Ep. 333 - The Sasquatch Data Project!

Cliff Barackman and James "Bobo" Fay speak with Terrestrial, the founder and researcher behind the Sasquatch Data Project! The project aims to give sasquatch researchers a comprehensive dataset of sighting reports optimized for analysis, and Terrestrial is here to discuss her work and findings thus far! Check out her YouTube channel HERE. Note: This episode was recorded on Sept. 1st, 2025. 

Start your free online visit with Hims today at http://hims.com/beyond

Sign up for our weekly bonus podcast "Beyond Bigfoot & Beyond" and ad-free episodes!

Get your official "Bigfoot & Beyond: Enter The Sasquatch" shirt!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Big Food and Beyond with Cliff and Bubo.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
These guys are your favorites, so like to subscribe and
raid it five star Sho.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
And Me.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
On Yesterday and listening watching Lima always keep its watching.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman and James Bubo Fay.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Greetings, Bobo. Anything good going on? Anything you want to share?

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Well, I still haven't had my found my phone for
over a week. I'm going back up their final shot today.
Paul's got a metal detector actually at his house. I'm
gonna go grab and my buddy always gonna go up
there with me and we're gonna go metal detect for it.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
You know what is funny is you having lost your phone.
I haven't noticed a difference in my ability to get
a hold of you.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
Really. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
I just email you now and you tend to get back.
So I mean, how's that you don't need that phone?

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Well, because I can type better on the computer. So
if that's the problem is a lot of times I'll
look at email, then I don't answer. I think I'm
going to answer, like when I get back on the computer,
then I don't. I don't get on the computer for
a while. And then I forget or whatever. But yeah,
but I'm on the computer. I can just type real easily,
so that's when I do it. Oh yeah, yeah, maybe
that's fast. Nothing to do with it. Well, anyway, I

(01:22):
hope you find your phone.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Man. That kind of sucks and it beat expensive thing
to replace, of course, but.

Speaker 3 (01:25):
I know, dude, Plus all the photo I mean, that's
the main thing is I thought at all I have
an automatic backup, and I couldn't find it. There's stuff
that I like, the last six months of pictures. I
couldn't find the oh the pictures of the field. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
I just got back from the Blues man. It was
a pretty good trip.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
Oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
I was only out for a couple of nights too.
I had to cut the weekend short because when I
was out there, people started showing up, thinking what's going on.
Then I realized, oh yeah, yeah, Labor day, Labor Day weekend.
I got to get out of here. Man, everybody's gonna
come up. And then I found out on the way
out from this other guy who is coming up. I
spoke to He's driving his truck up and we met

(02:03):
on a very narrow road and I had to back
up a couple of hundred yards until his place, you know,
and so he stopped and we talked for a minute.
I also didn't know that I was driving out on
Friday because all the people were showing up. Apparently Saturday
was the opening day of Elk season. So it's like, oh, yeah,
we got to get out of here now before everybody
shows up, because the Elk season in the Blues is

(02:23):
really good. Yeah, anyway, I got out. But so I
just spent a couple of nights out there. But man,
what a what a great trip? I think squatchy Oh yeah,
yeah for sure. But you know, other than that too,
like historical stuff, you know, like I reconnected with Dar Addington,
a legend. She's a she's a legend. She's not only
just amazing as a person, but like she she was

(02:46):
hanging out with and big footing with John Mayenzinsky and stuff.
It's like and people say, I don't know who Dar
Addington is. She can't be anybody important. Yeah, okay, ask
John Maynzinsky about her. You know, like there's nobody in
the big foot field that doesn't respect John Minezinski and
he sings her praises. So yeah, Dar's just a legend. Man,
she's so cool, and she knew John before she started

(03:07):
big footing. Turns out that they were both goat packers.

Speaker 3 (03:10):
So yeah.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
So I hung out with Dar for an afternoon, which
is awesome, and then to go do some work with
her next spring about her Coyotie grove tracks that are
detailed in Michael Freeman's excellent book. Went out that night.
You know, I came in and out of town several times,
so I dropped by Dar's house and hung out with her,
and then we went up that night and spent the
night at deduct, you know the side of the Paul

(03:32):
Freeman d duck footage. So I took two really good
three D scans of the entire foot entire footage site
and also the entire stretch because I did it last year,
but I made some mistakes. It was my first three
D scan of an area outside, so I learned a
lot from doing it wrong. I learned mostly from my mistakes,
it seems, so I'm learning a lot all the time.
And then I went and did two scans not only

(03:54):
just where Paul, from where Paul was standing to where
the animal walked. Initially, as I walked in front of
that fir tree, but also a longer set from down
by the pond all the way up past that area.
So I got two really really decent quality three D
scans of the area. I'm not sure what I'm going
to use that for yet, but I've got some ideas.
Nothing bigfooty, well something. That night was kind of weird. Actually,

(04:17):
at some point we decided to do some knocks because
there was nobody around, and we went for a walks.
We found, you know, lots of animal tracks in general,
you know, mostly deer, a lot of deer and elk there,
tons and tons and tons. But that night I went
to go do a knock and you know, so I
was walking like hundred and fifty yards from camp in
the dark. And as I was walking away, like my
Nico was there. My friend Nico, he is also the

(04:38):
manager for the NABC young guy tracker. I left him
at camp and I was walking out towards this tree,
this one lone tree out there to do a knock.
And about halfway between the camp and the tree, I
hear Nico walking behind me, right. I said, oh, he
got up and left or whatever, and then I'm over
by the tree knocking. I did one or two knocks,
and then I walked back and I saw I don't

(04:58):
see Nico. And then I get back to camp and
he's in campg oh, all right, But it turns out
he never left. He never actually even got up from
where he was sitting, so I don't know what was
behind me. I thought that was a little weird. I'm
not saying it was a bigfoot. I'm not saying it's
a bear. I'm not saying it's anything. Maybe I just
heard something, you know, scraping the gravel or whatever, but

(05:21):
a shirt. I fully expected him to be standing in
the dark about halfway between camp and where that tree
was from what I heard. But that's not even the
cool stuff. That's just something weird that happened that I
just remembered as I was telling you. So that was
on whatever night, the Wednesday night, I think it was Thursday.
I went back into town and I met up with
another historic bigfooter, a guy named Brian Smith. Brian Smith

(05:44):
was a very common name back in the probably late
nineties early two thousands in bigfootland. Brian Smith was probably
best known for the Cuterville, Idaho cast from two thousand
and one. That's probably his biggest mark speak. But he's
a witness. He investigated a ton of reports. He was
out there with Wes Summerlin mostly. He met Paul Freeman

(06:07):
one time, he said, but didn't really hang out with
him so much. He's he hung out a lot with
Wes Summerlin and Bill Lowry. I met him at a
burger place in Walla, Wallet and I laughed because the
name of the burger place is f U Burger. Huh,
and like they have all these play on words and
slightly prophanic sort of inclinations and all there. It was

(06:30):
a great place, a solid burger. I'll tell you, if
you ever around, go to f you Burger. It was
really really good. But yeah, so I interviewed him and
recorded the interview. So I'm gonna get one of my
volunteers to transcribe that interview, probably get him on the
podcast at some point too. He's a great speaker and
has so much to share. Super interesting guy. But forget
about that. I mean, the new Bigfoot stuff is really

(06:50):
really cool and I enjoy doing it. But talk about
a great guest today.

Speaker 3 (06:54):
Oh yeah, we got a new guest coming on. So
when I discovered several months ago and I'm surprised hasn't
gotten more popular because she has a really cool data
As a matter of fact, she's running a project called
the Sasqua Sasquatch Data Project, and I've found some interesting
stuff on there. And I know you're numbers were both numbers, guys,
all three of us, And yeah, and she's all about

(07:16):
the number. She's a data cruncher, kind of a math nerd,
which is exactly what we need. So welcome to the
show Terrestrial.

Speaker 4 (07:25):
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (07:25):
I'm so excited to be here, and just thank you
guys so much for inviting me.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
Oh, our pleasure, our pleasure. And I do have to admit,
and I'm sorry to say this, I didn't know anything
about what was going on. I've heard some whispers in
the background or whatever that there's a woman out there
doing great data work. But I figured it'll across my
plate when it needs to, and I guess it finally did.
So I didn't even know you existed. So I think
in one way it's going to be great because Bobo
and even Matt they know about what you're doing. They've

(07:51):
been paying some attention and whatnot. But I am completely new.
I mean, of course I was forwarded your paper and
I'm looking at your website right now. But this is
my first exposure to all this, and I think that's
going to be the case for a lot of our
listeners as well. So I think that's going to be
beneficial as as a gateway between you and our listeners,
because I don't know much about what's going on. So

(08:11):
tell me, I guess, tell us about what's going on.
What are you into? This looks fascinating.

Speaker 5 (08:17):
Yeah, So my main interest with the whole bigfoot thing
is the data analysis and statistical analysis part. Essentially, what
I'm doing is going through bigfoot witness reports and putting
them into a format that's optimized for data analysis.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
So essentially I just have.

Speaker 5 (08:35):
Like a giant spreadsheet of bigfoot witness reports and what
I've done is basically taken out the useful bits and
put this put them into this structured format. So that's
essentially what I'm doing. The goal is to have a
resource that sasquatch, you know, researchers can use for whatever

(08:57):
kind of investigations they want to do.

Speaker 4 (09:00):
To data.

Speaker 5 (09:01):
But I think at the core of it, that's what
I'm trying to do. I'm also trying to, I guess,
change the narrative a little bit too on what we say,
like within the Bigfoot field, like making sure that we
actually have numbers and data and information to back up
whatever our ideas are regarding sasquatch.

Speaker 4 (09:20):
So I guess, in a nutshell, that's what I'm doing.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
Well, I think that's a not only a noble mission,
but it's also very much needed. Years ago, I was
having a conversation with doctor Annata Karris about various sasquatch things,
and you know, she's interested in the subject, she's not
convinced they're real. Then she was asking me questions and
I was telling her what I thought and whatever, and
she kept challenging me, which I thought was fantastic. I
do like to be challenged on my assumptions, I guess.

(09:45):
And she pointed out that a lot of the things
that I thought I knew about sasquatches were actually just
assumptions because I didn't have data to back them up.
And that's why I'm always banging the drum on the
podcast and in the museum and my regular life. It's like, okay,
so you think that sasquatch which are responsible for this
or that, or whether it be stick structures or even
Knox for that matter, show me the data, like why

(10:06):
do you think that? And it seems like every time
I do a public presentation of some sort I end
up kind of brating the audience in some sort of way.
It's like, Oh, you think that, but most of you
are basing that on gut feelings instead of actual data.
Show me a sighting report of them making a TP
stick structure, for example, and you can't, basically, So I

(10:29):
therefore have become very skeptical in the community I think
in general, and not of sasquatches, but of what people claim.
And I'm doubting or at least questioning, I should say,
I think it's a better word. I'm questioning these quote
unquote givens of Bigfoot. They do this, they're this smart,
they don't do that, all that kind of stuff, the

(10:49):
things they like, the things they don't because the data
is lacking. And so I think the project like yours
is much needed for a level headed and sober talk
about questions.

Speaker 5 (11:01):
Yeah, that's kind of the side that I'm coming at
it from, too, is like we have so many things
that get said and have just kind of been constantly
perpetuated throughout the big Foot community for decades, but there's
really not much to back up whatever that idea is.
So yeah, I'm definitely very much so trying to at

(11:22):
least provide that resource and then also maintain a very
neutral stance on things. Just kind of like showcase what
the data is saying, showcase the different patterns, and you know,
give some options from both like an ecological, biological or
you know, even humanistic side of things as to you know,
what the patterns could be showcasing. Really it's up to interpretation.

(11:45):
But yeah, I definitely am trying to at least drive
home that idea that like this is you know, actually,
at least for what I have access to, this is
what the data is saying. Here are some options. But
also I try not to really pick a side on anything.
I try to try to stay neutral.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, and numbers are very neutral, I think, and in
general I think if the numbers indicate something is probably real,
then it probably is real. And you know, you're also
making new ground here. The only other person I'm aware
of that's in a pretty good job that got some
attention and published something was doctor Henry Fahrenbach. Of course,
with the size scaling statistic paper that he wrote and

(12:25):
I think is still available on the BFRO website. I
think Matt is that true.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
It is, and that's a great paper. There's also a
great paper by King at All that I think was
there was a lot of contribution from Richard Greenwell that
studied Green's database, John Green's database statistically. That's really good.
That came out a few years ago. So I'll linked
that in the show notes as well. But I was
fortunate enough to speak to Terrestrial recently, and you know,
I think it'd be good for the audience to sort

(12:50):
of explain to them maybe a bit about your professional
background and qualifications. You know, I learned so much about
your project and what you were doing through the lens
of your background and experience. I think that would be
great for people to learn about.

Speaker 4 (13:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (13:02):
So I have a Bachelor's of Science from the Georgia
Institute of Technology or Georgia Tech, and I studied Earth
and atmospheric sciences while I was there, but more so
like planetary science.

Speaker 4 (13:15):
I'm a big like space.

Speaker 5 (13:16):
Nerd, so my degree was very much so tailored towards that.
But while I was at Georgia Tech, I had a
really cool opportunity to work on a NASA mission called
the Dawn Mission, and I did that for about three years.

Speaker 4 (13:30):
So through that experience, it really.

Speaker 5 (13:33):
Opened my eyes as to the level of research that's
required to make you know, contributions to just your field
or science in general. And I also had just really
I had a really great professor that I was working
under who was like, you know, working on this mission,
and she really she basically gave me a really great

(13:55):
opportunity to lead this team of undergrads in this research
that we were doing on regarding the dwarf planet series,
and I was really given a lot of uh like
freedom and liberties to kind of take the project how
I wanted to, but I also was expected to research
at you know, a certain level so that we could

(14:15):
get papers published and contribute to the team and whatnot.
So that experience working on Dawn really has created the
foundation of what I'm trying to create with the Sasquatch
Data project. I've definitely taken a lot of the things
that I learned from that experience and a lot of
the research methodologies that we used, and I'm trying to

(14:40):
apply that to you know, the sasquatch topic.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Bobo will be right back after these messages. But were
you starting to notice a thinning hair? Who me maybe
a little a little hair left or a little thinning

(15:05):
hair both. Well, I've got good news for you. Bobo
Hymns offers access to prescription treatments for regrowing hair and
as little as three to six months, so you can
see a fuller head of hair like Bobo in the
old days by fall.

Speaker 3 (15:19):
That'd be nice having a fresh fall crop to harvest.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
So Sweet Hymns offers convenient access to a range of
prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients at work, including choose
oral medication, serums and sprays.

Speaker 3 (15:33):
Yep, doctors trust this stuff. It's been clinically proven. It's
got ingredients like finesteride an oxidil, and that stuff can
stop hair loss and we go hair in as little
as three to six months.

Speaker 2 (15:43):
You can get started from the comfort of your own home, cave,
motor home, or wherever you happen to be by filling
out an intake form and a medical provider will determine
if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment
is sent directly to you for free.

Speaker 3 (15:58):
The process is one hundred online, which means getting started
has never been more convenient, and even if sasquats can
do it, it's so easy.

Speaker 2 (16:06):
No insurance is needed and one low price covers everything
from treatments to ongoing care. Plus treatment options start at
just thirty five dollars a month. Start your free online
visit today at hymns dot com slash beyond.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
That's hims dot com slash beyond for personalized hair loss treatment.

Speaker 2 (16:27):
Options hymns dot com slash beyond.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and
oral monoxidil and finasteride.

Speaker 3 (16:35):
Prescription required.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information.

Speaker 3 (16:42):
You took on some topics that we've talked about the
community for years and years, and like Matt was saying,
like there's people who have done work with John Green's
data and PFRO data, but I like, like you took
on some like obvious ones that you know, seeing the
numbers is interesting, like the whole thing about size, like
Bergmann's law applying to sasquatch, like the ones in the southeast,

(17:04):
the skunk apes are smaller, and the ones in the
west Northwest are bigger, uh, you know, up north especially,
and that the ones in the south were meaner, more aggressive,
and the ones in the northwest are more passive, and
your data, like, you know, just those assumptions got you know, dismissed.

Speaker 5 (17:22):
Yeah, and that's a that's definitely part of the basis
of what I'm trying to do. And you know, and
all of this too is kind of preliminary because I'm
still working on going through all of the BFRO reports
and you know, things definitely can change over time. I'm
very open to that, very open to being wrong too
about my interpretation of the data at different points. But

(17:45):
it is important to note that, you know, if we
are looking at things regionally, I've basically gotten the southern
and the western regions done, uh for reports, Like you know,
these things that have been said for so long are
not necessarily reflect and the data, and I think it's
really important to start acknowledging that. And instead of that,

(18:06):
I guess bumming us out, like making us excited that
there's new questions to be asked, right, there's more information
to be and to be learned and to be brought
to light, and that's been admittedly one of the most
fun parts about this is seeing like which things hold
up when you start running the numbers and which just

(18:28):
kind of fall apart.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
Yeah, I think you hit upon something that's really interesting
that I've noticed in the Bigfoot community for a long time.
In these sacred cows that get slaughtered every once in
a while. You seem to like that, and I love it.
I absolutely love it. And some of my sacred cows
have been slaughtered mercilessly over the years. And I think

(18:50):
that a lot of people don't like that. They're uncomfortable
with their assumptions being incorrect. They're uncomfortable with maybe having
to admit their in some sort of way. But it
seems to me or even uncomfortable thinking that they don't
know something. I know several Bigfooters that seem to have
an answer for everything, and there's no way they could
know that sort of stuff, but they they've got it

(19:12):
in their head, right. And it's not just big Footers.
I mean that's and then everything that's in you know,
politics or religion or economics or any any subject. People
think these things and they hold on to them very
very tightly. But what so many people don't keep in mind,
I think at least, is that you kind of have
to be wrong to grow. You kind of have to

(19:32):
not know things in order to learn. You know, a
container is only useful if it's empty, so to speak.
You can't put anything in there if it's already full
of stuff, you know. I think I'm a pretty decent
example of it, because I'm on television, you know, saying
that the London tracks are real and they're not. I
learned after the TV show actually been aired, through my

(19:53):
own experimentation and research, that these things are almost they
are certainly fake prints, you know. But today there's even
people out there today that still think they're real. And
one person even suggested that the a real Sasquatch made
its own footprints look like fake stompers in order to
fool me. So there's a lot of ridiculous straws being

(20:13):
grasped at, I think. But to admit one is wrong,
or to learn that, like your sacred cow has been slaughtered,
that that maybe they don't do these things that you
thought they did, that's an important step in growth and
learning about this subject.

Speaker 5 (20:28):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, it is. It is one of my
favorite things to do, like just to be honest, like
I love I love challenging these ideas and and even
challenging my own ideas, like you know, I form my
own hypotheses about things and then it turns out I'm
totally wrong.

Speaker 4 (20:44):
But it's good to know.

Speaker 5 (20:45):
And like you said, that's exactly how you learn, and
that's how we you know, create a solid foundation to
uncover potentially something even cooler. You know, it forces us
to ask better questions, I think when we start seeing
these things not necessarily pan out like how we want
them to. So yeah, that's definitely one of my main

(21:07):
interests with this. And I really love taking like people's
questions and whatnot and then just going into the data
set and seeing if you know, the seeing how the
answer kind of falls, and seeing if the ideas behind
it are potentially supported or not.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
One of the studies you did was on skull shape
Are they rounded or are they chronical? And I was thinking
like that that was that was a good because we
talk about like the big males having like the psychomatic
arches and the saginal crest, and you know, we have
this like kind of images in our mind and you
kind of went through and broke that all down. I
thought that was great. But another thing I thought would

(21:45):
be interesting was that a lot of these I've read
reports of the people have done I went to sketches
to when the sketch artist you know, does the drawing
of the subject they saw. You know, it'd be interesting
to see of those drawings of the sketches, which ones
have conical or non conical, like you know, dome shape
or what do you call it again, domed or is

(22:09):
that say, is that the word you used?

Speaker 4 (22:10):
Yeah, just like well the headshapes. It was kind of interesting.

Speaker 5 (22:14):
They actually fell into four different categories, which was kind
of unexpected. It was conical, domed, round, and then square,
which that one was.

Speaker 4 (22:24):
Kind of interesting.

Speaker 5 (22:25):
But yeah, that was one of the I just ran
those numbers the other day actually, or a couple of
weeks ago, and that was something that surprised me because
it's often said that like the conical head, that's like
the iconic you know, feature of a legitimate sasquatch sighting. Right,
Conical heads are more so reported over rounded heads, but

(22:48):
rounded heads make up you know, a significant part of Yeah,
it was like it was like almost half yeah, like
forty percent of sighting reports. And there's a couple of
different ways to take that too. It's like, well, you know,
to a human witness whose brain is conditioned on you know,
more human features, which is a rounded head, are folks

(23:09):
just not bringing up the head shape because it's not
odd so it doesn't stick out to them, so therefore
they don't mention it.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
Or where like.

Speaker 5 (23:17):
A more conical head, like you know, a gorilla or
something that's more notable. So our folks just like bringing
that up more? Or is it really you know, this
like roughly sixty forty split on head shapes and like
to go back to like the idea that the conical
head shape could be like a sexually dimorphic trait. You know,

(23:39):
I ran numbers and again this is all you know.
It could change, but as things stand right now, there's
really no difference in the height estimates or the body
builds of sasquatches between like conical heads and rounded heads.
Their average heights were exactly the same, and the body builds,

(23:59):
like whether they were more muscular and large or more
lenky and lean.

Speaker 4 (24:03):
They didn't differ.

Speaker 5 (24:05):
So it's just looking at these things are it's just
so interesting to me. And obviously we can't draw any
like definitive conclusions from this, but it's worth at least
discussing and bringing to light that things might not be
laying out as we had envisioned.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
I didn't really make myself clear on that I was saying.
What I was trying to say was that it'd be
interesting to you know, get all these because there's been
a lot of compositive sketches about like you know, like
you know, skilled artists doing what just you know, drawing
a drawing of what the person says they saw. It'd
be interesting to you know, just from the drawings go
by and you know, analyze which is fits those shape
shaped heads and then go back and compare if they

(24:45):
mentioned the reporter not head shape, or you know, like uh,
it'd be another way to kind of get factor in
the human the human factor, like the how the human
perception enters the equation because someone might say, you know,
I just said, like they don't mention anying about the
head of them, and they do the drawing, it's obvious
got to pronounce conical head or or the opposite. You know,

(25:07):
it just kind of seemed to see what people mentioned
and then what comes out in drawings, you know. Yeah, No, that.

Speaker 5 (25:13):
Would be interesting to kind of compare like, yeah, what
the witness thought to bring up when they were talking
potentially with like the follow up investigator versus what they
mentioned with the sketch artists. Yeah, you could probably do
like an entire study on that in itself, just from
a purely like a psychological standpoint, right.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
Yeah, because I think there is a I think there
is a sexually dimorphic difference between the males and the females.
I mean, the females seemed to be shorter, squattier, you know,
more brick shaped, and the males I got that pronounced
you know a lot of them got that pronounced V.
Upper body you know, like the broad, broad shoulders, more
tapered down, whereas the female seemed to be more like,
you know, just all the way down, you know, stocky.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
Well that's that's a thing, right. So, have you done
any work on where the sex of the animal was clear,
you know, some genitalia or breast or something like that
was visible with body shape? Is there any correlation or
anything that you've explored in that realm as far as your.

Speaker 5 (26:11):
Data so as things stand right now, I really don't
have enough data to look into that. So far, I've
I've gone through just over twenty five hundred reports now
and literally less than five of them actually mentioned like
a definitive sex of the Sasquatch. And unfortunately that's not

(26:33):
enough to you know, do any kind of analysis on.

Speaker 4 (26:36):
So I really can't I really can't say right now.

Speaker 5 (26:39):
But you know, maybe as I go through more reports
that might come up, or I might you know, have
a large enough sample size to look into it. But
it is definitely something I'm interested in is start, you know,
to make those are to start looking into those different
features and see if there is kind of any kind
of correlation. But as things stand right now, I unfortunately

(27:00):
cannot do that.

Speaker 3 (27:02):
You'll eventually find out that is the case.

Speaker 4 (27:04):
I guess we'll find out.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
We'll see you'll eventually find out that Bilbo is correct.
From a statistical perspective, how many reports do you need
to have a meaningful data set to get to the
bottom of us? They think, so some of these answers
are to these questions we're asking might just start coming
into focus. It's clearly the Bigfoot data. Even though there's

(27:25):
you know, thousands of reports, it's still pretty slim. So
how many do you actually need to get something meaningful?

Speaker 5 (27:31):
Yeah, so it kind of depends on these statistical tests
that you're running and the analysis that you're trying to do.
But typically if you have anywhere from thirty to fifty
data points per category, like that will give you a
pretty solid idea of what you're working with. I think,
you know, for some statistical tests, you really only need

(27:53):
if I'm remembering correctly, like five data points. But you know,
for me to feel comfortable or even moderately confident in
what I'm saying, I really like to shoot for like
thirty to fifty data point range. And you know, you
touched on something pretty interesting, which is that, Yeah, most
of the reports that I go through, they honestly don't

(28:13):
contain that much information. And I think that was one
of the most surprising things to me when I started
like looking into this and I started trying to pull
out information from the reports with how much there wasn't
Like there weren't in.

Speaker 4 (28:27):
The majority of reports.

Speaker 5 (28:28):
There's really not a ton of information that you can
draw out of them. Just for example, like I've gone
through so many Class A siding reports that don't even
have like a hair color mentioned.

Speaker 3 (28:40):
That's probably the most easy. That's probably the most documented one,
I'd imagine, isn't it hair color?

Speaker 5 (28:45):
Yes, hair color is one of the most documented features.
I would follow that up with probably height, but hair color,
if anything, usually is reported. But I mean, it's it's
honestly surprising how many reports don't even you know, just
mentioned that the hike can get a little tricky, because
obviously that's extremely subjective, like you know, as you know,

(29:09):
people aren't super great at estimating heights or distances of things.
But yeah, it's it's honestly surprising at how much is
it mentioned. And also just to give like a little
example too, Like in my data set, I'm trying to
keep up with one hundred and eighty different variables. So basically,

(29:29):
any question that you can ask about bigfoot witness reports,
I'm trying to have a column or a variable to
answer it. And these things range from like environmental variables
to physical behavior or physical traits, witness information as well
like ages and occupations and things and fear levels you know,

(29:50):
sasquatch behaviors, footprint information if that's included as well, and
definitely for the majority of reports, I can't pulling out,
you know, one hundred and eighty columns worth of information,
but there's still stuff there that you can look into
for sure.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bogo.
We'll be right back after these messages. Well, you know,
I was forwarded your paper Beyond Random Chance Multivariate analysis
of Sasquatch Witness reports with lunar, seasonal and psychological data.

(30:31):
I'm clearly looking at it right now because I can't remember,
but it looks like it's published on your website, so
other people can go read it, and of course the
website once again at Sasquatch Data Project dot com. But
one of the things I was impressed about then I
just had. I've done one quick read through of it.

Speaker 3 (30:47):
I need to.

Speaker 2 (30:49):
I'm the kind of reader that needs to read things
two or three times to really digest it, to settle
in and sit well with me. So I've only had
one quick read through of it, and I apologize for that.
But one of the things I was impressed with is
the psychological aspect of your work here looking at the
you know, the mindset, so to speak, of the witness
during the reports. And how that might factor into things,

(31:12):
because the only other, really the other main source for
any psychological data is are levely and talented producer here
Matt Pruitt and his book and the Phenomenal Sasquatch. He
addresses a lot of psychology that's almost even the premise
of his book. You know, our sasquatch is a psychological
phenomenon or a physical one. But you're addressing this, I
think goes along ways as well, because I've been ranting.

(31:34):
I've found over the years that people are just so
incredibly unreliable in estimates of numbers like heights and distances
and weights, And it's not their own, it's not their
fault or anything like that. Just that's something that people
aren't good at for the most part. And you take
into consideration height estimates versus fear levels. Tell us a
little bit about that work and what you found.

Speaker 5 (31:54):
Yeah, So that's actually one of my favorite things that
I've ever looked into, because another facet of this whole
thing that I'm so interested in is trying to look
at almost like backdoor ways to either you know, to
kind of like and this is my own bias, but
supporting that you know, this is an animal, this is
a thing that exists, right, So what are things that

(32:15):
we can look at that would be extremely difficult to
hoax over decades and over a large geographic span. So
the fear height analysis essentially I categorized witness fear into
a couple different categories mild, moderate, elevated, and extreme, and

(32:36):
then I looked at the heighth estimates that they gave
to the sasquatch during their sighting. And I only use
Class A sightings for most of like ninety nine percent
of my research that I do, so these are only
for Class A sightings and only when a fear level
and a height for the sasquatch was given. And I

(32:57):
really like this analysis too because you know, it's not
necessarily about having an accurate height measurement. It doesn't really matter,
you know, what the final number is. It's more so
about the differences between the heights between fear groups. So
what I found was as fear level goes up, so
did the average height of the sasquatch overall, and the

(33:20):
difference between the mild fear group and the elevated and
extreme fear group estimated heights was significant.

Speaker 4 (33:29):
So that was really interesting.

Speaker 5 (33:31):
Essentially, the mild fear group had an average of six
point eight feet, the moderate was I believe seven point three,
elevated had like a seven point eight average, and then
the extreme fear group had a seven point seven foot average.
Something that's not included in the paper, but it's kind
of interesting too, is that if you're looking at estimated

(33:53):
heights over eight and a half feet, eighty percent of
those reports fall into these elevated and extreme fear groups.
So that in itself is also really interesting.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
Or it could be people there's extra scare becus of
thing's so freaking big.

Speaker 5 (34:09):
Well, yeah, and that's the other part of it too, right,
that's really interesting. It's like, there's so many different ways
you could look at this. It's either, you know, a
larger animal elicits a larger fear response, or you know,
it could be it could be this thing called fear
and do size distortion, where you know, essentially, when you're
really freaked out, you can perceive things as larger than

(34:32):
they actually are and in some cases of to thirty percent,
which is crazy, especially when you're talking about such large heights.
So you know, yeah, there's a couple of different ways
you can look at it. And that's honestly part of
what's so fun about these investigations because it's like, I
don't know what's causing these trends.

Speaker 3 (34:50):
What about distance distances?

Speaker 5 (34:52):
You know, I haven't looked into I haven't really done
a lot with distances, so I'm not not sure.

Speaker 3 (34:59):
I mean, I think that'd be like people that run
into one like on a trail and like I literally
steps out from behind a bush or a tree or something,
it's literally fifteen feet in front of When they look up,
those people like crap their pants. Yeah, you're one hundred
yards away and you're in a car on the highway.
You know, you can't catch you like you're it could
be like a big one or whatever size, and you're

(35:19):
not going to be nearly scared. You know. It's there's
a I know you take all this into an account
because I watch your videos and i'd be like that,
like that's kind of like you know, like I'll kind
of question like your results or what your findings from
what just from my personal experiences is what I've read
over the years. And I read your paper, I was like,
oh my god, this is this is deep. I didn't
I didn't realize it was I was trying to figure

(35:41):
out the equations, like I can't even figure it, Like
I'm not like a math major, but I was. I
was pretty impressed with how in depth it goes.

Speaker 5 (35:48):
Oh yeah, I try to. So there's kind of two
sides to my research. There's a paper side and like
the more in depth side, which I really enjoy, which is,
you know, I try to take you as deep as
I can go into the math, into the science and
the reasoning behind like what I'm doing and the steps

(36:09):
that I'm taking to get to these places. And then
there's like a social media side where you can't go
really as in depth as what I'm actually doing behind
the scenes. So I will say that, like pretty much
everything I put out, there's way more work that goes
into it than what I you know, make known, at

(36:30):
least on social media, because there's only so much time
you can say, and most folks aren't really too interested
in like learning about all the equations and stuff. But yeah,
I definitely I love to do those deep dives, and
I love to write up my findings in a more
structured paper format and whatnot. But and also to go

(36:51):
back to your distant stuff. I haven't looked at how
distance plays into fear level, but it is on my
list of things to do.

Speaker 3 (37:01):
Let us know what you find out.

Speaker 4 (37:02):
Oh yeah, absolutely will.

Speaker 2 (37:04):
Well, let's talk about the lunar aspect of your paper
as well, because you address those statistics and come to
some conclusions. For years and years and years, I've been
told by other people, and I've never really thought either
way that sasquatches are less active during moon full moons
and this and that because they like sneaking, and they
had all these sort of reasons, and I never really

(37:24):
put much stock in it any way, because to me,
the animals are out there no matter what the moon is,
They've got to be doing something, and so I never
really thought that, you know, it mattered very much other
than humans can see better during full moons. But you
have some interesting findings, and I even read in there
that you have eliminated the visibility aspect to some degree

(37:45):
in your findings. So talk about that for a while
if you will.

Speaker 4 (37:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (37:48):
So, actually this is the question, Like, this is the
component that actually made me want to start the sasquatch
data project because I had heard the statement right that
like the moon phases influence behaviors, and I realized, I'm like, well,
you know, it would be really interesting, it would be
really interesting to look at that, and it'd be pretty easy.

(38:09):
Like all you need is a is a complete date
of the siding and then you can calculate the moon
illumination percentage for that date.

Speaker 4 (38:17):
So yeah, Essentially, what I found is that sighting.

Speaker 5 (38:21):
Reports significantly increase in the upper lunar illumination conditions, so
meaning between eighty and one hundred percent, that's when things
kind of peak. And that difference in siting report frequency
between these upper moon illumination conditions and the lower are significant.
So something's you know, something's going on. Essentially. You know,

(38:46):
you can look at this from a couple different ways,
like a couple different standpoints. If you want to look
at it from like an animal point of view, this actually,
you know, it does mirror what we see in other
If you want to assume sasquatches are nocturnal, it does
mirror other nocturnal predator behaviors and that they increase their

(39:07):
activities during new and full moons. During full moons, prey
have actually learned that nocturnal predators, you know, in particular,
they can see better under full moon conditions, so they
have been documented to decrease their activities anywhere from forty
to seventy percent during these times, and predators have figured

(39:28):
this out, so they're having to take more time to
hunt because they aren't finding as much prey. They're also
using this time to stake out territory, find mates, that
kind of thing. So that's interesting in itself. On the
flip side, from like a more human aspect, I suppose
humans have been documented as being more also more active,

(39:49):
or staying awake longer during full moons. If I'm remembering correctly,
it's really only like forty five minutes to an hour
longer or something. But you know, we don't know that
could make a difference in siding reports or at least
the frequency of sighting reports. And also, yeah, like you said,
someone did a study on how well humans can see

(40:12):
at night and they were comparing, like, you know, does
a full moon significantly increase our visual acuity? And it
turns out that it probably doesn't. The difference and illumination
between a new and a full moon only differs by
about one order of magnitude, and it's not really enough

(40:35):
to make a huge difference for humans to be able
to see better see.

Speaker 3 (40:39):
I disagree. I just I know it's like you got
stats on that, but it's like, I think there's there's
other factors, Like it's what kind of canopy is there
around you? You know, And there's no doubt that if
you got more of a canopy, the full moon makes
a huge difference what you can see around your camp
at night. And I know that they say that's only
one order of magnitude difference, but that's still that's quite

(41:00):
a bit.

Speaker 2 (41:01):
I think, Well, well, let me ask you this real fast.
When you say one order of magnitude, I am also well,
I mean, you're way more pro than I am, But
I am an amateur astronomer, and I've got pretty nice
telescope and all that kind of stuff, And so I know,
at least I seem to remember that a magnitude isn't
that an exponential measurement? So one order of magnitude isn't
that an exponential increase?

Speaker 5 (41:22):
Yeah, So a new moon hangs around point zero three looks,
and a full moon hangs around like zero point two
six lucks, which are both well under the threshold of
humans being able to see well. I think, like in
a movie theater, the average is if I'm not mistaken, like,

(41:44):
it's no lower than three or four looks. So yeah,
like it is one order of magnitude. But for our
eyes and how you know, our eyes aren't adapted to
see in the dark, you know, or not nocturnal. It's
at least in that study, they found it really didn't
make a big difference in a person's ability to see.

(42:07):
And you know, this is another situation where I'm like
it if I read a paper where like they find
it actually is enough.

Speaker 4 (42:13):
That's cool too.

Speaker 5 (42:15):
But one of the potential explanations for that too is
that when you have a really bright object like a
full moon against a dark background, it can make it
appear brighter than it actually is.

Speaker 4 (42:28):
So yeah, I don't know that.

Speaker 5 (42:30):
It was just an interesting, interesting study that I found
that I wanted to include because I had often heard that.

Speaker 3 (42:37):
Yeah, I think. I think what I've said a lot
about the full moon is that they don't come into
like the researcher, like if you're doing knocks and calls whatever,
they don't come in nearly as close when there's a
full moon, Like I don't think that affects our other activities,
or maybe it affects our activities like what they're doing
because they got they got obviously better night vision than
we do. So if full moon could be a lot

(42:58):
brighter for them than us, whatever, But I think when
I don't know as far as when I talk about
the activity at full I mean as far as them
coming close to camp. Whenever I've had them come close
to count, there's been like a third of a moon
or less.

Speaker 4 (43:10):
Oh that's interesting.

Speaker 5 (43:11):
Yeah, you know, there is somewhat of an increase in
siding reports under new moon conditions, like from zero to
twenty percent, but when you're looking at which this is
kind of interesting in itself too, because sighting reports do
kind of follow the trends of the moon phases, where
you know, the moon spends more time in the extreme

(43:32):
phases versus the middle. So there is like, there is
an increase in sighting reports during new moon phases, but
it's not enough to be significant when you're comparing it
to what we like, what you would expect based on
just how much time the moon spends in those phases
in general. It would be interesting though, to look at again,

(43:56):
like distances, particularly with witnesses who are like camping or
hiking or something, and compare that to the boon phases,
it would be that would be an interesting one.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Bobo will be right back after these messages. Well, I
have to assume that the data for the moon work
that you've been doing is based on nocturnal sightings, first
of all, but maybe it's not. I don't know. And

(44:31):
also these sightings that are in the database, they aren't
got to keep in mind that they're not necessarily observations,
or maybe they are, they're not necessarily at least it's
not clear to me that it is not necessarily observations
of a sasquatch using only moonlight as illumination. The flashlights
or car headlights and that sort of thing are probably involved.

(44:53):
So what it seems to me, at least from my
quick read through, what seems to be pointed out here
is that sasquatches are more active during those times. Is
that correct? Am I in my on to something? Or
you smell when I'm stepping in here?

Speaker 5 (45:07):
Yeah, So for this particular investigation, something else that's this.
This whole paper like was just pretty cool in my
you know, personal opinion, because like, there's so many different
ways you can take this. But so, yeah, the moon
phases actually don't depend on the time of day. So
that was something else that was interesting that cropped up
from this, Like, no matter the time of day, we

(45:27):
see the same trend in citing frequency, So that in
itself was interesting. Not really sure what to.

Speaker 4 (45:36):
Make of that.

Speaker 5 (45:37):
But also, you know, I hesitate to say that these
increases in siding reports are due to increased activity because
at the end of the day, we don't know, because
it could be more human reasons, you know that we're
seeing these increases in citing reports. So yeah, it's just

(45:58):
there's there's a lot of different ways you can take it.

Speaker 4 (46:01):
But I guess did I answer your question. I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (46:04):
What I hear coming out is that science and data
crunching like this, like the stuff that you're doing basically
doesn't give us good answers necessarily. It gives interesting results,
but not answers. But what it does do is generate
some really fascinating questions.

Speaker 5 (46:25):
Yes, yeap, I would totally agree with that statement. Yeah,
like we can't make definitive conclusions. What we can do
is ye draw really interesting patterns and potential information from things.
And also part of that is like I'm just in general,
like very careful with how I word things and how

(46:47):
I kind of approach things, just to.

Speaker 4 (46:50):
Try and eliminate like potential bias that.

Speaker 5 (46:54):
I might put into things, because you know, to be honest,
when I'm looking at data and when I'm looking into
these things, I do kind of form ideas in my
head of you know, what I think the causes of
these patterns are. But when it comes to like papers
and that kind of thing, you have to be very neutral.

Speaker 1 (47:12):
One of the things I wanted to ask you about
is if you had tried to cross reference anything with
the salunar charts or salunar tables. I guess the other
thing that would be difficult beyond that to Bobo's earlier
point is that you know, moon phases and visibility are
not intricately leaked because they don't account for weather data,
which would probably be a lot harder to get a
hold of accurately, because you could have a full moon

(47:35):
and a very very thick cloud cover and still be
left with no visibility. So even though the moon phase
is such and animals might be active influenced by that
moon phase. It doesn't necessarily mean that human witnesses are
going to be able to see better.

Speaker 4 (47:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (47:49):
Yeah, so that's another thing that I hadn't taken into
account with this paper. I've since added very thorough or
extensive weather data to the data set, so that would
actually be really cool to revisit is actually look at
like what the weather was on those days, at least
for the encounters where I was able to derive some

(48:10):
kind of moon illumination from. But yeah, I haven't to
go back to your first question, there does seem to be, yes,
some kind of correlation between animal behaviors and the lunar phases.
I haven't looked at the table that you mentioned, but

(48:30):
I do reference a couple of different papers in my
paper that we're talking especially about like black bears and
different other nocturnal predators as well, and how their activity
is affected by potentially the moon phases and the illumination conditions.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
I'll send over some of that data because there are
plenty of people in the outdoor space, anglers and hunters specifically,
who use those as almost like predictive tools as to
when to go hunting and I've seen a lot of
really interesting anecdotal support for that, and I've experienced some
of it myself, and then you know, it's a whole
nother conversation. I don't want to derail it. But there
was someone years ago, as part of another project, who

(49:11):
would clued me into this and sent some peer reviewed
papers showing that there was a positive correlation. And he
also said, take this data set, go through all the
reports that you firmly think have validity and cross check
them against these charts. And everyone that I looked at
was in a predicted period of like peak animal activity,

(49:32):
and so I was like, h I think there's something
to this. Like it was kind of at first I thought, ah,
this is a little wooy, But I changed my tune
pretty quickly in terms of being proven wrong. So I'll
send over that information.

Speaker 4 (49:45):
No, that's really interesting.

Speaker 2 (49:47):
The last aspect of your paper, that is the seasonal
data that you took into consideration and the patterns that
you looked at there. Of course, this is done very
early on in the game. John Green did that with
his data back in the day and found out what
one would expect. Really, sightings seemed to peak in or
July August, the July ish pretty much and they drop

(50:09):
off in January February. And John Green I remember writing
something effective like that's almost certainly a human factor. Now
you've you've found that a summer is was it second
place to fall or is it about the same? I
don't remember which, And the winter and spring of all
things were the lowest. So can you talk about what
your your findings were, your methods and findings and your

(50:32):
thoughts on that.

Speaker 5 (50:33):
Yeah, so summer and fall had definitely the most siding reports,
their frequencies were the highest, and then there is a
huge drop off in the winter in the spring. So
again there's a couple of different ways to look at this.
You know, animal activities do increase during the summer in
the fall, whether it's for foraging reasons, you know, different

(50:55):
running seasons come into play in the fall, or I
think it's juvenile black bears they actually start separating from
their mothers during the spring, and they'll increase their ranges
and whatnot, and so all of these things basically increase
the chance that a human has some kind of interaction
with the animals because they're expanding the rages that they're
becoming way more active and.

Speaker 4 (51:17):
That kind of thing.

Speaker 5 (51:17):
So you know, if you want to look at things
from an animal perspective, there's that to potentially support the
increase during the summer in the fall. On the other side, yeah,
humans are way more active in the summer in the fall.
You know, they're camping, they're hiking, they're hunting in the fall.
I think I even reference to paper in there talking

(51:38):
about how humans are more likely to be in more
remote areas during the fall, Like there's a significant increase
in human presence, you know, therefore increasing your chances to
have an encounter with anomalist phenomena or you know, an
animal you didn't quite expect. And you know there's other
aspects too, like in the fall, they found that you
can see up to six percent further into a forest

(52:02):
because of the lack of leaves, you know, again increasing
your chances of having some kind of sighting. So those
those things were pretty interesting and honestly expected. I wasn't
really surprised by the increase in siding reports. What did
surprise me? And I've thought about this a lot more
since I published this paper, But actually, the decrease in

(52:25):
siding reports during the spring is really interesting because, oh yeah,
because you would think from like in the animal perspective,
you know, that's when they kind of wake up in
a sense, they're becoming way more active and trying to
recoup all the last calories and whatnot from winter, and

(52:46):
they're becoming just way more active after wintertime. And then
you know, also humans are becoming more active and going
outside more. So that was that's become one of the
biggest questions for me, and I don't have an answer
for that one. Like I don't really know why there's
such a big decrease in siding reports during the springtime,
but it's just one of those things.

Speaker 4 (53:07):
It's really interesting.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
Well, I would think that during winter and spring it
must be weather related in some sort of way, at
least from the human side of things, because these areas
are are difficult to get into, certainly during the winter
and in springtime. You know, I know that your data
mostly focuses on this southeast and the Pacific Coast states
and out here in the Pacific Northwest. I mean, it's

(53:29):
a sloppy, wet, muddy mess out there for most of spring.
It's difficult to get out there, and you have to
be a hard headed stubborn jerk like myself to force
yourself out into those areas to try to even see
a sasquatch or find footprints or do that kind of thing.
But does your finding suggest that there's more to it
than just the human aspect of can't get to those

(53:52):
spots in those times a.

Speaker 5 (53:53):
Year, I think for the springtime, Yes, suddenly I do
think that there's there's something going on that I don't know.
I just I haven't found either enough information on or
I haven't you know, dug deep enough into some papers
to find out like what could be causing this in

(54:17):
the winter time, you know, I definitely think that it's
probably a human thing where yeah, like humans aren't going
into these more remote areas the weather's gross, are just
staying inside more and whatnot. But again that's where I'm not,
you know, I'm not really sure if I can give

(54:38):
a give a good answer for that.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
Yeah, for my own work, I mean, I find about
I find more stuff during non summer months, and of
course I'm trying to see an animal, of course, but uh,
I don't, you know, for whatever that's worth. But I
do find footprints. I find a good, pretty good number
of footprints and winter, late fall and up to early

(55:01):
spring are the best times because you can actually see
the ground, and I do find a fair amount of
prints during those times, so it doesn't seem and of
course I don't have the data to back me up.
I wish I did, but it seems to me that
they're still out there doing their thing during those months,
and I don't see any indication of hibernation or topea
or anything like that. Winter seems to be very very good,
at least in my areas. So it was an interesting find,

(55:24):
and again I look forward to rereading your paper several
times to really digest it.

Speaker 5 (55:29):
I definitely don't think that they're going anywhere during these times,
especially during the winter. Like I am pretty firmly on
the side that it's probably like more of a human thing.
But you know, that's part of what's so interesting about
this work is that it might bring up some surprises,
and you know, until we can build upon it, and
until I go through more data as well, so you know,

(55:53):
just to bring in another side of things that it
could be as using. The majority of my data set
is from the BFR, so that already kind of introduces
some bias because it's all of the public reports, so
it's you know, you're basing this information on you know,

(56:14):
first of all, presence only data, So we only have
data on when someone actually experienced something and then felt
compelled enough to report it to someone and then it
had to be followed up on and then published. So
there's a couple of different layers that make this kind
of tricky as well. So you know, for all we know, too,
it could be some kind of bias that's also influencing this,

(56:37):
maybe for some reason, like spring and winter reports, you know,
they are publishing more of for whatever reason. So yeah,
that's where it's also important that at some point got
to do this, bring in more data sets, in more
different you know, more different data sets into my data set,
so that we can have a more well rounded point

(56:59):
of view of the information that we're looking at.

Speaker 2 (57:02):
Would raw, uninvestigated reports be more useful then if I
if the filter of an investigator taking the time to
call the person and talk to them, write up a
report and publish it, and would raw reports be have
a different value to you than investigated reports.

Speaker 5 (57:20):
That's a really good question. I would say it really depends.
It really depends on the source of where those raw
reports are coming from right now, at least as things stand,
at least from looking at reports like purely from the BFO,

(57:41):
I do prefer reports that have been followed up on
and at least you know, contact was made with the
witness and you know they kind of passed a first check.
But you know, it would be interesting to see how
those reports compare to the raw report worts, because that,

(58:01):
you know, in itself, could give us some indication of
how different like it without having that filter, Like are
these reports just inherently different? Are there things that are
just different between the two, things that are mentioned or
not mentioned that either you know, make it through or
don't make it through that filter. So, yeah, that's a

(58:23):
that's an interesting question, and I haven't really thought about
that before, but I would I guess I would say
right now, it.

Speaker 4 (58:29):
Would depend on the source of the raw reports.

Speaker 3 (58:33):
I'm sure people would like to hear what you actually found,
Like as far as a hair color, I was looking
at some of the notes I took on that is
that like dark, you compared the South versus the West.
I think there was eighteen or nineteen states involved, and
like for dark in the West, there was twenty two percent.
In the South that was thirteen percent, and in red
brown it was nine point two percent in the West

(58:54):
and sixteen point eight percent in the South. And white
it was one point four six percent in the West
and five point six percent in the South. And gray
was two point four to three percent in the West
and eight point three percent in the South. Of all
the dead I saw you collect, that was the most

(59:15):
divergent because so many other ones line up so well together.
But that was the biggest of the five subjects that
you covered that I saw. I thought that was pretty interesting,
Like that was the biggest difference was coloration between the
South and the West as opposed to track size, height
estimates and aggressiveness and all that.

Speaker 5 (59:37):
Yeah, So the regional differences and at least physical characteristics
is something that I'm particularly interested in. I love looking
at the data and seeing if there are actually regional differences,
and with the hair colors in particular, there are at
least as how things are reported. So like you said,

(59:58):
like in the South we have more where we have
an increased frequency of reports of red, brown, gray, white,
and I think blonde too, And those differences and frequencies
are statistically significant when you're you know, comparing them to
the Western regions. You know, that's interesting in itself because
especially when you start looking at things in a more

(01:00:20):
like granular way, I guess, because you start to see
these like clusters of hair colors, especially for the white
and the gray like reports.

Speaker 4 (01:00:29):
I remember that in Alabama.

Speaker 5 (01:00:31):
There's like a couple of little clusters where there's a
notable increase of citing reports of white hair colored sasquatches.

Speaker 3 (01:00:40):
What.

Speaker 5 (01:00:41):
Yeah, And so it's funny because like I didn't even
know that was a thing until after I found that,
And I'm like, well, there you go. That explained that,
like this is a thing that's known in that region.
But yeah, the hair colors are pretty interesting. I'm not
sure why there's such a differ diference. I will say,

(01:01:02):
like I have heard throughout the years that the South
does have more like red or red brown sasquatches, and
it leaves out the data stands right now that is
supported that claim. But I thought it was interesting the
gray and the white hair color was interesting that there
was so many more in the South versus the Western states.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
If you guys Oklahoma, do other area, like what was
you guys saw what do you have eight or ten
individuals you guys have identified or something like that, and
there was a couple of gray ones. You know.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
I didn't have any sightings there. But it really just depends.
I don't think you could arrive at the number that
I would estimate is much smaller than that, because what
one person calls cinnamon red and another person calls light
brown might be exactly the same color, you know, and
so and then if individuals change over time. But one
of the things that I think is interesting is that
there is a sort of like a rule or a law,

(01:01:55):
and the name of it escapes me right now. That
has to do with the color of plumage or pelage
of a given species in its distribution over latitudes, and
a lot of it has to do with relative heat
and sunlight distribution, because obviously, if you're an animal of
a certain size and you have a lot of internal heat,
you know, giganto thermy that applies to very large animals, well,

(01:02:17):
it's not very beneficial to be dark colored as an adult,
you know, with large mass in a place that's very hot,
that gets a lot of sun. It would be more
beneficial to have lighter coloration, so that you're reflecting more
of the sun's light rather than absorbing it, and then
vice versa. If you're in a northern climate where you know,
you don't get a whole lot of direct sunlight year
round because the winters are long and a little bit

(01:02:38):
more brutal, it would be more advantageous, especially for individuals
of a certain age or size, to be of that
darker coloration, so they are absorbing more of the heat
from the sun during the day. And that seems to
be sort of like present in that north south distribution,
which I think we could kind of look at as
a east west because usually we're talking like southeast versus northwest,

(01:02:58):
so there's still a south component. But in area X, yeah,
there were multiple sightings of like one particularly large gray individual.
Out of all of those in my memory, there was
one siding where one member saw what he believed to
be two pairs of legs. He only saw him basically
from the waist down and brush two pairs of gray legs,

(01:03:19):
grayish you know, slate gray legs. And so that's where
the idea that oh, maybe there's more than one of
these you know, larger gray ones around, but no one
had like a clear sighting of like two gray ones
from the waist up or you know, head to toe
or anything like that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:34):
I know, I know in the Northwest and like Northwest
territories in Yukon and Alaska, that black is like about
eighty percent of all the sightings. So that makes sense too,
you know, And then we need to restrially go crunch
to that data to tell us if that's what the
real number is. But she's think there's a lot more
black ones up there. Then another interesting thing he had

(01:03:58):
in there was aggressive encount and only seven percent of
the cases you found were aggressive, and only one percent
or less involved chest beating, car shaking, those types of
those type of things. And it was for aggressive you
had seven point nine percent of encounters in the South
and five point four percent in the West. I was

(01:04:20):
expecting this. The highest percent for aggressive encounters was fishing
at sixteen percent, because that's kind of what we've always
imagined was that was fishing seem to get the most
aggressive encounters because I guess with aggressive, like you know,
it includes rock throwing, like you know, throwing pine cones
or like a fishermen, I think they know things being

(01:04:40):
thrown a lot more because it plops in the water
in front of you, like they throw stuff in the
water around the fishermen, you know. And I think that
that accounts for like the aggressive why that was stuck
out so much higher in the aggressive account.

Speaker 4 (01:04:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:04:52):
So, yeah, the aggression thing was something that I had
heard about, Like just I heard of folks say that,
you know, the saf squashes in the South are more
aggressive than anywhere else in the United States. And at
least for how you know things are reported, there are
more reports of general aggression or intimidation behaviors reported in

(01:05:17):
the South. And I do like to say too, the
like encounters that are explicitly aggressive, like you know, bluff
charges or the witness genuinely felt like they were in danger,
they make up, you know, less than five percent of reports,
because that's something I get asked about too, is like,

(01:05:38):
you know, are they are they going to hurt you?
And to which you know, I can say, I don't know,
but at least you know, the reports we do have.
That's the stat on that. But yeah, so, so in
the South they are expressing at least aggressive behaviors more
frequently than those in the West. And it does include

(01:06:02):
things like object throwing, tree shaking, bluff charges, stuff like that.
But the number of reports where the sasquatch was like,
you know, trying to harm the witness in some way,
you know, like legitimately is very very low, at least

(01:06:22):
how they're reported, and that, you know, in that in
itself could be due to well, maybe the witness, you know,
doesn't want to report something like that because it was
you know traumatic or you know, really difficult for them
to talk about. So we might we probably don't have
all the data on those kinds of reports. And yeah,
so so we do. We do see aggression at least

(01:06:45):
more frequently in the South, but that definitely still happens.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
In the West. You know.

Speaker 2 (01:06:51):
I've got some questions about that sort of thing, and
I also want to know a little bit more about
your personal journey into the world of Bigfoot as well,
and I think we should continue that compstation over on
the members side, So we'd love to have you join
us over there, of course, and I think you're doing
fantastic work. And I want to thank you for joining
us for the public side of our podcast before we
go over to the members. So thank you so much,

(01:07:13):
not only for coming on the podcast and spending time
with us, but also from freeing us from our own
assumptions by using data.

Speaker 4 (01:07:20):
Yeah, no problem.

Speaker 5 (01:07:21):
I'm I just appreciate you guys so much for having
me on. I love love talking about this stuff. And
I don't think I got to mention this, but you
guys had such a huge influence on you know, me
even pursuing this project and just being interested in Sasquatch
in general. So I honestly just feel really humbled to
be talking to you guys.

Speaker 2 (01:07:42):
So it's our fault.

Speaker 3 (01:07:43):
Wow, thank you. Yeah, I want to say thank you, Yeah,
thank you, thank you for coming on the show, but
way more important, thank you, huge, huge, thank you for
doing this for us. Would be statistically, you know, boring,
you know, just I wouldn't want to do it. But
I'm so glad you're doing it. I'm sure everyone else
is too, So thank you. Treasure that you can follow
Tresha on Instagram and face. She's on all of them.

(01:08:07):
She's got some interesting things on there. It's not so technical.
If you go to our videos and stuff, it's really entertaining.
She presents it clearly and easy to understand. So, okay,
we're going to go join her now at the Patreon section.
So until next week, y'all, keep it squatchy.

Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
Thanks for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and Beyond.
If you liked what you heard, please rate and review
us on iTunes, subscribe to Bigfoot and Beyond wherever you
get your podcasts, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram
at Bigfoot and Beyond podcast. You can find us on
Twitter at Bigfoot and Beyond that's an N in the middle,

(01:08:49):
and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Bigfoot and Beyond

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
Who Talk Too.