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