Ep. 334 - DNA, Discovery, and the "Unknown Primate" Myth!

Cliff Barackman, James "Bobo" Fay, and Matt Pruitt discuss what the discovery of the sasquatch might look like with modern DNA analysis, the mythos surrounding genetic samples attributed to an "unknown primate," and Bobo's phone woes (AKA "Woebos" or "Bowoes"). Also mentioned are a new study of the chimpanzee genome, Darby Orcutt's new website, the upcoming New York Bigfoot Conference (Oct. 3-4), and CryptidCon (Nov. 22-23)! [Note: This episode was recorded on Sept. 8th.]

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. These guys
are your favorites, so like to subscribe and raid it
Lip starck s.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
And me.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Grates on us today listening watch Limb always.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
Keep its watching.

Speaker 4 (00:26):
And now you're hosts Cliff Berrickman and James Bubo Fay.

Speaker 5 (00:31):
It's been over two weeks with out of fun outs.
The hope comes today, but well.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
Here we'll start the conversation with that. Then they'll be fun.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
People like to know your your woes, chaotic woes of
Bobo WOBOs whobos. Oh we're recording. Indeed, Hey bobes, what's
happened to man?

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Let your tough Cliff? Oh? Stuff?

Speaker 3 (00:54):
You know me? What about you? Matt? What about anything
going over there? Matt Pruitt? How are you doing?

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Oh? I'm good.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
I was down in George for a few days. They're
in squash country. It was also tourist season, so it
was not quite as devoid of people, you know, when
you're trying to get out and enjoyed nature rather than
like crazy traffic and people cluttering up the streets. But
it was a beautiful trip, nice visit. Always good to
be back in North towarda.

Speaker 5 (01:17):
Yeah, I went out the last couple of nights with Bart.
Didn't have anything happen, but it was cool just getting out.
Beautiful that, you know, two thirds of the moon, real
warm weather, even at night. It was still like in
the sixties. Of those sixties, it was beautiful. But yeah,
nothing to report.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, of course, I just got off a week on
the road. I was in Utah. Beautiful Vernal Utah, Holy smokes,
what a pretty place that is for a really interesting event,
interesting in weird ways too. It's called Phenomenon. I'll go
into the details, of course in the members episode, but
for now, just let it be known that if you're
into UFOs and Skinwalker ranch stuff and the TV shows,

(01:54):
and that's a wonderful event for you guys to go to.
I would highly recommend it for anybody who in the
deeply weird things go to Phenomicon in Vernal Utah. And
my god, my biggest regret about the Vernal gig was
that I didn't have an extra day or two because
there's so much to do in Vernal Utah. It's in

(02:15):
the middle of this big bowl shape thing, like the
big bowl shaped valley, and there's dinosaur stuff everywhere. It's
spitting distance, like thirty minutes from Dinosaur National Monument or
whatever that's called. And I have a fossils I'm a
dinosaur guy. I'm still a seven year old little boy.
I mean, what seven year old boy or a girl
doesn't live dinosaurs. I wish I just had more time.

(02:35):
There's two or three museums in town, and it's just
gorgeous there, absolutely gorgeous.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Maybe next time.

Speaker 4 (02:41):
Is that pretty well attended because it's so far from anything.
I mean, it's got to be at least a few
hours from the airport in Salt Lake City, right, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:48):
They flew me into Salt Lake City and it was
a three hour drive to Vernal, Utah. So they rented
me a car, which is really cool. By the way,
I don't know much about cars, but hyund dice or
whatever they're called. Snatas are pretty awesome. I rand one
of those things that really slick car had a lot
of fun in it. But anyway, yeah, it's a long
ways from Salt Lake City. I guess they have a
small local airstrip, but they didn't fly me into there,

(03:10):
so it was a long drive and I really enjoyed it.
It was just absolutely beautiful, you know, because Utah has
that kind of red soil and it looks like, you know,
coyote versus road runner territory, you know, with these maces
all over the place, and it's just absolutely awesome. But
to answer your question, it was sold out. Not only
was it well attended, it was literally sold out in

(03:31):
the in the convention center.

Speaker 4 (03:32):
See that's what I mean, because like how many local residents,
like how many people are coming from Salt Lake City
and or the surrounding towns, which all the towns are
so small, so it seems like that kind of thing
that most people fly in.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
A lot of people drove there, to be fair, I mean,
just kind of a brief skim of my ever failing memory.
The people I remember speaking to came from Colorado and
Utah and Oregon and California. Some people from Las Vegas
were there, so a lot of the surrounding states as
well as a lot of locals from Salt Lake and

(04:04):
places like that, or you know, Provo or wherever. But
there were people from most states there, you know, because
the MC of course pointed that out, like we were
represented by X number of states and things and people
from other countries were there as well. People were there
from the UK and Denmark and other places. Yeah, it
was a very well attended job or gig or event.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
I should say.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
From my perspective it's a job, but everybody else, you know,
it's an event. So it was a cool event. It
was neat and a lot of fun, weird stuff and
ideas that I don't necessarily subscribe to but are fun
to entertain, just as thought experiments, and it was great.
I strongly recommend people who are into a variety of
weird things to check it out. You'd probably really enjoy it.

(04:50):
So now I'm back, I'm looking forward to trying to
get out in the woods a little bit. It's been
like two weeks, three weeks now since I've been out
in the woods, and I think legitimately this is as long.
It's not true. I was in the blues two weeks ago,
but that's different than what I was thinking. But still
two weeks getting the shakes, the shakes, oh yeah, exactly,
the yeah, the yeah. I don't know as I call it,
but I definitely am getting the shakes on that one. Withdrawals,

(05:12):
the withdrawals, for sure, the yetty withdrawals but yeah, it's
been a long time, like two weeks is probably as
long as it's been in two years since I've been
out to the woods. So I need to get out.
Hopefully this week I can find some time. But being
gone from Tuesday to Sunday last week, I'm drowning in
things that are overdue and I should have done last week.

(05:33):
So we'll see what I can get away with.

Speaker 4 (05:35):
How goes the search for your phone?

Speaker 2 (05:37):
Bobs?

Speaker 3 (05:37):
Oh, yeah, your phone. I can't help, but notice there's
been a lack of Bobo texts lately.

Speaker 5 (05:42):
It's been over two weeks now. I haven't had a phone.
We found out where it was. I thought I lost it. Well,
I think what happens. I think I was putting on
my boots when I told you the guy watched up
my truck here and like that sword thing.

Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yes, yes, we talked about in the members section.

Speaker 5 (05:57):
So oh yeah, oh real quick for the audience, and
I think he's gonna be listening to this. But you
let this guy he self as he's a little bit
of an odd character. Reported he's contacting the you guys
you know through the through the show, saying hey, I
got bigfoots up here. Outside of whill Creek. I'm serious,
and like some of his stuff, I think he had

(06:20):
he had like a traumatic experience and like he's got
squashed on the brain. He's just been camping out there,
not really camping, just living in his van and just
like hanging out. And he's right below a really well
known bigfoot spot. He didn't he didn't know at the time.
He just picked it randomly. So yeah, we went out
there and we've been him in town and he just

(06:41):
uh kind of he looked he reminded me of Zach
Gaffnaculis from The Hangover. He had like the same same look,
same body, like same every It's not like a dead ringer,
Like the face wasn't the exact same, but same, you know,
bushy beard, hair kind of style and just.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Kind of like his own trip.

Speaker 5 (07:00):
You know, he's got his Homer Simpson shirt on, and
he gets out, he goes bolo and he just looks
at me and gives me like a stern look and
walks into the gas. Because we were parts waiting for
him for a while out there at the Chevron and
Whillow Creek and then he comes out and he just
did he didn't even acknowledge us. So I got out
of my truck and walked everyone it's going on. He
was pumping some gas and he goes, we go out
there here to introduce yourself, formerly introduced some tell all

(07:22):
your credentials and every podcast and TV show you've ever
been on, so they know who you are. I go
all right, like all right, this is getting a little weird.
And then we went and so then we followed him
back up to where he was. He's out in there.
He was out in the sticks. He was up real
remote area, up pretty far. We get there at this
point it's dark. We get out where show. He's showing

(07:43):
us sort of some stuff happened off the main road
where you went down this like old logging road out
in the middle of nowhere, and we're getting our boots
on and stuff like that. He comes walking up on us,
like this guy's a trip man, Like yeah, he's kind
of yeah, you know, he's kind of a different character.
He comes walking up to us and he had this
big sword thing, like machety sword looking thing with like

(08:05):
look like at some medieval war weapon. He comes walking
up with us in the dark, and I was like,
oh geez, like what the hell is going on?

Speaker 2 (08:12):
You know?

Speaker 5 (08:12):
And turned out he's a nice guy's you know, he
just had he got stuck by a cougar. He had
a cougar come up to him just getting uh in
his van. He was sitting there at his van door.
I think he was reading or something with the door open,
and his cougar walked up like three four or five
feet from him and just stared at him, and he
scared him so bad, like he just wouldn't walk outside

(08:32):
of his van without carrying this sword thing. But I
didn't know that at the time. He just walks up
with it on me and PAULI, and PAULI was like
jumps back and that's when I always had my phone
out to record audio. I guess I said it on
the bumper, the back bumpers. I was at the back
of the truck and as we were kind of shut
going whoa, like that's that's kind of like I hope
this guy just go crazy, you know, And he was cool.

(08:53):
But yeah, I guess I put my phone down on
the back bumper and then we walked around and say
we looked for tracks where he'd had some stuff happen
up there and where we heard some stuff. We were
walking around with flashlights looking around and said, well, we'll
come back in the daytime sometime. I want to blow
up a bunch of tracks at night, like walk in
and can't see something step on it. So we went
down to where he'd been sleeping in his van and

(09:16):
we got down there and I turned around and I
backed up. It was, you know, it's like really steep,
you know, steepid as out of those like it's just
vertical canyon walls. I think what happened was when I
backed up, I backed up, I could see my tailgate camera.
When I was back up, I was my wheels were
still on the flat ground, but my tailgate was over
the edge, like it was already over the edge, like

(09:38):
where it drops off and there's like a tree root
in the ground there. And I bumped up over it
and I kind of gunned it to come back over
it like it truck bounced and I think it dropped
and bounced off there. Because when we finally were able
to pinpoint it because it didn't have a good reading
on the GPS where it was exactly, then we would
the coordinate where it was and get the GPS lined

(09:59):
up because the GPS, for whatever reason on Apple phones,
through Google Maps and Google Streets and all that, it
kept changing the road names on us, like as you
drove through this one area, it would change.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
It'd flipped it, they'd flip it around.

Speaker 5 (10:13):
And it happened on two different phones and a GPS,
which was weird. And so we figured out where we
were it was. It was lost right where this guy
was sleeping at. So we went back there and we
looked a couple of times, and I found out PAULI
had a metal detector. So we're gonna go back out there,
probably tomorrow the next day and go look forward. It's
supposed to rain tonight, pretty good, but I hope it

(10:34):
doesn't rain, get there and retrieve it.

Speaker 2 (10:36):
But I got a phone coming in the mail. It
should be here today.

Speaker 3 (10:39):
Well, hopefully you find your phone for no other reason,
just the photographs that are on it.

Speaker 5 (10:42):
Yeah, that's what I'm going for. And I'm bringing out
rope this time so we can go down that hillside.
It's not a cliff clip, it's super steep. You need ropes.
But it would have had to slid down only a
couple different spots where I turned around.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
So because it shows.

Speaker 5 (10:55):
Up being off the off the road like about thirty
thirty five feet, so I think it slid down a
ways and it's down to the leaf. There's a bunch
of it's all oak through there and stuff, so there's
a lot of leaf litter.

Speaker 3 (11:06):
Well, those find my phone apps sort of things are
pretty accurate. I've used one of those before I dropped
my phone on. I think it's during finding Bigfoot or
something like that, and it was out on the grass
next to the parking lot. It put me within like
maybe three or four yards of it, So they're pretty accurate.
You should be able to find it if you have
one of those things.

Speaker 5 (11:24):
Yeah, but I figure the more times about there, that's
the better times. I haven't seeing one anyway, so it's
not that not that big of a deal. But yeah,
I hope, I hope I find it. The detecting out
tied into a robe off the side of a very steep, almost.

Speaker 3 (11:36):
Cliff like hill, so it'll take pictures. Nothing can go wrong,
Nothing could go wrong. No, Well, that's the stuff that you,
my friend, are impervious to. Like when you put yourself
in ridiculous, potentially dangerous situations, you always come out Scott Free.
It's the stuff that you wouldn't think would be dangerous.
Where you're you are in most danger.

Speaker 5 (11:57):
Yeah, I jumped over this little creek yesterday just walking
through town with Created and she walked around, I'm just
gonna jump over it. I did the exact same thing
when I blew my back out when I her needed
those discs when we were filming the show. I blew
up my back season two, like where I jumped and
landed like on a opposing like you know, just like
it's like a you know, it's like a V shape.
I jumped across and I landed lower down. I put

(12:18):
my left leg up totally straight and stiff when I landed,
and totally like felt I could feel the exact say.
I was like, oh, like the second I did, like
that was stupid. Then I impacted like right at the
same exact moment, and I just got that same jarring
like I could feel right in my back where I
just cave those her need to those discs before, And
I was like, it didn't happen, but I could feel

(12:39):
like we're it was close. It tingled pretty hard but
didn't get hurt. I was like, God, I think I
almost got hurt walking taking walk in town.

Speaker 3 (12:48):
That's exactly what Clip's talking about.

Speaker 4 (12:50):
Like, you will survive the the cliff diving, metal detecting,
back flipping down a mountain, you know, phone search, but
it's the hop in town that'll get you.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (13:01):
Yeah, wear a padded suit when you check your mail,
bobes do it from me. Yeah, stay tuned for more
Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and Bobo.

Speaker 6 (13:12):
We'll be right back after these messages.

Speaker 3 (13:19):
Boba, are you starting to notice thinning hair?

Speaker 2 (13:22):
Who me?

Speaker 3 (13:24):
Maybe a little a little hair left or a little
thinning 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 5 (13:43):
That'd be nice having a fresh fall crop to harvest.

Speaker 3 (13:46):
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 2 (13:57):
Yeah, doctors trust this stuff. It's been clinically proven.

Speaker 5 (14:00):
Ingredients like finesteride, anoxidil and that stuff can stop hair
loss and we go hair in as little as three
to six months.

Speaker 3 (14:07):
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 5 (14:23):
The process is one hundred percent online, which means getting
started has never been more convenient. And even if sasquatch
can do it, it's so easy.

Speaker 3 (14:30):
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 5 (14:46):
That's hims dot com slash beyond for personalized hair loss
treatment options.

Speaker 3 (14:52):
Hymns dot com slash beyond.

Speaker 4 (14:54):
Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and
oral monoxidal and finasteride. Prescription required. See website for full details,
restrictions and important safety information. Well, very good, what are
we talking about today? Well, you know one of the
topics that comes up a lot, not just in the
Q and as but with listeners suggested topics is the

(15:15):
idea of DNA, and there's a couple of different threads
there that comes through, like one of which is the
sort of mythos that there exists a number of like
previously tested quote unquote unknown primate DNA samples, which is
totally a myth and so we could cover some of that.
But a lot of people think now that DNA technology
has come along so far and we have things like

(15:38):
the North Carolina study getting so heavily involved that I
know Doug Hichek was going to get some testing done
as part of legendmede science that discovery will occur as
the consequence of DNA testing, and that's looking more and
more promising. You know, a body might still be needed
down the line one day to study like a skeletal
structure or a respiratory system or something like that. But

(15:59):
I think a lot of peop people really want to
hear what discovery might look like were it to happen today.

Speaker 5 (16:04):
And I thought Darby was saying like, it's more muddle now,
it's not as easy thought like I thought that was
the gist what I heard last Well.

Speaker 3 (16:12):
Maybe with E DNA, Yeah, E DNA is problematic, but
we can definitely tackle that. Should we just start there?

Speaker 4 (16:18):
Yeah, I think we should just touch on all the above.
I mean, the overarching nature of a lot of the
questions that come in is like, what does discovery look like? Now?
Is it only a body? Is DNA something that's going
to constitute discovery or is that just another you know,
stone on the path towards discovery.

Speaker 3 (16:34):
Well, that's an interesting question, actually, and I certainly have
thoughts on that. To back up a little bit, everybody knows,
from Krantz to Green, et cetera, there's an advocacy for
a type specimen, a holotype of the animal, because every
other species of animal out there that is real in
the eyes of academia has a dead one in a

(16:54):
freezer somewhere or a mason jar fromaldehyde. And that was
the original one, the first one killed and then described
in a peer reviewed journal. Almost every other animal human
beings don't have one, because we're pretty sure we're real.
Although there's some argument there too, I guess, especially a phenomicon.
But on top of that, well, actually they say Linnaeus,

(17:17):
the guy the scientists back in with the early seventeen hundreds,
I think the guy who made up the taxonomic system
of naming animals like genus species stuff. They give Linnaeus
the credit of being the type specimen for Homo sapiens,
which I think is kind of fun. You know, there's
also a monkey. I understand that was deemed too rare

(17:39):
to even spare one because it would upset the balance.
So they don't have a type specimen. But they have
enough documentation of various sorts and I believe including hair
samples that could be wrong on that, So they don't
have a type specimen or a holotype for that one.
And I thought there was another species just recently that
is something similar. But the basic gist of a holotype
is that you need a body or a piece of

(18:00):
a body. Well, the good news is that DNA is
a piece of the body. It's a very very small one,
but it literally is a piece of a body. And
some species were proven to be real by DNA so far,
most notably and most pertinent our Field Denisovans homodenis Ovan

(18:21):
human and probably not ancestrab well some of us, because
they did interbreed with Homo sapiens, but a relative human
relative a Homo Sapien relative. It was discovered by a
DNA They found a small segment of a fingerbone in
a cave, and they it was recent enough that they
could test it for DNA, and sure enough, it wasn't

(18:42):
Neanderthals like they thought it was. It was this brand
new thing, Denisovans. So that's encouraging for us that DNA
can be used to prove a species as present now
with Bigfoot. It might take a little bit more than that,
you know, just because so many hoaxes have been perpetrated
through the year, so many wild and borderline or full

(19:03):
on paranormal claims have discredited the subject for so long,
so it might take more than just a DNA hit.
It's probably going to take repeated DNA hits, honestly, by
several different sources. But that is a piece of the body,
and I believe that will do it, that at least
start the avalanche. You know, picture the DNA hit, a
positive DNA hit as a pebble that starts an avalanche,

(19:27):
and the avalanche will look like a lot of different things.
And one of those rocks, one of the big boulders
falling down the hill in that avalanche, and that metaphoric
avalanche will be collection of not just one, but probably
several types like specimens. Unfortunately, but I think that's what's
going to do this because we've had a long time
of people walking around in the woods and maybe seeing

(19:48):
sasquatches and having the opportunity to take a shot, and
they never have, or if they have, they never collected
the specimen and brought it in. But DNA, with that
North Carolina State University thing going on right now with
Darby or cut, that is where my money is at
the moment. I think that has a much higher chance
of bringing back what we need than just depending on

(20:10):
some hunter to not be so scared to pull the
trigger essentially, and again, just to be clear, I don't
necessarily advocate for the collection of the species because I'm
not the guy who's going to pull the trigger. It's
kind of like Game of Thrones, right that very first
episode of Game of Thrones, if you remember, I forget
all the characters names like the ned Start guy or
whatever his name is, he told his son who was

(20:31):
a king, you shouldn't sentence someone to death unless you're
willing to swing the blade, you know. And I feel
the same way about sasquatch stuff. I know it has
to happen. I'm not going to be the guy to
do it, so I feel a little hypocritical by advocating
for it because I'm not willing to do it myself.
It's going to happen, bottom line. So but I can
do the DNA thing, and I am doing the DNA thing.

(20:52):
It turns out with Darby, and now that I'm allowed
to talk about it, it's kind of nice. And I've talked
about it on the podcast before. But DNA, I think,
is the avenue to start that avalanche.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
I think clearly one of the things that needs to
get fleshed out for the listeners, because enough questions come
in that it's easy to tell that there's not a
strong understanding of this within the community, or at least
among the enthusiasts. And I think a lot of that
has to do with the way that this is often portrayed.
But there seems to be this sort of belief that
there have been in the past a host of DNA

(21:25):
samples that were collected or you know, genetic samples that
were collected and subjected to DNA testing and the results
were quote unknown primate and that's just frankly not true.
And as far as I can tell, what's generally occurred
is that when it does come to physical evidence, you know,
the most abundant of which being hair. You know, as

(21:46):
a source of physical evidence that you know, you look
at hair under a microscope to determine its anatomy, and
so by studying its anatomy you might be able to
determine its source. And so of the hair samples that
are attributed to sasas Squatch, or at least categorized as
like purported Sasquatch or potential Sasquatch hair samples, they do
share a suite of characteristics with each other that are

(22:09):
also characteristics that are analogous to those found in other apes.
But they're idiosyncratic enough from the known apes and from
humans that the analyzes might say something like, well, they
don't seem to be attributable to any known ape or humans,
but they certainly share primate characteristics, and they're not attributable
to any known animal, So we don't know what this

(22:30):
is from, but it seems to be from a primate.
And that's strictly looking at the physical structure of hair
morphology anatomy etc. Now, some of those samples have been
subjected to DNA testing, these very you know, low resolution,
surface level DNA tests that usually produce the most you know,
homology or the biggest hits on like human primers and things.

Speaker 3 (22:53):
Of that nature.

Speaker 4 (22:54):
So there's a whole list of these cases, even including
some from Asia, you know, with like the ya Orn
or the YETI. Let's say where you have people studying
these samples under a microscope that say this is some
sort of quote unquote unknown primate, and when it goes
to DNA testing, they say, well, this is human. And
there's been these debates that have played out, some of

(23:14):
them very publicly, where people say, look, I don't know
what you think you're seeing there, but this is absolutely
not human hair. It's not like any human hair that's
ever been collected or studied. And they'll say, well it
was you know, it's either human hair or it was
mishandled and therefore contaminated because the only DNA is human.
But there's no DNA result that has given that moniker like,

(23:37):
well we're looking at the DNA of a quote unquote
unknown primate. So it seems like those two have been conflated.
But I see that come up time and time again
in our emails and other places online where people are
commenting saying like, well, what about all of the unknown
primate DNA samples that have already been tested and that
just it frankly doesn't exist.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (23:58):
I had long conversation with Darby about that one, and
he was visiting, and it'd be best to have it,
of course, come from Darby's own mouth. And he has
promised me that he will be on the podcast soon.
I mean, I know that's coming, and I know I've
been saying that for a while, but he will be
here soon, I promise. But he's chased down every rumor
of these DNA tests and found at the end of

(24:18):
each one there's nothing really there.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
He told us that last time he was on.

Speaker 3 (24:23):
Yeah, Yeah, And sometimes he's chased down the like various
television shows have claimed DNA, various people have claimed DNA
papers have been published, and he's chased down all of
those things, and it turns out that either the results
or the data, which is actually more important, would not
be given or just didn't exist. And of course, if
if it's they're not given the data, that tells you something,

(24:47):
you know, that's that's a sign of maybe there's nothing
there or don't don't want you to run independent results.
But science is about reproducibility, you know, like peer reviewed
sort of stuff. You know, if there's data that indicates
there's a new species, you think you would be over
the moon to share it with somebody else so they
can get the same results or find out if you're
incorrect about something. But apparently that it just does not

(25:09):
has not happened. So these are all rumors.

Speaker 4 (25:13):
Not in a formal published sense, and that's the frustrating thing.
Not only on the morphological side, like the anatomy of hair,
the physical structure of hair. No one's ever published really
about that. All of those references tend to be in
personal correspondences, in media interviews and books, you know, where
someone has analyzed and said, well, here's what I think
i'm seeing, but it's never really been formally published. But

(25:35):
the same is true of the claims that the DNA
was tested and quote unquote came back as human, you know,
Homo sapiens, either that the source was human or that
it was contaminated. And you know, I don't want to
be too disparaging, but there's a number of really interesting
samples that were discussed heavily. There was one from the

(25:57):
Pacific Northwest that was a blood sample from a light
bulb that comes to mind. There's a handful of others,
including some from the Kentucky project. And when you dig
into the claims they were sent to be tested, and
the results always come in the form of claims given
to the media or in personal correspondence. Hey, I looked
at this. It's just human Well none of that data

(26:17):
has ever been published, you know, the sequences aren't released,
not that they were fully sequenced genomes, but it's nothing
more than a set of claims. And the other frustrating
thing is the majority of those claims all come from
a single source. We don't know exactly what tests were used,
how in depth they were, if there were anything more
than like cursory or preliminary tests. And also those kind

(26:39):
of claims very often feed the skeptics to such a
degree where they go, hey, look, these boneheads thought they
had something, but it turns out it was just human DNA. Lol,
you know, lmao. And it's it's kind of funny because
it's like, well, if we're going to play the game
where you know, you have to have evidence to support claims.
I think any of us would be justified in saying, okay, well,

(27:02):
where's the evidence that that was quote unquote just human,
because as it stands, actually those are claims. We don't
have the proof that. You know, we know the sample existed,
we know that it was supposedly tested. While we know
that sample existed, we know it was sent to this
person to be tested, we can't see the results of
the tests. We can't see the data. All we know

(27:22):
is that the person who claims they tested it claims
that it came back just human. Now I'm not disputing that,
I'm just saying that, like, if claims have no value
in no place here, then every skeptic that says, well,
you know, every time they come up with a sample
it's just human, it's like, no, you can throw that
out because that's a claim. It's unsupported by evidence and data.

(27:43):
So Darby was right to point out that every time
he chased one of these things down, the sample is
gone and the test results are gone. There's like nothing
to show that these tests even actually occurred, you know,
which is frustrating.

Speaker 3 (27:54):
Yeah, you mentioned the one word really caught my ear
a few moments to Goo Matten. It really is the
best men metaphor for all this. You mentioned a low
resolution test. Resolution is probably the best metaphor for this,
because when you do DNA testing, there are certain kinds
of tests, and certain kinds of tests go deeper than others.
But the low resolution one is also a visual metaphor,

(28:16):
I think, because sasquatch DNA and human DNA are going
to are obviously going to look very very similar to
one another. Obviously, Well it turns out that sasquatches and
humans also look visually very similar to one another. So
that's where the resolution thing really comes in here, because
if you take a picture of a human or a
sasquatch at five hundred yards, maybe the resolution of the

(28:39):
photograph isn't isn't great enough for you to tell the
difference you know you need. I don't know how many
megapixels you would need or whatever, but imagine it just
like a nineteen ninety five digital camera versus your iPhone today.
The resolution on your phone is a lot better than
a camera back then, and the tests are the same ways.
The lower the resolution of the test, the more approximate

(29:04):
the results. Just like a lower resolution of in a photograph,
the more approximate that picture is, you can tell it's
a human shaped thing. But if you have a high
enough resolution camera, you can see the eyeballs and the
hair cover in the body if it's a sasquatch or
the you know, the member's only jacket or whatever one
happens to be wearing if it's a human. Right, same
thing with tests. The lower resolution tests can get you

(29:27):
in the ballpark, and almost all of those are going
to say human on them, because that's the ballpark of
what we're expecting, at least with the sasquatch thing, being
that they're some sort of great ape species, you know,
just like humans or anything else. So the resolution of
the test needs to be great enough to differentiate. And
there's no evidence that such a test has been run.

(29:49):
Really at this moment, all of the other ones have
to come back human. I think it's reasonable to assume,
and the lack of evidence at this point because there
is no data to examine unfortunately that those low resolution tests.
But any test on a DNA sort of thing where
you get a human hit is very encouraging and should
be tested to a higher level. To a higher resolution

(30:13):
so we can see what exactly it is instead of
approximately what it is.

Speaker 6 (30:20):
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Bobo will be right back after these messages.

Speaker 4 (30:32):
I just think it's really important for people to understand
that there are no previous DNA results that quote unquote
came back. That's the way people always said it, like
you mail it off and it comes back to the
mail came back quote unquote unknown primate. Like that's never
happened as far as I know in this pursuit of
I don't even think that's a result you would get

(30:52):
from a DNA study. So the unknown primate moniker comes
from the physical structure of hair samples primarily, and not
this d anything. Because people are always asking, well, what
about all the previous unknown primate samples? Can't Darby test those,
and so trying to like weed out, well, actually, there
are no real previous unknown primate DNA samples. There are
unknown primate hair samples or other you know, evidence that

(31:15):
was deemed that. But anyway, I know that's a bit
of a diversion there, but it comes up so very
often that I thought it'd be worth clarifying. Oh yeah,
but as I understand it now, like I don't know
this would I'd love to ask Darby this, but you know,
I've heard it said that the technology has come so
far now that you can sequence a full genome from

(31:36):
as few as three cells. Now, whereas you know, previously
you needed a fairly sizable sample, like a pretty decent
amount of blood or a chunk of the animal, you know,
like a diagnostic portion. They would say, you know, a
big piece of the animal, and that now, like you know,
if you had a droplet of blood and there were
three intact cells in it, you could sequence in it
full genome just from that.

Speaker 3 (31:57):
That's way above my pay grade. Man, I'm just a
grunt that walk in the woods trying to look for footprints.

Speaker 4 (32:02):
Did you see the recent news story, either of you guys,
about this sequencing of a chimpanzee genome?

Speaker 3 (32:08):
Yeah, I think so. I mean I saw something in
there that. But what did you hear to tell us
little bit more? Maybe I'll find that at the same one.

Speaker 4 (32:15):
Yeah, I saw something from Science Andculture dot com that
a pigeon had posted in our Patreon section there, and
so I just like quickly perused it. So I haven't
gone to the source because you know, they're obviously reporting
on someone's study, someone's findings. But that essentially that prior
genomic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees using the human genome

(32:37):
as a reference apparently like had some sort of biasing
effect on the results. And so that's where this idea
that we differ from chimps by only one percent, that
you know, there's ninety nine percent of our genetic material
is homologous, and that we are we share ninety nine
percent of our DNA, but that this full genome sequencing
comparison shows that we're more like fourteen point nine percent different,

(33:00):
which is, you know, fairly like an exponentially larger difference.
Oh yeah, So I don't know. Obviously I'm not a geneticist,
and so I have no idea, Like once I access
the paper and try to read it, I still don't
know how qualified I will be, probably very little to
interpret it correctly. But it was it was very interesting,

(33:21):
but just showing like if you get higher and higher resolution,
you're going to get more and more of these fascinating results.
You know, if that result is correct, that no, there's
a lot more differences than we initially thought, now that
we can see a lot more of the data.

Speaker 5 (33:34):
Yeah, because what was it like the that part of
the there's like no coding that in those DNA stretches.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
It wasn't not the deal, right.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
Just looking at an overview of it, it basically says
that earlier sequencing was incomplete and so it excluded repetitive
and complex regions, and that it masked certain genetic divergences.

Speaker 5 (33:54):
Yeah, like one of the eye hundred nucleotides is different
than the sequence.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
So that's a lot in one percent.

Speaker 5 (34:01):
There is that variation you're talking about with that like
up to fifteen percent difference between humans when you use
that same technique, then chimpanzees up to nine percent different
amongst themselves.

Speaker 2 (34:14):
Oh, interesting to me.

Speaker 4 (34:16):
That just speaks of, you know, if those results are accurate,
that the technology is getting better and better. We should
be promising for sasquatch researchers, Like we started this conversation
that well, maybe now the technology is such that a
small sample would be enough to fully quote unquote discover
you know, the species, discover the sasquatch from as few
as a couple of fibers or maybe a little bit

(34:38):
of tissue or a drop of blood or something of
that nature, whereas before, you know, obviously you needed a
lot of material. You know, the problem with those earlier
physical samples that were subjected to DNA testing is that,
you know, they were collections of fibers in a lot
of those cases, and testing was really destructive, and so
even to do just those low resolution preliminary tests, you

(34:59):
would destroy the sample in the process, and so what
you're left with is that low resolution thumbnail. And even
if it seemed to be promising, like oh maybe there's
something here where you can't retest it now, I mean
it's gone. The stuff is gone, And it seems like
that's becoming less and less of a problem for discovering
new species from very limited physical evidence these days.

Speaker 5 (35:19):
Yeah, what they said was that the differences the differences
between human and chimp genomes mostly in non coding DNA,
the segments that do not code for a specific protein.
They think of about ninety percent of the genome.

Speaker 4 (35:31):
We will have to dig into that in depth or
get someone like you know, Darby to break it down.
But I just thought, like the way that it speaks
to what we're capable of now is cause for optimism
within Sasquadriye, Well.

Speaker 3 (35:45):
I'm very optimistic at this point. I do believe that
Darby will do it, and I've told them such. I
do believe that Darby's study will do it. It might
be five years, it might be ten, but I think
it's gonna going to hit home basically, which is good
for everybody and good for good and bad for Darby,

(36:06):
I think. And of course when we have him on
we'll kind of talk about the good and bad about
all this. But that is a tremendous responsibility. And I've
spent a lot of time with Darby. Now I consider
I'm a good friend, I really do, and I have
faith in the man. And one thing I'm very very
happy about is that he's already thinking ahead. He's looking

(36:28):
for the pitfalls, he's looking for the problems in the
future that might come his way or institution's way. If
this is done. I mean, there's gonna be a lot
of great things that come out of it, but there's
gonna be a lot of problems that go with it too,
And he's already thinking and trying to get ahead of
that stuff. And he Dearby in my opinion, truly understands

(36:50):
the gravity of the situation, his responsibility not only to academy,
but also to the animals themselves, which is something that
I think gets lost in all of this. Not to everybody,
Bigfooters in particular have a certain soft spot, a certain
compassion or empathy to the animals. But when they are

(37:12):
quote unquote discovered, even though I don't like that term,
I don't think it quite fits, but for lack of
a better one right now, when they are discovered or recognized,
it may be the worst thing that ever happened to them,
But also at the same time, it might be the
only way to save the species if they're going extinct.
An that's the only path towards legal protection of any

(37:32):
sort of way. But there are dangers with it as well.
I mean, and it's not hunters in my opinion, it's
not hunters because they're not going to be any easier
to run across and shoot once they're proven to be
real animals. You can shoot them now, but nobody really does,
so it's not going to be an easier at that point.

Speaker 5 (37:52):
It'll get easier to hunt down once like you know,
like when all this you know maybe thirty forty years now,
there's a bunch of data like they move these times,
you're these certain locations, and they travel these ridgelines, and
I think it'll making these the more info of theseus
to find them.

Speaker 7 (38:08):
I think, you know, hunt them whatever. Maybe this'll be hard,
but it'll be easier. Yeah, I suppose maybe a little easier.
But I think the real danger isn't from hunters. That's
not what I'm talking about at all. Is it's not
from people, you know, quote unquote exploiting them in some
sort of way, you know, like doing some sort of
eco tour thing like they do in Rwanda for the

(38:29):
mountain gorillas to help preserve them. I think the real
danger are from places like the pharmaceutical companies. You know,
it's from corporations who are going to when who want
to exploit them for medical reasons and do testing and
doing all that sort of stuff, which would amount to
torture as far as I can see, at least from

(38:50):
my perspective. I've always said that, Well, you're always right
than Bobo.

Speaker 2 (38:56):
I was.

Speaker 3 (38:57):
That's why I said it. And so that's the real
danger is from corporate interests trying to exploit them.

Speaker 2 (39:03):
In that way. Yeah, makes superhumans.

Speaker 3 (39:06):
Well I saw what I was thinking, necessarily, but I
wasn't thinking about developing an army of superhumans.

Speaker 2 (39:11):
But that's like one aspect.

Speaker 5 (39:13):
I mean, extract like their muscle genes or whatever, you know,
like whatever it is, like their leaping ability, like the
structure of this and that. And they get medical like
they resists, if they're resistant to certain kinds of cancers,
or there's all kinds of stuff I want to use
them for.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
And and to his credit, Darby thought of that, and
then that's going to be a fantastic discussion and we
can have them on.

Speaker 4 (39:37):
Yeah, it's your earlier point about not advocating. You know,
I definitely understand that a specimen will be necessary at
some point because there's certain things that you can only
understand from having a specimen, and there's a lot of
routes to that. It doesn't mean that you have to
collect one by lethal means. You know, it could be
the recovery of a recently deceased individual if we have

(39:57):
the ability to like track them at some point. Sure,
But over the years, you know, my perspectives have changed,
you know, I've grown up, I've had different experiences. You know,
I've been influenced by certain arguments and then swayed by
other arguments and learn new things and discover new things,
and so it has changed. But at this point, yeah,
I don't think that it is to be undertaken by

(40:22):
the citizen scientist at all. I think, you know, if
such a thing is to occur, it would be best
carried out by an institution with a lot of resources.
I don't think the individual citizen would be able to
survive the aftermath. And I don't mean that in a
literal sense, but reputationally, financially, legally, I don't think that

(40:47):
is for the citizen to try to take on. And
I think it might be very different if there was
an individual whose home was being you know, threatened and
took some action and self defense, or if someone you know,
hit one with a truck or a vvehicle or something
like that. But in terms of like someone intentionally hunting one,
collecting it and turning it into the public and thinking

(41:08):
that the world would smile upon them for the discovery.
I've been swayed a lot by some things that I've
seen and encountered that I think this is not for
the citizen scientists to take on in my opinion, and
I know, people assume that they, you know, would have
access to some degree of anonymity. But you know, a
lot of the people that I discussed this with, you know,

(41:29):
they do hold the belief that this would be the
biggest scientific discovery of all time, or at least the
biggest biological discovery of all time, and that they could
just hand over the specimen and keep all the details
to themselves and you know, let the discovery unfold through
these institutions. And you know, from my perspective, especially studying

(41:50):
cases like the case of Ed Wiseman, the man who
was attributed with killing the last of the Colorado Grizzlies
in nineteen seventy nine, it's like, you think that you're
going to make the biggest biological discovery of all time,
and it's not going to be accompanied by the biggest
federal fish and wildlife investigation of all time. Like there's
no way that those two things don't go hand in hand.

(42:12):
That you know, if you're going to claim like, oh, well,
I don't have to tell anyone where I got it
or how I got it, you know, no, you're going
to have to you know, and what happens If it's
collected on public land, who does it belong to? Does
it belong to the state, Is it on national forest land?
Does it belong to the federal government. If it's on
someone else's private land, does some degree of that belong

(42:33):
to the landowner. I mean, there's going to be so
much and none of these things can really be sussed out.
I mean, some states do have rules of like, you
can't collect anything that isn't a recognized game species. So
whether that's something like a cougar in a state where
they say, well, we have no cougars, there are no
cougars here, but if you kill one, it's illegal because

(42:55):
the cougar is also not a recognized game species in
this state. That's played out in multiple states where there
are supposed to be no surviving cougars, and yet every
once in a while someone collects one and they get
into a lot of trouble for it. Would the sasquatch
fall into that category? Let alone, like Bobo said, if
post hawk they're found to be closely related to us,

(43:17):
Let's say, if they are something of that African lineage
like paranthropists, and they're closer to us than chimpanzees are.
Are there going to be laws that are applied you know,
post hawk, even though it's like we didn't know they
existed yesterday when you shot it, But now that we
know that they're potentially like within our genius or closely
related genus whatever, are those laws going to be applied retroactively?

(43:37):
I mean, there's so much there that it's like, man,
this isn't for the citizen scientists to try unless you're
just ready to throw everything away.

Speaker 3 (43:45):
Our friend Matt Moneymaker is the one who pointed out
to me at least, that you don't really need laws
against shooting sasquatches because of the way the laws are written. Yeah,
you know, I do want laws that are the prohibit
the shooting of sasas.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
I absolutely do.

Speaker 3 (44:01):
But he points out that the way the hunting laws
are generally written, and I'm not a hunter, etc. But
I haven't looked at all the hunting regulations, et cetera.
So I'm taking Matt's word on this, so fact check me.
As always, I encourage everybody to do so all the time.
But Matt does have a jurisd doctorate, you know, he
does have that, So I'm going to go with Matt
on this one. He says that generally the way that

(44:22):
hunting regulations are written is that they tell you what
you can do instead of what you cannot do. And
they specifically say what you can hunt or fish or
whatever and when you can do so, and if it
isn't specifically said so, then you can't do it. Yeah,
So they're very specific on what you are allowed to do,
so they don't have to write what you're prohibited from doing.

(44:44):
And Sasquatch isn't on the list.

Speaker 6 (44:47):
Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond with Cliff and
Bobo will be right back after these messages.

Speaker 4 (44:59):
The game of trying to collect hair or once DNA
becomes more accessible and prominent, like maybe after a genome
sequenced and we can identify sasquatches through DNA alone, well
anybody can get in on that. Every researcher can take
part in that, and right now a lot of people
can if they're just aiming at collecting hair or other

(45:19):
bits of physical evidence and submitting that to the NC
State thing. So everybody could be collecting samples and submitting
them or at least submitting them to be screened, you know.

Speaker 3 (45:29):
And I think that's going to be a key component
to studying these animals after they're recognized. Is that I've
always thought, and this is one of the big draws
of bigfooting to me, and it always has been since
I ran across those books in the library at cal
State Long Beach in ninety three or ninety four. This
has always been the draw that this is going to
be a field where the amateur scientists, like the amateur investigator,

(45:52):
like us, we will always have a role there because
there's a way more of us than there are professional scientists,
or even in the future there will be professional scientists
looking into this, and most evidence will therefore be probably
collected by citizen scientists. So if we all kind of
up our game and do the right thing and submit

(46:12):
things to the appropriate folks when it comes in, we're
going to be learning a lot about it. Like say
tomorrow the whole thing's over and sasquatches are recognized species, well,
I'm going to still go out there and a lot
of people are still going to go camping and see
these things, and maybe you have the possibility of collecting
hair or footprints or whatever. And if there's a standard
protocol that's very simple for the tourists. Kind of like

(46:34):
if you see a sasquatch and there's a footprint, you
get all the dirt in a bag and you send
it into.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
So and so.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
Well, that's going to be tracking the animals over time,
and that's the kind of thing that's going to give
us information about where they're going, what their needs are,
what their food habits are, what their dietary strictions, like,
their social all that kind of stuff, the stuff that
you can only learn by tracking them. That's going to
be the way to study them. It's like going to
be a group collaborative effort, hopefully because small teams deployed

(47:00):
out in the remote areas are going to learn some
stuff for sure. But even more data coming in and
we're okay, we tested this DNA because there was a
sighting in the Assemite National Park and there was a
footprint and so and so on vacation from Florida collected
all the dirt underneath, and here's the DNA that we're
looking for. Oh, that's that one individual that's big earl

(47:21):
or whatever we call that one that hangs out in
twelve of the meadows. Then they're oh, why is it doing.

Speaker 2 (47:25):
See.

Speaker 3 (47:25):
That's the kind of stuff that I think is going
to be absolutely fascinating and can only be accomplished by
trace evidence by a large number of people, and the
largest number of people are the general public. So if
there's a very simplified protocol that some people are aware of,
if they happen to see a sasquat for the collection
of dirt or whatever, that it can be tested in
the future, that's going to give us a tremendous amount

(47:48):
of insight into how these things live.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
Yeah, for sure, amen, which is.

Speaker 3 (47:54):
What I'm so excited about, because again I've said it
during my presentation, if you're still asking if these things are,
you're behind the learning curve. One should be asking how
they live?

Speaker 2 (48:04):
What do they do?

Speaker 3 (48:05):
And I think that's by far the most interesting thing
about them. And I cannot wait till academic recognition of
the species so we can really start drilling in and
finding out what have I been doing wrong all these years?
Like why haven't I seen a few more of these things?
Why haven't I filmed one? You know, That's what I
want to know.

Speaker 2 (48:21):
Absolutely anything else in the DNN is.

Speaker 3 (48:25):
Not in the news, I think, But you know, One
of the challenges, of course, is the hair samples right,
Because the hair would be great, it's a part of
the body. It should count for potentially been a type
specimen if if handled correctly. But the problem is if
Heinterer Fahrenbach is correct, most sasquatch hairs either are lacking
a medulla or they have a fragmentary medulla, And unfortunately

(48:46):
the medulla is the only place in the hair where
there might be genetic material. Essentially, so with the cards
are already stacked against us, so to speak, because the
part of the hair that we need isn't present in
the species that we're looking at unless you have the
follicle along that unless the course of follicle. Yeah, in
which case they both sides of the DNA in mitochondria

(49:08):
and nuclear. But still that that would be fantastic. Yeah,
I think hair hair traps might be better utilized. Like
I know, I haven't really been doing hair traps so much,
but I also despite having places where I've found recurring
footprints and things, I'm not sure how to set up
a hair trap to keep the bears out. You know,
some sort of attractant which is illegal. So I wouldn't

(49:29):
be doing that anyway, but like you need some sort
of like attractive But I think if you don't use
food attractants, that's probably in the legal realm, you know,
squeaky toys or something might be of interest, because you
aren't allowed to use food attractants for animals because they
think you're luring bears in and stuff like that. But
some sort of visual attractant or something might be useful.
I think Doug Hicheck, I think he suggested using velcro tape,

(49:54):
you know, like the tape that the Volco thing, and
just using the prickly hard plastic side and taping those
on things like what did he use, like beach balls
or something like that. He may have maybe he told
me he had some success with that or something. But
what kind of visual or non food attractant might be used?
I guess that's the hard part.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
Something bright colored, I don't.

Speaker 3 (50:17):
Know, mirrors like shiny things people have used CDs. I
mean to no avail or to avail I have no
idea if there's been any positive hits on.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
That sex dolls.

Speaker 3 (50:27):
Well, we're talking about sasquatches, Bob's not you. The things
that work well, right, right, it's a scientific fact that bigfoots,
like with bobo likes, I've been told are.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
Think pretty funy to foot one of those out there.

Speaker 3 (50:40):
I was like, bait, sounds like a finding bigfoot concoction.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (50:46):
Well, I do look forward to, like whenever Darby's ready
to come back and speak more to these things, because
I have so many questions. Again, genetics is so far
over my head. And then obviously the technology races along
so quickly, I just don't follow that closely to know
exactly where it's at. Other than that, it seems to
be getting better and better, which is cost for optimism.

Speaker 3 (51:06):
Yeah, yeah, I know. One of the hurdles that Darby
was waiting for is getting his website up and running it.
But it is up and running. His website looks great.
He talks a little bit about a couple of the
projects on there. The website is up, so it can't
be too long. And every time I speak to Darby,
he's the one that brings up and I promise I'm
coming back on your Podcastie. I've just been so busy
and I can't blame him, blame the guy. He's got

(51:27):
so much going on, so weah it was a lot
to look forward to. I think as far as the
DNA thing goes as an alternative for collecting a type specimen,
it's certainly less aggressive, and the less aggressive we are,
I think, the more human we are in a lot
of ways. So I'm looking forward to what comes on
the other side of that, where the real learning starts happening.
I think it was a good discussion today. But before
we do go, before we hand it over to Bobes

(51:49):
to close us out here, I do want to push
I'm speaking in New York on October third and fourth
for the first ever New York Bigfoot Conference is going
to be in John's Town, New York, and if you
live within spitting distance, feel free to come on and well,
don't spit on me, but you know what I mean,
come on down and hang out. It's going to be
October third and fourth, twenty twenty five in Johnstown, New York.

(52:10):
You can go to ny Bigfoot Conference dot com for
all the information your eyeballs are asking for.

Speaker 2 (52:18):
Yeah, I think that. No.

Speaker 4 (52:19):
The next thing I'm doing will be cryptocon with Cliff
in November, so there's plenty of time to promote that
between now and then. But I will put a link
to that in the show notes.

Speaker 5 (52:26):
And Cliff people didn't come and split any They might
just be Buddhist monks trying to cure you or something.

Speaker 3 (52:33):
I'll try to I'll try to remain very zen and
not be upset about it.

Speaker 2 (52:36):
Then, hey, they cured my leg doing that?

Speaker 3 (52:39):
Oh did they? Was that a cure?

Speaker 2 (52:42):
I think so?

Speaker 5 (52:43):
But anyways, all right, all right, folks, So that's an
episode of big Footian. Thanks so much for joining us,
So come back next week. We'll see you then. But
until then, y'all keep it squatchy.

Speaker 6 (52:57):
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,

(53:18):
and tweet us your thoughts and questions with the hashtag
Bigfoot and Beyond.