Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.
These guys, are you fav It's so like say subscribe and rage.
It five star sho and me.
Rights on us today listening. Oh watchie Limb always keep it's watching.
And now your hosts Cliff Barrickman and James Bubo fay.
Hey, Big Food and Beyond folks, welcome. Bobo and I are sitting across the table from one another here in lovely Sandy, Oregon, where Bobo is blown through town for a moment. He showed up on my doorstep like a lost puppy about ten o'clock last night. I welcomed him in. I put a blanket on him, got him out of the cold wet rain, fed him. Actually, none of this is true, except for he showed up at.
Ten I had I had my own blue blanket.
By the way, Oh yeah, he was ranting about your blue blanky for a while. You mentioned it like legitimately two or three times. And I I've known Bobo a long time, but I don't know what the blue blanky is about.
Tell me about it.
It's a comfort thing.
It's a comfort thing. Well, when did you first get the blue blanky? Like twenty thirty years ago, thirty years ago. A lot of DNA on that thing. Oh no, who gave it to you?
I just bought a store for like eight bucks back then or something like that.
It's cheap.
When it's hot out, like you know, like getting down in the low sixties or something, it's and I don't want to lay out just wearing like a T shirt or whatever.
I just put that on it. It's perfect.
Nice and now now it's a comfort blanky. Yeah, binkie, shall we say similars binky?
But functional as well?
Oh yeah, I think most binkies are rather functional. That could be wrong about that.
I kind of think of it kind of like my Hobbit cape when those guys go on the journey.
Oh right, right, guests from Laurion, Right, Lady Gladryl gave those to the Hobbits.
Of course, I kind of always imagine that is mine.
That's what that was.
Well, you're passing through town. It's to have you at the house.
But let me know what I can do for you.
And of course Matt, Matt's out there in Tennessee. We're missing out. You should be here, man.
Yeah, it's beautiful, it's nice.
And kind of cloudy and not too hot, not too cold, just just perfect.
It's like the Little Bear's porridge, right.
I wish it's been over four years since all of us have been together, so it would be nice. Usually it's just Bobo and Cliff, or me and Cliff. I haven't seen Bobo in four years.
We got to rectify that pruite.
Yeah, I was thinking the next time I come out here, I think we should just fly you out one of these times if I know it here on a certain date, and then just get a cheap ahead of time ticket and you come out and do it live.
We've knock got a few of them. Let's do it.
Well, we're all here, Well, most of us are here in person except for you, prut. What do we want to talk about today?
Well, we've done a couple of deep dives on listeners suggested topics. Sometimes people submit questions for the Q and a's that are like there's no short answer for and they really deserve a full discussion, And so we did a couple of those recently that we affect referred to as above and beyond Bigfoot and beyond discussions, And so
we had a few of those to choose from. There was one that we had actually teased in a previous episode from one of our members, Darene Myers, who had asked us what aspects of the sasquatch subject we were really interested in but we never get to talk about, you know, like when we go on other podcasts or we do sasquatch related interviews. As you guys know, everyone always asks like where are the bones.
And how many do you think there are? And what do you think they eat? That kind of thing.
But I thought it would be fun to talk about the things that we're hyper interested in but no one ever asks about.
And wasn't the opposite of that some sort of complementary sort of question, like what do we hate being asked?
Was?
It?
Wasn't that part of it as well?
Yeah, originally someone had asked something along those lines, and so like our least favorite interview questions, and so it was after that discussion, I think that Doreen sent in this question of like, well, what do you wish you could discuss in these interviews?
So well, you know, I actually have a new least favorite review question, and that question is will you do an interview with my podcast? It's been too much lately, so anyway, Yeah, it's that's just me being cynical or whatever.
But I don't know.
I mean, you want to start with that boba, like what is your what is the thing that you would want to talk about that you're almost ever asked about?
I see, Well, it's not like a big thing in my mind. But one thing I'm interested in is what I don't think anyone knows is like what their mating habits are, like Hollyday, decide who goes with who, that sort of thing, you know, how do they how do they separate the studs from the not so steadily? What the women find they get breeding stock, and what the males do. Is if there's humanists a lot of people think they are. You know, does personality have anything to
do with it? Or is it just size? Is it just who's the biggest brood? Or is it you know, this guy's a little casanova and he's got some tricks, like he might be able to slip in and get like you know, go to like behind some donut shop and get some donuts and bringing back and we're with that.
Or is it just the big stud.
Guy that can just knock out any of others male sasquatch that comes around the female he wants or females.
You know, I'd be religion to know that kind of stuff.
You know what.
I'd have to wonder as far as like a courtship or something like that, if if that's the right word for it, I don't really know, I would wonder. And just because sasquatches, you know, there's some sort of ape species, but so are we.
It's not a big deal.
We can learn a lot about apes in general by looking at ourselves because we exhibit a lot of the same behaviors. We have common ancestors, and a lot of those behaviors are our behaviors but masked in other ways, you know. And one of the things about humans that is reflected I believe in sasquatches to some degree in some circumstances is gift giving. You kind of have to wonder, do you know, if if I give Melissa flowers, you know it it makes her smile and that kind of thing,
and you know it helps our bond, et cetera. So you kind of have to wonder if sasquatches are kind of up to same thing, you know, because they seem to have some sort of gift giving capacity, you know, to some degrees, although to be fair, their gifts kind
of are terrible. You know, there are pieces of trash or torn up nerve footballs or something like that, something that I could personally never get away with Melissa, But you kind of have to wonder if there's anything going on in that regard and thinking about it, there might even be other parallels and ape species that I'm not thinking of right now.
Well, like Bobo and mentioned in many of the other ape species, it is the females are indiscriminate maters, and so it's based on the dominant male. The dominant male will you know, outcompete or run off the sub adults or the males that are lower in the hierarchy, smaller, et cetera, et cetera. Now, where that really applies that we see the most often would be in large social groups like chimpanzees and gorillas are organized into, whereas sasquatches
don't seem to have large social groups. You know, they don't live in big groups with multiple males and multiple females all sharing space and moving cooperating together. They seem to live more like orangutans, and so I think that model would make a lot more sense. Their social model is I think it's pronounced nyaw or nu yal, but it's spelled nyau.
That particular sort of social structure, which.
Is a lot more about maintaining and defending a given territory than it is about maintaining or defending a harem. So, you know, a male roam's a particular piece of real estate, and females that occur within that real estate or wander into that real estate.
You know, as long as the.
Male wards off other males, gets essentially the mating rights for any females within that territory. And I would assume that sasquatches are pretty similar just given the distribution of sightings and the distribution of footprint finds, etc. I think that makes a lot more sense than some of these other more complex things that occur in large social groups.
Yeah, I agree with you.
There one thing that surprised you we've learned about orangutans the last couple of years is how the.
Big males are. Like I didn't realize how.
Brutal they could be, Like, like what like maaming each other and killing smaller ones? Do you know proved once do you know to deal with that when they kill as smallest, like it's not their ostream they kill it, or is it just any other male that comes in their territory, Like I was reading reports of them even killing females.
That I don't know.
I'm not super familiar with that aspect of a ranguetam behavior, you know, what occurs in a lot of other analogous mammals. So perhaps that's the case. But usually, you know, they'll generate those big loud, you know, the long calls, and that's to both you know, ward off potential competitors, competitive males, and to let females know that like, hey, there's a big stud in the area, so to speak, so much like a bobo's howl that wards off males and alerts
potential baits to his presence. But I'm not super familiar with like violence that they may or may not exhibit, So I'll have to look into that aspect of a range hands we know.
I think all these things that we're bringing up right now that have kind of wandered away from the initial subject, it can be fit under the umbrella of social behavior. And I think that that's something that the Bigfoot community doesn't look hard enough at just because they're there. Seems like so many people are focused on, you know, are they real or they've got to be real because so many people talk about them or say they see them or encounter them or you know, all those people can't
be lying. Yes, So what I'll go back. I said this in my presentation a few weeks ago in Ohio. If you're still if you're still wondering if they're real, you're behind the learning curve. And in my opinion, they're They're in my opinion, clearly real and and and the evidence strongly supports that. You know, So now the question is not if they are, but how they are? What do they do? Where do they go, why do they want to go there? What's their their motivation and doing
certain things? And I don't I don't see the robust discussion that I would hope for in the Bigfoot community about that topic, because that's what I that's what I find most interesting about the whole thing is what they're doing. I Mean, there's hundreds of them in organ right now at this very minute, and they're all doing something. What are those things they're doing? When people bring up the Patterson Gimlin film. Yeah, sure, it's great.
You know.
I love it too.
Don't get me wrong, I don't seem to be quite as hung up on it as everybody else seems to be.
But I think.
For me the reason is the most interesting thing about the Patterson Gimlin film is what that creature was doing an hour before she was filmed. By far the most interesting thing it would be that. And I just don't see the robust discussion that I would hope for in the community about that. They're too hung up on are
they real or are they not? It's like such a binary, you know, on off zero one sort of discussion where you have all this fertile middle ground of like, well, okay, well, if they are real, let's just I mean, if you're still on that fence, then okay, sit there. But if they if they are real, what would they do? Where would they go to stay out of the way of humans? What kind of behaviors would they exhibit in order to
be successful right on the outskirts of society? Like those are the interesting questions, and those, to me also are the questions that can actually get us somewhere.
They can help the researcher.
Remember a few weeks ago, I commented about the question I always ask when somebody brings me something, and that question is, now, what, well, all of these ideas, you know, how do they do this, where do they go? What kind of foods are they exploiting? How do they get so many calories? To how facetes are metaboligy all that kind of stuff is now we have something to work with. So what can you do with that? And how will that help us encounter them, see them, film them, document them,
et cetera. I wish more people spoke about that, honestly.
I feel you there.
But then we have the dual problem is that you know, there's not enough people asking that question and posing it as a question because it is an open question. So you have a certain set of the audience who's not asking that question, and another set of the commentator community not asking that question because they already have all the answers.
You know, all is in you know, air quotes in terms of like they know everything they do in every single one of their habits, and you know, they've extrapolated everything about the Sasquatch lifestyle from birth to death, and you know, it gets so outlandish and preposterous, and you know, I think that's as equally big a problem. I mean, one of the things that I had thought about aspects of the subject is the negative effects of over enthusiasm,
and that, to me would be one of them. It's like, which is worse, the skeptical or cynical take that there are no sasquatches i e. That they don't exist, i e. That they're nowhere, or the over enthusiastic shouting from the rooftops that they're everywhere.
You know, they're seemingly equally bad. But I actually think the latter is worse.
I think the people that the overly enthusiastic, the people who make too many claims in terms of absolutes that you know that we get confronted with all the time. Oh, I've seen them hundreds of times. I know where they are. I can take you exactly to where they are, you know, if you're worthy. You know, those sort of claims have been around for a long time, but obviously they've gotten
more and more prevalent in the social media age. And it's things like that with nothing to show for it, no physical evidence, and no understanding of the analyzes of existing physical evidence or the history. I think that drives the skeptics and cynics further and further into their positions that, yeah, they must not really be anywhere, because these people think
they're everywhere. And so I agree with you that not enough people are asking the right questions, but they're also being bombarded by people who think they have all the answers.
And that's part of why. Know, Unfortunately, well.
The folks that think they have all the answers, there's probably some motivations for that, and some which I understand. Actually, I can be kind of forgiving for some of that, and not the ones that are you know, the look at me crowds. You know, I'm not very forgiving about those sort of folks because I've had a touch of fame and I know what nonsense it is, and I think it's ridiculous who would want that, honestly? But how
should I say this? I guess a good way to say it is, I remember when I was young and I knew everything too. You know, It's just as simple as that. It's a matter of maturity for a lot of people. You know, some people they're just hucksters or their attention seekers, or they have some sort of narcissism to deal with or or any number of things. You know, they didn't get enough hugs from mom or dad when
they're growing up, and they did it. They're looking for something else from the community in general, and they want the attention. They want money or something, they want fame, they want something, you know, and they're going for it, and they don't realize that what they want probably isn't what they're actually going for. But the other side of that is, yeah, I was a young Bigfoot enthusiast, probably to enthusiastic, honestly, like some level of addiction was probably involved.
I would imagine some sort of like I don't know, social or mental like mental addiction, I guess to this Bigfoot.
Thing, you know.
And again I remember when I was in my twenties or something like that, and I knew everything too. But that's just a matter of maturity and growing older and slowing down and realizing that I, you know, you just don't stay tuned for more Bigfoot and beyond with Cliff and Bobo will be right back after these messages. Hey, Boba, whatever happened to your gone squatch and hat used to wear? And finding Bigfoot now?
I don't have that hat anymore.
I gave it to Lauren Coleman for his museum, but I might be asking for it back because I'm getting a little nervous in summertime, getting too much sow in the scalp up there now, and I'm getting bip y mosquitoes. There's not a big lush crop to fend them off. It's as hell bobs.
You don't need another hat. You just need to personalize your plan to regrow your hair. You can access treatments that combine clinically proven an oxidyle and finasteride to stop hair loss and regrow hair in just three to six months.
Count me in Hymns offers convenient access to a range of prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients at work, including choose oral medication, serums and sprays.
Doctor trusted clinically proven ingredients like finasteride and anoxidyl can stop hair loss and regrow hair and as little as three to six months.
Yeah, it shouldn't be a chot to feel like yourself. HIMS brings expert care straight to you with one hundred percent online access to personalized treatments that put your goals first.
No hidden fees, no surprise costs, just real personalized care on your schedule.
For simple online access to personalize and affordable care for hair loss ed, weight loss, and more, visit hymns dot com slash beyond.
That's hyms dot com slash beyond For your free online visit hymns dot com slash beyond.
Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and oral monoxidale and finasteride. Prescription required. See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information.
I think I said it in Ohio last week. I said very clearly, like I don't really know that much about sasquatches. I have some ideas, I have some things that I think are probably true, but I don't really know that much at all about them.
I just like to learn.
Well.
That to me is the difference between saying like, well, they probably do this based on this massive repository of testimonies, supported by some of the trace evidence, and from looking at the lifestyles of other apes and other animals that
live similar lifestyles. So here's a reasonable inference that we could make, or at least a starting point when we're trying to build a model of what Sasquatches do with regards to X, Y or c. That's just so different than saying Sasquatches always do this, or they definitely do this, or this is exactly how they That's a huge difference.
That's where you kind of can incorporate for a little more like a viewpoint is well, literally, we know about the archaic, archaic, ancient hominin, you know, our ancestors, like what we know about them, and which isn't a lot. But when you mix set in with what we know about modern day primates and like you know, the uncontacted tribes and that sort of stuff, you get it.
You get kind of a more rounded picture.
Oh, I totally agree with that, and that to me is the big difference between you know, us speculating, and it's hopefully informed speculation based not only in the sasquatch data, but in relevant related data versus the people that are out there that will tell you you know, everything about a sasquatch in terms of absolutes and what they always do and what they never do, you know, these kind
of things like that absolute sort of speaking. There's a lot of that, and I think there's a certain subset of the audience that is drawn to those people and believes them. And that's why that said, at least isn't asking those questions, is because they've already heard from people who have quote unquote all the answers. And then yeah, I would differentiate that, I guess from the people who are overly enthusiastic, you know, the people who go out
and have quote unquote activity. Every single time they're out, they have encounters. You know, every bump in the night is the sasquatch, Every broken twig is because a sasquatch passed by. Every divot in the ground is a sasquatch. Track airgo. They are everywhere, you know, every sasquatch report is true, on and on and on.
You know, along these same lines.
As far as social behavior goes, I'm really interested in I'm very interested actually in tracking individuals over time. And I think that's also a neglected corner of the Bigfoot investigation. Doctor Meldrum addressed it of course in his book to some degree looking at the Bluff Creek evidence. But I am super interested in that in general, because not only does that give us insight to their social behavior, and again,
the only way you can do this is by tracking them. Essentially, you can't see a sasquatch hardly ever, but you can find their tracks if you know where and how to look, and if you are become familiar with their tracks and tracks in general, you can start looking at individuals over time, and that gives us some sort of insight into the social structure, that larger umbrella that we were just speaking about a while ago. Like in one of my areas, we have two individuals that are around a lot and
we're learning stuff all the time. There's a fourteen inch individual, a twelve inch individual, and an occasionally a fifteen or so inch individual. That's as far as the foot length goes, and you can infer that's a female in an offspring, and probably a male that drops by every once in a while. You know, you're guessing. We don't know, but I think that's a reasonable guess. We usually find the small one, the twelve, We sometimes find the fourteen, and we almost never find the fifteen.
So what can we learn from that?
Like you gather the data, you take a guess, make a hypothesis and push forward that. I think that tells us something about their family group.
I think at.
Least but yet at another one of our locations, there's an eight or ten inch foot, there's a fourteen, and there's a seventeen, and we find all of them at the same time, generally always in the same general area, Like if we find one, we'll look around, we'll find the others. Or well, that's not always true, but most of the time we have all three of them in the same general area if you look hard enough, in that same general area might be like a quarter mile
apart or something like that. But I'm not saying they're walking next to each other. But what does that tell us? So we have two data sets there from two areas with presumably three different sasquatches, what does that tell us about sasquatches as a whole? Or are we barking up the wrong tree in a way? And maybe I don't know. I think you can say things as a whole for sasquatches because you can do that for humans as well.
But when saying it about humans you always run into problems because people are so weird and different from one another. It's hard to say one thing about say Bobo, and have that apply to Cliff or vice versa. Right, is that the problem is that going to be a problem with studying sasquatches so that the individuals in general, like tracking individuals over time based on their footprints, which is the only effective way to do so, is a much
neglected study area of sasquatchry in general. Again, very few people pay attention to that at all. And I think if you got if one got better at identifying footprints and identifying individuals, I think a lot could be learned. And I'm going to throw a little shade at the early investigators about this, John Green, for example, And I don't have much I'm not saying anything bad about John Green right now, but this isn't a super positive thing.
John Green strongly thought that the fourteen inch individual was different than the fourteen and a half and was different than the fifteen inch individual in Bluff Creek. And that's ridiculous. I mean, maybe there are more than one individual at that same size foot but almost certainly those are all patty. But he was an early investigator. He didn't have we're
standing on John's shoulders. John Green didn't stand on really anybody's shoulders essentially, I mean, very few people came before him. He knew a couple folks that helped him out along the way. But the assumption that the fourteen, fourteen and a half, and fifteen were different individuals, and that looks
silly to me. Those are almost certainly the same individual especially, you know, if you had say eight foot prints and they all fell into those three categories, there is a very high probability that at least some of them are the same individual. Fourteen and a half and fourteen, come on, it's a half inch different. I have found up to three four five inches in some case difference in footprint
lengths from known individuals. So again, looking at these individuals and tracking them over time, it's going to teach us a lot about the species in general. And I think that once quote unquote discovery happens, that will be the primary way of studying sasquatches in their natural habitat, doing natural behavior.
Yeah, that is one of the most I think neglected aspects of the subject. A because sasquatches don't give us very much information to work with, but b because this community has a high turnover rate and people have a very short memory. There's a short institutional memory, let's say within sasquatchry, but the long term cases, whether that's you know, an individual that owns a property that has repeated experiences over a number of years, or the repeated occurrences of
recognizable individuals like you're describing. I mean, there was a great section in Crets's book where he was talking about repeated instances of individuals in the Blue Mountains that I heard you speak about not too long ago on another podcast in Depth, where you can almost piece together the story of this small handful of individual Sasquatches in the
Blue Mountains over a number of years. That kind of thing fascinates me to no end, and we have so little of it, but it's definitely to me a neglected area of focus from both ends, from the evidence analysis side or from hearing from you know, reliable, credible, long term witnesses or people who've had repeated experiences in a given location with you know, a finite number of Sasquatch individuals.
For sure.
I think one thing we should look for is because I've heard of probably half a dozen reports of.
People saying that they see them, you know, take a dump.
Somewhere and then white with a ball of grass or like a smoothish pine come. It's not like you know fully developed yet or like red cones or you know that sort of thing. Especially if you find any suspected scat, i'd look around for something they wiped with. I mean, so I think that that's one thing. I don't think people look for that at all. I think that'd be something to keep an eye. I mean it'd be hard to spot, but I think the bald grass.
Would be the the easiest thing to see.
Guiltiest charged I have never looked for.
I can't see I've used any of those things either in the woods. I might add, you haven't, No, not to get too fecal about things, but no, no, I have what have like pine cones, yeah, really red because those are tiny, like.
Just like I'm not sure what kind of pines s are, but like they're like this bigger than they don't have the barber sticking out.
Like no, you go barblous.
Yeah.
And then I've used grasses. I've used skunk cabbage when you're out there for a while. I mean, I don't do that anymore because I don't I don't go out long enough. I don't when I did something like that. But uh, yeah, I used all those things when.
You got to go you gotta go. I feel you.
I feel you the.
Picture that's emerging here for for potentially, if you're a podcaster listening to our podcast, then you want to interview Bobo what he's been waiting to be asked about his sasquatch is humping and how they wipe their butts.
Well, you know, to get back to the unless you want to talk more about that. Don't you have anything else to say?
Ups? No, I was waiting for some infant from the listeners.
If anyone has anything to say, send us a message.
I don't know.
I think I'll plead the fifth or whatever it is on that one.
Guy I talked to you gout that had a ball of grass, like two balls of grass with Scott wiped on it. He collected him and he had them for a long time.
Yeah. See, that's exactly why I don't I don't publicly show any interest in Scott, you know, because I want to deal with that. And can you imagine the mail I'd get at the museum, A lot of human fecal matters in the museum, Like I'm going to show these guys. Yeah, because I can think about your buddies and I don't know I've got some friends too that would like it's like, oh my god, looking for scats samples, I've got one for them.
Yeah, I'm not looking for it.
Yeah, it's like, oh, you know those poop in the box colonoscopy tests that are send off somewhere. It's like they're all gonna be sent to the museum or something like. Now, I've got no interest in doing that. The only uh, scats samples I'm interested in are the ones that I see come out of the Sasquatch as I observe it.
And that's it.
That is it.
You should be so lucky.
I should.
I agree, I should be that lucky someday.
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo. Will be right back after these messages.
Glenn Thomas saw a young female deprecated to the stream and then wipe her hand, wipe ers up with their hands and then well, I guess wash the hand in the water and then licked her hands clean after that was not the case.
Yeah, I remember the washing the hands in the water part, but the rest.
To his leg report, it didn't want Maybe we see guerrillas do that.
Yeah, COPPRAI there you go, yeah, but Bend and Augle was commented like a something like a very Semian gesture.
I think it's his term or something.
He said something to that effect in his book about that when he addressed it, most people don't know that's Glen Thomas stuff. When Thomas had three sightings, and so that drew doubts from the early greats because who could possibly be so lucky? He said, well, they're normal animals. You could see more than once. Whether the house away, I don't know. I don't know, but he lived around here somewhere. I still have yet to meet someone who knew him.
It might be good to talk a bit about the Glenn Thomas story, because we've referenced it in a couple episodes, and you know, when we're having these conversations, I'm just hanging out with my friends. But then when I was editing it, I realized, like, oh, I wonder how many people don't know who Glenn Thomas is or the significant when we talk about the site and how the site is still basically intact. So maybe you give him like a rundown of that initial encounter.
Yeah, yeah, sure. It was October of nineteen sixty seven, very fruitful month in Bigfoot lore obviously, but a few weeks before the Patterson Gimlin film was shot and completely separate people and all that other stuff. Glenn Thomas, what was a lagger? At least a lager. He might have been a road we're guided too, but I know he's
at least a lagger. And he was on a job site in October of nineteen sixty seven up on Burnt Granite Ridge in that general area in Mount Hood National Forest, and he was walking up ro down the road for whatever reason I can't remember why, maybe going back to the rig or going to it, I don't really know, going away from it, and he looked up on this talus slope. A taialus slope is a kind of rocky slope where the rocks are big. If the rocks are very small, it's called a scree slope. So the word
is taylus ta l us. It means like big rocks, like the size of your head or bigger. Essentially is the gist. And it's at the top of this peak. It's on the ridge. It's not really at the top of the peaks on a ridge line. And he looked up in there and Apparently he saw three sasquatches moving rocks aside looking for something underneath, and they presumed it was some sort of ground squirrel or something like that. Although I've been to the site many times and I
think there are pikas. I think they're called There are a lot of those there, and you know, unless you know a new population came out and drove out the
old ones, they're probably pikahs. But anyway, back to the original report, they said ground scrolls of some sort, and basically the male was on one side, then the female was next to her, and then a young one was next to that, and the male would move these big rocks aside to make these pits, looking for things, and then every once in a while they'd find these hibernating rodents of some sort and gobble them up. I think he used the term like ate them like a hot dog.
If I remember correctly, I'd have to go back and reread John Green's reports, but that's essentially it. And so he saw these things digging these holes. These pits are still there that the sasquatches presumably excavated, and eventually they kind of clued in that he was watching and they left the area. Essentially. That's the long and short of it.
But of course that lit a fire in Glenn Thomas, as happens with many bigfoot folks, and he started spending a lot of time looking for sasquatches, and his other two sidings that he had in that general area are less well documented. I don't know the dates or anything like that. I'm not even sure where to find the dates. I mean, maybe John Green recorded them somewhere. I'd have to go back and look. But essentially he saw these things two more times over the next maybe few years
or something. Sasquatch, as Bobo noted, was seen pooping defecating in a river essentially, and then it wiped his belt with its hands and then licked off its fingers and kind of went about his business. What other stuff Glenn Thomas did, I don't know. I have no idea, but gosh, I mean, he was from Colton or Estacada or somewhere around here. I would love to speak to offspring of some sort.
I would.
I don't even have any information on when he died. I'm sure he's dead by now, I would think, But I don't have very much information on the man except for what John Green wrote.
Essentially, I wonder if that was the same female he was.
I mean, how many females are in an area. It's a very high likelihood, I would imagine, you know, because I think all that stuff happened in that general area. And this is also the same area, by the way, that a lot of bigfoot step happens. You know, this is above a place called Big Bottom. It's not just a spinal tap song. It's an area, the swampy sort of low lying area along Clacamus River that there are been numerous reports out of Tarzan Springs is not far away.
And Tarzan Springs for our listeners, if you don't know, I think we've talked about it a few times on the podcast was named according to Joe B. Lart, who tracked down some folks in the federal level who gave him this story. He can read about it in his book, The Bigfoot Highway book Oregon's Bigfoot Highway. I think it's called Apparently he was told by some federal worker who went back in the records for Joe that it was named the nineteen twenties.
I think, say.
Yeah, somewhere in there, and the surveyors who were in the area, ran across like some sort of hermit or you know, a prospector or somebody like that up at Tarzan Springs who was quote unquote living with the apes unquote.
Right.
And of course at this time, you know, it was kind of before television, and so the thing that everybody spoke about in the media at that time were books, oh the Lost Golden Age, and the big book at the time was Tarzan of the Apes. Everybody was reading Tarzan of the Apes, you know, one of the most popular books ever at that time. And so I guess the surveyors who stumbled across this gentleman who was living with the apes in Mount Hood National Forest before it
was a national forest, they named it Tarzan Springs. So the area is just full of history, full of citing reports. I have found footprints in that general area before more than once, actually several times. It's just a great area. And that's the Glen Thomas gist right there. But you know, if sasquatches were doing this, like digging through these taless slopes and making these big pits, I mean you can actually I plan to go there this weekend. Ugly enough,
it's funny you brought that up. I intend to go to the Glen Thomas site this weekend. I've got some folks coming into town and I'm taking them out for a day at bigfooting, And I think that's a great spot to go because I can't promise them a Bigfoot, but I can promise to show them something that Bigfoot supposedly did. So but if they if that was a normal behavior for Sasquatches, we should be seeing these kind
of all over the place, and you really don't. And a lot of the ones that you do find are are thought to be like vision quest sites from local native tribes and that sort of thing. So I kind of wonder about that. I mean, did this particular family group of Sasquatch develop a new way of foraging that wasn't thought of before or is that unique to them, because there's other tallest slopes in there and I've never
seen anything like that. But then again, to be fair, I'm not really looking that hard for him, so maybe there's more stuff out there to find.
Found one.
Yeah, yeah, he brought me to that one that was up kind of up by high rocks in a way up in Mountain Hood National Forest.
I've seen that one.
So I mean again vision side or Sasquatch sign, I don't know.
You know, Jamie Jay was talking to a guy he knows up in Washington and he's telling him he's keeps you got to call to Elsbury's all. We got a Glenn Thomas that there's like a hundred holes.
Yeah, I see at the Glenn Thomas site, there's more than that that big hole.
You always see.
Pictures of Bender and Auguler to Hinden or somebody standing in the big hole. But there's a lot of other holes there, and that's one of these things. And I think that if we're going to differentiate, if Sasquatches are actually responsible for some of these, I'm perhaps a way to differentiate would be counting them. I mean something like
that would take a lot of work. You know, some of these rocks way two three hundred pounds or more, you know more in some cases is not an awful big one that is in dangerous slipping back into the hole. And last time I was there, it's been a few years though, But.
I imagine, I mean, i'd have to ask.
Some Native folks about this because I really don't know, but maybe, like would they dig more than one if they were out doing what they do in these places, or it seems like a lot of work to day one, let alone five or eight. But I think at the Glenn Thomas site, I don't remember exactly, but I bet
you there's at least a dozen of them. And I was told that further up the ridge line there's other tailess slopes that have these things in them too, but just not as dramatic as that really big, deep one.
So I don't know.
Maybe that maybe that would be a differentiator, but again we're also looking at the data set. I think that's the only example of that behavior being observed by that sasquatch behavior or purported sasquatch behavior being observed by humans.
So I don't know.
Maybe maybe they don't do it at all, and he's a liar.
I have no idea.
Well, it just could be the case.
I mean, there's there's twice now that it's kind of touched on idiosyncrasy and individuality. You're talking about it a bit earlier, and then this brings it back to mind. That is one of the things I had written down is that when you're looking at animals that have long developmental periods and especially animals that have really complex behaviors, like a behavioral repertoire that's highly complex. That leads to a lot of individualism because most of those behaviors are learned.
They're not innate, they're not extinctual, they're not like baked in or inborn, and so you'll have so much variation across individuals within a given species, like humans are a great example of that. Tigers are a great example of that. There's a number of great examples of that in the
natural world. And so what you're left with is like individuals to the earlier point you had made about like, you know, are we painting a picture of the sasquatch as a species that's not directly applicable anywhere that I made that exact point in my book. I'd said, like you could create a highly act you're a general image of the sasquatch, and yet never find a single individual
sasquatch that conforms to that image. Right, And so in the case like this, it might be that all sasquatches will forage for rodents, but depending on the environment and their learned behaviors and you know, things they've become successful at, and so they start repeating and it gets instantiated, almost
like a positive feedback loop. That like the general pictures that they'll you know, search for, forage for and eat rodents, but the specific picture is like, well, maybe this family unit found a strategy to acquire rodents that's highly different than an individual or a family unit would in the Washutaws or in Appalachia. I mean, one of the interesting things about Area X, where all that activity was concentrated around the old cabin compound, you know, it was just
a draw for a lot of creatures. There was a couple of like smaller open grassy areas there that were like the only little open meadows in that whole valley. Everything else is like thickly forested. It was a big draw for deer and other browsing animals. I mean, there's deer all over the valley, but they're easier to observe and like reliably know that they're going to come through and browse in these areas. But one thing that cabin
compound had in abundance was rodents. Because these are old, you know, kind of wooden structures and a lot of stuff laying around, you know, human stuff, and so there was just all kinds of mice and rats and everything that would make homes in there and live in there. So we always wondered if that was a big part of the reason why they hung around, is this abundance of rodent food. And I know you've seen that in your study areas where they seem to be really going
after rodents a lot. So I think that's the general image, and if Glenn Thomas is telling the truth, and what you're seeing there is specific, so it is applicable. But you know, you might not say, like, well, all sasquatches will, you know, lift rocks and create holes in their search for rodents, but all sasquatches will search for rodents.
Does that make sense?
Oh?
Yeah, absolutely. And I've certainly found other instances of them moving things aside to see what delicious treats are living underneath, mostly logs. I've observed logs in several different locations, but I also see overturned rocks in a lot of these locations as well. I just don't have any evidence sasquatches were responsible for it, because that's also a known bare behavior and it's just hard to differentiate there when they
don't leave anything behind. It's just hard to know who did what right, But you know, if you're digging, if you're pulling over a rock to see what might be living in that hole underneath it, or something in a tailor's slope, well you move it aside and there's another rock there. It's not that big of a stretch that they would learn that sort of behavior in those sorts of environments, especially as you said, if they were successful previously and they were going back to the area to
see what else might be edible in the area. And again, I've been to the site probably a dozen times, and I think every time I go, I see not only one pika or whatever they are, but multiple. So those areas must be just thick with food.
Wish I could have seen that place the one time that were The last time I was up in that area with you, there was still snow block in the way. I think we were there in like June, so the valleys were pretty open, but some of those higher places we couldn't get up into, which was a bummer because I really want to see that place.
So maybe the next visit will do that.
Yeah.
Well, like I said, I'll be going this weekend, so I'll probably take some pictures and stuff, And of course that stacking is of interest as well, because that's one of the notable things about the site that I neglected to mention, is that the sasquatches are not only digging the holes out of the Taili's slope, but they were actually stacking the rocks on top of one another. And
some of these rocks were very, very large. I think Hender and those Hennery Fahrenbach and those folks went to the site and weighed some of the rocks and they were well over two hundred pounds, as I mentioned, and some of them are quite large, so that's probably four
hundred pounds in some cases. But those those rock stacks are still there, and you know, sasquatches have noted, or at least there's a trend, I guess, and the sighting reports over the years that sas squatches seem to be a little, i don't know it's right word, a little
neurotic in some ways about stacking things. There was a report from the Bull Run Watershed that I got secondhand about some guy who's grown marijuana illegally in there many many years ago, and his crop was eaten and by one of these things supposedly, and when he came back to this, when the guy came back, he was chased out of the area by this thing. The stalks of the plants were all piled very fastidiously, you know, very
very neatly in piles. And I kind of hear that sort of general theme a lot about sasquatches kind of be in neat freaks in a way. So the stacking of rocks lines up well with some other trends in the sighting reports, at least to me.
You know, that's another great example. I think that trend of like orderliness. So yeah, you could say, generally speaking, there's an orderliness. But then if you're looking at the specific like, well do they always stack rocks? Well, no, not all of them, not everywhere. And so I said, I think that individuality plays a large part of why they're still undiscovered. Is when you have something that's really individualistic and very idiosyncratic, and you're chasing a specific individual,
it's like, well, at that point, it's very unpredictable. Even if you have a good general image of the sasquatch's lifestyle and behavior, that might not apply to any one individual. I'd pulled a quote from Carl Jung, because he was describing people as the same way that, like, you know, we look at averages with humans, but humanity never produces anything except for exceptions to the rule. People are so
individual and so different. And he'd used an analogy like, you know, you could go to a rocky beach shore and know that the average pebble on that beach weighs whatever, you know, seventy five grams, And then you could weigh every pebble on that beach for the rest of your life and never find a single pebble that weighs seventy
five grams, you know. And I think a lot of that does apply to Sasquatches because they must have long, slow development periods, come plex behavioral repertoire, and a lot of that must be learned, and so they must be very individualistic and idiosyncratic for those reasons.
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo will be right back after these messages.
Another interesting thing people have reported from the I know, from the Rockies and from Sierra Nevada's researchers say that they're convinced that they build up like little piles of rocks like they'll build a little like pyramid, like yeah, like a car, like a pyramid of rocks, and then the ground scrolls or whatever. Rodents will go in there and nest in those rocks, and they come back when they're hibernating and just pull them apart and pull them out sleeping and just they got.
A frozen snack. Are basically well, it's it's warm. It's a warm snack.
But you know something that's interesting. I think that something I wrote down on my list as far as like what I wish more people spoke about. We're doing it right now, right now, and that is the early reports, the early foundational literature. Because again we lament about this all the time. We're a bunch of old men kneeling at the kids to get off our grass. I totally get it. But so many of the Bigfoot officionados nowadays, they don't realize the people who laid the foundation for
what we all love. They don't realize the importance of Green and Krantz in their ilk because they came in with the Finding Bigfoot days or the Expedition Bigfoot or whatever, you know, whatever flash in the pan thing is on TV at the time. They don't understand all the work
that has been done beforehand. And I've seen grave mistakes done by people who thought they perhaps discovered something, discovered a trend, only to look in John Green's books and realize, oh, this was done in the nineteen seventies or I don't know, Matt even you said something about this recently, about the color of the animals and real and thought, oh, no, one's really talked about this, And sure enough Sanderson did, like the literally the first book, the first book ever
written kind of in a way that talked about it. So I think that, then again, I'm just an old man. You'll let the kids to get off my grass. I fully realize that, and I do it all the time. But I think that the foundational literature, the early researchers, the early reports are hugely important, especially now because if you wanted to fake a sasquatch report, it would be really easy to do.
Now.
You listen to a couple of podcasts, you read a book, you go to the BFR site, and you know, average those things out and spit it back, and someone's going to believe you, because why not. The Sasquatches are real. You can actually see them no big deal. But like the best example of something I mentioned recently is like these tree things that I've been discovering, not not trees structures,
but tree breaks. Turns out, John Green wrote about the tree breaks literally in the very first bigfoot thing that pretty much ever happened, and under the word big Ford the least the Jerry Crew the Jerry Crew footprints. John Green wrote in his book that he followed the tracks of the Jerry Crew creature down the creek and up the other slope. He lost the tracks and some rocky
train and then found trees broken. Three different trees broken with the tops broken off and twisted around the lower trunk. That's exactly what we find nowadays. And he didn't know if sasquatch, that sasquatch was responsible for it, but they were in the trackway that he was following, so it
could be inferred, I think. But going back to that, the earliest reports you can find and looking for behaviors and descriptions and that sort of stuff carries more weight than a report that happened two weeks ago, because the report that happened two weeks ago happened in the context of a lot of people knowing a little bit about sasquatch stuff. But you go back to nineteen fifty eight, nineteen fifty nine, nobody knew anything, nobody knew squat about
squatch at that time. So the thing the next you know, fifty years of reports supporting those behaviors is very telling to me. So I think that the early reports and the early literature is even more valuable now than perhaps it was thirty forty fifty years ago.
Oh, I agree with that.
I do think it's really important not only to read that early literature, but to reread it often. And you know the example you brought up that I mentioned with Wes about Sanderson. You know, there's a handful of books that I reread every year and every single time, and some of them, you know, I've read for twenty plus years now, and every single time I see something new in there that didn't like shine forth in the previous
you know, fifteen readings or ten readings or whatever. And that's I always say, like, the information doesn't change, but you change, and what you're looking for changes, and what stands out to you and what resonates with something new you've learned, all those things change, and so it's definitely worth getting really familiar with that stuff and then revisiting it often because new things will appear that were there all along, but they just weren't relevant to you at
the time, so they didn't really stick out in your perception as you were reading it. So all those things are very very important.
You know.
It's funny, like you mentioned the validity of older sasquatch reports.
One of the things that frustrates me so much with some of these podcasts I listen to or YouTube channels is that you can tell like, at least for me in my opinion, which could be very wrong, But when someone is feigning ignorance about the subject and they're fabricating a story and they're weaving in every element of the sasquatch phenomenon, and I've heard people say things like, you know, more than once, more than one person say things like,
and you know, I have to it run off. I went and looked at its tracks, and I mean, this is going to sound weird, but the tracks almost look like the foot bends in the middle. Has anyone ever said that before? Yeah, you're going to tell me that, Like, it's so obvious that they're trying to make it sound like they spontaneously saw a mid tarsal break and didn't know what they were looking at. And people send me that stuff and I'm like, look, man, I think that
person's lying. I think they're trying to include all these elements that will make it seem more legitimate. And they'll be like, oh, but he said he doesn't know anything about the Sasquatch, And it's like, well, he found that podcast, didn't he. Who's to say he hadn't been listening to that podcast for five years before he decided to tell his you know, quote unquote story. So those kind of things are so frustrated. There's a lot of that out there.
Yeah, definitely.
Well, I remember we were looking at that picture by Lyle Labberty, taken at the Patterson Gimlin film site. I mean, the whole community was looking since nineteen sixty seven, and it was only in the year two thousand or something like that that doctor Meldrum kind of let us in on, well, what that actually what we're looking at. We didn't have eyes to see, but it took somebody with an expertise in primate foot anatomy to say, oh, that's that's evidence
the mid tarsal pressure. That's pressure ridge right there, and the flexibility the mid part of the foot, and because that's perfectly normal, all apes have that, you know, and we're all looking at it forever. So this one random witness that you mentioned or whatever, like coming to that conclusion on his own, I doubt it. Yeah, And that's just more evidence that modern day reports can easily be
tainted essentially by fabrication or whatever else. But those early reports, I think again hold a little bit more value now because of the prevalence of sasquatch information now on the Internet and television and what it podcasts, everything like this one, et cetera. Those early reports they had no they had no information to go on.
If you use the analogy of like you know, large language models, they're sort of trying to approximate, you know, some degree or some style of human learning, and you have to you have to train them, you have to
give them information to build the model on. And so that's I think a good analogy is like the testimony today could represent humans that have been trained, you know, by listening to many many many other sasquatch podcasts and what many other claimants say and many TV shows, and so from all of that information, you could train a person to then generate a report that would have all the hallmarks of something legitimate versus like what were people
in the eighteen hundreds being quote unquote trained on. You know, they didn't even have the known apes to incorporate into their models. And so when they observe things that are consistent and things that are reflective of what we now know to be actual ape behaviors and other trends, and well, yeah, that's that's pretty compelling at the very least.
Well, you know, let me throw this out because I ran across some pretty shocking statistics this past week or so. And again, always fact check me, always look at the numbers. And you know, maybe I'm underestimating, maybe I'm overestimating. I don't really know, but something on the turn, something on the term of one out of five Americans today is functionally illiterate. I mean, that's a sad truth, but it seems to be the truth. So something like twenty give
or take a few percentage. Whether it's seventeen or twenty three doesn't matter. Let's just say one out of five, twenty percent of Americans today are functionally literate, and what that essentially means is that they can't read directions well, if at all, they would have trouble filling out forms and all that sort of stuff. You know, it's a real detriment. And I've known people in my life, very intelligent people who were functionally literate. They just didn't have
the schooling. They didn't they had other issues. I speak to Michael Freeman very frequently. His father was largely illiterate. You know, I think he was very heavily dsyslexic based on his writing styles and things like that. I've seen a lot of his original writing and things like Michael told me, if you ever saw my dad's signature, that's almost certainly my mother's. Because dad didn't write, he didn't read.
I never knew him to read a book, although to his credit, he was trying really hard to read better. Towards the end of his life. He was trying to read Bigfoot books and things like that, and he had some struggle with it. He was getting better by the
time he died. But essentially he's functionally literate. So when I when when when I bring up like people should read the foundational texts, I have to at least put it out there that, like I fully understand this, probably you know, again, one out of five people in America, maybe one out of five people listening to this very podcast would be unable.
To read that those posts.
Well, probably not this podcast, to be fair, but I'm still there's there are some listeners, whether they're young or older, and just didn't get the schooling they needed or had some other stability that perhaps prohibited them. And so coming around to my point here, and I'm going to ask you Matt this or maybe you might know too, Boba, but it feel like this is like in Matt's ball park. How many of these foundational texts have an audio book that's available?
Oh?
Man, yeah, unfortunately, like almost none of them. I do think that Sanderson's book is available in an audiobook format because a good buddy of mine, shout out to my buddy Kevin in Colorado, one of my good friends, known him for many many years, had texted me and he was like, oh, I'm listening to Abominable Snowman Legend come to life and the narrator has an epic English accent.
So at least that one's out there, But you know, it really comes down to like, for example, I think the author or the publisher has to initiate that process for that project. So whoever owns Green's works, let's say is Hancock House, would have to either send in a manuscript that could be read.
You know.
Even I think Audible now has an AI reader where you can you can apply and they can have an AI voice read your text and that becomes the audiobook. But you know, it's it's up to either the author or whoever owns owns the work. So unfortunately, I you know, whoever owns a lot of those works has just never initiated that process to have those converted into audiobooks. And that's that's they're missing out on a lot because I do think people would would glean something from that, and
the audiobook process is not easy. I've been wrestling with that for a while. But you know, I'm sure there's other especially for authors that are deceased, why not use the AI function, you know, because it's not like we can get Green to read it because he's deceased.
Or Krants, et cetera, et cetera.
So there there are pathways to that now, but it would be up to you know, whoever owns those books to do it. But that is an unfortunate reality, is that there's not a lot of other options, and not all of those books are readily available to find and get from let's say Amazon with two days shipping, you know, because some of them are out of print, or some of them are by small publishers who print stock first and then list some of that stock online to be ordered,
and it becomes expensive, and there's expensive shipping. So there is a bit of a barrier to entry on some of those older books.
You know.
Some of them are easy to get and some of them are not, which is very unfortunate, you know. To your point about literacy, it is I laugh at myself often because I often lament that, you know, people don't read books anymore. And so the way I addressed it was to write about it in a book.
Right, all right, stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo will be right back after these messages.
Well, you know, your.
Book brings up another thorn on that rose. There is that along with that statistic that I stumbled across about approximately twenty percent of Americans are functionally illiterate, a little over fifty I was told, and again, fact check me. Please. Whatever the number is, you're going to find it horrifying. About fifty percent of Americans read at fifth grade level or below, so books like yours were, you know, are
going to be inaccessible to them in some ways. But also, being a teacher, a former teacher at least, I know that comprehension levels when you're listening are many years above that which you read. You know you can understand a story much higher than your reading level by listening to it than reading it. So again, so to get the foundational information that we all three here deem so important,
what are the options? I guess, as you mentioned, AI can read a book to you, okay, that that's a real solid, kind of brand new innovation that will help a lot of people. I think with this this kind of disability, I don't know if if it's appropriate or correct even to say that illiteracy is some sort of disability, But when you're trying to read a book, it is right.
I don't know any way around that one.
I don't want to handle with kids, gloves or anybody getting mad at me about this. But if you want to read a book and can't there's the issue, right, So what can get you through that bump? Because I imagine some of our listeners would think that doctor Meldrum's book is too high above their head because these are scientists and I don't know about science, and it's actually pretty accessible.
I think to most readers.
But what other options might there be? So we have the AI option. If you can get that text into
a computer, the AI can read it to you. Are there other avenues or other resources available for people our listeners who might want to access those foundational texts, or at least ideas Todd Prescott's YouTube channel I think would be one of them, because he has a lot of the foundational people on video talking about things anything else that I'm overlooking that might be able to help our listeners who might struggle with this.
I mean, anybody listening to this podcast is technologically literate, you know, because they found the podcast. They're using us smartphone, a tablet, a desktop, a laptop, something of that nature. And so I think, you know, if they had a book and they encountered a word that they weren't familiar with, they could they could google it, you know, they could
search the definition of that word. I do think that encountering things that you've never encountered before is very good for people now in my book, like any term that I used that I thought wasn't in common parlance or something like that I define next to the word. But
other words that you know, I might not have defined. Well, if you found my book because you heard me on a podcast and you ordered it from Amazon, you have a smartphone or a laptop or something, and people might be encouraged to go, oh, let me look that up, let me learn. Because that's one of the things that's frustrated me over the years, whether it was like television
people or people in other literary avenues. When I was talking to people about potentially being involved with this book, they'd be like, Oh, you shouldn't use that word because no one's ever heard it. I'm like, well, how do you expect anyone to learn? Like you don't want to publish something that only includes things that you already know that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And I don't think
the audience feels that way. Everything I know is because I encountered it at a time when I didn't know it, you know what I mean. And so the books that were way above my comprehension at first, like Krantz's book, which is one of the first books I read, you know, I read Krantz's book years before I took an anthropology class, and or you know, like physical anatomy class. I mean I knew some degree of obviously anatomy and basic sciences, you know, coming from a family with all medical backgrounds
and having completed high school or whatever. But like I learned because I encountered things. I'm like, I don't know what that is, but I sure need to know if I want to make it further in this book, and maybe it's useful for me as a sasquatch researcher. So I'm not a big fan of the idea that we should avoid things because they might be new to people, or to assume that well, no one's going to understand this because they're just not smart enough.
Like I just don't. I don't believe that at all.
But it is I think to your point, it is hard for newcomers because if they do step into the sea of podcasts and YouTube, they're not all created equally in terms of like their presentation of historical material or commitment to presenting that material.
Accurately.
You know, a lot of it is straight out wrong. I mean, some of them are bs, but like a lot of the ones that from good people and stuff are just inaccurate, you know, And anybody can be wrong, of course, you know, but how's the guy supposed to.
Know wildly inaccurate?
But I would again, I don't think it's an erroneous assumption to think that if you're listening to this on your phone or your laptop desktop, you know that you do have access to some of that foundational material online via Amazon, you know, and I can put links to
some of that in the show notes. There's a great repository of published papers that came from like Northwest Anthropological Research Notes or the International Society of Cryptozoologies Journal, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, like a whole host of different journals that are all cryptozoological articles that are all in one place, alphabetical by author, and I'll link that in the show notes. And so you can read a lot of great papers by Green, Krantz, Bender, Nageld, Meldrum,
on and on and on. You know a number of different people that made big contributions. So there's plenty of free options online too. Or Meldrum's Relict Hominoid Inquiry, which is a lot of that's going to be a lot more technical than my book too, But at the very least, even without spending a dollar, using the same smartphone or computer that you're listening to this on, you can read a bunch of really good material written by excellent researchers who are definitely committed to the truth.
That's fantastic because you know, Bigfoot is for everybody, and information is for everybody, and I'm a huge advocate for access for all essentially when it comes to information and that kind of stuff. So it's good to know that there are resources for people, and you know, because again, I think most of our listeners probably have these books or have read most of them, or at least some
them at some point or another. But I'm thinking it occurred to me this past week when I ran across that startling statistic that maybe one out of five, as much as one out of five people could not access the information even if it was in their hands, and then thinking, well, what do we do for those folks? Because bigfoots for them too, and I want to make sure that they have some sort of accessible avenue to get these sort of information. So I'm glad we had a chance to at least speak about that.
Yeah, And I think for the average person listening to this, they still have it pretty easy in terms of getting that stuff because I started searching in the early two thousands and you guys started much earlier than me, and that like Bobo had the advantage of going to Humboldt State, and so he's kind of like in a repository of books in the epicenter of Bigfoot, you know, the history
of Bigfoot. But dude, how hard was it, Bobo back in the day, pre Internet or pre Amazon to find like five big Foot books that you wanted to read, like one library or just in general, like, it was so hard to find those.
Book book Yeah, yeah, it was, it was, It was.
It was tough.
Yeah, And I still I laughed because a lot of times, like well, Humboldt State, the only other person to check out some of these books or like, you know, like the stuff in the humbold room for local stuff was was Danny Perez nineteen eighty one.
Because I remember it took me years to find a copy of Apes among us.
I think the first book.
I read was Krantz and then once I remember getting Lauren Coleman's Bigfoot The True Story of Apes in America, like right when that was released, and I got Melton's book right when it was released, and I don't think I got a copy of Apes among Us until after those two.
Well, I was pretty lucky because I lived in La County and La County Library system was pretty big, and like you could put in a request they'd searched the whole library system for they said it might take two weeks or three weeks to get it. They they could get you a lot of those. I looked for any book with Bigfoot or Sasquatch in the titles, and they were pretty good about getting those teop but it was still it was hard to know what the title was
and you had to know the author. And if you never saw the book before, you know, you might hear someone talk about it, or I'd say, like if you found two or three books in the library that I had big Foot stas question, that was like a.
Gold mine because that was rare.
Yeah, And I think nowadays, like with the exceptions of the ones that are out of print, if you went to our book Recommendations episode just about every one of those books you can find on Amazon. You might have to get a used copy, but they're all on there for the most part, which is like if we had had that in the early days, like oh, you can just get like one click and get this book, that'd have been pretty nice, you know.
Oh dude, for sure.
All right, Well that's about it. Should we tie this one up and head over to the member section for a brand new topic of discussion?
We should because I know Bobo was just out in the woods for a few days and we need to hear how that went.
Oh yeah, for sure.
Absolutely.
All right, folks, Well, thanks for joining us at Bigfoot Beyond with shooting.
May some of us. Yeah, so thanks for joining us. We appreciate it. Hit like hicks, Share and check out those books we mentioned. Their links are below those papers and articles. You can read good stuff and let us tell you think.
All right, you all keep it squatched until next week.
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, and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag Bigfoot and Beyond