Ep. 362 - Sasquatch Believers Vs. The Skeptics!

Don't you wish everything was more rewarding? With Rakuten, almost everything is. You can earn cashback on those new shoes you've been wanting. You can save on the next trip you book. You can cash in on groceries. Just join, shop your favourite brands, and save. Boots, Sephora, Asos, Selfridges, M&S, Sainsbury's. The list is long. Save online at over 550 stores. And when it's time to redeem those rewards, get your money exactly how you want it. Choose bank transfer or PayPal. So go ahead, take a trip, fill a cart, get a new outfit. Rakuten is a world of rewards. Join today for free. Go to rakuten.co.uk or get the app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Granger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Granger offers millions of products in fast dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRANGER, click Granger.com or just stop by. Granger. For the ones who get it done. Bigfoot and beyond with Cliff and Bo Bo. These guys are your favorites. So like, share, subscribe, and rate it. Five stars. Bigfoot and beyond. The greatest one. Wherever you're listening or watching, remember always keep it squadgy. And now your hosts, Cliff Bergman and James Bobofei. Hey everybody, this is Cliff and you're listening to Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff, almost always Bobo and Matt Pruitt's around here somewhere as usual. Bobo is not here today. He is off doing more important things. We're giving him a pass, which is all fine and good. We all need one every once in a while. But filling in his exceptionally large shoes will be Matt Pruitt. You look lovely today, even though you're in Nashville and I'm over in Sandy, Oregon, I can't see you. I'm just imagining you looking lovely. I appreciate that. I do wear a size 12. What size shoe does Bobo wear? I imagine it's larger. Well, that's an interesting story. If I remember correctly, like this happened on Finding Bigfoot actually about three or four years or so into Finding Bigfoot. Bobo on the road somewhere, I think he messed up his shoes or like damaged them or something. And he had to go get a different set of hiking boots. And so he went into a shoe store or maybe his REI or something because it was hiking boots. I don't remember exactly where it was. But he was really excited when he came back with his new boots because he told me this story where like, oh, I went and sat down, do they measured my feet? And he had been wearing the wrong size shoes for about 15, 20 years. And he'd been wearing shoes that were too small for him. So if I remember correctly, Bobo wears a 13 shoe, but he had been wearing 12s for the previous decade or two. And he'd never quite understood why his feet hurt all the time. Closer. Hey, Robo Bobo, how are you doing today? Yes, I do wonder what we'll have to ask him what his boots size is. Either way, I can't, I can't feel his exceptionally large shoes. That's not possible. No, when people ask me, how tall is Bobo? I said, I only six foot four wearing boots, a little over seven feet with his personality on. I think that's quite accurate. Yeah, larger than life anyway. But we'll miss him for this week or whatever, but he'll be back. Fear not, Bobo will return, you know, it's like the cat that came back the very next day. Anyway, what are we doing, Matt? Well, we got a lot of great feedback on the recent episode that we had done where we were reviewing paper that John Green wrote and presented at the 1978 UBC conference that was included in Man Like Monsters on Trial. We talked about, oh, if this goes well, we shouldn't do this as a recurring feature to see what other classic papers or papers from the previous era from the Four Horsemen or that ilk, that generation might still hold up what things we would quibble with or have contentions with. And so I found another paper that was in a great compilation book. I know it's one of the early books that you read that was called The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominids. And it was a paper by Grover Kranz that he actually presented at that same conference at the University of British Columbia in 1978. But the paper was not included in Man Like Monsters on Trial, but was included in this volume that Kranz was one of the editors of. So I was going through various articles there and reread this one. And I thought, this one is just as relevant today, I think, as it ever was. And so I thought that would be a fun one to do a reading and review of to see if it holds up in 2026. Oh, absolutely. You know, and after you sent me the link to the article and I started reading it, I said, Oh, this is one of the ones that really, really put me on my path and led me here today. I remember back in, you know, Cal State Long Beach Library when I first ran across Sasquatch literature of any type. I remember reading this article, there are certain phrases in here that just like popped in my mind is that, Oh, that's it. That's it. I remember that. I remember that. I remember that. And of course, I've read a lot of stuff anyway, don't get me wrong. But I specifically remember this being one of the earliest papers that I read on the Sasquatch that kind of got me fired up about it because there's some stuff in here that resonates to this day very, very strongly with me, you know, very, very formative, shall we say, you know, absolutely. There was a few positions that that I was reading Kim State and I was like, Oh, yeah, that resonates with me very much. And I can identify with that very much. And I guess we can just go through it like the previous people, we just go paragraph by paragraph and see what holds up and what doesn't. But, you know, one of the things when I wrote the phenomenal Sasquatch, I was really trying to look at both of the sort of like diametrically opposed positions and see that like, no, they actually have a lot in common in a lot of ways. And, you know, when you point out the strengths and errors of either one, you often find yourself sort of like in a, in a no-man's land because very often people want a very binary answer, you know, it's real, it's imaginary, you know, it's true, it's false. And so if you're like, well, some of it's true and some of it's false, a lot of people would think, Oh, well, you're just pandering to everyone. It's like, no, actually, you get rejected by both sides. And I've found that many times in many different places, not just in this subject, but in others. So I love when I was rereading this that he opens the paper saying, quote, there are many people who believe there's a species of giant hairy hominid living wild in the forested mountains of Western North America. There are also many who are equally convinced that no such animal exists, except in some people's imaginations. I'm here going to alienate almost everybody by attacking both positions, which I thought was just great. You can't be true to yourself and the Sasquatch subject without pissing people off on both sides, honestly. A lot of my favorite thinkers sort of occupy that space, you know, in that they sort of straddle two worlds and they show that like actually the divide is kind of imaginary and there is a bridge or, you know, the chain with many links in it linking the two sides, but they tend to be sort of alienated by both sides. So I was like, oh, that's, that's funny that Kranz was feeling that in 78, you know, when he wrote this only 10 years end of his investigation. Well, his next sentence says it all right there. I mean, his next sentence is astounding and should be shouted from the mountaintops, in my opinion. Go for it. Well, yeah, the next sentence goes on to say after he says I'm here, I'm going to alienate everybody by attacking both positions. The next sentence says with only a few exceptions, those who hold a firm opinion on this matter, either for or against the existence of this animal are doing so without adequate knowledge. I think that holds up in 2026 pretty well. Yeah, yeah, with the recent flap of the Patterson Gimlin film stuff, everybody was arguing this or that and with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever, they had not seen the documentary that it didn't know what was in it. They didn't know all they had was rumors. And again, with only a few exceptions, those who hold a firm opinion on this matter, either for or against the existence of this animal, or a film or a footprint, whatever, you know, are doing so without adequate knowledge. That says so much. I'm constantly pretty bent out of shape and not really excited. I mean, yes and no, bent out of shape means like a pretty pissed about it and brooding about it or something. And that's not really the case. I just kind of shake my head and say, yeah, that's why I'm not a people person. But people who are accommodating about the Freeman foot or footage or the footprints or or any case, any of these cases and are so, so invested in it. Generally speaking, most of these people have not seen the cast like so on the Freeman cast collection. I read a lot of stuff saying how this cast or this cast or this cast is fake or this event was fake. And to my knowledge, almost and that's being generous, almost nobody has actually examined the cast. Literally, they're just saying, oh, it's fake. Why do you say that? Well, DeHinden thought it was. Yeah, but why do you say that? And they don't have an answer. They don't have an answer. That's always somebody else's opinion. And I think every one of us is guilty of that. So I don't want to come out of the gate with a sounding like, you know, we're castigating others because there's there is undoubtedly a mountain of things in my mind and memory that I have a quote unquote firm opinion on that I just don't know enough about because either I've not investigated it because I'm just not that interested in it or, you know, if you're studying some element of like history or whatever the case may be in school or you run across the documentary or read a reference in a book, like most of the time, you'll go, okay, well, that's that. And you just move on. And if someone were to say, Hey, what are the facts about this, you would just repeat that proposition that you had taken in and say, oh, yeah, that's that's it. History shows that X, Y and Z. And so it's like, we all have, you know, some degree of that. So some epistemic humility is necessary for all of us of like, yeah, well, I don't know enough to know what I don't know or what I do know for things that I haven't investigated. But yeah, there's there's another great line from Kranz's book where he had said something along the lines of like, if you were to ask most people what the preferred benefits of something like the internal combustion engine versus the steam engine, most people would just go, I don't know. But if you ask people like, does the Sasquatch exist? They'd give you a very emotionally charged like, of course it does, or it absolutely cannot, you know, even though they know just as little about that as they would about some other thing. So so yeah, there's we're all going to have those places where we have firm opinions based on inadequate knowledge for sure. Absolutely. And you know, one example where I am, I'm not going to say guilty, because I think it's actually kind of a good thing sometimes, as long as you don't put too much of your own self into it, as long as you don't identify too strongly with it. But an example for my own life is, you know, I was have always been very interested in the footprints since the 1990s, you know, started my Bigfoot cast collection back in the 1990s, you know, so I started learning about it and looking at a literature mostly Kranz at that time, until Dr. Meldrum published his book, and then what 2006 or eight or whenever that was somewhere in there, and I would take their word for it. But but now after all these years and having been exposed to so many footprints in not only casts, but also in the ground footprints, I'm now taking their knowledge dirt that they bestowed upon me or their interpretation, I guess I should say, and then made it my own. Because now at this point in the game, I can see a lot of things in the footprints, both in the ground and in cast, that I recognize and have seen repeated examples to the point where when Dr. Meldrum was still alive, I could bring up like, have you noticed this? And there are, I can probably think about five or six, seven times, maybe more, that Jeff goes, you know, I have noticed that. And then we start talking about what we what he thought was going on. And then he would explain it in anatomical terms, you know, using like the Latin terms about this and that. But I would just say it in my language, you know, like, well, look at my hand, like, I think it's doing this, and I'd move my hand in certain ways. He goes, Yeah, that's because this, you know, and so at a certain point, I think, speaking as a teacher, a former teacher, I think all good learners start off with that sort of knowledge that somebody else has built. You take that and you synthesize it into what you're doing, and then you build upon that. So as far as like the knowledge from other people, and you know, that I'm a big proponent of not giving away your power to other people, that's really kind of unfair for me to say because that's where things start. But unfortunately, a lot of times, for many, many, many people, that's also where it ends. And I think that maybe it should be that ball should be picked up and carried further. You know what I mean? Oh, certainly, that's every one of our responsibilities and opportunities. Yeah, yeah, we all start in the same spot by listening to somebody that we respect and believe. And then hopefully we kind of test that as this is like it's like a mini version of the scientific process. We test their their hypothesis with the evidence that we see to see if it stands up. Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and beyond with Cliff and Bobo. We'll be right back after these messages. Don't you wish everything was more rewarding with a racket and almost everything is you can earn cashback on those new shoes you've been wanting. You can save on the next trip you book. You can cash in on groceries. Just join shop your favorite brands and save boots, Sephora, Assas, Selfridges, M&S, Sainsbury's. The list is long. Save online at over 550 stores. And when it's time to redeem those rewards, get your money exactly how you want it. Choose bank transfer or PayPal. So go ahead, take a trip, fill a cart, get a new outfit. Racketon is a world of rewards. Join today for free. Go to racketon.co.uk or get the app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. Before you begin your road trip, ask yourself, do you really need five full suitcases? With the 2026 Kia Sportage X-Pros class leading cargo space, you'll have room for what you need. Find out more at your local Kia dealer today. Keep the adventure going. Kia, movement that inspires. Call 800-3334 Kia for details. Always drive safely and obey all traffic laws. Comparisons based on second row legroom and cargo space behind second row seats in the subcompact SUV class according to Kia segmentation as of October 2025. If you could put all the wonders of the world into one place, you'd end up with something very much like Key Largo. Key Largo is not only the gateway to the Keys, it's the launching point for the untamed Florida Everglades. In fact, from snorkeling our living coral reef to fly fishing the Everglades backcountry, Key Largo offers the best of both worlds. For more about Key Largo and the latest safety protocols, visit flakkeys.com. You know, this next section, even reading this, I sort of like anticipate the pushback from people, but again, these are Kranz's words and he existed within, you know, a scientific and academic framework and hierarchy. So this is his statement. So, you know, I might have opinions that would equally be based on other people's expression of their experience, but I don't want it to seem like I'm attacking the scientific establishment. But Kranz says, quote, the scientific establishment is overwhelmingly on record as denying any reality to the Sasquatch. This is not surprising. Science is generally not in the business of investigating the unknown, but rather it is working out minor details of principles that are already accepted. Say, I don't, I guess I could understand why he might have that feeling, but I do think science should generally be in the business of investigating the unknown. But I don't know, I can already, like, sense the ruffling of feathers that that statement would provoke in people. Well, yes and no, I think that, but when you look at academia in general, or even, you know, think tank folks, you know, those sort of scientists, because scientists don't only work in universities, when you look at what most of them are doing, and he did say science is generally not in the business of investigating the unknown, maybe that's not the, maybe that's not the best way to phrase that sense, because like, we'll take the theory of gravity, for example, gravity is a theory. It's not considered a law of gravity to my knowledge as a theory of gravity, because of what that next sense is, they're still working out minor details of principles that are already accepted. You know, another great example is evolution, right? And I don't want to get into the weeds on that one. But again, evolution as a general whole is accepted by the scientists. And then there's minute details that are still being worked out, which is why it's a theory of evolution, right? And you can go down the list, theory after theory after theory, they're still working out the kinks, that the super minor details. And I think that's largely true. And of course, the big bold scientific discoveries like homophilusiansis or something like that, that is also usually done by scientists and often done accidentally, and sometimes on purpose, but often accidentally, the Sasquatch subject is going to be one that's probably going to be done on purpose, although not necessarily, it could accidentally be solved as well. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that Kranz probably didn't do himself many favors by having that sort of, because he certainly was a bit of a maverick and a renegade, but he would be on the attack more so than he would be on the defense of his own, or maybe I would say he was attacking his perceived enemies as often as he was defending his own thesis. Absolutely. I think that have ruffled a lot of feathers and probably still continues to do so, because when I would refer to those things or allude to those things saying, well, according to the scientists who have pursued this here, the obstacles that they faced in their careers, I would get accused of oh, you're blaming the scientific establishment. I'm like, no, not really. I'm trying to express the pattern that these other people have expressed in their own lives, but so maybe I'm being a little too cautious now just reading this, but he goes on to say that the Sasquatch, if proven, would certainly be something new and previously unknown. Science has a vested interest in its own infallibility, so to find out it has completely missed something as big and potentially important as the Sasquatch would be to admit to a certain degree of failure. It is easier to deny the existence of such creatures than to look for them. Well, that's obviously true. Yeah. Having denied their existence, science then becomes obligated to refuse to look for them and can no longer avoid the issue by claiming it didn't know about the situation. I do think that to some degree has held it to be true, like we've talked about the circular logic. I quote Mike Mays often because Mike talked about having a hair sample that was purportedly from one of the big black cats, the mystery black panthers in North America, trying to get people to analyze it. And I'm saying, hey, what do you have? And he said, well, I think I have evidence of a black panther. He said, oh, well, there's no such thing. And Mike would say something like, well, what would it take for you to be convinced that there was such a thing? Oh, well, I'd need to see evidence. And then he'd say, well, will you look at this? And they're like, well, that can't be evidence because there's no such thing. And so I do think as a general broad stroke, that seems to be fairly true to this day is that, well, once you deny the existence, it makes it a, easier to continue to deny the existence than to look for it. But then also, once that existence is denied, then you can refuse to continue looking for it. And, you know, like he says, no longer avoid the issue by claiming it didn't know about the situation. Yeah. Yeah. And of course, science is all about testing what you think you know, to make sure it stays true. And scientists wouldn't like to admit that the, that process is, could be flawed, or maybe there's some kinks or monkey wrenches thrown into that somehow, you know, they would have a lot of egg on their face because the Sasquatch thing is, would be such a potentially important discovery. And it's also, you know, as Kranz said, in other works, or maybe even in this article somewhere, that it's literally in our own backyard. So how could, you know, America, United States of America, often put forth as most advanced country in the world, have missed this thing that's just walking around? And especially that it's an animal, you know, like an ape or whatever. And the scientists probably think that, well, we could, we would have certainly got around to that one by now. How can an animal have eluded us? Say, well, don't underestimate them. That's how. And I do have a certain degree of, I try to have a certain degree of sympathy because I could imagine someone holding the position that it's just impossible. Like if someone came to me and said, hey, I found Godzilla scale on the shore of this beach, it would be like, well, I don't care how good it looks to you or what you think you have, there's no way that Godzilla exists and that you found some, or, you know, a track, a Godzilla track, or whatever the case may be. And so I would probably be very hard pressed to expend the time and energy to look at something that I was absolutely convinced to my core was impossible. And so I try to, try to empathize and go, okay, well, that's, that's how many of these people see the Sasquatch phenomenon. They don't see it the same way that we do. I still think, and we would be further along if, but again, they're not necessarily obligated to entertain every idea that comes across their desk that, you know, someone has what they think is something of scientific value, but I'm sure it's one thing for people like myself or Mike Mays or, you know, other of us that are like citizen scientists to be frustrated by that, but I'm sure Kranz's frustration was much greater because he did have the qualified disciplinary expertise, obviously was a tenured professor. Like he probably should have been taken a little bit more seriously than Joe Sixpack, you know. Yeah, what I would hope from scientists is, it would be, I guess an analogy, if that's right word, an analogy of what I would hope to get out of scientists who are confident Sasquatches aren't real is that, you know, you know what frogging is? Have you ever heard that? Frogging is a term where people end up living in your house without you knowing. No, it's a thing. It absolutely is a thing. Yeah, so frogging, the act of breaking into someone's home and covertly living within their walls, usually through like a crawl space or something like that. That's sort of thing. That's what frogging is. And there's a whole, I mean, the reason I know about it is because Melissa, there's a horror movie about this, of course there is, right? And so I've saw some horror movie back in the day. I can't remember what it's called about frogging. But apparently this actually happens. It's rare, of course, because how would most people would know there's a person living in their house, but they usually access the house through some crawl space or live in the attic or basement. You know, they get that sort of thing. It's akin to squatting, but the people are actually home, you know, sometimes. I mean, a lot of these people are, they travel for work or something, so it makes it easier for them. But I would like to think it's something like that for scientists. Like if someone came up to me and said, dude, there's a frogger in your house, man, there's somebody frogging in your house. And I would go, what? But when that person, after I wrote them off, I would start looking around the house for evidence of this. Like, could that be true? Is there some dude or some woman living in my house? And I would look at all the nooks and crannies and start exploring and looking for evidence. And I think it's the same sort of thing with Sasquatches today and scientists. I would hope that scientists, upon hearing that Sasquatches might be living in your house, your backyard, your local forest, that maybe they would go, what now? And then start, well, what do other PhDs have to say about it? And of course, a problem with a lot of PhDs and scientists, of course, the ones who have written skeptical books, which I think is a good thing, of course, is that they go to the old standbys. The Bospurg tracks, which I think are real, by the way, but Ivan Marx was involved, he later went on to hoax and they hold that up as evidence that Bospurg is a real. Although, to be fair, Danden also had some concerns about that, about Ivan Marx's involvement or any number of other things. The skeptical folks usually go to the well-worn trails that have already been put out there by other skeptics and whatever online, and this put in a book. But still, I think the frogging analogy is an interesting one that could be used with the scientists say, like, you look around the house, there might be a candy wrapper somewhere that maybe there is somebody living in your house, so be careful. That is a great analogy. I'd never heard of that and certainly hadn't thought about that before, but that is a really good analogy. Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo. We'll be right back after these messages. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Granger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Granger offers millions of products in fast dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800 Granger, click Granger.com or just stop by. Granger, for the ones who get it done. He continues, I won't read the whole next paragraph, just says fairly redundant to the paragraph we just read, but he basically says that scientific establishment that he describes is made up of individual scientists. The establishment is built out of their accumulated knowledge, but essentially any individual scientist is hard pressed to go against the accepted doctrines or the axioms of each of their disciplines. Then he moves on to say that basically as a consequence, many major scientific breakthroughs are made by amateurs or by those who are only marginally involved in the field in question. These new ideas are first regarded as heresy by the establishment, but eventually many of them become accepted when more authorities look at them with open minds or generation passes. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the vast majority of new ideas do not turn out to be true. We read about those few new ideas which worked, but our history books say very little about the 99% that were and still are foolishness. One of the tasks of the scientific establishment is to weed out these incorrect ideas and to accept only those few which are true. The trouble is that after debunking 99 silly ideas, it's easy to get into the habit and then miss the next one that might be right. Yeah, you know, that's first sentence there. Many major scientific breakthroughs are made by amateurs or by those who are only marginally involved in the field in question. That's probably the most important sentence of any book that I've ever read in my life because I remember reading this one. Man, at the time, I was talking around with the idea of being a professional astronomer and physicist. I mean, I've said that story many times until calculus two kicked my ass and I said, well, whatever calculus two is, I don't want to do that for a living, you know, because it was very, very difficult. I can probably do it now. I think I'm just more emotionally and intellectually mature now than I was then. But anyway, that like many major scientific breakthroughs are made by amateurs. I mean, I even wrote an article about it a decade and a half ago that's on my website. That is the most powerful sentence that I had read and I didn't realize how that would change the rest of my life, literally the rest of my life. So when I saw this sentence when he sent me the article, I said, oh, yeah, yeah, that's where I got that from. Clearly, I totally remember that. Totally remember that. And it's true because I mentioned the astronomy and physics thing is because the reason I mentioned the astronomy and physics thing is because the vast majority of new comets, for example, are discovered by amateur astronomers. People with nice telescopes or even small telescopes in their backyard or out in the woods or something in dark skies scanning the horizon. Because as Kranz kind of alludes to, in this article, professional astronomers, they're on telescopes like the giant telescopes that are very, very expensive and they're using their grant money to specifically study one particular thing, perhaps a certain star or a galaxy or nebula or something. And they're spending their time and grant money on that telescope studying that one thing, trying to work out minute details about it, essentially, they don't have the luxury, perhaps of scanning the horizon for unknown fuzzy objects, which end up to be new comets. Because there's plenty, I mean, there's probably billions of comets, trillions of comets in the universe, but and every once in a while, one cruises by that no one has ever catalogued before. And it's only the people out there who are having fun with their telescope and sometimes trying to find these things because there's a couple of amateur astronomers that have discovered multiple new comets because that's their thing. And sometimes they were discovered on accident. And that's exactly the same as the Bigfoot thing, exactly the same. When I read that article, I realized, well, I'm a scientifically minded guy. I like science in general, I'm kind of a nerd, and I like going to the woods. This is something that I can contribute to. This subject is something that I might be able to participate in and maybe make a difference someday in. And boy, that changed the, clearly changed the rest of my life in a way that I had no idea about. You know, one thing I think that has changed a lot since Kranz wrote this in 1978 when he says, you know, we hear very little about the 99% of ideas that were and are foolish and that, you know, that history doesn't record those things. Well, now there's, we've removed many steps of gatekeepers, which is very beneficial. That's the reason that we have this podcast and communicate directly to people. But everything has a cost and a benefit. And so yeah, there's, right now, you know, you're always swimming in a sea if you're in social media or quote unquote independent media, YouTube podcast, etc. Is that all new ideas are out into the arena. And some take hold because they're more outrageous or entertaining or captivating or they reach into a certain part of us that we respond to. And so yeah, I think historically he's right that like, yeah, well, you know, we only remember the few new ideas that worked out. But right now it's like, think about how many theories, hypotheses, conspiracy theories on and on that are massive, that, you know, from channels or podcasters or whatever they have huge audiences. And, you know, time will tell which ones are correct or incorrect. But I think his metric that, you know, 99% of them will not be correct. But yeah, that's, that has definitely changed significantly is that I would almost argue that there's a larger audience for the, you know, incorrect or foolish new ideas than there are for the correct ideas. But only time will tell what things floating around now will eventually be confirmed and then held to be true for decades or maybe centuries. We won't know in our lifetime, but that has definitely changed from the 1970s until now. Yeah, the information age has changed everything of course. And the difficulty and I think the importance of the scientific process now is to apply it to the vast amount of information that we're bombarded with constantly. That does that make sense? Does this hold true with what I personally observe? In other words, does it hold up to the evidence? Right? And like Kranz said, like most of the stuff doesn't. Yeah, which is fine too, you know, and at the same time, a lot of that stuff, when I read this, the kind of, it reminded me about is that I had somebody criticizing me not that long ago. I forget on what platform, but it doesn't really matter, I guess, that every time I go out, I find something. But that's not true at all. I think it was a comment on one of my videos or something, probably the public YouTube, because that's where most of the trolls live. That wouldn't be inside my membership in the museum or anything like that. So I think I put something out and they say, every time you go out, I can't believe blah, blah, blah, this and that or whatever. And I say, well, that's because I don't make videos about more than nothing happens. Why would I put that out? Right? So you don't see the eight times in a row, I go, you know, one or two days a week, and I don't find anything at all. And then that one time, like every two or three months, I make a video out of, and he's always finding stuff. No, you just, I'm not going to bore you with, you know, eight to 10 hour trips to the woods, where I find absolutely nothing. You know, that's not what people want to see. Oh, I definitely understand that. I do think the difference in today's world was, you know, Kranz said, the trouble is after debunking 99 silly ideas, it's easy to get into the habit and miss the next one. That might be right. And today it'd be like, the trouble is that after debunking, you know, 99 million silly ideas, because that's kind of what you're confronted with on a monthly or yearly basis online. So, but at least he does seem to have a little sympathy there, like, Hey, I understand why they gloss over some of these. He continues to say, the more unlikely a new thing may seem to be, the more proof is required for its acceptance. You know, he lists things like the Sasquatch is more unexpected than something like a new species of chipmunk, for instance. And so he leans into, which he will lean into for the remainder of his career, which you'd already lean into a bit by that point. But the proof required in this case is an actual specimen, nothing less will suffice. The scientific establishment rightly demands that this proof be produced before it can be taken seriously. But the establishment also refuses to look for this specimen and even goes so far as to actively discourage those who would look for it. I think that's definitely held true. It's not like any institution has taken up that charge yet, despite a growing body of evidence that, to some people, might be more of the same as was on offer in Cranstas day, you know, more examples of tracks, more examples of anomalous hair, more testimonial, you know, anecdotal claims, more audio recordings, etc. But nonetheless, there is more, even though it might be quote-unquote more of the same. Yeah. And we've spoken at length on the podcast here about the, an actual specimen, nothing less will suffice. And I still do think that's true, although the pathway to the specimen, as we've mentioned before, has certainly become a little bit better paved. You know, for example, DNA, you know, we talk about that quite a bit, you know, with Arby's situation and the project and everything. So DNA, which actually is a piece of the body, of course, don't forget that. It's a part of the body. You can use that. But that would just pave the way to actually collecting a specimen at some point. You know, we've talked about that at Nozium, of course. He goes on to say, research funds are given to projects which are certain produce usable results. Unfortunately, Sasquatch hunting works against extreme odds and here, negative results are of no value, which I think is completely relevant because, you know, in many other scientific disciplines, like whatever results you get, even if they're not the results you're looking for, do have some kind of value, especially if you were, you know, testing for, you know, a certain chemical compound to see if it has this effect or that effect, you know, like maybe a medicinal or health benefit or something like that. But I do think the research fund, the argument about research funds being given to projects, there was a, I've heard it said a few different ways, but a rebuttal to Sagan's, you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence being that, yeah, well, extraordinary evidence requires either extraordinary luck or extraordinary investigation. And extraordinary investigation typically requires extraordinary funding. And I think all that's fairly true. But then I've heard other people say, no, extraordinary claims require evidence period, you know, not necessarily extraordinary evidence. So I don't think there is any sort of a consensus about that yet, but I don't think anything he said in that particular paragraph has changed very much or would require an update to make sense in 2026. Not to the question he's asking, because his question is a binary answer. Yes or no, is the Sasquatch real? And at that sort of 30,000 foot level at that large landscape overlook, there, that's where negative results have no value. Like you go looking and you don't find one, that negative result has no real value, because maybe the Sasquatch, if it is real, was not there or around there at that time. But I will say that when you start zooming in at the smaller level questions, the more minutiae again, like what we referred to earlier, I do think negative, we all know that negative results do actually hold value. Like if I'm trying, like in my research areas, if I'm trying to find when the Sasquatches are there and I go there and they're not there and I don't find sign of them, that is actually is a value. So I think on binary gross overview questions, like is the Sasquatch real? Then, then yeah, he is correct, but I would only take issue with that last sentence there, Monnie, more zoomed in level. I see what you're saying. Yeah, I mean, I took that as in like, you know, if you're testing for some other natural phenomenon or testing, again, let's say like a chemical compound and its effects, you know, whatever effects are produced, even if their negative results have some value, maybe to some other medical intervention, or to some other field, or subdiscipline of the same field. Whereas like, if you're looking for something that you find no trace of, it's like, yeah, well, we could have already told you that the forest was only full of squirrels, bears, and deer. Like, you know, you're, we funded you and like what you produced that's negative results is of no value to like, we can't use that data for our fields, you know, it's not going to teach us anymore or less about squirrels, bears, or deer, you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. It's the level of questioning there, yes or no question, as opposed to an exploration of a more subtle question that might have a more subtle answer. Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and beyond with Clifton Bobo. We'll be right back after these messages. I'm here on the job site with Dale, who's a framing contractor. Hey, good morning. Dale traded up to Geico commercial auto insurance for all his business vehicles. We're here where he needs us most. Yep, they sure are. We make it easy for him to save on all his insurance needs, all in one place, with coverage that fits his business and bottom line. Awesome to have looked down. It's all right. We're so far up here. Look at me. Take a deep breath. Oh, I'm good. So good. Get a commercial auto insurance quote today at Geico.com and see how much you could save. It feels good to Geico. This is the story of the one. As a procurement manager for a hospital system, she keeps every facility in her network stocked and ready. That's why she counts on Granger to be her single source for thousands of products, from disinfectants to lighting, air filters and more. And with fast, dependable delivery, Granger helps her keep every facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRANGER, click Granger.com or just stop by. Granger for the ones who get it done. And I do think these next paragraphs, we don't have to get granular about, but he sort of lays out like there's a large amount of real and imaginary evidence presently available, which supports the existence of the Sasquatch. But unfortunately, much of it is not reproducible because it's in the mind of observers. He talks a bit about the physical evidence being photographs or plaster casts, which are one step removed from the original. And so the authenticity can and should be questioned. No eyewitnesses could be questioned, et cetera, but accounts are one step away from reality. But I think the more important thing is that he says, Few scientists have been willing even to look at or listen to the available information. Of those who are willing, only a small fraction have had the opportunity to see the footprints or to talk to witnesses. Mostly this is because they fear their scientific reputations would be damaged. If it became known that they were even interested in such things, let alone investigating them. I do think that holds up to be true because how many people have we communicated with who are like, Hey, can you leave my name off the email, please? Or like, Hey, I love the podcast. Please don't publish my name. And I do think that there is that fear of like, even expressing an interest. I mean, how many times have you, if you're entertaining an idea, because it captivates you or you're like, well, maybe there's something here that, you know, if you were reading a book about a subject or watching a documentary about a subject that a friend of yours or somebody might walk in and see that and go, Oh my God, you believe that crap? It's like, Hey, wait, just because I'm looking at it doesn't mean I accept it wholesale. Doesn't mean I believe it. I'm just looking at it. You know, I'm just paying attention to see what's there. You know what I mean? Oh yeah. Yeah. And there's a lot of fun. I kind of put all those into like a thought experiment, you know, like, I don't think Atlanta is a thing, but like, it's a fun thought experiment. And maybe by examining that thought experiment, you can find, Oh yeah, that came from this or this particular mythology or whatever. And maybe there's some truth to that mythology. How did that mythology arise? That's the sort of thing that I think is fun to look at, even in things I don't believe in. That's how I got to the big foot thing anyway. Like, it's like, well, that would be fun to look into. Even though I was so sure there was anything to it. And then the deeper I looked, I realized, Oh my God, there's actually very, very sound sane things involved in this, not just what, you know, TV or, you know, that sort of at the time, because this is back in the 90s, TV was saying sometimes, you know, crystal skulls and all that kind of stuff. Indeed. So I think that attitude still holds kind of true. We are lucky that there are more and more scientists getting interested. But like we've talked about in this podcast before, I think people from outside of the biological anthropological realms might have an easier time. You know, if someone is like a studying folkloristics or something from the social sciences or, you know, from a psychological perspective, they can say, Hey, we're not really trying to answer the question of whether such a thing exists. We want to understand the effect that it has on observers or the effect that it has on claimants. You know, and so that doesn't quite get into the like, is it real or is it not real question? And so I still, we do get outreach from primatologists, biological anthropologists, wildlife biologists, et cetera. But usually they're like, leave my last name out, please. So I understand like that. I think that is still going on. Yeah. And certainly it was punished in a way, I mean, maybe not directly, but indirectly punished for his interest in the subject, which is crazy that you're going to be punished for your interest in a question. You know, that last sentence, expertise in one field does not make one an authority across the board. I love that. I love that question. And in a way, it almost, it stings me though a little bit because I'm not an expert in anything. Really. Um, that's why I became an elementary school teacher. I found myself not really, really great at any one particular thing, but pretty good at most things that I tried. Like if I was interested in, I got pretty good at it, but I wasn't an expert, you know, like guitar playing, for example, you have got a degree in guitar, I can play, I can sit in with pretty much anybody, but I'm not a great, great player and I never will be. But I'm pretty good. I'm good enough. And I feel that that is my particular strength, which is why I went to elementary school teaching. It makes sense. Multiple subjects, you know, you teach multiple subjects. And I think that same thing I bring to the big foot field as well, whereas you do have to kind of defer to experts in various things. Whether it's Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who was literally an expert on foot anatomy. I think he's a great jumping off point to see if what he says holds up because his interpretation of the foot structure is very, very good, right? Or Bill Munn's on creature suits. I've never made an ape suit before. I'm going to defer to Bill Munn's on that one and see if it holds up and what he says makes sense, for example, right? But yeah, so that last sentence actually kind of resonated with me, not only because I'm not an expert in anything, but I'm okay across the board. You know, I know a little bit about a lot of different things. What's very useful to have a foot in both places, if you can help it, you know, not that there's just two places, but broadly speaking from my own experience, if you looked at the psychological social sciences and or maybe even like the humanities realm, you know, whether it's studying mythology, folkloristics, social psychology, psychology, etc., etc. And then the life sciences realm, you know, biology, physical anthropology, ecology, etc. There's very few people that straddle both of those worlds. And so when you see debates between those people, because that's sort of the classic argument, is like the cultural anthropologist versus the physical anthropologist or biologist, you know, where it's saying like, hey, these are just the elements of folklore. These are just mythological figures. These are the product of, you know, archetypal figures, etc. And so they will see in the vast array of data, you know, they have a certain set of lenses on that sort of filter everything out, except that which is relevant to their field, right? So they see a whole host of things that are completely the product of the consequence or the manifestation of psychological processes, folkloristics, things that do have like mythological origins or at least spread through like mythological means and carry with them mythological motifs and themes and tropes versus the biologists is sort of the opposite. And so when you see those people debate, very often like one of them will get the other one into a corner that they don't understand well and throttle them. So it's easy for, you know, a meldrum to get someone like that in a corner and describe the inferred foot morphology or certain aspects of like the evolution of bipedalism or the evolution of humans and non-human primates. And it's all basically Greek to the other, you know, expositor of their field and then vice versa. So trying to say like, well, can I have something of a grasp on like both canons, both bodies of literature? I'm trying to, I'm certainly not expert in any of it, you know, I'm trying my best to read as much as I can and grasp it and take in as much. But again, like one and a half semesters of community college, that's about it. But I do think that's a really helpful thing to try to be as much a generalist as possible, because what I see is a lot of conciliates. I see like, oh, these sides actually agree with each other in a lot of ways. They're just, they use different nomenclature and they're looking at the same thing from different angles, but there is a lot of agreement. And that's just a helpful thing to do is to try to not just exist in one corner or at least be dragged out of that corner into a corner that you don't understand without, you know, you want to walk into that corner of your own volition and make sense of it if you can help it. Absolutely. I love this next part. We'll see if this holds true in your experience. Before you go on, before you go on, don't we have a Robobobo that says, yep. Yeah, but we should pipe that in every once in a while. It'd be funny. For sure. I love this next paragraph. So you can tell me if this holds true in your opinion in these days. But he says, the true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one is being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And of course, social media amplifies that as well. Not only in the spreading of perhaps misinformation that people can grab on to and say is true, but like just recently I saw some somebody was defending the Patterson-Gimlin film online and they totally misquoted the number of tracks that were documented at the scene, for example. And so people sometimes take little things and they amplify it nowadays on social media to show off like something, I guess. I don't know. There's just so many examples of this, so, so, so many examples of this where people think something is true about it, but they're actually incorrect and they just keep repeating the stories. And then of course, somebody else picks it up. Oh, someone said this and they keep repeating the stories, keep repeating the stories without going to either the primary sources or checking the evidence for themselves. And does that make any sense? I feel like I'm meandering, but I'm trying to get to a point. I don't think I'm there. No, that definitely makes sense. We see that happening all the time. And, you know, I try my best. I think we all do, but there's plenty of times that things come up spontaneously that I haven't read about or thought about in, you know, sometimes months, sometimes years. And I just think it's as, in my experience, like I always try to say, look, as I understand it, if I remember correctly, I think it's this, but you might want to go double check that. And to me, it's just that simple rather than saying, like, oh, it's undeniably, it's conclusively, you know, and I think we do see a lot of that. It's a human tendency because you might have a certainty and you want other people to arrive at the same certainty. And so you use language to influence their degree of certainty. But like it's funny because you mentioned the, like, we're still in the midst of this Patterson, Gimlin, debacle, and the documentary covering this thing hasn't been released yet. And so only a couple of people within the Sasquatch community have seen it. And so, you know, Kranz goes on to say here, because he's talking about people repeating stories without an attempt at verification. So Kranz says, quote, I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each siding, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source. My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable. If I hear it from an intermediary, its likelihood drops to 25%. Third-person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight and so on. Many believers paid no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth. And I've seen that play out in like one of the people who saw the documentary and it's, he gives a very interesting account because he had, he had gone to a screening of the documentary there in Austin at South by Southwest and then went home and recounted to the camera like, here's what I remember from what I just saw. So I always think, well, yeah, if you're going to, if you're going to take his recollection, his opinion of what he just saw, that's the place to go to because that's as fresh as it gets. And lots of people have seen that video, but then I'll see now that it's been whatever a week or a week and a half, people saying, well, this guy said, and then they'll, they have this much more elaborate and detailed hyper elaborate version where it's like, wait a minute, he didn't say all those things. And so you're not doing him any favors by attributing things to him that he didn't say. And also you're not doing yourself any favors by, you know, exaggerating and embellishing, even though I don't even think that's quite intentional. It's like, you know, they're hearing sort of what they wanted to hear. And then people take that third person's version and go, yeah, well, the documentary says this, this and that. And like, wait a minute, first of all, you haven't seen the documentary. If you wanted a second hand source, go to the guy's original video made 30 minutes later, not a post from someone who saw the original video last week, and has, you know, imagined what it might represent for a week and then posted an elaborate version, you know what I mean? So that, that is definitely a pervasive problem, probably in this and every single other area of human interest. Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo. We'll be right back after these messages. This is the story of the one as a procurement manager for a hospital system. She keeps every facility in her network stocked and ready. That's why she counts on Granger to be her single source for thousands of products from disinfectants to lighting, air filters and more. And with fast, dependable delivery, Granger helps her keep every facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRANGER, click Granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. Wake Watchers now offers access to affordableGLP once Wake Watchers has everything I need, from Wake Weight Watchers now offers access to affordable GLP-1s. Weight Watchers has everything I need, from weight loss medications to nutrition support and help with my side effects. With our program, our members are losing more weight, with expert nutrition and side effects support. Weight Watchers are prescribing GLP-1 medications. It's been life changing. Better results. Expert support. Lose more weight. Make it last. Get started for as low as $25 at WeightWatchers.com. Yeah, and when I read this, of course, I realized, oh, this is a far more elegant way to put my rather brutish and clumsy statement of like, I don't trust what people say, you know, because that's too bull in a china shop, you know, and I tend that direction anyway. I tend to be a bull in the china shop and I'm not very nuanced in what I say sometimes, you know, but this way, like, oh yeah, direct witness stills me is 50% probable. I love it. I'm not sure the 50% is accurate or not. It doesn't really matter. It's not really, but the fact that it drops in credibility with every step between you and the actual occurrence. Let's say like a witness, for example, sees a Sasquatch. I often talk about the filters that those people saw through the cultural filters, language filters, the environmental filters and whatnot. And then they convey what they saw to me. I have to take all those filters in mind because I have my own filters as well. So the actual sighting itself has passed through all these different filters on the witness's side and then the linguistic side conveying that information to me and then passing through my own filters as well because we all have these filters in front of our eyes that we perceive reality through. And I'm trying to see the reality of what this person observed, right? I mean, I just love the way that Krant said it. It's like, yeah, if somebody tells me something, it's, he says 50% probable, which kind of, to me suggests like if he's lying or not or something like that. But I like the accurate, I don't think that's what he meant, but that's what the language suggests. I do think that is 50% accurate. You know, that's a squishy number that we can kind of hold on to. I like that a lot. And then if somebody else says something in the meantime, then that drops another 50%. So the next paragraph, we don't have to read the whole thing. I think this would be the one major quibble, but he had said that people gathered stories about bipedal Harry monsters from almost all parts of the world under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. And he says, actually, it does the opposite. The more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. And I think the thing I would quibble with there is that the old idea that they are all the same species. But for example, what people describe in terms of the all moss and the all masti, which seems to be altogether different, whether it's, you know, a real animal or a folkloristic thing is man sized, you know, visible, like a longer neck, like a human has much more like a human than a very large, powerful ape. But it's always referred to as like the Russian Bigfoot, the Soviet Sasquatch and on and on and on where it's like, they're not really describing the same thing anymore than you would, you know, describe a cheetah and an African lion and a mountain lion as a tiger collectively to go, well, tigers couldn't exist in all those places. It's like, well, I mean, they're big cats, but that's about where it ends. You know, they're not really the same thing. And to me, that's probably the basis of this argument of crances. It's like, well, the Sasquatch, you know, quote, quote, Sasquatch could not possibly live in all these places. Like he says, some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia. But when you throw in South America, Africa and Australia for good measure, they will back off. I don't think he's differentiating between something like the orang pin deck and the all moss and the Sasquatch is being like, oh, these are different things in different places. No, although in his book, he does give a nod to the orang pin deck and Sadapa and whatever as a different sort of thing altogether. But nowadays with the larger context of like the multiple species hypothesis of hominins, you know, like that this makes a lot more sense. You know, Sanderson, basically the first book, it's become full circle now to Sanderson, where he's being kind of acknowledged by some at least as being, yeah, you're kind of on the right track. All these different things do or could exist, I guess is a better way to say it throughout the world, especially with this idea of relitominoids that Dr. Meldrum was championing in his last few years here. It does make a lot of sense actually based on the new paradigm of human evolution. I guess he does kind of extend that. He does say here, the possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have mixed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow to claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point, whatever credibility there may have been. And I just don't agree with that. Like, again, if we used big cats as an example, like, yeah, there are big cats in the Americas and in Africa and in Asia, you know, and so it's, there's, there's plenty of things that are related, genera and species that I don't think pose any sort of a problem to the existence of any one or another. And especially if you say, well, there are apes in Africa and Asia, why not one more continent? I don't think would be a problem. But I guess I can try to understand he's being hyper conservative there. Well, yeah. And it goes back to that previous sentence about how scientists, you know, don't like to be wrong, basically, that how that's say, sometimes treat science as a religion in a way like the belief system, rather than a process. This, I think you would agree with, because this is one of our most frequently discussed talking points, he says, much potential support from individual scientists is lost when the enthusiasts bring in irrelevancies or downright impossibilities. Yeah, that says it all right there. That says it all right there. That's my argument. This is not even an argument against the paranormal. It's just a constant. It's what I say in as a consequence of paranormal claims about Sasquatches, that individual scientists are going to run from the subject. You know, it's one thing to say, yeah, there's an animal species that we can actually find or actually hear. You can find sign of them. You can find footprints. You can find foraging sites. You can find people who've seen them. Then suddenly, oh, no, there's an all powerful forest god, a forest spirit that protects us and wants us to succeed and, you know, and I don't know, eats dog food out of your back porch. Like it starts sounding pretty weird. And why would a scientist look into something that sounds like there is no possibility of, you know what I mean? And the things he mentions are pretty tame in comparison to the wild, supernatural, mystical, you know, paranormal claims. He just says, I'm reminded of an otherwise excellent newspaper article on the evidence for Sasquatch that was utterly destroyed by the writer's reference to a large, petrified heart heat examined. Many hair samples have been collected and some could not be identified, but this just means they could be from some part of the pelt of a known animal that had not been analyzed. Fecal samples can also be studied, but these can never prove a new animal exists. I've been shown many photographs purporting to be of Sasquatches, which are in fact just chance combinations of light and shadow and vegetation. If even half of these pictures were real, the Sasquatch must be a very common wild animal in North America. So he basically says to close that paragraph, in my opinion, people who push for the acceptance of the above kinds of data have lost their credibility and one might well be suspicious of any kind of information they have. Oh, Kranz, if only you would live to the deep into the internet age. Oh, I know, I know. You know, and that also reminds me of John Bendernaughel actually in a way, because John's one of his drums he beat constantly was always put forth the best evidence. Which contrasts to what I think he was saying is like, don't put out the bad stuff. It might actually be evidence. So for example, like the footprint cast that I'm getting out in my research area, that most of them wouldn't convince anybody that it's even a footprint when you look at what actually it comes out of the ground in the form of plaster. But in the ground, I mean, I've shown lots of people prints in the ground. It's like, oh, yeah, I totally see that. But when you pour plaster into it, which is really the shareable part, you know, I can show photographs as well, but it's more meaningful and to show a cast and they are more analyzable. I'm not sure if that's the right word, but able to be analyzed at least. Bendernaughel is always saying put forth the best stuff, because if you put forth the weak stuff, then they're just going to stop coming around, you know, like the boy you cried wolf sort of thing, even if like, oh, yeah, maybe. But if you show him something that is a footprint, 100 percent, then they, oh, well, OK, let's take a look at this and find out what's going on here. They actually have some meat that you want, so to speak, as opposed to the like the flimsy, squishy evidence, which I produce a lot of. I produce a lot of very, very flimsy, squishy evidence because tracks in the ground are not easy to cast in any sort of discernible form. But yeah, so that reminds me of the Bendernaughel drum. I mean, at least for me, because there's a number of things I've seen and collected in terms of documentation out in the field, recorded, you know, what I think are vocalizations, but they are certainly not as close and crisp and clear as the best examples. I always thought, well, in terms of like the best of its class, if what I have and collect is not of equal or higher quality than the best of its class, I should probably just sit on it and save myself the headache and heartache of trying to explain it and defend it, knowing that like, well, hey, if this collection of much clearer, better recordings has not won over the argument or the biocousticians, then I should probably save myself the headache and not assume that my example of lesser quality will. You know what I mean? No, I shared among researchers and other friends and as data points, but not necessarily like thrust it in front of the scientists and say, what do you think of this? You know, how do you like them apples? Yeah, exactly. I remember listening to a great episode of the Me Eater podcast with Stephen Rinella and they were talking about that Brian Sykes study. Yeah. And saying like, oh, of all the hair samples we got, you know, none of them turned out to be conclusive proof of Bigfoot or Yeti. And, you know, Rinella is a hunter conservationist. He's not a squatter by any means, but he had said, man, you just know there's some dude sitting in his house holding a shoebox right now going, yeah, well, they ain't seen these hair samples. And I thought, dude, if you only knew how true that was, I do like the line here where Crane says certain conservationists had taken up the cause of protecting the Sasquatch and they speak in favor of extending various laws which prohibit shooting one. These local laws are intended mainly to protect innocent bystanders, including farmers, cows and lawmen rather than the Sasquatch itself. Yeah. And that's certainly, I mean, certainly in regards to the Scamania County law, which is passed probably around the time that this article was published. Because at this point, he says somewhere in this article, how many footprint casts or footprints he's examined and witnesses that he has spoken to. And it's a fairly small number. I forget where that is. I'm kind of scanning for it right now, but it wasn't like two or something like that. Or is that have we even gotten there yet? Maybe that's further on in the article. But it had something like 30 something casts, I remember something like that. And I know when he wrote Big Footprints, his book in the 90 wonders, when he published that one, I think the number had grown to 60 something, if I remember right. So this is fairly early in his big footing career. So this is probably talking about the Scamania County law, which was largely to protect jackasses and monkey suits, essentially. And it was also published, by the way, on April 1st of 69 or whatever year that was. So that go along with that April Fool's thing. Stay tuned for more Big Foot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo. We'll be right back after these messages. Yeah, he continues to, you know, along the lines of collecting a specimen. He kind of makes the same arguments that he's made in many other places. And so I don't necessarily think we have to belabor all that about the need to collecting a specimen. But he's essentially in this paragraph just stating that, you know, no real legislation is going to happen. No public officials are really going to do anything about this until a specimen is collected. So all this other activity on that behalf of or on the part of conservation is to protect Sasquatches on their behalf is really fruitless without a specimen. The only contention I would have there is that I like to take, for example, that fifth grade class where we had the teacher on her name escapes me at the moment where they're going around county to county and having them pass city ordinances that literally have no teeth whatsoever. But it does raise public awareness and kind of makes Sasquatches the good guy in a sort of public public relations way. I think that it does do some sort of good. On that level, whatever that's worth. And actually, maybe through their lack of understanding of the law, maybe it would stop somebody from shooting one, which is both good and bad. Yeah. Yeah, I definitely think there would be updates to that in 2026. Now, other things have happened that have created new little precedents here and there. I understand the sentiment of this next paragraph. I would quibble with it a bit, but he does say many Sasquatch investigators have stated their intentions to the law. Sasquatch investigators have stated their intentions to provide sufficient proof without killing a specimen. These people are in keen competition with each other for this success. The scientific establishment will simply take over, assuring us they knew all along the creatures were real and will exclude all amateurs from further investigations. Anyone who seriously thinks the Sasquatch should not be taken does not really want their existence to be proven. And I think we've probably elucidated those points a lot in the last few years that we've been doing this podcast. But I think there are plenty of genuinely serious investigators who really do want proof to be discovered that are not necessarily engaged in or endorsing or pursuing the collection of a specimen who should be taken seriously. You know? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. There are lots of people who don't want a Sasquatch to be killed at a compassion, but that doesn't mean they don't really want the existence to be proven. I think I'm one of them, actually. I don't want to shoot a Sasquatch, but at the same time, I think I think it's probably fair to consider myself a Sasquatch researcher. I think that's appropriate. But I do want their existence to be proven. But I'm also under no illusions that a couple of these things are not going to be killed when they're taken, you know, when they're real, so to speak, you know, when they're proven. So compassion doesn't mean you're against them being discovered. Just means you don't want to pull the trigger. You know, I don't hunt deer for the same reason, you know? And I've got nothing against anybody who does hunt, nothing at all. But I don't want to do it. I agree. I don't think it's for the citizen to take up. I think it's better left to institutions. But there's the catch 22 is that institutions won't take up the charge without something like conclusive proof, which would probably be a specimen or a major portion of one. But hopefully, like you mentioned, DNA is a portion of a specimen. And maybe that would do it. But I also disagree with this. The scientific establishment will exclude all amateurs from further investigations. I strongly disagree with that. And I've had conversations with multiple scientists and PhDs. You know, Darby included, you know, Darby says, no, no, after, after, if we get the thing done and he still doesn't know if we get this thing done, we're still going to need people like you is what he would. Darby and I talk about. I had the same conversation with Lila from the Kentucky project as well. It's like, no, this is one of those one of those fields like astronomy where amateurs are going to have to play a large role. You know, there's no way that like the North American Bigfoot Center, you know, which is like slowly becoming this this beacon here in my area of Oregon. When somebody sees a Sasquatch, we're going to get some of those reports and proof is in the pudding. You know, at the beginning of the month, I took a footprint find and did an investigation as well as a sighting report. Somebody saw a Sasquatch on May 1st or I mean, March 1st, rather. There's no way that like that information is going to be like useless. And I'm going to I'm going to be poo pooed upon by the academics when when after these things are real, I think the museum and other serious investigators, serious and, you know, sober minded investigators are going to be key to studying Sasquatches after they're proven to be real, which is part of the reason I'm in the game right now. I think it's cool and I want to participate. Amen to that. So for these final two paragraphs, I think a lot of this holds true and is relevant and we were seeing a lot of this right now. He says, at this point, the burden of proof is still on the believers until a specimen is produced, the skeptics will continue to hold the field. It is possible to prove something exists by producing it. The reverse is not possible. One does not prove a non-existence with positive evidence. The failure to produce a specimen continues to be strong evidence against the Sasquatch. The skeptics deny the existence of the Sasquatch because they see no evidence for it, the fact that they refuse to look at what evidence there is available and try to discourage the gathering of more data seems not to bother them at all. The believers act as though the case has already been proven and the Sasquatch should be accepted and protected right now. It's interesting that many of them also oppose bringing a definitive proof in the form of a body. It is almost as though the sides are drawn and neither one really wants the issue settled, they would rather fight than find out. Both sides are getting a lot of mileage out of the existence of the opposing side. Each side has a group of people it can criticize and make fun of. A concerted effort might prove one side wrong and perhaps neither side wants to risk that. Yeah, like that's almost like foreshadowing of social media. Yes. I didn't know Crans was a prophet as well. Yeah, he's just basically, yeah, yeah, there's this, there's going to be the thing called Facebook. You guys are going to love it. You'll all hate each other. It's going to be awesome. It's just funny to see that like even back then in, you know, like I totally understand the skeptical position because there's many things that I'm equally skeptical of, right? But so that hasn't and shouldn't really have changed in that, you know, where the skeptical side says, well, hey, we don't see evidence for it. We're going to wait for more evidence. And he's right to sort of say, well, they also don't look at what evidence there is. And they also discourage the gathering of more evidence. So those things aside for him to say in 78, well, the believers act as though the case has already been proven and the Sasquatch should be accepted and protected right now. And that was on a much more limited data set than we're dealing with today. And yeah, a lot of us still believe, you know, I think Bener-Negle argued quite well that like, well, hey, discoveries already happened. It just hasn't been recognized. So that's almost like the counter argument. You know, it's almost like Crans would in broad strokes paint Bener-Negle into that same category. Mm hmm. Totally. Which I think, you know, Bener-Negle's case was a heck of a lot stronger than, you know, most enthusiast's cases are about, you know, what, what constitutes, you know, proof, discovery, evidence, etc. But it is interesting that that same dichotomy about like Crans pushing back against like he started the paper with, like, I'm going to piss people off on both sides of this argument and saying to believers, like, hey, I know you think you've already made your case, but you haven't. You've failed thus far. And that that was there wasn't as much like humility. You think there'd be more humility in 1978 of people saying like, hey, we got to push this thing forward. We got to get there. But obviously he was dealing with a cohort of people that were saying like, no, we've the ball's already in the end zone. We've already scored. Like they just haven't recognized us. The establishment has not smiled upon us for our victory yet. Yeah. Yeah. I love wanting something to be true. Maybe a good reason to investigate it. But wanting something to be true does not constitute any evidence that it is true. And man, if that's not if that's not something that we're seeing right now, it's I don't know what is, man. God, Kranz was had such a flair for subtly twisting knives. Yeah, you should read that last paragraph because we haven't even touched on that one yet. Oh, we didn't. I thought we'd started. Sorry. I'm going to read this whole thing here and just listen to the ride, dark twisting of knives that that Kranz was just excelled at here. Unfortunately, both sides argue strongly from what they want to be true rather than what they know. Wanting something to be true may be a good reason to investigate it. But wanting something to be true does not constitute any evidence that it is true. As it stands now, most of the people on one side of this argument and all in my judgment of those on the other side have not thoroughly investigated both sides of the issue. They would be a lot more reasonable if they would just honestly admit they don't know for sure. But who expects reason in a subject like this? Ha, ha, ha, ha. You know, there's a little de Hinden and Kranz. Yeah, he definitely was a disagreeable dude. Absolutely, absolutely. Much more reasonable, I think, than perhaps it might have been in some ways. But I never met the Hinden nor Kranz. So I'm not really one to know. But from what I understand about Kranz and this is largely indirectly from Larry Lund, who knew Kranz very well and Dr. Meldrum, who told me lots of stories about Dr. Kranz or whatever else, just he had that sort of dark, up-yours sense of humor. You know, and like, for example, that famous clip in one of those early documentaries where he's he's talking about the the the Bosberg tracks, for instance, you know, whoever had whoever made these, if these are fake, whoever made these had a Da Vinci-like level of intelligence that was way smarter than me and I don't think a person like that exists. If you watch closely, his lips start to curl up into a rice smile right afterwards, because that was his sense of humor. And I think that he just liked the kind of flicking poop at people and in a subtle sort of up-yours sort of way. And I just love that he expressed that trickster element of his personality in this particular paragraph. So I wish I could have met him. I just wish I could have met him. Yeah, it really is important. Like we talked about having a foot in both worlds and sort of trying to bridge the two, like he says, most of the people on one or the other side have not thoroughly investigated both sides of the issue. And that's such an important thing. We talked about this on a member's only episode once, but I don't think we talked about it on the main side. But if you're looking at any argument where there are two totally opposed narratives, you know, two cases presented, you have to know both of them. If you're going to say that you prefer one, because if you say, well, this is the truth and the other side is nonsense. Well, you have to know that other side, because what you're essentially making is a preference. You're saying, I prefer this story over the counter story. But if you don't know the other story, then your preference has no validity. I think I used the lame example of like, well, if you say that, you know, the Big Mac is the greatest burger ever and you've never had any other hamburger, then it's like, well, you really don't have a preference. You just kind of have a position of ignorance. You've only ever been exposed to one thing. And I see that over and over again. It's important to know the opposition, so to speak. And, you know, and not to turn into like a sports game or something, but, you know, if there's a big game, you know, the coaches are setting the other teams plays, right? And that's why I strongly advocate towards skepticism and most things. It's not all things, right? Be super skeptical. And so when a new skeptic publishes a book and this happens pretty frequently, read it, read it to see if it holds up. You might be surprised, you know? They probably have some good points and they probably have some bad points. But that's also true of the skeptical side of things. They must be reading. They must read the the literature. Otherwise, you know, if I hear once again that, you know, so and so said, this is fake and therefore it is, that tells me the veracity of their arguments. And I'm not probably not going to read too much more of them in the same sort of way that if somebody reads an article where somebody claims something about Sasquatch stuff and they know it's not true, what they say from now on isn't going to hold any weight either, right? Yeah, there's that great John Stuart Mill quote to paraphrase that's like the person who only knows their side of the argument knows little of that. There you go. There you go. But that is the thorough reading review of Kranz's article, Sasquatch believers versus the skeptics. I don't know if it's available online anywhere, so I had to like transpose it from a written book. So if I can't find a linkable version online, I'll put a link in the show notes and I'll just copy, paste this and and format it on our Patreon to make it a free post so like anybody listening to this can click it and it'll take it our Patreon. You can read this article in its entirety. That's it for this week. And we're going to be tackling another article from the Skeptical Inquirer, actually, in our member side. So if you want to be a member, go check that out. And also, did you know we have t-shirts? We have t-shirts available from Sasquatchprints.com. So go check those out. And if you like it, buy one. It helps us a little bit. And if you don't like them, that's cool. Draw a picture of us. Send it to us. Anyway, thank you very much for listening and we'll talk to you next time. Keep it Squatchy. Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Big Foot and Beyond. If you liked what you heard, please rate and review us on iTunes. Subscribe to Big Foot and Beyond wherever you get your podcasts and follow us on Facebook and Instagram at Big Foot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on Twitter at Big Foot and Beyond. That's an N in the middle. And tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag Big Foot and Beyond.