are,
but they're very, very intelligent animals, you know, and especially
yosemite bearers, they're like a different breed altogether, so to speak.
Maybe not literally, but you know what I mean. They're
really good at what they do. But the bears caught
on pretty quick, and certainly sasquatches would be expected to
catch on just as quickly, I think with any sort
of behaviors with humans, you know, showing up to a

(45:50):
location where a sighting was or a long term witnesses
house or any of that stuff, which I think again
is brings me back to advocating footprints track king them
is to my knowledge, pretty much the only way, or
certainly the easiest or best way, but it might be
the only way to really observe sasquatches in their natural

(46:10):
habitat without them knowing you're doing it, because they've already
been there. They're not probably not there anymore, but you
can see what they did and where they went and
maybe even why. You know, stay tuned for more Bigfoot
and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo will be right back
after these messages.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
Again, I think you made a great point in that
people assume, you know, they have this erroneous assumption that
researchers have doggedly been searching for many years to no
avail er go, if sasquatches do exist, it must be
in some supernatural or metaphysical form. And so I would
ask you, like, at this given moment, or at any
given moment, how many dogged, competent field researchers do you

(46:57):
think have boots on the ground at any moment in
North America actively pursuing the sasquatch via scientifically sound observational
field study methods or techniques.

Speaker 4 (47:07):
With the proper equipment, we'd have like a really good,
high quality therm and good like audio recording, multiple audio recorders.

Speaker 2 (47:14):
No matter what they have, Like how many do you
think at any given moment, how many people specifically do
you think you're doing that?

Speaker 3 (47:20):
Close to zero?

Speaker 2 (47:22):
Yeah, So what I had said in the book is
like I said, there's probably less than two dozen such
people at any given time in all of North America.
And so I had pulled some numbers. There's roughly six
hundred and seventy seven million, four hundred and sixty four
thousand hectares a forested land in North America, or roughly
two million, six hundred and fifteen thousand, seven hundred and
three square miles. And you know what percentage of that

(47:45):
land you could call like viable Sasquatch habitat is debatable.
But to make the argument, I said, Okay, let's let's
make a drastic reduction and just say one million square
miles of viable Sasquatch habitat in North America. And so
let's be generous to the argument, and let's up that
to say that there's fifty competent field investigators actively pursuing

(48:06):
the Sasquatch on any given day in North America. And
then you have to think like, well, what percentage of
the ground would we assume as being surveyed during daylight hours,
because you know you're not going to find bones or
collect physical evidence as easily at night, and so we
restrict that during the day. To be even more generous,
you could say that the average field investigator is surveying
maybe five square miles a day, and that's a very

(48:29):
liberal estimate, especially in like a densely forced environment. And
so fifty field investigators covering five square miles a day
equals two hundred and fifty square miles per day searching
for any sign of sasquatches, and that amounts to zero
point zero two five of viable habitat. It's a dreadfully
small percentage. And we know there's not fifty, and we

(48:50):
know there's a lot more than a million square miles
of viable habitat. And so again generally, speaking from a
big overview, I would say, like the faulty assumption that like, well,
researchers have tried their very best and haven't come up
with anything like no, because we haven't thrown very much
at these things over the last seventy years.

Speaker 3 (49:07):
No, And I think fifty is ridiculously high. And you know,
even like the square mile, as you mentioned, is I
think that you'd be lucky to cover a mile, like
one square mile. One square mile is impossibly large when
you come down to it.

Speaker 2 (49:22):
You know, That's why I use those numbers is to
give the skeptics, like, let's say there is only a
million square miles, and let's say there is as many
as fifty even then it's zero point zero two five percent.
And let's say again those fifty investigators can cover five
square bars. But the reality is there's a lot more
than a million square miles. There's a lot fewer than fifty.
They're covering a lot less. And so that number, the

(49:44):
percentage of viable habitat being actively surveyed for signs of
the Sasquatch at any given time, is so much smaller
than zero points zero two five percent. You know, at
there are not people out every day, and so it's
like the assumption that oh, lots of peace people are
out there looking. It's just way way off base.

Speaker 4 (50:03):
Well, that cliff where we went in Ohio, there's that
place in Ohio with all the activity we went to
a couple I mean there several times even there a
couple of times. It was behind the house for the
where all the action was. There was a square mile
of woods connected by a green belt to like smaller
tracks like miles away. Like that was the biggest section
of woods within like a five or eight mile radio

(50:25):
something like that. And we had, you know, four or
five people poking on there. We didn't cover a fraction
of it, you know, in like two days. That was
just one square mile mile by a mile, and it
was relatively flat, not like the Civic Northwest or the Rockies.
In a mile square mile you could have a couple
of thousand feet of vertical game, you know. So it
was it was relatively relatively flat. I mean it had

(50:46):
hills I got to like seventy foot elevation difference or something,
but it was and that was like we couldn't even
cover that. And with like five people.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
Can you imagine how many people it would take? Like
let's say that Patty and her descendants lived and died,
spent their whole lives in the Bluff Creek drainage, as
gnarly as that drainage is, how many people do you
think it would take and how long to cover every
square inch of just the Bluff Creek drainage looking for
bones or remains. Oh god, it takes like multiple lifetimes. Yeah, dozens, hundreds,

(51:22):
many hundreds of people, maybe thousands. I mean that's a
big area, and that's one creek drainage.

Speaker 4 (51:27):
That's a simil're sitting, that's a similar sitting on top,
like you know, just laying there free to be found,
which would be the case. Have you covered up or
you know, it doesn't be like kind of digging around
or poking around like moving stuff.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
And oh exactly. Well, it's also assuming that they all
live and die they never leave that drainage, which is
not you know, the case. And how often does one
die in that county you know, once every few years maybe,
or let's say in the Bluff Creek drainage and the
associated drainages that are all tributaries of the Klamath in

(51:58):
that general area, how often there's one die in that
drainage every five years, every ten years. I mean, this
experiment has not been run. When people go, well, why
haven't they found bones, and the answer, it's like, no
one's ever looked. Most people are trying to have sightings
or encounters. That's about it. And then beyond that, like
of that subset, most of those people are doing at
night where they can't even see or document something, and

(52:20):
so no, we have not run this experiment. So if
the people think, well sasquatches are real as an assumption
and because people have looked for it and haven't found one,
they must be supernatural. Like that's a very flimsy limb
to stand out on.

Speaker 3 (52:34):
I've spoken to a couple of the folks who have
turned paranormal over time, and I think it's a matter
of them thinking that, well, I would have figured this
out by now, I would have done. So I think
it's looking at themselves and saying, how did an animal
And they say animal, as if it's a derogatory thing,
How would an animal outwhit me? You know, well, because
they're way better at everything than you are in the woods,

(52:56):
you know.

Speaker 4 (52:56):
I like that's a fair because they, I mean, will
experience these anomalies. Just because you have it doesn't mean
they did. And that's why. So those people get to
that point because of things they've personally experienced.

Speaker 3 (53:09):
Oh yeah, yeah, in some cases that's true, but not
at all. They say, well, they must be that, because
how would they possibly evade humans. Well, humans are terrible
in the woods, and like Matt says, really no one's
out there doing it. And we've all been on expeditions
quote unquote, and then and those expeditions very often come
down to sitting around a fire, hanging out and every
once in a while going for the walk, you know,

(53:29):
not exactly, not exactly a blanketing activity.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Well, that's why I try to say, you know, in
the book and all the interviews that I do about this,
I'm like, I'm talking about my failures, like we in
general have failed to produce proof. But that's on me
because I'm not responsible for anyone else. And like, I
think that's a cause for optimism, because means I can
work more diligently at trying to better test the hypothesis

(53:53):
and up my game in every way that I'm capable of,
and that's all cause for optimism. I remember some one
had said, Oh, I felt like you're that passage in
your book where you're talking about like you know, you
hadn't you'd yet to prove this. It was very melancholic,
and I thought, like, I don't see this melancholic. I
see it as optimistic because it's you know how there's

(54:14):
people that think that, you know, everything's conspiring against them,
the universe, the cosmos, fate or whatever. It's like, well,
you should maybe think, like, well, to what degree can
I make things better? And because you have two options,
like either there's something wrong with the entire universe or
there's something wrong with what you're doing, and you better
hope that it's what you're doing, because you could actually
do something about that. And so I think the same

(54:37):
thing as at play, where people think, well, because I've
failed to produce proof, they must be unprovable, Like, no,
maybe we could just try a little harder.

Speaker 3 (54:45):
Well, you think about the consistency of the effort as well,
you know, because I'm a very very lucky person. That's
somehow another Bigfoot has become my full time occupation, although
there's a lot of different aspects of that. I'm not
out in the woods every single night, and who can
do that, you know, Even though Bigfoot is my literal
full time occupation, I'm I'm out one the three days

(55:06):
a week at the most, you know, because life happens,
and there's other things to do, and you know, there's
other things to take care of. I got to earn
a living, and I got to manage the museum, I
got to take care of podcasts, I got to manage
like speaking engagements. I have to do this. I have
to make footage, you know, for our member. There's a
million things that pulls me every which way. And I
do bigfoot for a living full time, and I can

(55:27):
barely get to the woods, it feels.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
I think so much of what people do in the
field too, there's no legacy of successful sasquatch researchers to
learn from. You know. It's not like if you wanted
to become a bear hunter or a great steelhead fisherman,
where you can learn all of the best techniques from
all the best practitioners. Like we're all learning, like no
one knows exactly how to you know, provoke an encounter

(55:49):
and document it, you know, if you're trying to document
a living sasquatch versus their sign or trace evidence or
something like that. So this applies to all of us.
But you know, I think a lot of us get
involved in doing things that aren't necessarily productive. I heard
a great quote today and I was like, oh, this
kind of reminds me of a lot of Sasquatchery and
myself included. I'm not pointing fingers. I've done a lot

(56:11):
of things that were probably not you know, the best
use of time and resources. But the quote was like,
there's nothing sadder than watching someone expertly and efficiently do
something that never should have been tried in the first place.
It's like, doesn't matter how good your skill set is
if it's just if it's not applicable. And you know,
I'm definitely guilty. That's again I'm not castigating when I'm

(56:33):
not casting blame. But yeah, I mean, we're all trying
to figure out how to properly run the experiment, and
so we'll say they're supernatural once that's been really tried
and has failed, but yet some phenomena persists. But until then,
I think we just keep doing what we're doing.

Speaker 4 (56:51):
Well. I think you can't say that their failure. It's
just that we don't have the resources. I mean, if
we have like these huge budgets, like the multimately dark
grants are going to come into the field, the Sasquat's
research field. When you get these you know, big entities
that are you know, have basically unlimited resources, do what

(57:11):
we do will prove to be successful. Like techniques we have,
we just have property equipment at the time.

Speaker 2 (57:17):
To quote another person that I heard, he said, like,
you know, there's the famous Sagan quote, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. And he said, well, extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary science,
and extraordinary science requires extraordinary resources, and so without those things,
and you know, frankly, I think the whole premise is
flawed where it's like, extraordinary claims require evidence period, you know,

(57:39):
not extraordinary evidence. But anyway, I did like Jeff's question,
and that was a fun thought experiment for sure.

Speaker 3 (57:46):
That's pretty good discussion, that's for sure, big a Jeff,
and I think that's what these q and a's are
really about, because we always go off on tangents, you know,
we don't we don't color within the lines very well,
I don't think.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
So they're great prompts for discussion.

Speaker 3 (57:59):
Okay, we're about the time limit now, so why don't
we close down shop right now and we can go
over to the members section. The members, of course, are
a smaller pool, and we get to every one of
their questions every single week. We do have some questions
left over from this regular episode right now, though, so
we will get back to those next month, of course,
but we have we have to go do the members
right now, and we have to get to every one
of those. We pay extra close attention to our members,

(58:21):
and so we're going to take care of that. So
there you go. That's a terrible outro.

Speaker 4 (58:28):
Well get you so, Cliff, because I have to do
it all the time. Okay, folks, that was another week
of big Thanks for all the questions. We appreciate you
submitting them to us. Keep them coming in a voicemail
or written and we'll get we'll get to them next month.
All right. Well, thanks for joining us, and y'all keep
it squatchy.

Speaker 3 (58:52):
Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's an N in the middle,

(59:12):
and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Bigfoot and Beyond.