Sasquatch Chronicles - SC EP: 1 The Beginning

Episode Date: November 1, 2013

Join Will Jevning, Wes Germer and Woody Pratt as we discuss recent Sasquatch sightings, encounters and talk to Bigfoot eye witnesses. People are seeing something in the woods and there are too many reports for this to be ignored. Listen as we talk to researchers, witnesses and investigators to unravel the mystery of Bigfoot. Every week we will also bring you the latest Bigfoot news and information.

When I had come down the cell, I had seen this creature cross the road. It could have ripped my door off. And there wouldn't have been a thing I could have done about it. And when I saw it on there, the hair literally went up on the back of my neck. One of the things that I wanted to get your guys take on was the discovering Sasquatch for technology. Have you guys seen the Google Earth, the Google Earth images that came out, the guy claims to have found Sasquatch on Google Earth? haven't seen that, no.

Yeah, he, it's not a bad idea, I mean, since we have so many satellites out there, but it's, whether it's a Bigfoot or not, it's up for debate, but it's a guy that, it's funny, it's pretty sad we're getting blob squatches from, from satellite images, but, you know, I was, I was thinking about, like, Google Earth, people using Google Earth to find Sasquatch. I was thinking about the Falcon Project, which, here's my, you know, I was thinking about, you're take on the Falcon Project. And you guys tell me what you think. I like the idea. It's, I like the idea. It's not a bad idea in theory and on paper. The problem with that I see with the

Falcon Project, and I could be way off on this. It's going to be close to half a million dollars, I believe, by the time. I believe that's for one year. It's basically just to get video of a Sasquatch, which doesn't prove anything. You know, videos can be hoaxed, videos can be faked, and I was, we were saying, I was telling, what do you know, I think there's, they're overthinking, people are overthinking technology too much and relying on technology too much to provide some sort of evidence. Again, I like the idea. It's thinking outside the box, but it seems like a lot of money, and it seems like a lot

effort to get video evidence of Sasquatch. I realize the theory is to find them to get video of them, and then basically to track the animal as it's going through the forest and pick up its habits. But I think it's just too much money. It's, A, it's too much money. I don't know. What's your guys take on the Falcon Project? Mine, I have a couple problems with it.

I mean, you know, years ago, a few of us thought about things kind of. of like that because there were a few times, few occasions where pilots had seen tracks. One instance was like the Bluff Creek area before Patterson got his film. When there was snow up in that area, a doctor and a pilot was flying over that area, found tracks, followed the tracks with the plane, and it actually came across the Sasquatch. You know, and that's fine and dandy, but logistically, well, the first problem I have is is it really shows that they don't know where they're looking for something. It's kind of a shotgun approach.

You know what I mean? They're just floating a balloon sort of all over the place, hoping to pick something up instead of, you know, trying to figure out behavior patterns, their range areas, things like that that I do, that we can really nail down where they're going to be within a 30-day time frame throughout a certain region. And as far as tracking,

And if you've got one with a balloon one day, the logistics are a nightmare trying to get a team into where that creature was. And by the time they do, either they're making so much noise when they get there, they're scared off, or it's already long gone. So, you know, their hopes of tracking something, like in the past is always kind of, you know, you can track them for miles sometimes, like in the case in Skamania County. The sheriff over there tracked one for more than five miles until they lost the trail, and they were using dogs.

so it's a nice idea, but it's not well thought out, I don't think. Yeah, and well, you know, I kind of agree with you in a sense, and I also kind of disagree. Part of me says that you had made the comment that they don't really know where they're looking for Bigfoot. And part of me says that, yes, they do. They do know where to launch the Falcon Project. I do think it's too much money,

and I think with them looking in certain areas, I think they do know where. to look, but I don't think that technology myself, and you'll probably agree with me, I'm part of this, I don't think you're going to go out there with, you know, like the Falcon Project and nighttime cameras, stuff like that in order to find them. I think you need to go out in a natural environment. I'm not saying that you need to go out there and, you know, sit down and talk and play flute and that sort of things, but I don't think you're going to find them with the new technology of today. So I agree with you. I agree with you part of it, but

I think that I disagree with the part when you said that they don't really know where to go look. I think they do know where to look. Well, you can go to areas where they are, but you know how to see if you've got a balloon up in the air, that's a lot of area to cover. I mean, where do you point the camera? Right. That's true. That's true.

That's true. And with the amount of forests, even like here in the Pacific Northwest and Will, you're familiar with this area in western south, there's a lot of undiscovered territory that man hasn't even been in. So I think. I think maybe that's what you're kind of touching on, Will, do you think, is that, am I way off on that or is that what you're kind of kind of thing? And there's certain things, I mean, you know, unless you've got some kind of game experts

or somebody who knows about, you know, animal habits and what they're doing and why they're doing it and where they're doing it, I mean, you can tailor your search along those lines as opposed to just kind of floating around, you know, in an area where Sasquatches have been seen hoping to get something on film. and another good point you made was, you know, just getting pictures or a film of one isn't going to prove they're out there. The Patterson film is still the best proof we have, and that's 45 years ago, and something Renee DeHendon and some of the old timers used to tell me, you could have one picture, you could have 10 pictures or films, or you could have 100, and public sentiment's going to be the same. It's not the same as some form of physical proof. Right.

And I think you're kind of limited with a search like that, you know, with the forest, a lot of the forest areas are so dense. I realize there's open areas that you could possibly track one from the air. But there's a lot of areas where you can't see five feet into the forest from the road, you know, let alone from up above. I was looking at like Yakult Mountain, that whole area through Google Earth. it just looks like a big grain blob is what it looks like. You can't see the fourth floor. So I think you'd be kind of limited, too, in your search. Yeah, and I can relate to when I was in the Army with an air cab unit of Fort Lewis.

You know, we'd fly around doing our reconnaissance work, which was what my job was as a reconnaissance specialist. You know, looking for tanks and other armored vehicles, none of that heavy canopy, you can't see them. Yeah. I hate to budding, but I also agree with you, too, West, because do you remember here a couple years ago when you and I went out hunting and we had that little bit of a scare over in the Tucson area? And Will, you're probably familiar with that area too. Yeah, yeah.

We would get, you know, Wes, we get 10 feet into the wood there, and before you know it, you could get turned around. So, I mean, it's, it's, I don't think people realize, unless you're actually from this area, how dense the forest is, because you can walk in 10 feet and not even know where you're at. next thing you know you're lost. Yep, you're absolutely correct. And that's why I think part of the Falcon project isn't going to work in my eyes.

I think it's a lot of money invested. I think it's a lot of money invested in the wrong ways. I don't know how to invest it in the right ways, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it. Well, you know, I think if it were, if I had the money to do a project like that, instead of doing that kind of a project, I would invest the money into actual manpower because for, while the area you guys live in, I worked that area for 12 years.

That's 3,300 square miles from Mount St. Helens down to the Columbia River. It took me that long to really learn one particular group's pattern, how they would move throughout their range by putting basically boots on the ground in that range, knowing what their behaviors were, what areas they'd be in during certain times in the year. I think we could locate the group, and then it would be a matter of tailoring the search down with either dogs or professional tracking techniques, things like that,

to where we could get close enough to maybe get more evidence, photographs, films, biological materials, all that stuff, and then sort of deciding from that point where to go. Yeah. No, I agree with you. I was telling Woody that, you know, like Roger Patterson, whether people believe the film or not is irrelevant. I mean, look what he had.

He had two horses. He had his buddy who had a gun to back him up and he had a camera. and they wrote in, I honestly think that's how you're going to get them on film. I think that's the best way to, you know, again, the Falcon Project is outside of the box thinking. I like outside of the box thinking, but, you know, I don't know that they're going to get the results that they want besides the TV show. You know what I mean? I think you could do a really spectacular job with very low-tech and low-cost methods. Yeah, I agree.

I agree with you 100%. You know, one of the things that I was going to bring up with you guys is, you know, you hear about Sasquatch crossing road in front of a car all the time, that type of behavior. But did you guys hear about the Sasquatch siding in Lander, Wyoming? Not so much. I mean, I read a little bit about what you had, once you tell us about it. It's pretty funny. The Lander police officers were dispatched to Main Street, and based on the Sasswa,

Sasquatch sighting. But what these anonymous callers were calling in to 911 for, they were saying that a Sasquatch was out there chasing cars. And the guy was actually pretty frantic. He was calling in, and they had a few callers that called into 911 saying that this Sasquatch was out there chasing cars. But police officers went out to the area. They weren't able to find a Sasquatch or anyone dressed up in a suit or anything like that. Have you heard of that before, Willis? Were they chase cars? You know, I have, and there's one incident that really kind of sticks in my mind. In fact, I put it on my blog about a week ago,

and this story was back from 1952. It was a Walgers account from the Bluff Creek area, as a matter of fact. In a nutshell, what happened with the story was there's a little town called Orleans that's not far from the mouth of Bluff Creek where it goes into the Klamath River. And it's even today at the little tiny place. was supposed to take one of the cars and go up and pick up one of these other logging companions. They had a detour, you know, and this was in the middle of the night, and he drove for miles, and he thought he saw something standing next to the road as he went by, but he dismissed

his, you know, imagination. And then he looked in the mirror and thought he saw this, you know, horrendous face-looking, you know, but again, he dismissed it. So on he drives, and then he sees this small tree laying in front of the road blocking his path. So he starts to get out of the car, and he hears this thudding his feet running up the road, and then it dawned on him. He really did see something. And this creature actually, it would charge him and then back off and walk up, stalk up the road, and come running back when he thought he was going to get in the car.

Finally, he made the mad dash of the car. The creature tried to push the car off the road, and then he got out of there. didn't tell anybody, and the guy that he was supposed to pick up later, much later, told him, or asked him if he saw anything strange up there because something tried to push their car off the road. So it's kind of a spooky account, but... That's a creepy account. It's creepy as hell. Yeah, that's... One of the guys, as your encounter was in your car, and you were surrounded by a group.

Yeah. And, you know, had you guys stayed there longer, that could very well have devolved into something much hairier than it was. Yeah, no, I agree. And it was bad enough as it was. Yeah, it was bad enough as it was. That's true. So what's the deal? I mean, and I realize you're just taking a shot in the dark, but, and feel free to jump in.

What, why would they, they just screwing with people or what's the deal? You know, a lot of people have a real misconception about Sasquatches, and I think partly it's due to the fact that I think there's two varieties of these creatures in the country. One's the true Sasquatch that we have here in the North West, and the other one is a little more like the Russian Almas. It's a little more human-like. It's essentially what the Minnesota Iceman was. The true Sasquatch, which is what we're talking about here, has a very short temper.

They get ticked off very easily about things. And I have heard this many, many, many times from witnesses. Sometimes they just get kicked off and they will attack. Mountain gorillas do it. They also have kind of short fuses. And if you're someplace where they think you shouldn't be or doing something, they think you shouldn't be, they'll attack you. So I think occasionally cars get attacked, people get attacked.

And it's not hard to find these accounts. You know, Will, this is kind of along the same lines, but not. What do you know about, I hate to put you on the spot here, but in 1927 there was a Dr. Ivanov that did an artificial insemination between spurns and apes in Russia. And that's, you mentioned Russia, and that kind of set me off on that. Did you know anything about that?

And if you do, what do you think about it? I've seen a little bit on it. You know, the Russians in those days were pretty much open to trying all kinds of things because that was sort of the communist idea. was more towards science, less towards theology. So, you know, aside from, you know, their economic ideas and all that, but according to the stories, they tried it, but from what I've read it wasn't successful.

That's not to say that it couldn't possibly be done because, you know, chips and gorillas are between 96-98% same DNA as we are. So it's theoretically possible. You'd get something like, I believe it's donkeys that are, you know, bred from mules and horses. Right. But they're sterile. You know, anything that's a hybrid like that is sterile, so it can't.

It always has to be bred from the two mixtures. So I guess in theory it's possible, but as far as it being what these creatures are, you know, I don't believe it is because these guys have been around for thousands and thousands of years. So, you know, they preach the Indians coming to North America, for instance. I think I saw a thing on that study, too, what do you, oh, gosh, probably like five, six years ago. I remember reading about that study. I think it did fail. I don't think it produced anything. Well, no, according to, you guys are correct on that. According to the study, and the only

reason why I know this is because I just read it the other day, but you guys are correct. It did fail. It was unsuccessful. But there is a certain amount of people or population that believe that it was successful. What they did is they actually cast the Bigfoot out and got rid of it out into the forest. you know, work with me here, but they casted Bigfoot out in the forest. It didn't work, and that's where we get Bigfoot today. But, Will, what you said earlier is also true. If you go back thousands of years, there's drawings of Bigfoot, Sasquatch, what have you, in caves way back thousands of years ago.

So it would have been prior to this. Yeah, I've got a question from Native American friends, and they all tell me that these things were here when their people came to the continent, and they pushed them out of the hunting area. So, you know, there's plenty of evidence that showed they've been around a long, long time. I'm going to talk about this eye shine and counter hustleshing too about an hour ago and get your guys' take. But I wanted to ask, and I know Woody talked about it last week on our show, but about what evidence would you have to bring forth beyond a dead body to prove the existence of Sasquatch?

and I think that both Woody and I said it would take a dead body. But, Will, is there anything that you can think of, I mean, beyond a dead body that would prove the existence of Sasquatch, you know, as far as the evidence that you could bring forth to the general public to get people to buy into it? You know, I think it's possible to do it with, you know, a combination of materials like hair and all that stuff, but it has to be done differently than it's been done.

You know, like with Ketcham's thing and all these things out there right now where people are doing DNA stuff, one of the biggest problems that they've encountered with that, and the reason that, like with Ketcham's study, the reason that it didn't pass peer review was because there was zero control over the collection of the hair samples. In other words, you know, they come from all these different locations and nobody knows. You know, you get Joe Bob Hunter out someplace. he finds a hair in a tree and he sticks in his pocket. Well, number one, they can't say for a fact

what that hair came off from because they took it off a tree, not the animal. Hair degrades in weather very, very quickly, and I got that from an expert in Canada when I was writing my first book notes from the field. So without that control, you know, that hair could be anything. If you pick it up with your hands and you stick in your pocket, well, there's a couple different forms of contamination right there. So there's just a lot of problems with that

So it'd have to be done, you know, in very strict control measures. And I don't think just taking off a tree limit is good enough. A lot of pictures. But there again, it would have to be national geographic quality. You'd have to have film of the thing, you know, yawning and eating with a tongue sticking out at you and all these different things.

You know, so, I mean, if the quality were high enough and you had a nice combination, feces samples, hair samples, bedding, different types of behavioral things, territorial markings. You might be able to put together a pretty convincing picture, but you're still probably not going to get the scientific community behind that. It'd be really iffy. So then we're back to the body. And then it's the case of, well, do you go out and shoot one or, like I think,

and I think I have a few spots located that might actually be burial site. I never thought about it when I was there. But looking back on it and doing some more research over the years, I think I have a couple of places where we might actually be able to go to and all that would be there now would be probably teeth and maybe some bone fragments, but if you had a single tooth, that would be enough. That's as good as a whole body because there are many species that are represented by nothing more than a single tooth.

Yeah, and I would agree with you. The reason why I think it's going to take a good body is more or less, because of the stigma that's attached to Bigfoot and the community itself. And I realize I'm calling everyone out on it. But here's the problem with coming forth with pictures, hair, prints, and all this other stuff. The whole community is such a circus now to where, you know, he got Melba Catch him, Rick Dyer. Not that I'm putting in the same category, but it's like it's just such as huge circus. and if it was, say, like a mountain gorilla that we were trying to prove is real,

and we were trying to bring back photographs and evidence and footprints, if the mountain gorilla community was like the Bigfoot community, it would take a dead body in order to prove for everyone to buy into it. Yeah, the mountain gorilla actually was in that category up until about 1907, and I believe, I want to say it was a dead body, the first one that was when it was actually proven, because the stories around the mountain gorilla were just like Bigfoot stories before one was actually brought in.

Yeah, if you read a lot of the encounters, you're right. They are a lot like Bigfoot stories. So, you know, like I said, I was trying to play, you know, trying to be the nice guy and say, okay, we could do it possibly with all this stuff. But when it comes down to it, and the original people in this subject, DeHindon, Green, Hittmas, you know, when I first met Green and DeHindon, you know, their whole thing was to shoot one, to bring one down.

And those guys were very smart, and much smarter than all the people involved today. And they had thought this out completely thoroughly at that time. In fact, the day I met John Green, he asked me if I owned a 12-gauge shotgun, and I said, I did. And he said, well, here's what you do. If you see a big foot again, he says, load it up with alternating double-out buckshot and slugs. He says, the buck shots for knock-down power, the slug is for killing power. and he says, shoot it in the lower spine to slow it down or disable it. So, you know, I mean, they were not opposed to that.

They had to back off years after that because public sentiment was against them. Yeah, I wonder if the public would be against it, though, if someone shot one, brought it in, and it was being studied by a university or by somebody who was studying it, and we were learning more about it. I wonder if the public would be so against that person, who shot one. You know, I think in general they wouldn't be. And initially you'd hear, you know, all the, you know, the whaling and gnashing of teeth

from, you know, a certain sector. But I think the public at large probably say, well, you know, it was going to happen sooner or later anyway. And now we can actually protect them. And it would, you know, of course, the endangered species would act would kick in and all that would be. It all go into the scientific community at that point. So, you know, Billy Bob with his shotgun, it wouldn't be.

able to go out and just hunt one down, it will. In actuality, if everybody thinks about it, it's not a bad course of action. If they really want protection for the species, you know, maybe that's what needs to be done. Yeah. Now, when I'm starting to lean more towards that way, I think you'd have to get a game plan together before you actually pulled the trigger. I think you'd have to backup plan and a backup plan and a backup plan, you know, contingency plans, just for your own safety, but I think in the end it would be the best. What were you going to say? Well, I didn't cut you off.

Oh, no, I agree. I totally agree. And it's, you know, it's again like Bob Gimmon told me one time I asked him. I said, well, how come you guys didn't follow that Sasquatch? And he said, we were afraid of what the other two were, and the one we had on film was the smallest of the three. So they were scared of those things. It wasn't like they were just out there on a Sunday picnic ride.

They were very afraid of those creatures. And they had good reason to be. And I would agree. I would agree with you, both of you, and I've kind of changed my thought on that, too, before I was like, I realize it's probably going to take a dead body, you know, no parole kill on that. I think you're right. It is going to take a specimen, and eventually it's going to happen. Well, what are your thoughts in West Chime in on this, too? What are your thoughts as far as if we do end up shooting one and capturing one, who would you go to and what would you do at that point?

would you just go to, who would you go to? I think that's probably a question that a lot of people are asking. Well, I tell you, the first thing I wouldn't do is any of the scientists who are involved in the Bigfoot community, I would not take it to. Mostly because I would want a completely neutral opinion on it. You know, people who would handle it, you know, who didn't have a vested interest in the subject. So I do have a couple of thoughts on that. There's some anthropologists in the east, eastern part of the country that would be extremely

good. So anyway, that would be my first thing. Of course, the first thing you'd have to is you'd have to get in someplace and freeze it, which is interesting. I don't know if you guys know about the Minnesota Ice Man's story, but when they didn't initially freeze that creature. Well, they froze it, but they didn't freeze in the water. And they kept it in the freezer for a number of months and noticed that the skin was drying, which is what happens. The meat kind of turns into like jerky if it's just frozen. So they filled it in a tank of water, and that's how meat oftentimes is kept fresh. So, I mean, there's a lot of logistics that have to go into it. I mean, you don't have to really put a plan together if you actually had one. Number one,

getting it out of the forest. You know, you get an animal that's eight feet tall, eight, nine hundred pounds. It's not like two or three guys are just kind of hoist it up on a gurney, you know, and pack it out. That requires a lot of thinking you'd almost have to sling load it out with helicopter. So there's a lot to think about in that. Yeah. I think I'd call Muskie Allen and a half of him as being like my PR guy. No, I'm just joking. You know, Rick Dyer had Muskie Allen as it's like his PR guy.

Oh, I don't know really much about Dyer, so. You know, I don't really get involved with a lot of other Bigfoot hunters. Because I was friends with all the original pioneers of the subject, I kind of watched them and how they did things. really didn't get involved much with other Bigfoot hunters unless they were very serious and good at what they did. You don't like the days of our lives?

That sort of rubbed off on me. You don't like the Bigfoot you don't like the Bigfoot Days of Our Lives? You know, I go on Facebook sometimes to look at some of the comments and I get to like the second one and I shut it off. I can't. I just can't deal with that drama that goes on. Speaking of that, I got something for you guys, and he just made me think of it,

Will, I belong to a bunch of these different Bigfoot groups. I'm getting so tired of seeing these. They'll show, like, a deadfall tree leaning against a healthy tree, and then you'll have the researcher, or quote-unquote researcher, explain that's a Bigfoot sign that that's the Bigfoot area. And growing up in the Northwest, it just looks like a tree that fell over on top of another tree. Right.

Have you guys seen a lot of that? Well, I've seen that since I was a little boy growing up, you know, out on the Pew Olive River outside of awarding. But, you know, it's not, you know, I don't want to pop people's bubbles because I have a lot of friends out there and a lot of them on Facebook who, you know, have genuine interest in there and they're out there trying. But you guys know from growing up in the Northwest what it's like, you know, you're out there, 99.9% of that stuff is natural.

It's just, you know, human eyes look for structure. It's what our brains do. Our brains try to find structure in everything we look at. It happens oftentimes, and it's probably my fault, personally. I knew when I put in my first book, the territorial markings, the tree snaps, and the twist that that was going to cause a lot of this stuff. But I went ahead and did it anyway because I wanted my name on it first. Right.

I was searching for this Bob Titmus show. He's the one that taught me about this many years ago. And I think Titmus would have wet on himself had he seen what I found in the places he told me to look. Because what he showed me was nowhere near as impressive as what I found. But, you know, trees just falling over and leaning against each other. And, you know, you look at some of the pictures. Some of them look kind of complex. But I have to wonder, you know, there's a lot of jokesters out there.

And I'm one of them. You know, I'll give you an example. My buddies and I would go out camping by Mount Rainier. about once or twice a month. After the Blair Witch Project came out, you remember the little figures, thick figures they had hanging up in that movie? Oh, yeah.

I remember. Take those and leave them in our campsite when we would, you know, pack up and leave and laugh about it. Always wondering, you know, what the next person was going to think was going on affair. Yeah. So, you know, I wonder how many people are out there

making things like this for people who are genuine, genuinely out there looking for Sasquatch evidence and they see this and jump to that conclusion that that's what it was. And you see that a lot. You see people jumping to everything's Bigfoot. It must be Bigfoot. It must be big foot.

It's like, really? I don't know. You know, and I've seen them, and I'm first to be skeptical and say, I don't know. That could be something else. And it's like those deadfall trees. It looked like a dead tree just fell over on a healthy tree to me. It doesn't really, I mean, how do you, did you guys see a Bigfoot do that? I guess I'm lost on why you think...

Well, my thinking is, you know, an animal that's out there, and all animals are out there, just surviving. Everything they do surrounds their daily, day-to-day survival. So you have to ask yourself, when they do something, what benefit to that animal is that behavior? Freeze up against each other, to me that doesn't do anything. Fastwatch doesn't need shelter. They're probably survived very, very well during the Ice Age.

In fact, more often than not, what I found is, for instance, if you find tracks in the snow, they're not coming down out of the snow, they're going up in elevation into the snow. They like that cold weather. Wet weather doesn't bother them. You know, they don't sleep on a shell or they sleep out in the open. So why leaning a few trees together would, I mean, it doesn't serve any purpose. Now, the territory, I found, the Indians, my Indian friends also told me that was exactly what they were, but it's a simple thing.

They walk along, they either snap or ring a tree, depending on what the type of tree is and its properties. Like Doug Fur snaps, it doesn't twist, and ponderosa pine twist. It doesn't snap. So I can understand that that's easy. It doesn't require a lot of energy, and it serves a purpose. But if you have to go through the energy expenditure

of leaning all these trees up, that weather could come along and knock over, I don't get it. Yeah, and I agree with you too, well, I think that, and West too, I think with the amount of times that, for instance, West and I that we go out, the more experienced we become, you learn kind of certain things to not look for more than you do the things to look for. And you're not so quick to make a judgment call on, hey, this is a tree leaning over and this is a big foot thing. I mean, there's more things out there to look for. And I think that just kind of comes with experience. It does. And for me, it's like something has to really kind of grab my attention for me to pay a lot of attention to it.

And that's from a lot of experience. So, you know, if it doesn't slide me across the head, I'm probably not going to pay any attention to it. And I agree with you. I mean, I think, you know, after, like, after Wes and I had our experience, and I know, Will, you've had several experiences, there's things that you do look for and certain things that you just kind of brush off as like, this is, this is mother nature. One thing that kind of has me, and Will, I kind of know what your answer is going to be on this, but I'm going to ask it anyways because there's a lot of people out there that I think probably think in the same way I do. When Wes and I had our encounter or our experience, I even today still question, is that what I saw? I don't expect everyone to believe my story because, again, it is a story.

I don't have any documented proof that it actually happened. But do you believe that, or what are your thoughts on, I guess I should say, what are your thoughts on, is book, Bigfoot, possibly can it travel like an interdimensional type creature? Because the things that Wes and I saw that night, and kind of work with me here, the things that we saw were not, didn't seem natural of this world, the way it moved, the way the second one moved, the way that the things were up in the tree and they were looking down on us.

There was so much going on that was just not, it didn't seem part of this dimension. And I think there's a lot of questions out there from other viewers and along the same topic. What are your thoughts on that? Well, you know, for me, again, it goes back, and I, through the course of my research and talking to a lot of friends

and a lot of people around the country, especially from different tribal groups, you know, because they've been around so long and they were a part of nature. And what I've seen hasn't been anything out of the ordinary. I think what people a lot of times do, maybe something because it's out of their frame of reference. And, of course, that's, everybody has a different frame of reference

because that's based on our knowledge, things that we've picked up, not just in school, but, you know, from day-to-day life and our experiences. So, you know, our brain, when something comes in front of us, it has to make a decision based on what we have tucked away in there on those, that knowledge and experience. So if it's, we have nothing for that reference, our brain scrambles to try to put something together to explain that. You know, we don't like to go without having some kind of explanation of things.

You know, we had the same issue back when the first time we found big foot tracks in 1972. My buddy Mark and I found a whole, I mean, there were lots of dozens of tracks, three different individuals, and it just wigged us out because we had no idea. They looked kind of like human tracks, big barefoot tracks in the snow, but we had never heard the word Bigfoot, never heard anything about this, so we're like, you know, what the heck? It just, it's sort of short circuits you're thinking.

And then when we realized, of course, whatever made those tracks was still really close by, scared the hell of us we took off running. But, and I find this with a lot of people, especially witnesses. You know, when I talk to them, it seems to be easier for them, especially in this, I don't want to go off topic a little bit,

but talking to somebody that actually had a similar experience to them helps them sort of incorporate that into their frame or reference. So then they're a little easier with it. It sort of calms them down a little bit, makes them a little more relaxed. But as far as interdimensional, no, I don't think so at all. Yeah, I think it's okay. I think people need to realize it's okay that you don't know. You don't know what it is.

I mean, it's okay not to, and I agree with you, I think a lot of people jump to the conclusion that it's, They've never seen it before, and so they, you know, it's an alien or it's a, and Woody and I have two completely different takes on what we saw. In my mind, I saw large, I saw primates. I saw, even though it walks like a man and it was something outside of my reference, I still, I have a hard time not thinking that it's some sort of primate, whether it's an ape, a champ, you know, some form of one of these, I don't know. But in my mind, it's, like I just, and all the encounters you hear with their behavior with, for me, I, you know,

I see primate, but I can see how people jump to the conclusion. You know, it's like I said before, I've heard people where they say, well, it just disappeared. And when we, when Woody and I saw that large one, which was basically King Kong, dropped to all fours and go down like a spider, I could see how they could drop like that, go off into the brush, and you would think, hey, King Kong just disappeared. And so you'd put that frame of reference, well, it must be interdimensional. It must have somehow entered another dimension and just, and for me, that's almost more crazy thinking than thinking, well, maybe it dropped and took off. You know what I mean?

Yeah, here's the thought. Sometimes, you know, depending on the person, it really depends on the individual person and how they react to situations that are that shocking. Because, you know, you guys know as well as I do, when you encounter these things, it's a huge, shock to your system. It's like finding, it's like finding out the boogeyman's rule. Absolutely. And it could, well put. When they think it just vanished,

they may have blacked out for a few seconds not realizing that happened, where their brain just couldn't handle, our brains can only take a certain amount of stress and they'll shut down. So if that could be what it is, you know, when they didn't realize that that's what happened, but for maybe a couple

moments, the creature was there, they were still seeing, or they thought they were seeing. Let's say, like with old film, you know, if the film breaks, you splice it together, you don't know the film was broke. You know, in their conscious state, their system was shot to the point where it was overloaded. It was like a breaker switch. Shut off a few seconds, came back on, they didn't realize it. And in that time, the creature disappeared, took off in the brush. It's funny that you say that well, because that is so true. I actually did a little research a few days ago on certain things on how the body reacts.

And anytime the body and the brain works the same way, anytime the body is injured, for instance, let's say you pull something in your wrist or your arm, your brain automatically shuts off. You can no longer go 100% on that limb. Let's say you injure your arm. And that's the same way with if you look at football players. I mean, a torn ACL, you can no longer go 100% even though you try. what I was reading was the same way that the brain reacts.

Anytime the brain is put beyond stress mode, it actually shuts off. People usually go to sleep. That's one of the biggest things that among humans is what happens is anytime you're on overload, you want to go to sleep. And it's funny that you brought that up because I just read that like about two days ago. So that's really cool that you brought that up. That was my major debut with psychology.

And one of the little tricks they taught us the way to prove that to yourself about how that works. and I don't remember the terminology it's been too many years, but like when you put your socks on in the morning, there's actually a very specific time, number of seconds that your brain registers that your feet feel the socks on your feet. But after that

you stop feeling it. And because if your brain were to register every sensory input all through the day, you'd be overloaded quickly. So it does shut off on certain levels. And even small things like clothing, it will shut off after

a very short time. Yeah, it's kind of a way of protecting a way the body protects itself, I would imagine. The brain protects itself, you know. When you get a Sasquatch and Katter, that's, again, depending on the person and how they take things, that's a huge shock. I agree with you on there. I mean, being with my, like, OCD, I put my socks on backwards. It bugs me for a route.

But, you know, I'm like, I'm late for work. Should I change my socks around? No, I go to work and then I forget all about it. So it's that type of thing, you know, that's right. Yeah, you're not going to feel it. maybe after a few minutes. Yeah, you're not going to pee it after 10 minutes anyways. But, you know, I had another question, Will, that we got, while we got you on the phone,

I wanted to ask you, one of the things I did read the other day when Wes and I were doing some research was what are your thoughts on Bigfoot leaving underground? Is that something that you believe in or not? Do they make, like, small shelters under the ground and live in them? Personally, I don't. You know, in Skamania County, but just east of you guys, that whole area, I mean, all the way to the Columbia River is honeycombed with lava tubes. There used to be an old-timer in Carson that showed me quite a few of them that he discovered.

Some of them go miles underground, and we never found any evidence at all over there, and there were plenty of Sasquatch sightings in the areas where the lavatoops were, but it didn't look like they used them. And in my opinion is they're a pretty spooky creature. I mean, they can be aggressive, but for the most part, especially when it comes to human activity, they'll bug out, they'll go away. and I think with a lot of wild creatures, they won't be in an enclosed space to where they're trapped.

If there's a predatory threat or whatever, they don't use that. We did find one time, out of 41 years in the field now, I found one time, and that was over near Wind River. We had a siting where a logging crew was using a helicopter to pull logs out over there. The pilot saw a Sasquatch sneaking up, the loggers and put all their equipment with their lunches in one spot, and they were out working with a pilot, was pulling a log up, and he happened to glance over, and he saw this thing kind of creeping up on their lunches, apparently trying

to get his own lunch. And, you know, he hollered down on the radio to the lead of the crew, and they chased it off. So we went to investigate that, and there was a rock outcropping that was maybe five feet high, and it went back about 20 feet more shelf than anything, but it was, I hesitate to say cave, it wasn't really a cave, but there were tracks around there, and I did find a whole bunch of little, I mean, before it was covered with fresh vegetation that had been picked almost like bedding. So it could have been a young one that might have been using that temporarily, but for the most part, I've never seen anything that leads me to believe they live underground in any sort

of cave or shelter. Yeah, I would imagine you'd want to get trapped. and something like that, you wouldn't want to corner yourself into, like you were saying, well, you know, they're kind of, they get spooked, so I don't, I don't know. What were you going to say, Wood? Well, I was going to say, Wes, and I think you know the answer to this, maybe not, but I think you do, and I'm just asking this because there's people that aren't from around this area that might be wondering.

Up there on Mount St. Helens, as far as the ape caves, why are they called the ape caves? Is that something to do with Bigfoot? No, that was a group of Boy Scouts found or named that. I don't remember what year it was. I think it was in the 50s, late 40s, early 50s. Actually, there was a guy on a bulldozer working up there and almost backed into the hole. And then there was a group of Boy Scouts up there, and they named at the ape caves after the miners incident at 8th Canyon in 1924. Yeah, yeah, they named it after ape Canyon.

Right. No, the only other two things that I have for you guys is one topic is that, that the Brian Sykes, it looks like he rediscovered an ancient polar bear, not the Yeti. I don't know if anyone else has anything to add to that. But good job, Brian Sykes. I don't know if anyone wants to... Well, you know, that kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about data collection in the field. You know, do you go out and pull hair off something?

You don't really know what you have. So, you know, they were thinking it was Yeti. It wasn't Yeti. It was a bear. So, you know, that sort of... I mean, they were lucky enough to find out that it was a bear, because in most cases, from what I've learned from experts about hair, is that you pretty much have to already have a known sample to compare it to.

You know, other than that, it's not really worth a whole lot. I mean, screens are actually much more valuable than hair samples because tests can be run on recordings, and they can actually determine the volume of the lungs that made that sound. so you can tell how big the creature was. Yeah, you can test the amplitude and you can test it against other animals that you know in animals too.

What were going to say? I was going to say I actually have one more thing too. Actually, I have a few more things, but one of the things I was going to say is if you go back and you do history, and this is open to both you guys who everyone wants to answer to, the Sumerian tablets go back to 1800 BC.

They call it a hairy wild man or a beast. It's a hairy wild man or beast with extra abilities. What do you guys know as far as how far back Bigfoot goes in history? When was it first kind of discovered? I mean, we're talking 1800 here. Does it go back even further than that? Well, the oldest article I know of was around 1811. That was the oldest written article.

The Spanish missionaries were collecting stories from Indians 300 years ago. You go back beyond that and you start looking at other parts of the world, Europe, for instance, France and places like that, there was what they called the woodlows, and that was the hairy wild man. And that was such a popular figure. It adorned almost everything. Chairs, tables, door entries, signs, you name it, it was everywhere. And you can go back in the Nordic countries, they were ogres, frost giants.

I mean, the list goes on and on. Written records go, as far as there are written records, there is mentioned, of the wild men in everything, everywhere. So it's not like it's been a secret. In fact, I've always said that once the Sasquatch is proven to be real, it'll be the reaffirmation of discovery. In other words, it's something that we've, you know, we haven't had to deal with for a long time,

so we kind of forgot about it. But our ancestors knew about them very well. So this is sort of the rediscovery. Yeah, I think they have rock art painting. I mean, I don't know if you consider that written record, but they have Sasquatch rock art that was painted by the, and I think it dates, it's in California. It was dated back. I want to say 500 AD.

Gosh, I'd have to look it up now that I would. No, I remember the big mouth. No, you're right, Wes. That went all the way back to like 500 AD, and that's when they actually showed paintings on the wall with Bigfoot. And it was actually, they called it Bigfoot because it was wrong. The way that they drew it on the caves was actually with really big feet. had a cone shape head and kind of had a muscular build, but then the feet were over, you know, were overdrawn or ever accent, you know, accentuated, however you want to say it.

They were really big, large feet. And I remember that. I remember what you're talking about there last day. I saw that actually on ancient aliens the other day. Yeah, you're right. So I think it goes around. I mean, there's, as long as people have been making, you know, any kind of reference, whether it's in writing or artwork or any sort of.

communication, you know, some future generations, there's been mention of them. Well, I was just going to say, you know, with the history of Bigfoot, maybe you have some topics too well that you want to discuss, but with the history of Bigfoot, the Bigfoot of way back in the history, we talk all the way back to 500 AD, 1800 BC. Do you think that it's, as a creature, it is evolving? Do you think it's changed? Do we have the same creature today that we did back thousands of years ago, or is it something completely different.

I think it's pretty much the same thing. The only difference now would be because there's so many more people and there's always been sort of a friction between humans and the Sasquatch, so that's one of the reasons they're so hard to catch up with

is because they don't particularly like us. They probably and, you know, let's say, you know, if we drug one in tomorrow, 10 years from now, scientists would be saying they view humans as predators because humans have always been a pack hunter.

That's the most successful hunting strategy that's ever been devised by nature as pack hunters. It doesn't matter how big an animal is like a grizzly bear. You know, you've got a pack of wolves. They can take a grizzly down. And the same with the Sasquatch. They're completely adapted to their environment whereas, you know, humans, we're kind of small and frail

by comparison, but humans are vicious. we're probably one of the most vicious species that have ever come onto the planet. And it's not just our intelligence, we have that, but our viciousness as well. You know, it always cracks me up when I see these shows put on, you know, that are scientific-type shows, and they portray early humans as sort of the victim and, you know, being timid and having to, you know, huddle together. You know, you look at our history. We've gone out and killed everything.

We do it for sport. Just, you know, it's a right of manhood. than a lot of primitive cultures. So human beings are vicious. And if it's a challenge, you know, there's always some youngsters with a lot of testosterone that are going to go out there and try to give it their best against the biggest

and baddest creature they can find. So to me, that's the main reason when we have such a hard time catching up with these things. Do you think their elusiveness is a survival method to hide from humans, or do you think it's something that they've developed along the lines of hunting? or do you think it's more or less to get away from humans, like you said,

because we are vicious, we are ferocious, we are, you know, humans, like you said, we are pack hunters. I think it's a combination. I think, number one, they're a top predator. They are the apex predator in the forest. I mean, they have to be, to be able to be to survive, and they have to be as big as they are, to be able to move as quickly as they do. They have to cover a lot of ground so they're an expert hunter.

They can move silently if they want to. They move very quickly. And that also serves them to keep away from the creature they view as dangerous, which is us. So between those two things, I really think that's the crux of why they're so elusive. Yeah, I would tend to agree with you on that. I think that they are elusive, and that's been proven. You know, you hear so many people talking about we were following the tracks and all of a sudden they disappear. I don't know how quite to explain that.

and I don't claim to be an expert, but some of the things they do, man, really makes me think twice about what type of creature they are. I don't know. It still boggles my mind, even though I've seen them. I still don't know what to think about them.

I think there's definitely something not to be messed with lightly. No, I would agree with you on that. Not to be messed lightly, and I'm not going to have dinner with one anytime soon. My friend Carlo and I used to say, he was a sociologist. just, and we used to talk about, he'd like to tag along with me when I go bigfoot hanging out in Schomania County, and he'd always say, well, maybe we should carry, you know, sweet

potatoes or apples or something in our pockets, and maybe if, you know, we encounter when we get in a submissive posture and hold this thing out in our hands, and I'm thinking, yeah, it's going to use me as human toilet paper if I get in that position. So, yeah. So, we're in agreement with him, but I kind of went along with what he was saying sometimes, but But he hadn't, well, he did see one, but not in the same in-your-face experience that I had. And my encounter was not, they were not happy when they saw me standing there. So, you know, I wasn't going to hold the sweet potato out.

And, you know, in Yakult, when we were there in 89, you know, there was a primate specialist that came out there and he created a bunch of problems. I won't name him by name, but he's not one of my favorite people. he changed the routine. Something I learned in anthropology was if you're going to observe a species, you don't interfere with what they're doing. You just, you stay back, you try to stay out of the picture, and you observe. Well, they were taking, the family would put radishes out every night for the horse,

the horse wouldn't touch them. Saskwashes apparently liked them, and they would come every night and take these big piles of radishes. And he decided to put donuts and turnips, yeah, turnips and some other things out there. they threw everything around, they took a huge bite out of one of the turnips, threw it on the ground, took the box of donuts, a box and all, and then went down and raided the neighbor's garden, scared them so bad they moved out of the house and left permanently. So, you know, they kind of have a short temper when it comes to messing with their routines.

Yeah, yeah, I think I'll take a picture I want it like 100, maybe 200 yards. I'm not going to get in a submissive position. You know, they rip elk apart. They rip elk apart. I need to hand them with potato. Yeah, I don't think I don't want to present myself with a box lunch to one. I got one for you. I got one last for you.

And then, sorry to interrupt you there. What do you, this is kind of like, this is out of the box thinking again and this is kind of way out there. What do you think? Who is, who is here first? Was it Sasquatch or was it humans? And also, a second part of the question is, is who is going to outlast who? Do you think humans will destroy themselves before Sasquatch disappears, or do you think Sasquatch will run its ground and disappear for humans?

The only reason I ask that is because I was reading a thread on, it was like on the Facebook page the other day, and I thought it was a pretty good question. What do you guys think? I'd say we wiped the Sasquatch out and then ourselves. Will? As far as who was here first, they've been around a lot longer. You know, it's interesting that,

that upright walking primates have been around 7.5 million years. And 10 million years ago, the term was, I've heard people call it, was truly planet of the apes at that time because there were 50 different species of primate living on the planet over the entire planet at that time. The upright walkers like we are, we like to think we're the only ones that were special because we walked bipedally.

But that's been, that's a common trait among primates for 7.5 million. here. So we're just the last one in the chain that's come along so far. And I think, you know, if we keep going the way we are, we might wipe ourselves out. But these guys, as long as they have their open spaces and food supplies and everything, they're going to continue to be around. I say them and then us. Yeah. A little Sasquatch barbecue. Yeah. Yeah. Let's wipe them out first and then wipe ourselves out.

That might be a tough task, though. Yeah, yeah, definitely. Well, you know, we were talking about eyeshine at one point, and I don't know, you know, there's a lot of debate. There has been for many years about whether the Sasquatch has eyeshine or not. I remember years ago talking to John Green. I asked him about it.

I said, well, you know, what is there to this? Do they really have this or not? And he says, well, at that time, he had about 3,000 witness reports in his files. And he said, out of that, I've got about seven reports where people claim. that there was eyeshine and a couple of them were red. He says, personally, I don't think they have it. But I've seen things, you know, and many people have. Well, first of all, I don't think a lot of people understand what eye shine means,

what that is. And it's basically there's a structure in mostly nocturnal animals that operate mostly at night. And what that does is when the ambient light comes into their eyes, it prevents the light from bouncing back out immediately, like it does in our eyes. It sort of makes the light particles bounce back and forth so that those nerve receptors can take a little longer to create the picture of what's outside, what the eyes looking at, and our night vision sites work exactly the same.

They work on that same principle, so the light particles are allowed to bounce around on there a little longer and make that image so you can actually see with the light that's in the air. And actually, we have that in our eyes, too, but it doesn't function. But it doesn't mean, and other primates do. So the Sasquatch certainly could and very likely does because they operate mostly. Now, they can operate equally well during daylight hours versus nighttime, but it's mostly the nighttime that they're out there, and I think it's largely due to hunting activity.

So they very likely, I mean, they have to be able to see in the dark to be able to operate like that. So they probably, based on what I've seen, and other people have seen many times do have that eye shine. See, and I, so Woody and I didn't see any eye shine at all, and that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but we didn't see any eyeshine. The part where I get lost, and I understand what you're saying about, eyeshine and especially nocturnal animals, you know, you see the reflection of the light coming in, and I believe it makes it to where it almost turns, they use that light to

basically see at night, but the part where I get lost at Will, and I was the way, listening to this encounter earlier, and would he jump in a few on this? I think I was talking to you a little bit about it, but this guy had claimed to see the Sasquatch, and the way he described the eye shine really wasn't what we would say as eyeshine, basically. What he was describing was almost like the eyes were powered by like a battery, and he would see, and it was red, and they were glowing red. This was actually during the day that he saw this. But I hear a lot of people talking about that

to where it's like, you know, and I know when animals get scared, their eyes will dilate. You can see it in cats. Cats do it all the time. But when an animal is scared and their eyes will dilate. But what does your guys take on this?

And I don't even know if I want to call it eyes the eye glowing that people talk about, the big glowing red eyes. It seems like it's more prevalent on the East Coast than it is over here. But what does your guys' take on that? Boy, I don't know. That one's, I don't know what to make of that.

I mean, I don't think, first of all, a Sasquatch isn't going to have that. You know, what I've seen in many credible people that I've talked to have seen is more of an amber color, light amber. And red is typically animals that are like rodents and birds and possums. There's certain colors go with different animal species. So if they're seeing something especially if they're seeing something, especially if they're, it internally, you know, powered light source. I don't know what that could possibly be. I don't know if there's anything in biology that other than that, you know,

fish in deep depth of the ocean that can do that, you know, because of luminescence in their body. But as far as mammals, I don't think that's false. Yeah, see, and I agree with that. I can't think that that would be possible. The way he described it was like sitting in a movie theater and you know you look up and you see the exit signs, the red exit signs.

that's how he described the eyeshine. And I can't think of any animal that does that. That would be, what do you think, would? Well, I don't know, and I kind of get lost too on that a little bit because you hear different instances of you hear of the red eyeshine and then Will you brought up the amber eye shine. And, you know, really, Wes, you and I, we saw no eyeshine. I mean, it was a clear moonlit night.

There was a lot of light available. Maybe that's why we didn't see it. But, you know, it's like, you know, I have dogs. And with dogs, you see kind of like a yellow eye shine along with cats. I don't know if it's, I don't understand the difference between the yellow and the red or the amber. You hear so many different stories. I don't know what to think other than, you know, it's kind of like it could be a mechanism that they use for hunting. I don't really know.

But what really gets me is you hear different instances about the different colors. I don't know if it means that's a different, if it's a different, type of Sasquatch or exactly what that means. But, yeah, I don't know. I don't know for sure. I don't know enough about it. Well, when you saw the eye shine, was it kind of like what you would see in a,

like a mountain lion at night or like a deer? Is that what you mean by the name? Yeah, very similar. In fact, well, now you guys, you just had the moonlight to go with, right? Yeah, that's correct. You weren't shining your light. No, no.

That's why you didn't see the eye shine. If you take a, it has to be a brighter source, like a flashlight. or something like that, that's when you're going to get the eye shine. Kind of like a deer in the headlights type thing, maybe? Like, you know, a deer stops in the headlights. Yeah. We didn't shine any light on it.

All we had was moonlight to go off of. Well, that's why you didn't see eye shining. And in that setting, you won't because it's not quite enough light. And their eyes are probably, you know, their pupils and everything are adjusted to that light setting. But as far as, you know, an animal. Now, here's a thought on, you know, and this kind of goes to people's, you know, frame of reference again. I think if we went back and looked at stories,

let's say 30 years ago, eyewitness accounts. And if you look back and I always hit the history thing because there's so much to learn from it because legitimate stories, you know, when I hear somebody telling me their account, I can tell within seconds if it's a real story or if it's BS because I know so much of the history

and there's other patterns and what's real, what's not. So as time, let's say, let's go back to 1965 forward, as you move forward and look at the reports, you know, there's things have changed over the years. And I think because there's so much this information out there, all this conflicting information, people who may have a proclivity to be interested in the subject, maybe they say they're skeptical, they don't believe it, but inside they, you know, they're kind of interested. I think there's certain expectations that if they did see something, they might fill in the blanks with things that they've heard or read someplace. And maybe those are artifacts, you know, that their brain is put in these stories that really weren't there. You know, maybe, you know, the shock to their system when they saw this creature, again, they didn't know how to sort of fill in the blank so their brain starts putting pieces of information,

pulling it out of stores on this stuff that's been floating around out there. I mean, maybe that's what it is. I don't know. But there certainly isn't any internal light source for any mammal species. No, I would tend to agree with you. Well, I think there's, you know, after doing so many interviews that West and I've done, there's a, I think there's a lot of people that believe they've seen something or they have seen something, and then they kind of go in and fill in the blanks.

and that's kind of when you call a little bit of BS on certain things. I'm probably hanging myself here, but, you know, when Wes and I had our encounter, we had several interviews shortly after our encounter. We contacted us some individuals. They spoke to us separately. We said we would take a lie detector test. They asked us questions. And time and time again, they would ask us the same questions over and over.

You know, were your headlights on? No, they weren't. A few minutes later, well, where your headlights on at this time? No, they weren't. And so, you know, we saw what we saw, and there was no, we weren't making anything up. It is what it is. And I understand what you're saying about people kind of throwing things in there to kind of justify maybe what they saw. You know, and that's when you can kind of tell when the story is true, in my opinion, is you don't have an answer to everything, you know.

And that's another good point you brought up, too, about interviewers. If people, a lot of people jump into the subject and don't really know what they're doing. And that's, you know, not a good thing or a bad thing either way. It's just a fact. But if an interviewer doesn't ask open-ended questions, they can unknowingly put information into the interviewee's mind, and that can become part of the story. That's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

Yeah, you're right. You know, and I think it's become so difficult. You know, and I've been working on this thing. for my book, Creep Devil, one of the chapters I'm calling Other Wild Men, because there may very well be two different types. You know, it's probably weeks people out thinking that, you know, having a giant hair-covered monster running around is bad enough. Now we might have two types.

But in Australia, they have two types. And in other parts of the world, there are two types. So it's not out of the question. So, you know, that confuses the issue. And I think when some of these things, again, those expectations, somebody sees something, you know, they label it all under Bigfoot. Okay, is it Bigfoot or is it this species or that species? What are the particulars?

How much artificial stuff is put into these accounts? It really wasn't there. It's a lot more difficult today than it used to be to try to make some sense of these encounters. You guys don't believe people who have 24 encounters and have them living in their backyard in the tree? I think they're absolutely poor class. People they haven't encountered every time they go out. You know, when they used that if somebody had more than two or three sightings, they had a mental to brain disease.

Yeah. Well, he's a lot, too. A while back here, and I won't mention his name, but he, and this is when I was, I did in an interview with Joe Rogan a few months back, we were discussing all this stuff, and he thought I was probably the most legitimate person he talked to, and he was really trying to get me to raise money to go out and be able to do a real serious HUD for the Sasquatch.

And he threw out the figure several times in our conversation of $10 million. So I went ahead and put up a site to try to raise money. Everybody was very supportive except two guys, and I sort of blew them up because they were cooks. But one of them come on there, and I don't know if they were just jealous of it, was actually trying to raise money or what, but one of them claimed that he had 100 sightings and over 1,000 pictures. And I unfriended him very quickly because he was a nut.

But he's one of these guys that pushes these blob squatch pictures. I mean, you know, if it's not a clear picture, it's worthless. It might be interesting if you've got a form there. But I've had people who, you know, they genuinely try to help with enhancing pictures. and I can send you a couple of copies of things people have sent me. They've done a wonderful job with their pictures, but they've made things in there that weren't there. You know, one is a face, one's the whole body,

and it's nowhere near what I wanted in hands. And, you know, I appreciate their efforts, but, you know, and it's, again, there's people out there doing it now. You know, M.K. Davis is one of those people, I think. You know, maybe he means well, but, you know, for instance, he claims that there was a massacre of Bluff Creek, you know, after Patterson got his film. And he bases it on three things. He got a picture from Mrs. Patterson, you know, with a little more, you know, the famous frame with the Sasquatch turn and looks at Patterson and Gimman.

And there's a little bit more foreground in the picture. Well, in the foreground and the sand, it looks like a dog footprint. He claims it's a bloody footprint. Well, the first piece of evidence he had, he claims there was like a muzzle flash or a camera flash. and it looks like just a, you know, a white spot in the film processing. And then, of course, the bloody dog track. And the third one was this dugout pit that's supposed to be full of blood. Well, you know, the dog footprint I looked at that,

and the first thing I thought was, well, where are all the other dog footprints? And if it's bloody, how come there aren't bloody, all kinds of bloody dog footprints in there? And how come sand didn't fill them in? And in the pool, you can clearly see it's running water. because there are reflections off the ripples. You know, people want to, you know, they want to see what they want to see in pictures that aren't there. Yeah, it's like a fish story. It gets bigger and bigger and bigger the farther, you know.

It's kind of like he just kind of ran with it. And, I mean, I'm with you on that one. I thought the same thing when I saw some of the stuff that he was coming up with. I thought, you know what, you're kind of getting a little bit off of track here, kind of retelling the story of Bluff Creek, you know what I mean? I mean? Yeah, I mean, it just doesn't make any sense, you know, and Bob Gimlin is probably one of the most honest guys on the planet, and I've talked to him a number of times, and he told me, you know, things that I haven't heard other places like, you know, we talked about how much he saw the creature's

tongue, he could see its teeth, he saw its eye move, you know, the color, the hair was lighter than with the film shows, and on and on and on, so, you know, it wasn't like, and, and of course, these guys try to spin little things he says, well, it might have been a hoax. While I talk to me, you know, he tells me his details. He says, well, you know, it could have been, but it wasn't. Yeah. You know, when they shot that 16 millimeter camera, when people see it now, it looks like the creature was farther away than it was, but it was actually pretty close.

I mean, Bob Gillen and... It doesn't have been 60 feet from him. Yeah, I mean, and, but if you look at the film, it looks like, ah, it's probably, you know, 75 to 100 yards out. Those old films. It was. Everything looks so much farther away, you know, when you film something. And people today don't understand that. That's how photography used to be. It used to be.

And, you know, they had those little lenses on them and all of that adds into the effect that you get with that. But, yeah, they were actually very close. I actually saw an interview with Bob Gimlin. It was like two days ago. And he actually said at one point, while they were shooting Patty Film that he believed that he was within 25 feet. Yeah, he was close.

That's pretty close. He was closer than Patterson, yeah, and he told me he was scared for his life the whole time. Yeah, I think when he said he crossed the river, he was like 25 feet, when he rode across the river behind him. They were always afraid that that creature was going to turn on him and charge him.

And that's not out of the question because I interviewed a guy out in the Columbia River Gorge out near the bridge of the gods who had one charge him. And that's not the only story I know about that. They will charge, just like a gorilla, I'm not charged. Let me ask you this, Will, and Wes, maybe you're input on it, too. You're familiar, and I hate to keep going back to, and I always say this on every show,

I hate to keep going back to Wes and I's encounter, but you're very diverse in different occurrences or encounters around the United States, around the world. What is your opinion on the type of Sasquatch that Wes and I ran into, And I ask you that because I know you know a lot about the area of where it happened, almost right down, you know, the GPS of where it happened. You know exactly about the group of individual saskatches that we ran into. What type of saskatch do you think we ran into? Were they going to have us for dinner?

I mean, you know, were the violent type, or are there different types of saskatches? Well, not different types, but the behaviors are different. And it really depends on, I think, you know, there's just like humans, every animal has a little bit of a different psychological makeup, if you will. You know, it depends on how well they've eaten lately, you know, moods. I mean, these guys are kind of moody anyway, but that group was aggressive. That's the same group that we investigated back in 89, 90, just a short distance from where you guys had your encounter. and they weren't, I wouldn't say they were aggressive back then, but they were very bold. They were not afraid of people, many, many encounters during that nine months.

You remember the screaming, Woody? Remember the one that came out? We thought it screamed. We never really told me that on our encounter. And I don't think I told you will this, because we couldn't really make out what it was. We really couldn't make out what it was. We were driving on the way up there, and we both. at our windows down.

Oh, that's right, yeah. And this, it was out of the corner of my eye, looking off to the driver's side, it almost kind of looked like a person. It was like a silhouette. So, I mean, I really couldn't make out what it was. But as we drove past it, something like screamed at us. Wow.

And Woody stopped the car, and we turned around. But there was not, I mean, you couldn't see into the foliage whatever it was, and we both kind of looked at each other, like, what was that? You know, because we had no reference to, the amplitude that it screamed was louder than a human. It wasn't a bear. So it kind of threw us off. I mean, we were already almost on our way up to the mountain.

We were basically up, almost up to the mountain, but something had stepped out and screamed, and we both didn't really have a reference to what it was. And so going back to the behavior, you know, where they're chasing cars. there, it just kind of threw me off. Like, and we never really have told anyone that portion of the story because we didn't really see what it was and we didn't really, I mean, what do you say? You saw something scream at you, but it was more or less kind of a silhouette, but it had kind of, it caught my eye because it was movement.

It was kind of a black silhouette that stepped out and it screamed as we drove by. And so, you know, I think it is more of an aggressive, you know, like Will was saying, I think they have a bad temper. I think it doesn't take much to make them upset. Yeah, you can go back and look at lots of accounts. And there's lots and lots of them that just are, you know, they're like that. Things seem to tick them off very quickly, and they are aggressive. They can be very aggressive, especially towards people and sometimes animals.

You guys, I have kind of a theory and kind of get your opinion on it, and this might be way out there. I'm going to ask it anyways. They're not aliens. No. Well, I know. Go ahead, Wood. Ouch.

No, I wasn't going to say alien, West. I was going to say, do you think, and this is kind of way out there again, like I said, but do you think that Sasquatch slash Bigfoot only reveal themselves to certain people or people with a certain mindset? Because you hear of so many people going out there that are looking for Bigfoot, They never find it, and they go over their whole lives and never seen, you know, they never see Nickfooter run into really any sort of evidence. But, you know, Wes and I've been out a couple times, and we've been out several times. I kind of think that maybe they only reveal themselves to certain people.

And I, do you guys, do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not sure where I'm kind of going with that, but I don't think it's just anybody. I don't think it's just the average human they're going to go out and reveal themselves. Do you guys get what I'm trying to say? I don't think generally they reveal themselves to anybody. They're just kind of, you know, a lot of those encounters or chance encounters, unless it's an aggressive encounter, like in your case. You know, they were challenging you guys.

And sometimes it depends with people. I think it depends on their attitude, how observant they are, what they're doing, and if they're in an area where Sasquatches are, now a lot of people, you know, Renee used to tell me, you know, you'd say, we knew where the Sasquatch was, then they weren't evenly distributed. They were in certain places. So, you know, if somebody can go out and spend their whole lives looking,

but if they're not looking where they are, they're not going to see one. Or, you know, maybe they're just not very observant. I think maybe if you're looking for them, you won't see them, is kind of my opinion on it. If you're not looking for them, you have that chance where you're going to run into them. I think if you're trying to force it, you'll never see them. I don't know. Yeah, I'm not sure.

I've got friends who try different approaches, and that's okay. I mean, they can try that, you know, with the mental communication or whatever, but I've always... Telepathy. Yeah. I've always been kind of a nuts and bolts researcher. You know, I either see something or I don't. You know, it's either there or it isn't. And if it is, then there's something we can find.

It's not, you know, I'm not looking for God in the woods. It's not metaphysical. it's, you know, there either is an animal there or there isn't, so. I think where Woody was going with it, correct me if I'm wrong, Woody, but kind of like, I guess what I was thinking when you're asking that question was, you know, when you walk down the street, if you see five gang members, you're probably going to go to the other side of the street. You're going to try and avoid it.

If you see a child, you might walk past it. So if they perceive you as a threat, I think like Will says, you know, I think you have to know where to look, and I think if you know where to look, you'll find them. But I think a lot of people go out, and a lot of people see things that aren't there, and I think a lot of people who never see anything don't know where to look. And so a lot of it might be dumb luck, like chance encounters, unless you know where to look. Is that what you're thinking? Like with the gang member thing, you know, one of the things we always do and seems to be pretty successful,

if we hear one in the area, you know, scream or whatever, or years ago when we had, one night we had a group of marauda camp all night, we would just pretend they weren't there, you know, kind of ignore the situation. And that would seem to draw them in more like they'd make them more curious, almost like, well, don't you know, I'm here, you know, and they'd get a little bolder. And there are other accounts like that where, you know, hunters or whoever would kind of ignore what was going on each successive day that they were camped, the creatures would actually come in closer. So I guess if they didn't feel threatened, they might come in closer. And, yeah, Wes, that was exactly what I was trying to say. You know, you and I went out and we weren't specifically that night trying to find Bigfoot. So you pretty much nailed it, yeah, on what I was trying to say.

No, the only other thing that I have for guys is, you know, if you guys were to have a show like Finding Bigfoot, not exactly like Finding Bigfoot, but like a TV show, what would you guys, what would the format be and what would you guys do to show proof, show evidence to the public? I mean, what things would you do to, I guess, attract the public and kind of, and show proof to the public? But get your take on it, Will and Wood?

Well, I actually have a pretty solid idea of what I would do. Currently, I've got about 15 different ranges I've identified between the Canadian border and here in Northern California. So I would choose, well, first of all, I'd pick a team of people who mostly had encountered Sasquatches. I wouldn't take a team out that was inexperienced because when you look at people who've had experiences like we have, we talk very differently about the subject than people who haven't had.

And like the show Finding Bigfoot, none of those guys have actually seen a Sasquatch. So their behavior is totally different than, say, the three. of us would be in the field. I would bring, you know, a big game expert, and I've got a good friend who is from the Sioux Nation, who is a heck of a good tracker, and he used to be part of my field team. So that would be my team, and what we would do was take a look at these different ranges and hit those ranges based on where the Sasquatches are going to be. And I know how the movements are in some of these different ranges, different times.

of the year. And as we get closer, sort of closer to where the creatures are going to be, then we'd have to decide, okay, how are we going to a purchase? Are we going to put cameras up? Are we going to, are we going after film footage or biological materials? Or are we going to go, say, look for burial sites or, and with a show like that, I know a lot of people all over the continent. So, and there are some good pieces of information being found out there by some newer people, I would probably, you know, for audience interest, I would augment some of that material with what we were doing in the field. And, of course, our approach would be very serious. We would be out, you know, banging on trees and screaming and using disco lights and

what I think is just general silliness. Anybody who hunts knows that you're going to drive every kind of wildlife within earshot running for the hills if you go out and make the slightest bit annoyed. I don't know if you guys hunt, but, you know, sometimes, you know, sometimes, you're Sometimes even a deer will hear the slight click of you taking the safety off, and that's enough to make them run for the hills. The Sasquatch is a pretty sharp creature, so we would have to approach it, I think, from a hunting standpoint. Yeah. And I think the audience would love that. It would be so different than what's currently out there.

Well, how do I follow up after hearing that answer from Will? Yeah, no, I mean... How do I match that, brother? No, I mean... I mean, you know, we could come up with different things, you know, and make a winning formula there. And I think Will he hit it right on the head. I think that I think you would get...

Imagine the audience that you would get doing something like that. To where it's serious, it's something to where... I mean, finding big foot's getting old. It's the same old crap, and they never get any evidence or any proof. You know, and I think Will's approach, I think it would draw a huge audience. I think a lot of people, you know, if you could show proper ways to, even simple things, like documenting, you know, one of the things that Will always said to me was document, document, document, document.

But show a process on how you actually go through and research and track and look for these creatures. You know, imagine if like Finding Bigfoot got a small portion of like the Patterson film or something like that. the show would explode. And I think that you could get something like that with Will's approach. I don't think you're going to get that, like you said, banging on trees. It's funny you mentioned the clicking the safety off Will. That's actually happened to Woody and I when we were hunting. Everybody at hunts knows that.

The slightest metallic noise will drive an animal away because they know that's dangerous. They know that's a human. Right. No, I was going to say there was a couple things that you both said that really stuck out of my mind. And Will, for one, I think it's very important to pick your team members correctly. You get the right team together. I think that is probably the most important thing. Two, also Will that you said is the silliness.

The silliness would have to go away. Like the Finding Bigfoot, it makes for good entertainment. But if you're going to get right down and you kind of set the nuts and bolts, it's not going to work. Wes, you also said document, document, document, and you got that from Will. But that's true. You've got to document it. I think that Will's approach is the correct way to go. I'm not real big on Will.

You said, you know, banging trees and with all the night vision cameras, not that, you know, you wouldn't use them. But I think there is something to be said for a different approach, and I think it would be somewhat successful. And imagine if it was. You know, you'd have to have kind of a serious side to it and not so much of an entertainment side. but the National Geographic, say, seriousness approach to it.

And another element, I would add to, I have a good friend who's a skeptic. I'd bring a skeptic on a team to provide balance. And also showing not just Bigfoot information, but educate the audience on, you know, we find bear sign, we find Cougar sign. You know, to show them the distinction between, you know, that we know, not only that we know what we're looking for, but what other animal sign looks like. I think a lot of people confuse things. not really sure what, you know, what's one out there. And I think if we showed them that, you know, and credibility would have to be above board. So everything we do, the last, when we

look at evidence, for instance, we rule everything, you know, Bigfoot is the last thing on the list. We go through the list and look at every other possibility first. If there's nothing else, then we can say, well, maybe it is Bigfoot. We're not going to, we can't really come right out and say this, I mean, unless we find, you know, tracks or something like that. But, well, and I think that's where you get the skeptical side. You almost wouldn't even need it's skeptic, you know, because I would say I'm kind of that way, Woody's that way, you're with that way, will, to where you see something, you're like, well, you know what, it might be this, it might be, and I don't think out of the

three of us, any of us are so quick to jump in and go, well, that's a big foot. A big foot did that. Right, and that's between somebody who's had an encounter versus someone who hasn't. Good point. If you have ever talked to that's actually seen a Sasquatch will be the most of the most ardent skeptic and those who haven't will jump to conclusions. Yeah, you're right. I think you nailed it there too.

Well, if you have a team of people that went out that have had an encounter, it's more unlikely that, you know, and you already said it, but Bigfoot's going to be last on the list as far as what it may be. You're going to roll everything out. So I think some people, I think some of us that have had an encounter were probably the hardest skeptics out there, you know. Absolutely. Absolutely.

And that's how you really define somebody who's actually seen one versus somebody who maybe is making of a story. And that's our show for tonight. Hope everyone enjoyed the show. We will see everyone next week. Sports betting is sweeping across the country faster than the coronavirus and wagering week is your antidote. I'm Tom Barton and I'm a veteran sports analyst

and respected sports handicapper who helped build ESPN's brand. I've been recognized and awarded by Pro Football Weekly and Gaming Today magazine as The Honest. handicapper. Let the other guys give you the same old boring sports talk with the same tired storylines. We'll give it to you straight here every Friday on wagering week. Don't gamble with other podcasts. Let SportsGuard Network's Wagering Week help your bottom line.