Sasquatch Chronicles - SC EP:332 Dr. John Bindernagel

Episode Date: June 10, 2017

I have been posting John's videos to the website every chance I get. John writes "As a wildlife biologist, I have been studying the sasquatch (or bigfoot) for just over 50 years. For the past 25 years, the main subject of my wildlife research has been the scrutiny of evidence which appears to affirm the sasquatch as an existing mammal. During this period, I found this evidence to be not only compelling, but eventually conclusive in supporting the sasquatch as an existing North American mammal." Be sure to subscribe to his YouTube channel. Click here to check it out. John A. Bindernagel is a wildlife biologist who has sought evidence for Bigfoot since 1963. He published a book in 1998 entitled North America's Great Ape: the Sasquatch. Dr. Bindernagel grew up in Ontario, attended the University of Guelph,and received a PhD in Biology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He moved to British Columbia in 1975 largely because the region was a hot spot for Bigfoot sightings. Over the years, he has collected casts of tracks that he believes belongs to Bigfoot. He also claims to have heard the creature near Comox Lake in 1992, comparing its whooping sound to that of a chimpanzee. Dr. Bindernagel believes that the Bigfoot phenomena should receive more attention from serious scientists, but has remarked, "The evidence doesn't get scrutinized objectively. We can't bring the evidence to our colleagues because it's perceived as tabloid." Check out John's website: http://sasquatchbiologist.org/

Black thing go from left to right, and I thought, I'm going to die out here and no one's ever going to know. I couldn't believe what my eyeballs was showing me. I'll never forget how evil the eyes were. It was horrible. I mean, I've never seen nothing that evil. It ran towards me at a rate that I can't even explain, turned and stared at me. And this look of, I just want to kill you. I want to say it was human, but it wasn't.

He was yelling at me to grab a gun, grab a gun. I was like, for what? He said, just grab a gun. And there's footprints all the way to the door of my house. It had went inside my garage all the way to the door. 9-1-1. What are you reporting? Get somebody out here. What's going on now, sir? That son of a bitch is about 6'9, I don't know.

Do you see him now, sir? Yes, I'm looking right at him. Uh-oh. You're listening to Sasquatch Chronicles. Check us out online at Sasquatch Chronicles.com. If you've had an encounter, email me. My email address is Wes at Sasquatch Chronicles.com. Welcome to the show, everyone.

Thanks for being here tonight. Got a great show planned for you tonight. I'm going to be speaking to Dr. John Benar-Noggle. And John grew up in Ontario, and he got his Ph.D. in biology from the University of Wisconsin. Johnson, and John's been looking into the Sasquatch subject for, I think, since 1963. I'll have to ask him when he comes on the show, but he's been looking into this for a long time. And I always respect guys like John because it's very taboo in their professional life to look into the Sasquatch.

It's a very taboo subject. And John has always looked into it. He's one of the nicest guys, too, in the Bigfoot world. Probably the nicest guy, to be honest with you. And I always love talking to John. I interviewed him a couple years back at the Beachfoot, but I thought it was important to bring John back on the show and talk about science, talk about the different aspects of Sasquatch.

And being a wildlife biologist, it's a great opportunity to ask John questions. And most people don't realize this, but John actually had an encounter, and I'll ask him about that tonight. If you've had an encounter, then you'd like to be on the show. Shoot me an email. My email address is, at Sasquatch Chronicles.com. And if you get a chance, join me tomorrow night.

I'll be speaking to Bob Gimlin. It'll be kind of a laid-back setting. I'll be talking to Bob about his life, you know, about Bigfoot, but we'll talk about a lot of things outside of Bigfoot. Most people don't know. Bob knew Evil Caneval, and he was good friends with him

before he became Evil Canebel. So a lot of cool things coming up. It'll be a little bit different type of show than what you're used to. I interviewed Bob, oh gosh, back in, I think it was in the 80s, episode 87, I think. I'll have to go back and double check that, but it was around that time. And we talked about the Patterson Gimlin film. We talked about how they went down and filmed it. He talked about his relationship with Roger Patterson. But I thought it'd be a cool opportunity just to talk to Bob about his life. So if you get a chance, hang out tomorrow night with us, and Russell

a court will be on there. We'll be talking about the International Bigfoot Conference and, you know, really focusing on Bob. It should be a cool night. I hope you enjoy it. Let's jump into it tonight. I want to welcome Dr. John Benner-Nagle to the show. John, welcome to the show. Thanks so much

for being here. Well, thank you, Wes. And for the audience out there, if they go to Sasquatchbiologist.org, you can pick up both of John's books, The Discovery of the Sasquatch, and then And that was back in 2010.

And then in 1998, he wrote a book, North America's Great Ape, The Sasquatch, Wildlife Biologists, look at the continent's most misunderstood mammal. Definitely check it out, Sasquatchbiologist.org. And for the audience, too, if they go to YouTube and type in John Bendernoggle, you'll find his YouTube channel, and I'll put a link to the website. I highly recommend people go to John's YouTube channel. he does presentations on, and they're very professionally done, John. He does presentations on the Sasquatch, and they're very informative.

And, you know, John, as you and I were saying before we went on air, as I was telling you, you know, you do such a great job at dumbing the subject down. I don't know if that's a proper term to use, but you don't talk above anyone, but I would imagine a scientist could sit and watch it. I would imagine someone who's not a scientist could sit and watch it and get information from your videos. And the other thing, too, is, and I wish I really had this. You have a very warm, compassionate delivery of how you do it. It's very engaging. And I think that's something natural. I don't think you can really teach someone that, but you do such a great job with these presentations.

I really wish at these conferences, for the Bigfoot researchers, investigators listening, if you might give a speech, I would say go and copy what John's doing. doing. Take his model, steal it, and use this as your model for when you give a presentation. Because you, and I don't know if you can copy John, but, you know, take a look at what he's doing as far as his presentation goes. It's very professional, very concise. And I get a lot out of them. John, I post him to the Sasquatch Chronicles all the time. Well, well, thanks. I just want to say, go on, go on. So if you're not, no, it's very encouraging, Wes, because, you know, I came to this, I guess it's the conclusion that, you know,

People are not reading books the way we used to. We are watching a lot more video. So I started this kind of new, well, for me a new idea, research videos, trying to keep them short, but they still go 10 to 20 minutes. You know, I try, no, it's long for YouTube. And I've got them linked now to, or is very, well, almost a major part of my website.

My son is helping because some of them on YouTube I've actually upgraded and re-edited, and we get the kind of final version with a bit of explanation and introduction on the website under the heading research videos. And just commenting on that other point about compassion. Well, I am compassionate with eyewitnesses and amateur investigators because it's so hard to get a hearing. It's so hard to get our, well, I witness descriptions talked about in a proper context.

And I have to be careful. I am trying to bring the subject into the context of an unfolding scientific discovery, which it is. So anyway, that's just a bit of background. But thanks again for the encouragement. No, no, absolutely. And you know, it's interesting when I, when I, we were at Beachfoot, I interviewed you a couple years back. I think it was 2015. I interviewed you.

And shortly after that interview, I was contacted by a very prominent professor. I won't say what university, but he's a primatologist. I'm sure if I said the university, it'd be easy to track this guy down. But his students kept coming to him because they listen on their phone. They listen on iTunes. They listen on Stitcher. And they kept coming to him and saying, hey, you've got to hear the show. You've got to hear the show.

Because, you know, the show is basically the bulk of the show is people's encounters, people saying what they've seen. And you're right. It is very hard to get people to come forward. I would say for every one witness you hear on the show, I've probably. probably talk to 10, 15 people that don't want to come on the show, but want to tell someone their encounter. And so he started listening to it as a goof. He thought, well, this is ridiculous, but I'll entertain my students and let them know I listen to it. And the first show he listened to was actually my Beachfoot interviews. And he looked you up on Wikipedia. And he said,

if Dr. Benner-Naggle is willing to take a look at this, maybe I should take a look at this. So he started listening to the shows. And he told me, he goes, you know, Wes, in the scientific world, eyewitness accounts really isn't evidence, but it kind of is. I mean, you learn a lot from what eyewitnesses say, but, you know, on the record, I'll say that's not evidence. Off the record, I'm fascinated by it. And he said, you know, you start to see a lot of very primate, non-human primate type behavior with the Sasquatch. And he'll email me, you know, once every two months or so and say, hey, you know, that last show you did, here's kind of a comparison with the great apes, here's kind of a comparison with chimpanzees, here's kind of, and so give me

a little bit insight, but it's interesting because here's a professor who's a closet, Bigfoot enthusiast, but he won't say it publicly. And I know you kind of went through that. I think you had more, you have more. Still, still. Yeah. Well, and forgive my language, but I think you have more balls in a lot of these scientists because you're willing to... Thank you for that. Well, you're willing to put your neck out there, and people don't understand that. Well, you know, it sounds arrogant, but it's because we're right. And I can't say that.

You know, we do have to reserve, you know, some doubt. We're called that as scientists, you know, even if you feel 99.9% confident that your conclusions are correct, which I do, you do have to say, oh, are they all hoax? But no, no. And the reason I am so confident in the evidence is because of, you know, the work that you do and other amateur investigators do. They collect and they document evidence and they bring it to our attention. And I'm on side with this primatolid saying, you know, we can make sense of that. I think that's our kind of scientific obligation.

You know, we've studied primate, like non-human primates. we say, hey, this is very consistent with what we see in, like I'm doing right now something on that short, thick neck. You look at the well-developed trapezias muscles of a gorilla. You say, oh, gee, that's the way people are drawing Sasquatches for me. You know, it's almost a taper from the head down to right out to the shoulders. It's an anatomical explanation. So it's kind of exciting when you see things falling out to place and you can into place. You can say, hey, we can explain that.

So I really would like to get in touch with his person. I'm encouraged that he, you know, found my take on it, you know, worth following up, because I'm not getting that from my scientific colleagues elsewhere. But anyway, thanks. And yeah, no, absolutely. And it's fascinating to me because there is a lot of professionals that listen to the show, but they do it in a private setting. They don't really talk about it.

But I think a lot more scientists are probably interested in this than most people realize. people realize. I think, well, we can kind of go into it. You know, I know back in 1963, you started looking into this. And for the audience out there, you have your PhD in biology from the University of Wisconsin. And, you know, there's a mindset I don't think a lot of people realize. You know, I hear this moan and cry all the time from the Bigfoot world that why don't scientists take us seriously? Why don't scientists? And, you know, being a respected wildlife biology, What really drove you to look into this topic? Because as you and I both know, that's very taboo, and it could cost you your career looking into this. What drove you to look into it? Well, for what I want to say, I do all that moaning myself. I mean, you know, my big push right now is to try and get my scientific colleagues on side. And I'm talking about colleagues in the relevant scientific disciplines. Well, mammology, primatology, you know,

physical anthropology and certainly my professional wildlife colleagues. But, you know, we, oh, gee, the, you know, this treatment of the Sasquatch is scientifically taboo is so longstanding that it's quite difficult. So anyway, but thanks for raising that. Oh, sorry, what I keep saying to them, you know, it's way too late for us to look proactive, but we don't have to look as if we have our heads in the sand, which is the way, it's coming out and something came up. I think it was at that same Beachfoot conference you were talking about. Stanley Avery from Bandon made a really good comment. He said, I, and he talked to me, you know, the point I made in a recent video is that

eyewitnesses are puzzled by the absence of scientific participation in this discovery process. Well, they're more than puzzled. His question was, I don't understand why science it would squander their hard-earned reputation for openness, you know, by ignoring this evidence. So anyway, that's all background. So very briefly, yeah, it was 1963. I was a third-year student in the actual course was Wildlife Management, small class, about 13 of us. And I had at a barbershop actually seen a copy of a true magazine.

I know, I know, I probably shouldn't even mention it was in true magazine, but it was an article by Ivan Sanderson, who's written extensively on the Sasquatch and other hominids. Anyway, and it was the William Roe account of 1955 in Central British Columbia, really good account. And anyway, and there was an illustration there. So I raised this in class at the end of a class. We always had a little discussion. I said, what about this ape man? You know, talking about in BC and my classmates, you know, they laugh, ha, ha, ha, come on, come on, John, you know.

And the professor said, oh, I'm sorry, we don't have time for that sort of thing. We need to keep studying on, you know, reproduction habitat twice as in wolves, moose, deer, you know. And it was just that attitude of dismissal because I was, what, about 21, 22 then, still, well, was still idealistic. I guess I'm still idealistic, but now I guess it's more like naivety, but for being so idealistic. But anyway, I thought, gee, we shouldn't be dismissing this so out of hand, should be. But you know, there was almost nothing available then.

But by the late 60s, John Green's book started to come out. And there were these IWin's accounts, and there was John Green being very, very good about his writing, very serious. So that got me going, and it led to our family moving out here to British Columbia, 1975. But, you know, for a long time not admitting my, or trying not to admit my interest in this subject, because I was trying to remain employable as a professional wildlife biologist. I was doing consulting, and it's only been more recently that I've come out of the closet, but come out more forcefully with regard to my colleagues.

colleagues, because I think we should be involved. You know, one of the things I want to ask you is, do you think there's a fear or there's with scientists, and you can speak to this level, do you think it's more of a fear of, if I look into this, there might be something to it, or do you think it's more of, well, I'm not going to risk my reputation on this? Oh, for sure. And this is what forced me in that second book into this area called philosophy of science, history and philosophy of science, which sounds dry as bones and deadly boring, but actually

it's kind of exciting because a lot of it is the scientific discoveries. And one finds that if a discovery claim is perceived as far-fetched, oh, the discovery process gets so prolonged. And I think this is going to be a record. Like it's been over 100 years from our early historical accounts, not even mentioning There's reports from Aboriginal people in early American. But published historical accounts, I'm now, you know, back at 1841. Anyway, so that's why I spend a lot of my time now in philosophy of science,

trying to understand, you know, this resistance. And that's where Lila had cheek, the Princeton PhD, who helped me edit the book and who wrote a very, very impressive forward for it, helped me. And she kept directing me to people like legal scholars. and archaeologists. You know, some scientists have, they've kind of questioned scientific ideals.

We really aren't as open-minded as we like to think we are. And especially if the claim is, well, like the Sasquot, I mean, you know, it's very clear. What? You're saying there's a seven-foot-tall, 600-pound, upright mammal, looking like a primitive human or an ape, an ape here in North America, and it's still not in mammal field guides, the Peterson

series, the other books. You know, it just sounds incomprehensible. So this is what we're up against. Do you think it would be different for scientists if, let's say instead of Sasquatch, we plugged in a tiger, and we showed footprints from Washington State, we showed footprints from British Columbia, we showed footprints from Ontario, we showed footprints from, and we had eyewitness reports of seeing this tiger. Do you think it's because it's more on the primate side that they're unwilling? Do you think it's irrelevant that they probably wouldn't look into a tiger either? Yeah.

No, I totally agree. I mean, the thing is you bring it a bit cat like that. Well, at least we've got, you know, cougars, mountain lions. We've got bobcats, you know. So, I mean, at least the group is represented here, you know. As far as primates, I mean, we're it. We humans are considered to be it for North America. So here we are saying, actually, there's another primate here.

You're non-human, well, I'm saying non-human primate. But, you know, in that group, hominoidia, more broadly the primates, we're saying, no, there's another primate here. It's living alongside. Well, that's part of the problem of that claim being perceived as far-fetched. And there again, there's a wonderful area in philosophy of science called prematurity in scientific discovery. Very briefly, a discovery is considered premature if there aren't a lot of links and steps

leading up to it in generally available knowledge. In 1958, there was Jerry Kruh with a Bigfoot cast suddenly. And in 1967, the Patterson-Gimlin film, equally suddenly. And then the media is saying, well, there's no back. background for this. Well, that's why the historical accounts are actually very, very important. And, say, oh, no. First, there were these reports of a monster, and then that so-called monster becomes better described. And you get people back in the 1800s saying, you know, it looked like a gorilla and like nothing else. That's an Oregon report from the Sixers River. And so, you know,

I've got those in the book, and I'm working on another video now to show this isn't actually a premature discovery. were, if we were paying attention, and I don't want to fault anyone, but those reports languished. Well, you might say, and for a good reason, they didn't fit, you know. Anyway, but there was a lot of stuff leading up to Jerry Crew in that first, Bigfoot, well, the first track and leading to the unfortunate, I call it an unfortunate name Bigfoot, and then to the Patterson-Gimlin film, and of course, as we all know, and continuing. And you're right, there is a long historical accounts. You know, people would call it the monster. They would call it the wild man.

They would call it the grass man. They would call it the corn chicken man. And so, you know, all around, there's always been this legend of this thing around. And it wasn't until recently people started calling it. Yeah, I'm with you on the Bigfoot thing. I'd rather call it Sasquatch. But, you know, and it fits basically historical accounts. I've been going on for 100 plus years or more or longer.

I wanted to ask you about your own sighting. And I've never talked to you about. your own personal sighting. And as I was telling you, the audience, this show is mainly about people's sightings. There's a lot more I want to get to beyond the sighting. But I wanted to ask you about your siding. What were you out doing? And then for the audience, what did you see?

Well, it wasn't a great sighting. And that's why I don't talk about it. I find the other evidence like the track photographs and track cast. And even I witnessed descriptions and drawings more compelling. But yeah, anyway, it was, oh, gee, about 2007. Adrian Erickson had been sponsoring a project in Kentucky, invited me there saying, John, if you stayed for a week,

I think you might see this. There's some kind of semi-habituated Sasquatches on this piece of land. Dennis Foal is there. Lila Hadd's cheek is there, a scientific advisor. So I did spend pretty much a week, and around the middle of the week, and they said, oh, you should come out. There seems to be one standing in a fence roll,

you know, kind of looking out over the field to seeing what's going on. So we went out and we could see from the house actually out the window. Yeah, there was some upright creature in the fence when I say creature because it was gently rocking

side to side. It was pretty obscured by vegetation, but I could see a shoulder and what appeared to be a head and there was this rocking motion. And then the woman there who had been habituating them by feeding them, she went out with some pancakes and, you know, spoke in the high-pitched voice, which seemed to reassure

Sasquatches in the past, and they thought it might emerge. Well, it didn't. It kind of got spooked, actually, and turned and walked into the forest. But as it turned and walked, the big arm came up swinging backwards as it kind of took off. So that was probably the best part of it for me. But I mean, well, if I was going to say there's better stuff on these U.T.S. clips. But of course, you need to have the backstory. And there's always this fear with, I mean, some very convincing YouTube clips. But, you know, as soon as a son, and I understand why a

scientist might want to come forward and say, gee, that looks pretty interesting. And then someone's going to say, ha, gotcha. That was my brother-in-law, da-da-da-da. You know, so we do need more complete, well, what we've come to call the backstory for these things to know who saw what, what they were doing and what were the circumstances. But anyway, that's my small sighting. That was a, and that was a great siding. But, you know, that's a famous case out there in Kentucky. And I wanted to ask you as a wildlife biologist,

because I always tell people don't feed these things. And, you know, I don't have their credentials to really say one way or another. I can just tell you what seems common sense to me is not to feed them. And it seems like there's a lot of bad stories when people stop feeding these things around their property. And I've had a lot of witnesses on that have been feeding them, and then all of a sudden they stop and things go bad really quick. It seems to anger the Sasquatch. They seem to have very short tempers. But as a wildlife biologist, would you recommend that someone feed these things if they see them around their property?

Well, actually, feeding of any wildlife, of course, is not encouraged. But, I mean, to me, this is kind of a special situation where I think habituation is the, well, I mean, Jane Goodall was actually criticized for this for feeding chimpanzees to kind of encourage them to hang around the camp for more observations. And it worked out. But that was controversial. I think it's a tool. And I think, I mean, we're stuck in limbo here. You know, poor Grover Krantz, he suggested we, well, a lot of people say, We're not going to get anywhere without a type specimen.

Grover suggested collecting a type specimen was strongly, strongly criticizes. It meant basically shooting one. His point was, once we have one, we'll then get protection for all the rest of the population. But that wasn't good enough. Okay, we're getting good video clips, you know, and people are saying hoax. We're getting some really good track cast, whereas people are understanding the need to document cast. And I've been trying to actually purchase, acquire some of these now and have been doing so. So I still think that's pretty good evidence.

But anyway, habituation does provide an opportunity for good filming, for sound recording, for recording tracks, for observation, either from a blind and, you know, various trail cams and other cams and just cams and monitors. you know, so with the technology, you know, is widely available and coming down in price. If someone would do that in kind of a disciplined manner, you know, I mean, you know, maybe putting out foods that are somewhat natural for the Sasquatch. And I think it's quite possible to develop, I don't know if you'd call it rapport, but I mean, these are primates.

They are not unintelligent. They're very intelligent. And I think they would respond to what would be a positive always. such as supplying food. Well, I wanted to ask you, you know, being a wildlife biologist, I know when you do, I believe it's called the Wildlife Survey, as you mentioned, the tracks are very important. And as you look at one of the things,

it was that professor that actually brought it to my attention, and it was right in front of my face the whole time. I don't know why it never crossed my mind. But if you listen to people's descriptions of Sasquatch, I can tell you from interviewing so many witnesses, there seems to be different types. Like here in the Pacific Northwest, where we're at, John, people will describe more of an ape-type creature. If you start to go down south and the southwest of the United States, a lot of times people will say it looked very chimp-like in the face. It looked very chimp-like in the face.

It had some human features, but it looked very chimp-like. And then in some areas, people will say, well, it looked more human-like in the face. But if you look at the track cast, and maybe I'm off on this, but if you look at the track cast, they look very human, just on a larger scale. But the descriptions of what people describe seem to be more of a non-human primate. And I realize this is kind of an open-ended question, but in your professional opinion, what do you think Sasquatch is? Well, I've had to back off, you know, because I was quite convinced John Green thought, was an ape. Grover Krantz thought it was an ape. In my first book, the title was the Sasquatch North America's Great Ape. John Green said, oh, great title. I wish I'd thought of that.

But I backed off because that turned out to be quite divisive. Just what you're describing, there's a lot of investigators, serious investigators say, no way is this an ape? This is definitely human. Well, I've got a research video I'm working on because the Great Ape hypothesis is quite helpful. You know, it explains just a lot of the physical, anatomical features of the Sasquatch, but some people find that quite offensive, and this is kind of a cultural thing. Now, physical anthropologists, that's why we're good to get them on side because they, and so I have to be careful here, but from anatomical point of view, there is kind of a gradation, you know, you've got an upright great ape and an upright human, we've got these

prominent shoulders, you know. Now, the great apes tend to, you know, the great apes tend not to walk bipedally, not habitually. And yes, their great toe tends to diverge, unlike the human great toe and the Sasquatch great toe, which tend to be lined up with the others. So it does share anatomical attributes, physical attributes, of both apes and humans. And this is problematic. Then you got people saying, oh, the missing link. Well, gee, you sort of don't want to use provocative language like that, because first of all, it brings up Piltdown Man, which was a huge embarrassment in physical anthropology for about 40 years when it looked like the missing link had been discovered and turned out to be a hoax.

So it's tricky, and, you know, I'm doing, maybe it's kind of what you were describing, I'm trying to say, okay, let's just take this evidence, take a very conservative interpretation, let's try not to jump to conclusions and try to just look at it. at in terms of other mammals. And see, to me, that, it seemed easier to, to propose an upright great ape in North America than some kind of human. But that's met with resistance. So I don't know. Yeah. And again, there's no wrong answer, because like I would say, no one has one in their garage or studying. Well, not yet. That's right. You know, there's really no wrong answer. You know, do you think that one thing I find frustrating is, you know, I can bring you, and I realize, and forgive me, I'm not a scientist and I'm not a professional, but I can bring you all the eyewitness testimony you want.

And you can look across the board and see it's consistent. And it's people from all walks of life, I mean, from judges to police officers to hunters to hikers to hikers to house moms. And yet they all say the, for the most part, I mean, there's some differences, but for the most part, they're describing the same thing. And then we have these trackcasts. And I've had a lot of people, professionals look at the trackcast and go, yeah, that was made by something living. That wasn't like a cutout of a wooden foot. That was actually a living creature that made that track cast. And then, you know, we can look at the audio.

And audio is a little bit better than video. I know in this day and age we live in, people want the quick. They want the Patterson Gimlin film over and over and over again. I don't think you're going to get that. But that's what people want. But the interesting part is when you look at audio, it's very tricky to hoax audio because you can put it in a spectrograph and go, well, that's not coyotes. That's not a bear. And that sounds very primate-like.

And so you have all of this evidence. Yet, again, science, it's not a subject that's taken very seriously. I think as we go in small pieces, it's starting to be taken more and more seriously. but do you think that we need a type specimen? I don't. When you say we, my colleague seem to, and see, this is, I don't know if I say call it a complaint. It's an observation I've made. And something I realized, writing books has been helpful to me.

Scientists are kind of split. Scientists, they need a theoretical base for something. And basically what they have said, Unless you can propose a theory for the existence of this creature here in North America, I see no need to look at all that evidence you're bringing forward because it's probably bogus. And I say, oh, gee, but you know, and this is what we get from philosophy of science. I know sometimes the evidence is leading in a certain direction. We do not have a theory to explain it yet.

And the point of some physicists is, you know, follow the evidence where it goes and the theory will eventually arise. And so that's what I think is happening. But I'm glad you mentioned audio, because this is another vocalization is the most recent form of evidence that I've started working on. It's kind of tough because I'm half deaf from too much shooting in my younger years. But we're getting some really good stuff here in British Columbia from a remote island. It's comparable with some stuff from Manitoba in central Canada. I actually, one of the research videos addressed. it. But the problem, you know, people are starting to do a really good job of documenting this now. Of course, down there, you know, in Washington, people like David Ellis and Paul Graves

are doing really good stuff. Anyway, so my point is, now we've got to get the relevant bioacoustic specialist to consider this, you know. But they're put off by, you know, all the adulterations of the evidence, hoax claims, and some actual hoaxes, and, some actual hoaxes, and And they don't want to get involved either. So there's this barrier that that's what I'm struggling with. Yeah, and it's, you know, I grew impatient. I haven't been looking into this by any means as long as you have. And I don't understand how you've kept your patience over the years, but it gets frustrating.

I haven't. But it gets frustrating, you know. It's like, okay, you won't look at this. You won't look at this. You won't. And so in my mind, I tend to agree with Grover Krantz. I know the audience hates me when I say this. one has to be killed and brought in.

It's just the way it is. I hate to break it to everyone, but that's the way I feel because they won't look at the audio. They won't look at the track cast. Eyewitness testimony is irrelevant on the record for most scientists, even though I think a lot of them listen to the show and take that as a form of evidence. But they won't look at any of this stuff. Put videos aside and just look at some of this other stuff. And I usually tell people, you know, if you don't believe into this, that's okay. If you're skeptical, I love skeptics.

Take six months and look into this and then tell me that there's nothing to this. After you, you know, give it a good shot, take six months and look into it. But the problem is, is I don't think it's going to be proven with DNA. I don't think it's going to be proven with video. I don't think it's going to be proven with audio. Trackcast, eyewitness testimony. You can go down the list. I think Grover Trans was right.

I think one probably has to be shot and brought in. Now, that's a big task. It's a very dangerous task, but I think that's probably what needs to be done. Maybe, yeah, I don't know. But you made a couple good point. First of all, I sense the frustration in your voice that I feel. And this is part of the problem. We know too much.

We've been doing this too long. I envy the exposure you have to eyewitness descriptions. descriptions. I mean, wow, I'd like to hear more of that. But, you know, again, philosophy of science, eyewitness descriptions, who is this, Michael Polani, saying, a chemist, and he's saying, you know, some of this evidence, we just, it points us in a certain direction. It's not necessarily conclusive. Our colleagues may not consider it evidence, but it points us in a direction, and we need to, well, it may be worthwhile following it. And it's, and it's, it. And it's, So that's a more modest take on eyewitness description, because, yeah, there is a lot of resistance to that, and for good reason.

Yeah, I wanted to ask you, one of the questions that was asked to me a couple years back, and I didn't have a great answer for it. I was kind of stopped dead in my tracks. A guy, Gary Wayne, he wrote a book, Genesis 6, it's about the Nethalam and all this other stuff. Well, he has an interest in Sasquatch. And he said to me, he said, Wes, don't you find it interesting? and fascinating that Sasquatch is reported on almost every continent. It's in Canada, it's in, you know, it's in China, it's in Russia, it's in the United States, it's reported in Australia, and everyone kind of has a different name for it. Yet there's not, he says, don't you find it weird

that really there's not a whole, we haven't really moved the subject forward. I mean, there's really not, not a whole lot's changed. And since the Patterson, Himmlin film. I mean, really, nothing's changed, yet it's reported everywhere, and I didn't have an answer for him. Well, I have a couple of comments on that, if I may, because, you know, the scientific discipline that first started studying the Sasquatch was cultural anthropologists. Now, these were not physical anthropologists studying apes and primates and humans. These were, they were looking into like Aboriginal culture, and they said, oh, yes, this imaginary giant that we keep hearing about, I think that's a metaphor for wilderness and fear and famine, and certainly Aboriginal people in Northern Canada, it's a very widespread motif in Aboriginal culture. And, you know, this is what it is, you know, and this is this metaphor, this representation

of something. And that became very widely accepted. But anyway, and we didn't actually get, weren't able to attract other anthropologists. I had something else I was going to say. But there's that problem. Oh, and I know this thing on other. So this is the other thing. They say, ah, and proof that it's simply a metaphor or an imaginary being.

It occurs all around the world. You know, Australia has one. Indonesia has one. China has one. You know, ah. So this is the problem with these other homin. But, you know, as you know, Jeff Meldrum is working ahead on that. And Cliff Berrickman has done some great work with the Rang Pandek in Sumatra.

And he's working with an Indonesian fellow there. They're collaborating and getting great trackass of the rank-pend deck. And I'm thinking, oh, shucks, they're going to have better acceptance of the rank-pend deck, that kind of small ape, well, I think it's an ape and upright ape, of Sumatra, then we have for the North American Sasquatch. And Grover had a good comment. He said, oh, we really should be working on the Sasquatch because we just have so much. When Grover was talking, I mean, he died in the year 2000.

But by then, he said we should have so much for the Sasquatch, and now we have even more. And I agree with you. We should be much further ahead than we are. Sorry. This always turns into a bit of a rant these days. No, no, I love it. You're doing great. I love it.

Please don't cut yourself off. You're doing great. I wanted to ask you, you went to Russia, to look into the ALMAs. What were some of the differences and similarities that you found when you were in Russia compared to what we have here in the United States or in Canada? Was there differences and was there similarities as far as what the Russians say about the ALMASD? Mainly similarities. Well, you know, actually, and Jeff Meldom's picked up on this because he's continuing to collaborate with an investigator there.

There may, in fact, be two, you've talked about some of the differences here in North America, you know, at the anatomical differences. There is, you know, the almas of the caucuses region, which sound quite, quite human-like. And then there's the traditional, what they call the snowman, the Western snowman, which is very much like our large North American Sasquatch. So there may be two. And people, as Jeff commented, they conflate them and they mix them. But, oh, but gee, there's some good stuff. You know, I kind of got, for that trip, I got into the Dmitri Bionov's writing. And some of the stuff in the remote areas of the eastern Russia and the Arctic,

quite amazing. You know, don't leave your, if you've been hunting and you get a carcass, you know, don't leave it out because if you leave it out overnight, it'll be gone by morning. and they knew who was taking it. And it just matter of fact, it's kind of like the Aboriginal situation. Very mad here in North America, for some groups,

very matter of fact. You know, we know that this mammal is out there. Yeah, basically friend, but there's certain things we shouldn't do. And, you know, and things get taken.

They fish from smoke houses, smoked salmon, that sort of thing. And that's widely known. Got one more comment on Russia. One of the best forms of evidence with these, twisted saplings. And we're getting that here in North America, but not as well illustrated as

there. But you can't really bring in Sasquatch evidence from Russia to explain North American evidence because we don't even accept it here. So it puts us in kind of limbo. Anyways, yeah. Yeah, did you have any aggressive reports? I mean, as you talked to eyewitnesses or as you research area investigated the area, was there any aggressive reports? moderate well you know there is that

that historical bowman story that I actually wrote it up in the first book but you know if we follow that story this is where a trapper

he was killed I'm trying to remember it's old for the 1800 Theodore Roosevelt wrote it up but if you read that whole story these trappers

were in an area and there had been several acts of intimidation where if it was a Sasquot Something had come and trashed their lean to on two occasions. It had left tracks, and they had said, gee, that bear is walking on two feet.

I mean, it was around and it was showing that it was not happy with the presence of these trappers. They finally said, we should get out of here. And when they were picking up tracks, one of them was killed. And that's really the only sort of published case of strong aggression that I know of. And the other thing I want to ask you is this different types. You know, as I talked to eyewitnesses, as I was mentioning earlier, you know, here in the Pacific Northwest, they seem to be a lot bigger. They seem to be more, you know, a cross between Arnold Schwarzenegro and an ape in size. And what's interesting is we need, and a lot of times when people see them in the face, they'll say it looked very ape-like, except for the nose.

Everyone says it had a human nose. Yeah, yeah. But as you go down. The nose is controversial. It is. It is very controversial. And as you go down south, the reports, they aren't as big, you know, like in Texas and Arkansas and Oklahoma. The reports, they generally aren't as big. I mean, sometimes they are, but I would say for the most part, people report things being seven, maybe eight feet tall at the very max. Generally speaking, I mean, and they'll say when they see it, they'll say it looked like a chimp, except for it had a human-type nose, but it looked very chimp. like in the face. And then as you go kind of on the eastern seaboard, I get a lot of reports with people saying, well, no, it actually looked very human-like. It looked kind of, and forgive me for this, but it kind of looked, you know, Native Americans have certain features. They have the

high cheekbones and they'll say, kind of look like that. It wasn't quite human, but it was more like that. And as I started interviewing these eyewitnesses, at first I had a hard time with that. I was like, well, that's not what we're seeing. I mean, that's not, you guys must be seeing something else. And then it kind of hit me one day. It makes sense that they wouldn't be, you know, you get down to like Texas and Arkansas and Oklahoma and the land and the food and the water and everything isn't in comparison to what we have here in the Pacific Northwest.

There's a lot of room to run around. And so, you know, these different types have come up. And as a wildlife biologist, what is your take on that when you hear of these different? Well, this is the thing. As a wildlife biologist, you know, we're looking at, you know, say a deer or a bear or an elk. And you go to field guide to the mammals. One image of a white-tailed deer describes the white-tailed deer. One image of a black bear that all pretty much look like that.

Now, in primate, you get all this variation. It's called polymorphism, different shapes. I mean, look at we humans, you know, from tall and gangly thin to short and wide and different hair color, very different physical features. And I'm sure that's going on. Well, it does go on in chimpanzees because, I mean, Jane Goodall, she could identify individual chimps easily by various physical features and hair color and stuff like that. So I think that's going on. So there definitely is quite a bit of variation.

Yeah, and it kind of made sense to me. that there would be variation. You know, if everyone was describing the exact same thing, everyone's seeing in Washington State or British Columbia, if you really think about it, it doesn't really make sense because it's a different environment, you know, and you get down to Texas or Florida, and it's a completely different environment

than what we have here in the Pacific Northwest where you and I are at, John, and it would make sense that you would kind of get a variation of different types. You know, if no one knew what a primate was, a non-human primate, and one person saw a gorilla and one person saw a champ, their descriptions wouldn't match up. I mean, they would kind of match up, but there would be subtle differences between a chimp and a gorilla.

And that's kind of when I started looking at these different types, it kind of made sense that there would be. Go ahead. Well, you see, this is the thing, and we are progressing. We're getting anatomical details. And after I'm working on doing this, I'm doing this field guide entry right now, and even I'm going to get up to the Sasquatch face. And, you know, there are people that are eyewitness who describe, sure, the face is flat compared to a bear.

It doesn't have the big snout. So we can eliminate bears. And the human-like thing, yeah, sometimes the nose seems prominent. Sometimes the nose is very flat. A couple of reports talk about prognathism. And this is when the jaw area kind of protrudes, which is very chimp-like, very ape-like, and not human-like, at least not in modern. humans. But, you know, it's being reported. So, ah, okay, it's at least explainable anatomically. I wanted to ask you, what's the most intriguing report that you ever received

from an eyewitness? What's one that kind of sticks with you? Unfortunately, it's secondhand, and some people they don't want to talk. Anyway, okay, so how's it go? It's on the BC mainland. A guy's up in the mountains. He sees a Sasquatch. and what's going on, according to his description, is that it's ripping open a log, pulling out ants, maybe other insects, grubs, and things from the log, throwing them into a creek, which is a trout stream, trout are rising, well, rising for this arrival of the food, and it starts scooping out trout onto the bank as food for itself. Well, that's a heck of a story. I mean, I'm very interested in food habits because there's a lot of criticism saying, you know, how can this, how can a 700-pound mammal support itself in these, Connor's for it.

Here's intelligence and learning at work if it's true. But, you know, I haven't been able to follow that one up. I'd like to, you know, sit down with the eyewitness. Again, get the backstory, get a sense of that person's experience and reliability as a eyewitness. But these are intriguing, and this goes back to the common of Palani. Things like that point the way. They kind of give us a suggestion of how the Sasquatch is not surviving in the forest here and elsewhere, but possibly even thriving. As Aboriginal people, of course, have done on this coast for thousands of years. Well, that's the whole shellfish thing out here,

but anyway. Yeah, and you hear a lot of primates do that. There's one report I'll send you. I did a whole show on it of this hunter who saw one. And he was in the forest. And first he thought it was a bear. And then it just didn't make sense what he was seeing. And he was looking at it the whole time through his scope. And what this creature did, he said, you know, Wes, I thought it was an ape. I thought it was a monkey. But the face looked very human-like. But he wasn't really, he was far enough away and the creature hadn't seen him. And he said, when it came out of the forest, and I thought this was a very fascinating report. He said when it came out of the forest, it started sniffing the air. And he said it was sniffing the air and it kind of looked around real cautiously. And he was in a

blind so it didn't see him. He was quite a distance away. So he's watching this thing. And he goes, I think this thing had been shot. And I said, why do you say that? And he goes, well, he goes, you know, my camera remember if it was his father or his uncle had a stroke. And one side of his body, he basically couldn't use. And he said this thing, the, left arm was just kind of hanging down and it wasn't using it. And he said, it picked up a rock and it started tapping on a tree. And it sounded like a wood knock. And then it put its ear up against a tree. And it tapped a couple more times, put its ear up against a tree, and then it knocked the tree over and grabbed a rodent, smashed it up against another tree, ripped it open and started eating it right there.

And he said, when it got done, it stood up and it walked back into the tree line. And he had a great description of this creature, but it was the first time I'd ever heard a Sasquatch doing that. I mean, that's a very intelligent thing. And you hear a lot of, you hear a lot of this, you know, other things. You know, people talk about these wood knocks. Well, I've had witnesses on the show that have seen them slap a tree with their hand, open fist or open palm, hit a tree. and the hunter that saw it said it reminded, it sounded just like a wood knock, but it was open hand hitting a tree, and it hit the tree so hard, it echoed. And so there's a lot of things you can get from eyewitnesses, like the report you were just talking about. Oh, for sure.

You know, I wonder, you probably, we're all familiar with it. You mentioned that that wrote it. That's a really interesting report because the Glenn Thomas report from Oregon, where Glenn Thomas walked across a rock slot, sorry, where Glenn Thomas saw three Sasquatches walking across a rock slide, and the adults were sniffing, picking up rocks and sniffing them,

finally smelled something that must have been interesting because the male dug a big, well-like pit, and started pulling up, hibernating ground squirrels, and bedding, and they started eating them. I mean, that is just so similar to that situation that you described. So, you know, a lot of this, I think, at maybe, you take that for what it's worth, and you kind of put it on the shelf. Say, okay, it's there, and may or may not be published. It may just be, you know, recorded like yours is, audio, and that's great.

But it sits there. And like, for me, when you tell me that one you just told me about the rodent in the squirrel, presumably, in the tree, it's maybe not corroboration, but it's kind of building on this form. It's almost like foraging rather than needing predation where a Sasquot has to kind of run down something or use ambush predation. Foraging is so much easier. It's like the scooping of a shellfish on a beach and like the case of the hibernating ground squirrels in Oregon. You know, just scooping them out when they're in hibernation. and maybe this thing, the squirrel in the tree was almost like foraging, etc.

Reach in and grab it, I don't know, but that's great. Well, thanks, Wes. I had a hunter one time in Texas tell me that. That is actually common. You can do that as a hunter. You can actually, if you tap in a tree, especially like a deadfall tree or if you tap on it, you can listen. And a lot of times you can grab, I'm not into eating rodents, but, you know, some people, that's what they do. but he was telling me that that is actually some hunters do that.

And, you know, you learn so much from eyewitnesses. You know, a lot of times you hear of old reports of them picking berries. And I even get those today. But I had a law enforcement officer. And this guy was in tears the whole time he's telling me the story. He was up in a tree stand. And what he saw, he didn't believe in Sasquatch. He thought it was nonsense.

But he's in this tree stand. And he said that what he was. saw is this hog come running out of the brush, a very large hog. And then he goes, West, there was two very large chimpanzees. And they grabbed this hog, smashed it, they broke its neck, smashed it against a tree. They ripped it open. He's watching all this from a tree stand. And he said, they sat down and ate it right there. And I had him describe these quote unquote chimpanzees he was talking about. And he said, you know, they're about eight feet tall. And, you know, he's basically describing a Sasquatch. He's describing their face and everything.

But I thought that was fascinating. Here they run down a hog. It is fascinating. And they smash it and then eat it. You know, it makes sense. Yeah. Well, you know, going back to my early years, trying to get started, well, trying to get wondering if I should get started in Sasquatch research.

I was working for the United Nations in the Serengeti National Park at a research institute. And we'd sit around in the evening and talk about other wildlife stuff. And I started talking about the North American Sasquatch. is that I'm, when I go back, this was, oh, gee, 70. Anyway, when I go back, I'm planning to move to BC and study at there. Any ideas? So we had this international group, Europeans and Americans, and saying, well, John, if I were you going back, I'd concentrate on food habits, because that's obviously critical and a key to understanding, well, first of all, it's

ecological viability, and might be giving you some leads on where to find it. So that's why I get quite excited about food habits. report because I don't have a lot. Well, I do. I have about 49 items of food listed in the first book. And these are food items. Either a Sasquatch was observed eating it or caring it, presumably to eat later. But, you know, you just keep adding to it. That's great.

Yeah. Yeah, I wanted to ask you, you know, I've talked to wildlife biologists that work for the state here in Washington, one in Washington and one in Oregon. And I've talked to a lot of DNR officers. There's Dr. Briggs Hall. He was a... Oh, I know him. Yeah, a DNR officer.

And if you start talking to these guys, it becomes very evident that there's some sort of cover-up going on, at least in my mind. Because they're told, you know, okay, don't go into these areas. There's one in Oregon. A lady had contacted me. And she said, you know, they were told not to go into a particular area. Then they started asking why. And, you know, what they were told was, well, there's a bear in the area. And she goes, Wes, we run into bears all the time.

But she goes, there is kind of a hidden agenda when it comes to Sasquatch. It's not to be talked about any reports or, you know, anything's kind of brushed under the carpet. But I wanted to ask you your own professional opinion. Do you think that it's being covered up? Well, I try to be very careful because soon as you mentioned covering up or suppression of evidence, it starts sounding like conspiracy theory. And I really do not want to go there because there is enough of that around. You know, I mean, there's enough bizarre explanations for the Sasquatch.

It really, I don't like to see brought forward because it invalidates our research. Now, having said that, again, philosophy of science shows me that there is such strong resistance to a claim that's far-fetched that, what's called, cognitive dissidents? you know, it's much easier and safer to just put this thing aside. You know, I guess it goes back to the earlier comments. You know, when we get our type specimen, then and only then will it become an option. And that's why I'm working so hard right now on my field guide entry because it goes back to this problem. You see, you know, all these people were taught, they see a Sasquot. Now, in the old days, people like me, we'd come home and look it up in mammals of North America, the field guide.

It's not there. Closest thing is it upright there. Well, some would say, could be, but not good. Others would say absolutely no way. But we're not given that option. And that's, well, that's, wow, it's disappointing and discouraging. And at some point, I think we're going to be accused of professional irresponsibility

for not having got to this point yet. But I think I got off track. No, no, no, no, you're fine. And I respect your opinion on it. I respect, you know, it's kind of a fine line you have to walk sometimes because it's so hard to prove. A lot of times those people, you know, and again, it's a wildlife biologist and people of, they don't want to come on the show for obvious reasons. And so it's kind of a fine line you have to walk. I want to ask you, you know, you talk about the...

I'd like to comment on that because this is what I'm working on now. I'm saying to my colleagues, you know, they're trying to save their reputation by avoiding the subject. When they're younger, they could enhance their reputation by engaging the subject. They will look prescient, you know? They will look, hey, here's a guy. He was ahead of his time. He actually was open-minded to these claims.

And that's where I am. I'm pretty late in my career here. And I'm actually, you know, as I said earlier, it's too late for most of us for people to look, professionals to look proactive, but we really don't have to look as bad as we do. And I think it's so safe, you know. It shouldn't be seen as such a big deal to talk about. You don't have to admit that you have conclusively accepted the existence of the Sasquah. But do we not just discuss the evidence?

And anyway, sorry. I just, there's what you're right. You're right. And that's what, and that's, I think, for the most part, all of us who are involved in the subject, I really think that's what we want. And I say we, the non-scientists, the non-professionals, you know, you don't have to accept it as being true. But just take a look at the evidence. Maybe listen to a couple eyewitnesses.

You know, the professor I told you about, I know he listens all the time. He'll probably listen to this show and email me afterwards, but I know he listens all the time. And he'll, he is focused on, and he's told me, he said, Wes, on the record, I'll tell you that eyewitness testimony is irrelevant. off the record, I find it fascinating. And he'll discuss it with his students. And that's a huge step forward because, and I get it. I completely get it. If I was a scientist, I don't know if I would have the balls like you, like Dr. Melodrome,

some of these other guys to come forward and say, hey, I'm looking into this. And that takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of courage for a witness to come forward, let alone ruin your whole professional career, you know, and say you're looking into this, I just wish more, like he said, there's nothing wrong with discussing it. Why not discuss it? You don't have to admit it's true. Why not discuss it? Discuss the evidence. Yeah. Well, thank you. And I get, you know, there's certain things that that sort of drive me forward and keep me going. And one is saying, you know, and when people have a report, they'll tell me maybe in confidence, I say, gee, hang on to that. I know you can't

really dine out on that report right now, but you will down the road. And it's trying to to give them confidence. It so distresses me, this is valuable scientific information that people are trying to report, and my, you know, biologist colleagues are kind of maybe not rebuffing them, but they're not taking them seriously. They're not filing these reports. They're being, well, I don't use the word closed-minded, but they're being very resistant to engaging this, which is, again, it comes down at some point to professional irresponsibility. Surely we should be at least making notes. Anyway, it's becoming more of an issue with me all the time. Yeah, and is this what you would call, you know, you talk about the discovery of Sasquatch, and I've watched your videos, and you talk about it being a prolonged process. Is that kind of what we're in right now? We're in this long, prolonged process as far as...

We are, and some of us are running out of time, and would like to see it move a little faster. Not just for people like me, but for the eyewitnesses themselves. There's some real distress that I've heard about. People have gone for counseling because they've seen something that's not supposed to exist. And I know in one case, the counselors, so I once asked him, So have you ever had a client or a patient come to you with the Sasquatch report for counseling? He said, yes, because they've seen a Sasquot. Oh, yes, people have come to me because they thought they saw a Sasquatch.

Well, you see, that was his attitude that they thought they saw a Sasquot. The person didn't think, he or she knew, you see. And so they're not getting maybe the counseling they needed. So we're stuck in this situation of, well, just that it's still invalid. Yeah, and you're right. You know, I've talked to a lot of, and I hate to say this, but I've talked to a lot of alcoholics off the air. And we never mentioned any of that stuff on the air, but people see these things and it affects them. You know, it's kind of like finding out the boogie man's really.

I know that's a bad example, but, you know, something is, it's like seeing a unicorn. Yeah. It's not supposed to exist and they see it. And I think it shocks us as humans to see something that's kind of close to us that really is myth and legend and should not exist. And you'd be surprised. You talked to a lot of these hunters and stuff, and I've talked to a lot of them where they, that was the last day they went hunting. They've been lifelong hunters. They see this thing.

And then that's it. They're done. They're never going in the forest again. And it's kind of a shame because who do you talk to? Well, you know, that's a really good thing. point, and I think it explains both you and I seem to say almost like a sense of mission here, you know, and I think that's what I see as part of my responsibility, hopefully without sounding too self-righteous, but to create an atmosphere, as you do, where it's safe to talk about

this. You know, it's okay to have seen a Sasquot. And not only is it okay, it's a good thing, and thank you for sharing the report. We need to get to that because I don't know if I'll be around or not for that day when you know we get acceptance whether it's the type specimen whatever gets us over the tipping point and all I just well as you know probably better than I there are so many reports out there in people's heads and just awaiting a safe environment to bring them forward which they really want to do it's sometimes quite a cathartic experience to for them I found this out to talk to someone who's a willing listener. Yeah, you're right. And I think that's what most people want, you know, they want someone.

My situation's different because I've had an encounter. So when people will come to me, I understand how they feel, I understand what they've gone through. And I understand the other side of the coin when I talk to hunters who say, hey, listen, I've been out hunting my whole life. I've never seen anything close to a Sasquatch. I get it. I completely get it because I was there at one time being the hunter and never really I was never looking for evidence I was focused on getting an elk but that was my my focus when I was down the woods but that's neither here nor there but I get it I completely get it when people are skeptical of this subject yeah yeah yeah that's the great thing someone like you and I know Todd niece is another one you know they have a sighting and at some point

they become investigators and that's why you're in such a great job of archiving this stuff. I've really got to catch up on what you've got in your audio files. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. One question I want to ask you, John, and I realize a lot of these questions is more or less theory. It's not really black or white. But in a lot of these reports, well, I won't say a lot of future reports, very few reports, but I do get them of people reporting the smell. Not always. I would say most encounters people will say I smell nothing. But you do get these reports of, especially hunters, where they will talk about walking into a wall of just foul, just a terrible smell. Do you have any theory on that as far as why?

Yeah, I do. And you made a very good point because, you know, in John Green's files, when I was studying, now only, I think it was around 16% was there, that strong odor. But when it occurred, it was just overwhelming. Your description as a wall of odor or scent is pretty good. I mean, you know, I've heard description like, you know, the smell of 20 skunk spraying, something like that, gagging, you know. Well, you know, again, if it's not offensive to relate to the Great Apes, Diane Fawsey described the gagging fear odor of a female Sasquatch who was being stressed or chased or felt threatened for some reason. And it comes out. Like we humans have it to some extent, but the great ape seem to have it more strongly.

And it is the scent glands. It is the armpits, much more highly developed, apparently, in guerrillas. So, yeah, I think it's real. I equated to a sense of stress, which, again, is quite like humans, the smell of fear, that sort of thing. Because, you know, you get these reports, and I know it from some clam diggers here on BC Coast. Some guys out at night, and suddenly there's this, they're big in clams, it's dark, there's this smell, and they say, oh, there's a dead seal here, you know, it's really rotting, but then it goes away. So, no, it wasn't a dead seal, because it would have persisted.

And so they say, oh, yeah, that would, well, they would say it's because, you know, the Sasquatch. So, yeah, I think the order is important. We just have to, you know, kind of try to understand it. Yeah, and you're right, you do hear of Great Apes doing that. I mean, we as humans do that when we get to a smaller extent to what people are describing. But even great apes have that. They lent that scent gland off. Usually when they're under stress or fear or emotions are involved, it seems to get this smell. And it's interesting because usually hunters will hear, they'll have a rock thrown at them.

I had a hunter one time on the show. He had a rock throwing at him. And he thought it was another hunter messing with him. So he got down out of his tree stand, started screaming and yelling. and walking to where this rock was thrown at him because he thought it was a person. And he said he just walked into this wall of the most foul odor he's ever smelled in his life. And he had a small glimpse of it run off. But I found that fascinating because here's a guy who doesn't believe in Bigfoot,

but he charges it thinking it's a hunter screwing with him. And then he walks into this wall of stink. it probably wasn't expecting that type of reaction. And that's kind of how I equate the smell. But again, it's all theory, you know. No, no, no, that's good. No, this is more than theory of that. It's a couple of, see, there's evidence,

and then there's interpretation, and the evidence, A, a rock was thrown. Well, it's, put forth a, maybe testimonial evidence. Anyway, and that, and that, from that direction, there was the strong smell. Okay, these things can just stand there, left, the sort of thing. We, we, I mean, yeah, you have made a point.

Maybe it's speculation in theory that these two things are related and they're related to the Sasquatch. But, you know, we just keep, these are the building blocks of discovery. You keep putting that together often enough. You say, okay, you know, we're getting some consistency here. And then this comes back to my concern that there's not enough of this. It's happening, but it's not being talked about. or reported to, well, the people that I think should be dealing with

who have much more knowledge than I have, you know, for interpreting this and putting it in perspective, making sense of it. Yeah, no, I agree. As a wildlife biologist, if someone went to you and said, John, go find these things, how would you go about tracking these things down? Well, you know, people do come to me saying, you know, I'm coming to Vancouver Island or I'm coming to B.C., I'm interested in, you know, Southern

the Sasquatch, where would I go when I think? Oh, gee, I've got this list of they're good areas, but they're still not pinpointing things. You know, I mean, I'm just like everybody else. I'm looking for repeat sightings in an area, hopefully maybe the

same time of year. And you know, you get that, say, on clam beaches or berry patches or my grain, salmon streams, but we're still talking large areas. And, you know, I've got trail cameras out, and I I'm following up on stuff. And this is one of the, we don't have that level of predictability that we do have,

you know, with deer elk bears, we can be, you know, hundreds of got it figured out. Oh, I know I know where there's a big buck, you know. And we're not picking them up on trail cams, you know, for maybe a number of reasons. But I wish I knew John Green was so heartened when I arrived in B.C. and 75 as a wildlife biologist, I said, well, don't count on me too much. It's quite a big problem we have in front of us here, I think. And that's proven to be the case because, and that's why I like these food habits report. Because sometimes, well, I think we're looking for concentrated food sources, I guess,

where there's some regular or seasonal visits. And I haven't really found that, you know, they're pretty wide ranging. It seems to be half, maybe half vegetation, half meat, eat pretty adaptable it seems. Yeah, it's kind of a hard question to answer. You know, the primatologist I was telling you about, he told me one time, he said, you know, Wes, if you ever want to go find great apes in the wild, good luck. And good luck getting them on camera. He said, because they will sit in the bushes and you will walk right past them and not even know they're there.

And they, he goes, there's a lot of correlations between the Sasquatch and what great apes do. And he said, it's not easy to find a primate, a non-human primate, like you would think. They're very elusive. They're very cautious of humans. They're very, you know, I know we hear Jane Goodall, and everyone thinks she just showed up, and the chimps welcomed her, and that's not the case. No. And so...

No, go ahead, John. I'd like to comment on that, because that's right, that Jane Goodall situation, I've studied her work. And she makes the point at the beginning. She was about nine months in the forest, knowing chimps were around, hearing them occasionally, not a peak at one. And then one day, I guess she got too close to them. And they started intimidation. There was hooting and panting and six sticks being thrown.

And they displayed. It's called the intimidation display. And that was her good introduction. So we don't hear much about that. We hear much about her later times when, you know, there was the provision of food and the chimps in the camp and all that sort of thing. No, it took her a long time. Very good point.

And I don't want to keep you, John, but one of the last questions I wanted to ask you that wasn't really Bigfoot related, you know, you made the move from Central Canada to, I believe it was Ontario, wasn't it? That's right, yep. To BC. And it was mainly to research the Sasquatch reports. if my memory is right from what you told me. And I always wanted to ask you,

how in the heck did you ever talk your wife into that? I mean, that's a good woman. That's a keeper right there. She is. How in the world did you? You know what I thought you were going to say? There's some very good Sasquatch reports coming out of Ontario, John. Why did you move?

I'm actually studying the Sasquot and collaborating with workers' researchers back there now. Anyway, that's an aside. No, well, actually, you know, I mean, you live on the West Coast. It really, Vancouver, we had, how did it go? Yeah, I did. I had a consulting assignment in Jasper National Park in Alberta at one time, and we had a break and drove out to the coast here to Vancouver Island.

And, you know, it was pretty nice. I mean, just from a, for a biologist, a birder, you know, the marine mammals, you know, I was still a hunter at the beginning. The birding was pretty good. climate. There was, you know, I loved seafood. You know, there were a lot of attractions. So it really wasn't all that hard.

And, you know, Ontario's nice, but it's not that great. I hear you. Well, if the audience gets a chance, go to saskwatch biologist.org and pick up John's books, the discovery of the Sasquatch and the North American Great Ape, the Sasquatch off John's website. and go subscribe to his YouTube channel. I'll put a link in the description. Definitely, I mean, it's probably some of the best presentations I've ever seen.

And I highly recommend it if you can, subscribe, like, and go through his videos. I've been posting him like crazy. And every time you put one up, John, I put it up on the website. And I really appreciate you coming on. I've really enjoyed talking with you. Well, I've certainly enjoyed it. I need a boost. You know, I'm kind of out of the loop up here.

And you've been very encouraging. So thank you very much. Thank you, John. And that's it for tonight, everyone. Remember, if you've had an encounter, shoot me an email. My email address is Wes at Sasquatch Chronicles.com. And if you get a chance to check out the website, you can become a member. You can get merchandise.

If you get a free moment, please check out Sasquatch Chronicles.com. Until next time, everyone. Faster than the coronavirus and we're antidote. I'm Tom Martin, and I'm a veteran sports analyst. expected sports handicapper who will help 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 SportsGarten Network's Wagering Week help your bottom line.