0:00

Big foot and be

0:02

on with Cliff and

0:05

Bobo. These guys are

0:07

your favorites. So like

0:10

you're subscribing rated. Five

0:12

stars. Big foot and

0:15

be on. The greatest

0:18

podcast. Wherever you're listening

0:20

or watching. James

0:29

Bobofay. Hey, Bob's, what's happening? Hey,

0:31

Clint, how much how's it going? It's going

0:33

all right. Just another beautiful day hanging out,

0:36

gonna talk to a great guest today about

0:38

a great subject. I'm kind of excited about

0:40

it. But we should probably let Darby talk

0:42

about that. So why don't we just bring

0:45

Darby on? We'll start talking. How are you?

0:47

Hi, I'm doing well. How are you? Good. Doing

0:49

right, pushing forward. So thank you so

0:51

much for coming on. You have such

0:53

an exciting project here, but before we

0:55

get going on that, I was looking

0:57

up, I was going to try to

0:59

familiarize myself with your biography. And the

1:01

nearest, I mean, correct me if I'm

1:04

wrong, but the nearest, I can figure

1:06

is, you're kind of, you're a library

1:08

and some sort, you're a research of

1:10

a variety of subjects, and it seems

1:12

like you're a facilitator, more than, say,

1:14

say, an instructor, or a good way

1:16

to categorize you. Well, I am an

1:19

instructor as well. Yeah, I'm

1:21

on faculty at North Carolina

1:23

State University. My primary faculty

1:26

appointment is as a

1:28

librarian, but as you know, Cliff,

1:30

not doing the sorts of things

1:32

that most people think of when

1:34

you think of a librarian, but

1:36

also I do teach and I

1:39

am very much involved with research.

1:41

And my work is a

1:43

librarian, especially for many, many

1:45

years. My job has been to

1:47

help put together and support highly

1:49

interdisciplinary research teams

1:52

to tackle really tough questions. So

1:54

to put together the right people

1:57

and to help translate between fields.

1:59

in such a way that people

2:01

can deal with real-world

2:04

issues that require expertise

2:06

that's coming from a

2:08

number of different areas. Now

2:10

is this, is this, is your

2:13

role here needed because the

2:15

disciplines don't tend to speak

2:17

to one another? That is

2:20

sometimes the case. Experts in

2:22

different disciplines oftentimes either don't

2:24

know how to speak to

2:26

one another or sometimes don't

2:29

realize that they're asking questions

2:31

along similar lines or about

2:33

similar subjects in ways where

2:35

they could be working together

2:37

and getting further that way.

2:40

Sometimes they don't know how

2:42

to speak one another's language.

2:44

And so I play this

2:46

role of matchmaking and translating

2:48

and facilitating and facilitating. For

2:50

you, you must be kind of

2:53

familiar with a huge number of

2:55

disciplines then to even know what's

2:58

going on to any of them

3:00

and realize that there might be

3:02

connections that could be made between

3:05

them. Yeah, very much so. In

3:07

fact, I'm usually the person in

3:09

the room who knows the most

3:12

about everything and the least about

3:14

any given subject. I am also

3:16

one of those people, which is

3:18

why I became an elementary school

3:21

teacher. I was pretty good at

3:23

everything, but not really great at

3:25

anything. In your career path

3:27

or in your personal life,

3:29

because obviously these things intersect

3:31

on a regular basis for

3:33

everyone, what led you down the

3:35

path to Saswatch? Well, I had been

3:38

teaching courses for a number

3:40

of years and particularly been

3:42

teaching courses about... how science works,

3:44

not just the sorts of things

3:47

that say you might have taught

3:49

your students in elementary school

3:51

of how science says it

3:54

works, no hypothesis and testing

3:56

and experimentation, those sorts of

3:59

things. but also culturally

4:01

speaking, how science works,

4:03

what are the economic structures

4:06

that underlie scientific research, what

4:08

are the ways that people

4:11

communicate with one another, how

4:13

do scientists communicate with the

4:15

general public as well as

4:18

with one another, with funding

4:20

agencies, with government, with industry,

4:23

and how science's scientific

4:26

discoveries are applied. in

4:28

the real world. So there's

4:30

a lot that goes into

4:32

science that oftentimes even scientists

4:35

are not fully aware of

4:37

themselves. And so I've been

4:39

teaching classes on that for a

4:41

great many years. And I

4:44

came upon this idea that

4:46

I thought would be really

4:48

interesting of looking at fringe

4:50

sciences or people doing scientific

4:53

work in areas that are oftentimes

4:55

not considered. science that

4:57

might be might be

4:59

referred to as pseudo science or

5:02

dismissed in that way. And I

5:04

thought it would be very interesting

5:06

to teach a course, and this

5:09

is what I started doing, that

5:11

looked at some of these areas

5:13

and asked these questions

5:16

of why are these

5:18

subjects dismissed by quote

5:20

unquote mainstream science or

5:22

the general public? Are

5:24

they being dismissed for

5:26

good reason? What can that

5:28

teach us about the ways

5:30

that we make decisions, the

5:32

ways that cultural aspects play

5:35

into our scientific questions and

5:37

practices? And so I started

5:39

engaging with some of

5:41

these fields, including the

5:43

field of Sasquatch Research

5:45

or Sasquatch Investigation. And

5:47

it was very, very

5:49

interesting to me, and one of

5:52

the things that I really wanted to

5:54

do with my students. was to challenge

5:56

them to look at the very best

5:59

evidence. in each of these

6:01

areas. Because as you know, there

6:03

are lots of people making

6:06

lots of claims and you

6:08

can find lots of silly

6:10

things in any of

6:12

these fringe or paranormal

6:14

or edge science fields.

6:16

You can find plenty of

6:18

things to make fun of,

6:20

but it's much more challenging

6:23

to deal with the best

6:25

potential evidence in these areas.

6:28

and see what it says

6:30

because any potential evidence is

6:32

actually evidence of something. So the

6:35

question is really, let's figure out

6:37

what it is. Do you have

6:39

a list of the best evidence

6:42

that you're going to focus on

6:44

right now? Well, you know, I

6:46

think that there are a number

6:48

of areas where there are interesting

6:50

questions to be asked

6:52

with regard to potential

6:55

Sasquatch investigation. In my current

6:57

study, the one that I'm leading

6:59

with my colleagues now that we're

7:02

talking about today, I really

7:04

wanted to look at

7:06

the physical biological evidence

7:08

that could potentially yield

7:10

DNA. And the reason for

7:12

that is that DNA is

7:15

really the gold standard for

7:17

the establishment of a species.

7:19

And that is, of course, one

7:22

of the big questions or one

7:24

of the big hypotheses. that the

7:27

saucewatch phenomenon could

7:29

potentially be explained,

7:31

at least in large part, by

7:34

a unique biological species. You

7:36

don't know, unless you look

7:38

at the evidence, unless

7:40

you examine the evidence, what

7:43

it is. And that's something

7:45

that I found, was that

7:47

there were people who were

7:49

finding hairs, that were people

7:51

who were finding other sorts

7:54

of physical samples, and... They

7:56

were asking me, where can I send to

7:58

have this tested? How do I... How do

8:00

I go about that? And I really

8:02

found that I couldn't find

8:05

a commercial lab or a university

8:07

or anywhere really that I

8:09

could really feel confident saying,

8:11

yeah, this is the place to

8:14

send this if you have a

8:16

potential unknown. And so that's

8:19

why I got together a team

8:21

and created that myself with

8:23

a study. So this is

8:25

a university-sponsored study. Is

8:28

that correct? Well, it's

8:30

university sponsored in

8:33

the sense that most

8:35

studies are university sponsored.

8:37

What that means really

8:39

is that in this

8:42

case, there are four

8:44

of us, faculty colleagues,

8:46

who are collaborating on

8:48

this and who have

8:50

set the scope and

8:53

the parameters of the study.

8:55

And we are all. on faculty

8:57

at NC State University.

9:00

So it's university sponsored

9:02

in that sense. The

9:04

other thing is that it

9:07

is an official study, and

9:09

so I've gone through the

9:11

paperwork. I had to

9:13

go through what we

9:15

call institutional review board

9:18

approval, which is our

9:20

ethics committee that makes

9:22

sure that when we do

9:24

any research. that we are treating

9:26

both humans and animals with

9:28

respect and care and properly

9:31

ethically. So you had to

9:33

fill out a probably a

9:35

mountain of paperwork for this

9:37

thing and then somehow still squeeze

9:39

it back, or squeeze it through

9:41

rather, knowing that this is kind

9:43

of a Sasquatch study, but you

9:45

couldn't put Sasquatch in the forefront,

9:48

right? So how did you get

9:50

around that? You know, this is and

9:52

this isn't. a Sasquatch study. And what

9:54

we're really interested in in this case,

9:56

and this is what the name of

9:59

the study is, It's a

10:01

study of allegedly

10:04

morphologically anomalous physical

10:06

samples. So what does that

10:09

mean? Basically that means

10:11

this is a study

10:13

of biological specimens that

10:16

people have found that

10:18

they claim have

10:20

unusual traits or

10:22

unusual appearances or

10:24

something unusual about them.

10:26

And that is what we're

10:29

studying. This comes from

10:31

my own hearing and

10:33

talking with folks, particularly

10:36

in the Bigfoot community,

10:38

who have found samples,

10:41

for example, found

10:43

hair samples, that folks

10:45

who are actually very

10:48

good at identifying hair

10:50

of known species in

10:52

North America cannot identify.

10:55

There are certain properties

10:57

to these hairs that

11:00

they reportedly have in

11:02

common, and yet they don't

11:04

look like those of known

11:06

species. That's an interesting

11:09

question. What are these?

11:11

So these are the types

11:13

of questions that we're trying

11:15

to answer. What are these things?

11:18

Every physical sample

11:20

that will be submitted

11:22

to us is a sample of

11:24

something. We don't know what it

11:26

is unless we look at it. Why

11:29

wouldn't we want to look at these?

11:31

Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and

11:33

Beyond with Cliffin Bobo. We'll

11:36

be right back after these

11:38

messages. So three to six months

11:40

doesn't seem like a long time,

11:42

right? In Bigfoot Land, it's not

11:45

very long because we've been looking

11:47

for Sasquatches for decades and decades

11:49

and decades, but... What do you

11:51

think about what can happen in

11:53

three to six months? Like what

11:55

would you do in three to

11:57

six months? I'm giving you six months.

11:59

Go. Squaw. Squat, of course, of course,

12:01

and how much do you think

12:03

is going to get done during

12:05

that time in Squat, are you going

12:08

to see one in six months?

12:10

Probably not. But in three to

12:12

six months, what you can see,

12:14

if you're not going to see

12:17

a Sasquatch, is thicker, fuller hair.

12:19

Regrown from hymns, our sponsor,

12:21

hymns, not bad for just

12:23

three to six months. Yeah, because

12:25

hymns will give you a convenient access

12:28

to a range of hair-lost treatments that

12:30

work, all from the comfort of your couch.

12:32

They make it pretty simple, man. They

12:34

use real doctors. It's clinically proven ingredients.

12:37

They use like finesteride and monoxibil. And

12:39

I love that idea. No doctor visits,

12:41

because first of all, doctors, who wants

12:43

to go see a doctor, nothing personal,

12:45

nothing personal, personal doctors. But also you

12:47

make an appointment now, you get in

12:50

August or something, or something, forget or

12:52

something. and I know you have access

12:54

to the internet because you're listening

12:56

to us right now. You can pick how

12:58

you want to do it like chewables, orals,

13:01

spray, serum treatments, whatever you want. I mean

13:03

they can work with you and customize it

13:05

to your preferences. Yeah, like it could

13:07

be a one-time thing, it could be

13:09

ongoing care. No insurance is needed at

13:11

all and it's all at one low

13:13

price and that covers everything from these

13:15

treatments to the ongoing care if you

13:17

so choose. Well they always said

13:20

the proofs and the pudin

13:22

and there's hundreds of thousands

13:24

of subscribers that trust it and

13:27

you know give it positive review

13:29

so there you go there's your pudin.

13:31

Thick hairy pudding. Search your

13:33

free online visit today

13:36

at hymns.com/beyond for

13:38

your personalized hair

13:40

loss treatment options.

13:42

hymns.com/beyond. Results vary based on

13:44

studies of topical and oral monoxidil

13:47

and finasteride. Prescription products require an

13:49

online consultation with a health care

13:51

provider who will determine if prescription

13:53

is appropriate. Restrictions apply. See website

13:55

for full details and important safety

13:57

information. So at this point what we've done

13:59

we just launched the online intake

14:02

survey at the tail end

14:04

of May. So we started,

14:06

we've had a trickle of

14:08

offers coming in thus far.

14:11

It's just started to

14:13

pick up over the last

14:15

couple of weeks. So at

14:17

this stage, as of this

14:20

recording, I am starting to

14:22

reach out to those folks, starting

14:25

to arrange brief interviews

14:27

with them. I have some

14:29

questions to learn and make

14:32

sure that we understand a

14:34

bit more about the samples

14:36

and the circumstances under which

14:39

they were found. And then

14:41

at that point, we'll be

14:43

giving those folks instructions as

14:45

to how to physically submit

14:47

the samples that we're

14:50

prioritizing at this time.

14:52

So I imagine that certainly by...

14:54

early September or so, I imagine

14:56

we will have the first samples

14:59

in hand on campus and in

15:01

the lab. So let's think about

15:03

it from a user perspective first and

15:06

then we'll talk about it from

15:08

the more the mechanical side, I

15:10

guess your side of things. So

15:12

if someone like say I found

15:14

Saswatch footprints and they went by

15:16

a tree and there were a

15:18

number of strange hairs on the

15:21

tree and I collected them. Now,

15:23

of course, I'm perhaps slightly better

15:25

equipped than your average Joe in

15:27

the forest. I would put these

15:29

underneath the microscope and take a

15:31

look at him. If I couldn't

15:34

easily identify them as bear or deer

15:36

or anything like that, and I wanted to

15:38

submit them, what would I do? Well, what

15:40

you would do is you would go to

15:42

the intake survey form that's online. Okay, and

15:44

by the way, we will have that, we'll

15:47

have that link in the show notes below.

15:49

We'll have that link in the show notes

15:51

below. Thank you very much for that.

15:53

I appreciate y'all getting the word out.

15:55

So the first thing you would do

15:57

is fill out. Well, I mean, the

15:59

first. thing you would do obviously

16:02

is collect the sample and

16:04

folks asked me hey what's

16:06

the best way to collect

16:08

the sample and there are

16:11

certainly lots of folks out

16:13

there who who describe good

16:15

techniques for sample collection but

16:17

the most important things to

16:20

do are to try to

16:22

collect the sample if you

16:24

can in a sterile way

16:26

so with sterile gloves or

16:29

sterile instruments most samples if

16:31

they're hair or something like

16:33

that moist wet, you know,

16:35

like blood or something, but

16:37

hairs, most of the samples

16:40

that folks are offering this

16:42

far, it's best to collect

16:44

those into a paper envelope

16:46

and stick them in the

16:49

refrigerator in the freezer. So

16:51

that's the best way to

16:53

store samples, collect and store

16:55

samples. So then you would

16:58

fill out the online survey,

17:00

at which point... Like I

17:02

say, I'll be reaching out

17:04

to people to then schedule

17:07

a brief interview by phone

17:09

or on the computer or

17:11

what have you. And at

17:13

that point, we'll be asking

17:16

folks, we'll be identifying which

17:18

samples we want to get

17:20

in some priority order. And

17:22

we'll be testing those. Anyone

17:25

who submits a sample in

17:27

that form can choose whether

17:29

they want to be identified.

17:31

publicly identified with their sample

17:34

or whether they want to

17:36

be completely anonymous because some

17:38

people want to be identified

17:40

and some people just want

17:42

to know what something is

17:45

and they don't want anybody

17:47

to know that they had

17:49

anything to do with Sasquatch.

17:51

Either one is fine. Under

17:54

no circumstances will we be

17:56

disclosing specific locations where samples

17:58

were samples were acquired. Just.

18:00

will be giving general locations,

18:03

but everybody who submits

18:05

a sample will receive

18:07

the results for their

18:09

sample. And what sort

18:11

of timeline would that be?

18:14

Well, here's the thing, Cliff.

18:16

Real science is not a

18:18

speedy process. So I'm

18:20

trying not to promise. a

18:22

specific timeline to folks, other

18:24

than we'll do it as well,

18:27

we will do these things as

18:29

quickly as we can, but that

18:32

could depend on a large

18:34

number of factors. So if

18:36

the sample, if the sample

18:38

that's submitted is something that

18:41

we come in, we look

18:43

at it, we run a test, and

18:45

oh, it pops up. Oh, this

18:48

is a black bear and it's

18:50

very clearly black bear and you

18:52

know, you may get a response

18:54

in a matter of a couple

18:56

of months. If it's a sample

18:58

that is more degraded

19:00

that we have or

19:02

having trouble pulling sequencing

19:05

information out of, we may be

19:07

working with it for a while. It

19:09

really just depends on

19:11

so many things that are

19:13

beyond. our control or the

19:16

people submitting these things as

19:18

to how long it can take.

19:20

But I do promise you,

19:22

you will receive a response.

19:24

You will receive a report

19:26

for your sample. Yeah, you

19:28

would have to be

19:30

extraordinarily careful, of course,

19:33

because if you say, for

19:35

example, it happened, a Sasquatch

19:37

hair is submitted, it's in

19:39

good shape. passes the microscopic

19:41

analysis and the DNA comes

19:43

back is what the hell

19:45

is this, right? Even then

19:47

it would have to be

19:49

tested and retested because a

19:51

false positive in this in

19:53

this particular scenario could sink

19:55

everything. They could just make

19:57

the subject and the study

19:59

just a laughing stock. So

20:01

you'd have to be

20:03

extraordinarily careful and just

20:05

very, very conservative in

20:07

how you assess the

20:10

samples, especially if it seems that

20:12

we're on to the right thing

20:14

for the first time. Well, absolutely.

20:16

And if that is a finding

20:18

of the study, that's one of

20:21

the reasons that I have

20:23

recruited the team that I

20:25

have, because these folks are

20:27

Absolutely tremendous. And this team

20:30

is when you receive a

20:32

report, you're going to know

20:34

that that's what it is.

20:36

If what you said, if

20:39

there is a Sasquatch out

20:41

there to be found and

20:43

there are samples submitted,

20:45

and we find that, well, this

20:47

team is going to, you know,

20:49

very carefully document

20:52

that and present

20:54

that. Again, if that's if

20:56

that's the finding. You know, at

20:58

this stage we haven't looked

21:01

at any samples. The salient

21:03

point here is that we

21:05

don't know what the samples

21:07

that we'll be receiving are

21:10

until we look at them. And

21:12

that's what makes this really

21:14

exciting is that there are

21:16

a lot of rather interesting

21:19

sounding samples out

21:21

there that have not been looked

21:23

at. by a credible

21:25

scientific team. And so

21:28

I'm really excited to see

21:30

what our results are.

21:32

So you said there's four

21:34

of you on the team?

21:37

Who are there three people?

21:39

Well, there are four of

21:41

us on the core team,

21:44

myself, and then two geneticists,

21:46

genomists, and one microscopist. So,

21:49

microscope expert, think

21:51

of that. And so this

21:53

is the core team and

21:55

this team also has

21:57

a lot of expertise. in

22:00

forensics and wildlife forensics as

22:02

well. So this is the

22:04

core team, but the fun

22:06

thing about this is is

22:08

I also have a whole

22:10

host of experts in particular

22:12

areas who are ready to

22:14

come on and join us

22:16

if and when we find

22:18

an interesting specimen in their

22:20

area of expertise. And these

22:22

are these are faculty researchers

22:24

not just from NC State,

22:26

but from across the country.

22:28

So for example, I have

22:30

someone on board who is

22:32

an physical anthropologist and an

22:34

expert in all things osteo.

22:36

So if a bone or

22:38

tooth sample that is interesting

22:41

is submitted for this study,

22:43

she is ready to jump

22:45

on board. and get involved

22:47

and really excited about it.

22:49

But again, if we don't

22:51

have something in her area

22:53

of expertise, well, she's going

22:55

to stay in the Bigfoot

22:57

closet for now. For that

22:59

genome, for doing the full

23:01

genome, yeah, you always hear

23:03

stuff like last time we

23:05

talked to Melzier, we said

23:07

about 430,000, 440,000 for a

23:09

full genome sequencing. Is that

23:11

like, is going to ask

23:13

about your budget, like how

23:15

it got approved, like, how

23:17

much they give you give

23:19

you and then? Like when

23:21

you hear those high numbers,

23:23

is that going to be

23:25

cut way down since these

23:27

guys are on faculty, staff,

23:29

like they're already paid through

23:31

the university? How does that

23:33

work? I'm sorry, but specifically,

23:35

Meldrum said in the six-figure

23:37

range, and most of that

23:40

would be for personnel. Right.

23:42

And so that is probably

23:44

pretty reasonable to expect if

23:46

you were going to go

23:48

out and hire and hire

23:50

the work done by someone

23:52

who might know what they're

23:54

doing. Now in this case...

23:56

since we have the we

23:58

have the machines on campus

24:00

that are available. to us

24:02

where we can do nuclear

24:04

DNA sequencing for those samples

24:06

that may warrant it, then

24:08

you know we have an

24:11

in-house price schedule that looks

24:13

quite a bit different than

24:15

that to be honest. And

24:18

because my colleagues are the

24:20

ones with the expertise not

24:22

having to hire my colleagues

24:25

to work on our own

24:27

study, that actually reduces the

24:29

cost dramatically. How many do you

24:31

think you could run like for the,

24:34

with your budget you have for

24:36

the year, like how many samples

24:38

do you run like 20 or 50

24:40

or? Well, see this is the thing,

24:42

we don't have a set budget. for

24:45

this project. And the reason

24:47

we don't is that there

24:49

are quite a few different

24:51

needs and quite a few

24:53

different goals that this project

24:56

can potentially help us to achieve.

24:58

One of those that's

25:00

really important is training

25:02

of PhD students in

25:04

genetics. So our PhD

25:07

students in genetics who

25:09

work in the labs of my

25:11

two colleagues. who are collaborators,

25:13

they need to teach these

25:15

students anyhow. And they see

25:18

this as a really interesting

25:20

way of having the students

25:22

work with true unknowns or

25:24

with unusual samples. And so

25:26

this is a great way

25:29

for them to be able

25:31

to train their PhD students,

25:33

like I say, which they

25:35

need to do anyway, right?

25:37

They need to be studying

25:40

samples of something. So why

25:42

not? The samples that

25:44

are associated with

25:46

this study. In addition,

25:48

the team we've talked

25:50

about ideas that might

25:53

help push forensic understanding

25:56

forward so that might

25:58

help us. develop new

26:00

forensic techniques that could be

26:03

useful. Again, not just for

26:05

this study or for this

26:07

topic, but could be very

26:09

useful in the field for

26:11

all kinds of things. And

26:13

these are just a couple

26:15

of examples. There are some

26:18

other things that some other

26:20

outcomes that we are imagining

26:22

from the types of samples

26:24

that we'll be looking at.

26:26

So a lot of the

26:28

costs of the study are

26:31

costs that are already being

26:33

born anyhow. If you have

26:35

to, you know, if you

26:37

have to have a PhD

26:39

student studying a sample of

26:41

something, well, it's going to

26:43

be the same cost whether

26:46

studying a sample from this

26:48

study or a sample from

26:50

some other study, right? How

26:52

hard of a cell is

26:54

it to the university to

26:56

fund this? Yeah, well, it's

26:59

interesting. I mean, again, it's

27:01

not a funding issue, per

27:03

se, because the funding is

27:05

the funding that is already

27:07

happening through the labs. Like

27:09

the institutional reputation, are they

27:11

worried about that? There is

27:14

not really a concern with

27:16

institutional reputation because of the

27:18

way that we are framing

27:20

the study. Again, because we're

27:22

looking at this, we're looking

27:24

at samples, we're looking at

27:27

specimens that are something, right?

27:29

And it's a matter of

27:31

figuring out what they are.

27:33

We are not going out

27:35

there. This is not a

27:37

study about looking for Bigfoot.

27:39

This is a study of

27:42

looking at seemingly unusual physical

27:44

samples to determine what they

27:46

are. Now, we know that

27:48

a number of these samples

27:50

are coming from the Bigfoot

27:52

community. They are the result

27:55

of folks having an experience.

27:57

They feel is a softwatch

27:59

and then finding. these specimens

28:01

in connection with that? Well,

28:03

there's still interesting specimens. So

28:05

we certainly don't want to

28:07

be prejudiced against those specimens.

28:10

In fact, I think if

28:12

anything, the experiences that people

28:14

are having in conjunction with

28:16

finding these types of samples

28:18

make them all the more

28:20

interesting to me for us

28:23

to take a look at.

28:26

Stay tuned for more Bigfoot and Beyond

28:28

with Clifin Bobo. We'll be right back

28:30

after these messages. So we talked a

28:32

little bit about the user side, like

28:34

someone like me who might get a

28:37

sample and want to submit it. We

28:39

talked a little bit about the budget

28:41

and how you got this. past the

28:43

gatekeepers at the university and basically how

28:45

you sold the sold the idea which

28:47

is brilliant of course then it is

28:49

fantastic because working with unknowns that could

28:52

yield a real fantastic mind altering discovery

28:54

is just brilliant but what does it

28:56

look like from your side like your

28:58

team when after I fill out I

29:00

fill out the computer survey thing, my

29:02

name, this and that, whatever, I still

29:04

have the sample, you get that email,

29:07

what happens in, from that, and we'll

29:09

just use an example of a hair,

29:11

because obviously if you have a bone

29:13

or a flesh or blood tissue sample,

29:15

it would be probably a slightly different

29:17

process, but we'll just deal with hair

29:19

for now, because that's probably... I'm guessing

29:22

that'll probably be what the majority of

29:24

the samples you get are, but hair

29:26

samples. So what would that look like

29:28

from your end, from when you receive

29:30

that email to when, I don't know,

29:32

when you put the sample down, I

29:34

guess, I don't know. Well, again, we

29:37

have to prioritize the samples that we're

29:39

looking at. How would you prioritize something

29:41

like that? We don't have a. Folks

29:43

ask me, you know, what's your formula?

29:45

We don't have a set formula for

29:47

that. But certainly what we're interested in

29:49

is we're interested in looking at.

29:52

First of all, we're

29:54

interested in looking

29:56

at samples that appear

29:58

to be the

30:00

most interesting and that

30:02

appear to be

30:04

the freshest, most likely

30:07

to yield genetic

30:09

information. For example, if

30:11

you were to

30:13

offer us a hair

30:15

that you found

30:17

20 years ago and

30:19

it's been in

30:22

your garage, that's going

30:24

to be a

30:26

much lower priority than

30:28

someone who says,

30:30

hey, here's a hair

30:32

that I found

30:34

last week. And

30:36

by the way, I put it under a microscope

30:39

and it's got a little bit of flesh attached

30:41

to it. And it doesn't look like a known

30:43

animal. Sure, sure.

30:45

But now the user, the

30:47

users aren't going to be able

30:49

to determine that. That would

30:51

have to be, I mean, on

30:53

your end, someone like me

30:55

or something. Yeah, sure. I've got

30:57

a microscope. I'm that level

30:59

of nerd. But the average Joe,

31:01

who may have seen a

31:03

Sasquatch and wanted to submit a

31:05

sample, they wouldn't know that.

31:07

So you just get a hair

31:09

and a story, essentially, on

31:11

an email. No, absolutely. And to

31:13

give you an idea, so

31:15

there's a sample that was offered

31:17

to us that sounds interesting

31:19

because the person offering it reported

31:21

seeing a Sasquatch one night.

31:23

He said it was peeking out

31:25

at him from behind a

31:27

pine tree. He went back the

31:29

next morning and in the

31:31

sap of the pine tree found

31:33

a hair stuck there. And

31:35

so he collected that. And that

31:38

was just several months ago.

31:40

That to me is much more

31:42

interesting than, and this is

31:44

not one that was offered, but

31:46

this was something that somebody

31:48

talked with me about a couple

31:50

of years ago. Someone who

31:52

says, Hey, I have a clump

31:54

of hair that I think

31:56

is Sasquatch hair. And I say,

31:58

Well, what makes you think

32:00

it's Sasquatch hair? Why is it interesting to you?

32:02

They say, well, I found it stuck

32:04

15 feet up in a tree, and

32:06

what else would be 15 feet up

32:08

in a tree? Could it be the

32:11

hair of a saucequatch? Sure,

32:13

of course, you don't know until

32:15

you look at it, but of

32:17

course, there are plenty of other

32:19

things that climb trees, there is

32:22

wind, there are birds that use

32:24

clumps of hairs nesting material,

32:26

and they can... fall down, you

32:28

know, there are lots of ways

32:31

that hair could get 15 feet up

32:33

in a tree. So again, we have

32:35

to look at and it'll depend

32:37

on how many things are offered

32:39

to us, but we have to

32:41

be able to put these in

32:43

some sort of priority order because

32:45

we're not looking to just test

32:47

any and every. hair that someone finds

32:50

in the forest? Of course not. So

32:52

say you have a good sample. Say

32:54

this person who saw the Sasquatch and

32:56

there's a hair associated with it or

32:58

you know you get another sample that

33:00

seems very promising to you. What is

33:02

the process at that point? I'm assuming,

33:04

I mean I'm just guessing here to

33:06

you'd probably put under a microscope first

33:08

talk to your microscope dude or a

33:10

gal and then move forward from there.

33:13

What actually does happen after that point?

33:15

Absolutely. Well, the first thing

33:17

is, obviously, yes, we will be

33:19

looking at it microscopically. If we

33:21

get a specimen in and it

33:23

looks, you know, like for example,

33:25

this this hair that was found

33:27

in the in the sap of

33:30

the pine tree, if we put

33:32

it under a microscope and it

33:34

looks exactly like the hair of a gray

33:36

squirrel, which are common to that

33:38

area and climb up trees all

33:40

the time, if it looks exactly

33:42

like that. It's a classic

33:45

presentation. Well, we've identified

33:47

it at that point. We don't

33:49

need to move on to genetic

33:51

analysis to say, that's a great

33:53

squirrel. But then, you know, what

33:55

we'll be doing is we'll be

33:57

looking at these things in stepwise.

34:00

a stepwise way throughout. So

34:02

we'll be looking first. We'll

34:04

be looking first at the

34:07

morphology. So again, the appearance

34:09

of these through the microscope,

34:11

seeing what is readily identified.

34:13

If we find things

34:15

that aren't readily identified

34:17

or that look somewhat

34:19

unusual or really unusual

34:22

or whatever it may

34:24

be, that's when we'll

34:26

move on to genetic analysis.

34:28

And we're going to proceed

34:30

with that very cautiously because

34:32

one of the things that

34:34

we don't want to do

34:36

is we don't want to

34:39

be destructive any more than

34:41

we need to be. We

34:43

don't want to be destructive

34:45

of the samples that we

34:47

receive. And this is one thing

34:49

that told me that I had

34:52

recruited the right team was at

34:54

our very first team meeting back

34:56

when It was one of my

34:59

colleagues who said, we need to

35:01

treat every sample that comes to

35:03

us as precious, because these

35:05

samples are going to be

35:07

precious to the people who

35:09

are submitting them. And I

35:12

was like, wow, I couldn't

35:14

have said that better myself.

35:16

And so we're going to

35:18

be proceeding very cautiously in

35:20

the least destructive ways possible.

35:23

And we're going to be, we will

35:25

go as far. with the analysis as

35:27

we need to go in order

35:29

to determine what the sample

35:31

is. So with a hair sample, we'll,

35:34

you know, certainly looking

35:36

at it microscopically first,

35:38

looking at the mitochondrial

35:40

DNA, and then again, if

35:43

warranted, taking that to the

35:45

new clear DNA, looking at

35:47

the full genome. So with hair samples,

35:49

and again, correct me if I'm wrong,

35:51

I don't know very much in general,

35:53

but there's no nuclear DNA, this just

35:55

mitochondrial DNA. Do you think that, unless

35:58

of course you have the follicle, if

36:00

I remember correctly. But let's

36:02

just say that you have

36:04

a partial hair sample and

36:07

it, could the mitochondrial

36:09

be enough to indicate

36:11

the presence of a

36:14

new species? Potentially, yes.

36:16

Absolutely. You know, I do think

36:18

that we would want to try

36:20

to have multiple samples,

36:23

certainly, where we would find

36:25

that. I do think that having

36:28

like one sample with

36:30

mitochondrial DNA was different

36:32

would be really really

36:34

interesting, but probably not

36:36

enough, you know, certainly

36:38

to establish a species.

36:40

You know, the interesting

36:42

thing is, is that, you

36:44

know, when people submit a

36:46

hair sample, oftentimes, yes, we

36:48

don't know, will that sample

36:50

have follicle in it? Will that

36:52

sample actually have a skin

36:54

cell still attached? that came out of

36:57

the body. And certainly the skin

36:59

cell would contain a complete

37:01

genetic sequence. So again, you're absolutely

37:03

right. Hair is generally not going

37:06

to give us a full genome,

37:08

but a sample that one thinks

37:11

of as hair could potentially do

37:13

so. And I guess this doesn't

37:15

come down to one sample at

37:17

the end of the day,

37:19

because this is science and

37:22

you want repeatability. And certainly...

37:24

Sasswatches are real animals and

37:26

people start sending you a

37:28

flood of hairs a very

37:30

small percentage of those hairs

37:32

will probably represent Sasquatch and

37:34

I'm assuming by comparing the

37:36

results of these anomalous samples

37:39

that's where the real the

37:41

real positive affirmation is really

37:43

going to lie is the

37:45

repeatability of the same novel

37:47

sequences. Is that correct? Absolutely. If

37:49

we just get one novel sequence...

37:51

Again, that's a really fascinating result.

37:54

That would be, that alone would

37:56

be enough to keep us looking

37:59

and looking and looking. perhaps, but

38:01

yes, it's the idea

38:03

of having multiple of

38:05

that. And so in

38:07

the ideal world, at

38:09

a minimum, I think,

38:11

if you're, if the idea

38:14

is, if you're asking

38:16

me, what would it

38:18

take to establish a

38:20

species, I think that

38:22

actually as few as,

38:24

say, three samples coming

38:27

from three different.

38:29

locations, but that

38:31

share the same novel sequence,

38:34

I would think that that

38:36

in and of itself,

38:38

something as simple as

38:40

that, simple, ha ha, right? Something

38:43

is, you know, as little

38:45

as three samples could could be

38:47

enough to essentially prove species.

38:49

Fantastic. Now, one of the things

38:51

that we spoke about when

38:53

we were speaking in person in

38:56

Tennessee, where I met you face

38:58

to face, something I believe that

39:01

sets the study apart from the

39:03

many, many other studies that

39:05

have kind of come up empty

39:07

after all this time, is

39:09

that this study isn't dependent upon

39:11

you. And I think that's an important thing

39:14

we probably want to put out there because

39:16

I imagine a lot of our perhaps slightly

39:18

more conspiratorial-minded listeners out there are thinking, well,

39:20

this is just going to have more positive

39:23

results and the results are going to go

39:25

missing. You know, the Smithsonian is going to

39:27

take them, the Rothschilds are going to send

39:30

their spy team in and take them or

39:32

whatever sort of, you know, fantasies are out

39:34

there. I don't know. I'm not a conspiracy

39:36

guy. I don't buy any lot of that

39:39

stuff. What would stop the samples after they're

39:41

submitted, especially the positive hits

39:44

if such a thing

39:46

does exist, what would stop

39:48

them from being lost or

39:51

mishandled or going into

39:53

the Smithsonian where all the

39:55

Illuminati of the world will

39:57

burn them in some sort

39:59

of ritual? catastrophe and you know

40:02

we don't need to talk about a

40:04

nuclear event or something like that but

40:06

no I mean this is this is

40:08

why I was determined to set this

40:11

up as a as a as a

40:13

real study. This is not me as

40:15

a faculty member at NC State

40:18

saying hey send me these samples

40:20

I'd like to take a look

40:22

at them. I spent years putting

40:24

together the right team going through

40:26

the paperwork with the university.

40:28

As I said, I had to

40:31

go through this ethics review.

40:33

Part of that ethics review

40:35

is having a plan so

40:38

that when somebody submits a

40:40

sample and we say we're

40:42

going to give you your

40:45

results, there is a plan

40:47

in place that that person

40:49

will receive those results,

40:51

even if something happens

40:53

to me, you will

40:56

still get your results.

40:58

And that's something that's

41:00

very important. You say about

41:02

all these studies that have

41:04

happened in the past, but

41:07

there aren't actually all these

41:09

studies that have happened in

41:11

the past, Cliff, in terms

41:13

of looking at them as

41:16

actual studies. There was the

41:18

Brian Sykes study, which is

41:20

the only other university

41:22

study of any alleged Sasquatch

41:25

DNA ever. And that was

41:28

a very limited study. They

41:30

looked at a very small

41:32

number of samples. Other

41:35

than that, folks looking

41:37

at these things

41:39

in university settings

41:41

have been individual

41:43

researchers who have been doing

41:45

this on the side out of

41:48

personal interest. as a

41:50

favor to someone. In a

41:53

few cases, universities, I know

41:55

some universities offer a similar

41:57

service to a commercial lab.

42:00

do where they'll look at a

42:02

sample for the general if the

42:04

general public pays to have those

42:06

samples examined. But there

42:09

hasn't been a large-scale

42:11

university study period that's

42:13

been inclusive of this

42:15

potential evidence. And that

42:17

makes a huge difference because I

42:20

was talking with a Bigfoot

42:22

investigator a couple of months

42:24

ago who had collected

42:26

some very interesting samples. a

42:29

few years ago. A faculty

42:31

at a university I shall

42:34

not name, said, hey I'd like

42:36

to take a look at those

42:38

in my lab, and he sent

42:40

them off to this faculty member

42:43

who was very well intentioned,

42:45

and just never got back

42:48

to him, never got back

42:50

to him. And so I asked

42:52

him, I said, well, who was

42:54

this? Let me try to reach

42:56

out. faculty of faculty. And

42:58

I found out that this faculty

43:01

member was deceased. And I'm

43:03

trying to, I'm trying to get

43:05

to the right person in his

43:07

former lab to find out whether

43:09

these samples are still around. But

43:11

I'm almost certain we're going to

43:13

find that that when he passed away

43:16

they weren't part of an official

43:18

study. So they just got discarded

43:20

is what I'm sure. would have

43:23

happened. When something is not

43:25

part of an official study,

43:27

you're really reliant on,

43:30

you're really relying on

43:32

the individual. And again,

43:34

I think a lot

43:37

of very well-intentioned faculty

43:39

have taken samples from

43:41

folks and not given back

43:43

the type of report, the

43:46

type of information. or

43:48

any information in some

43:50

cases, again, despite the

43:52

best of intentions. Stay

43:55

tuned for more Bigfoot and

43:57

Beyond with Clifen Bobo.

43:59

back after these messages.

44:01

So Cliff, you may

44:04

recall several years ago,

44:06

we had some conversations online

44:08

and you had guessed it in

44:10

my university class and thank you

44:12

again for that. That was a

44:14

wonderful time for the students. I

44:17

am still an educator at heart.

44:19

Well, it shows and it's great.

44:21

But at that time, you and

44:23

I had discussed one-on-one, you had

44:26

come into possession of a very

44:28

interesting sample. And I know you

44:30

were saying to me, hey, I'd

44:32

love to send this to you.

44:34

I'd love for your folks to

44:37

look at this. And I know

44:39

at the time I said to

44:41

you, I said, hold on, I

44:43

don't want to take it yet.

44:46

I did not want to be

44:48

that person who takes samples, again,

44:50

with really great intentions. but outside

44:52

of an official study. Because I

44:55

feel like I owe it to

44:57

folks that if they're going to

44:59

submit, they need to know that

45:01

they're going to get back good

45:03

results. They're going to get them

45:06

back regardless, again, regardless of me

45:08

and that they're going to be

45:10

treated with respect. And was that

45:12

the mattress prince? Is that what

45:15

you're referring to? Indeed, yeah, and

45:17

I know we're we're talking about

45:19

ways that you might be able

45:21

to submit part of that now.

45:24

I would be talking that ever

45:26

with my team at our next

45:28

meeting to see how we might

45:30

work with a sample like that.

45:33

I was thinking masking and like

45:35

the other night as falling asleep

45:37

and these are the sort of

45:39

things that put me to sleep

45:41

I guess at the end of

45:44

the night I guess although it

45:46

gets me too excited and worried

45:48

about stuff so I can't actually

45:50

sleep it's a horrible circular thing

45:53

I live in but I was

45:55

thinking maybe send you like a

45:57

cube like a square centimeter or

45:59

something like that of a place

46:02

where I know that it stepped

46:04

and I don't know there's lots

46:06

ways we can do that. And

46:08

also, I did have the foresight

46:10

of collecting the soil off of

46:13

the fabric itself, and I still

46:15

have that in my files. It

46:17

has been refrigerated, unfortunately. I wasn't

46:19

aware of that component, but it's

46:22

in my files in a paper

46:24

bag. So there's also that. I'll

46:26

talk about that later off the

46:28

air, of course. Back to the

46:31

question I was going to ask.

46:33

Is that you mentioned various other,

46:35

I said studies, but perhaps that's

46:37

not the right word, projects that

46:39

had been done over time. And

46:42

I didn't you mention to me

46:44

when we were in Tennessee a

46:46

few weeks ago about using or

46:48

looking at least at other people's

46:51

data to see, kind of like

46:53

in the same way that Dr.

46:55

Haskill Hart did with the Saswatch

46:57

genome project. They just used their

47:00

data and came up with different

47:02

results. Are you looking for other

47:04

former... projects, I guess, and trying

47:06

to get a hold of their

47:09

data as well? And if so,

47:11

for what purpose? Well, yes, I

47:13

have been trying to do that.

47:15

And that has been, I've been

47:17

trying to do that over the

47:20

last several years. And that's been

47:22

a rather frustrating process cliff. And

47:24

it's been rather frustrating because What

47:26

I find is that there really

47:29

haven't been that many analyses done,

47:31

period. There really isn't data to

47:33

look at, hardly at all. In

47:35

fact, when Haskill Hart did his

47:38

interpretation of the Ketchum at all

47:40

study data that you're referring to,

47:42

ironically, that is the only real...

47:44

data, sequencing data that has been

47:46

made available by anybody who's looked

47:49

at alleged saucewatch samples. So one

47:51

thing that the Ketchum team did

47:53

right was that eventually, at least

47:55

after they self-published their paper, they

47:58

did release that data so that

48:00

Haskell and myself and others can

48:02

take a look at that. Now,

48:04

in the case of that study,

48:07

with the data in hand, it's

48:09

easy to see that the interpretation

48:11

that was given by that team

48:13

is wrong. Now, Haskell has looked

48:16

at that and noted a few

48:18

interesting, potentially interesting things in the

48:20

data, but these are really just

48:22

questions at this point. Yeah, and

48:24

I think that's interesting because at

48:27

the end of the day, Haskell

48:29

is not a geneticist. He's a

48:31

chemist. He's a retired chemist and

48:33

just realize that, well, biology and

48:36

DNA, we're just big old bags

48:38

of chemistry walking around, talking to

48:40

each other at the end of

48:42

the day. That's what life is,

48:45

just chemistry, essentially. And I think

48:47

he kind of taught himself what

48:49

he needed to know to kind

48:51

of do the examination of the

48:53

data. It's neat that someone outside

48:56

the discipline, I think, paid attention

48:58

to it and is perhaps drawing

49:00

attention to these things. And it's

49:02

maybe because he is outside of

49:05

the discipline, it's a perfectly normal

49:07

thing that he just doesn't have

49:09

that knowledge to explain, or maybe

49:11

it's just a new set of

49:14

eyes looking at something from a

49:16

different direction that you wouldn't get

49:18

from the inside of that discipline.

49:20

Yeah, so what Haskell has done

49:22

there is he's raised a really

49:25

interesting question, but it's a question

49:27

that simply cannot be answered with

49:29

the data that we currently have.

49:31

The data might be available for

49:34

a couple of these previous studies,

49:36

right? So does the data do

49:38

you any good or do you

49:40

actually need the physical samples to

49:43

make any progress on this? Well,

49:45

the data in one sense, the

49:47

data could do some good. And

49:49

I think that one of the

49:52

things, though, is that I found

49:54

that the data just simply isn't

49:56

there. There are, on the one

49:58

hand, I've found that there are

50:00

far more rumors of genetic analyses

50:03

having been done. In fact, overwhelming...

50:05

more rumors of genetic

50:11

analysis.

50:13

And

50:16

so

50:18

when

50:21

someone

50:25

says, oh,

50:28

You know, my friend had a sample

50:30

tested and it came back from

50:32

the lab as such and such.

50:34

I've said, okay, well, who's your

50:36

friend? May I contact them? And

50:39

again and again, what I find

50:41

is I contact the friend and they

50:43

say, oh, no, that wasn't me, that

50:45

was my other friend. Like, oh,

50:47

okay, well, what's your other friend's

50:50

name? And then I go and I

50:52

talk with that person and they

50:54

say, No, no, no. I didn't

50:56

say that I had a genetic

50:59

analysis done. I said the sample

51:01

that I found looked like the

51:03

sample that was featured

51:05

on one of the

51:07

Snellgrove Lake episodes of

51:10

Monster Quest where they got

51:12

such and such a result.

51:14

And I kid you not, half a

51:16

dozen of the specific

51:18

DNA analyses that

51:21

had been shared with me.

51:23

verbally, I traced back to

51:25

that one same episode of

51:27

Monster Quest, where someone was

51:30

talking about that, and it

51:32

had become misinterpreted in a

51:35

game of telephone. Again, I

51:37

think everybody trying to be

51:40

sincere, but everybody believing that

51:42

it was their friend who

51:44

had this sample tested.

51:47

I have found actually

51:49

very few instances where...

51:51

There was a sample

51:53

actually tested or somebody

51:55

claims that they actually

51:57

had it tested and.

51:59

far, far fewer than

52:01

that, where somebody can

52:04

actually show me a report. And

52:06

so they really don't seem to

52:08

be that many, practically

52:10

none, that have been done.

52:13

So that's really interesting.

52:15

They're really, we're operating

52:17

in a space where there isn't

52:19

really any data at all.

52:22

And so that's why we need

52:24

to produce some. Absolutely,

52:26

and will the data from this

52:28

study be shared publicly? Or how

52:30

will it be packaged up and

52:32

shared with other scientists even for

52:35

that matter? Yeah, definitely the data

52:37

from this study will be shared.

52:39

I'm not promising a particular timeline

52:42

for that. It depends on a

52:44

number of factors and certainly depends

52:46

on what we find as to

52:48

how we go about sharing that.

52:51

It will be public, yes, indeed.

52:53

Now, will the negative hits also be

52:55

made public? Like if you get a

52:57

black bear sample, the black bear sample

52:59

and that'll be put out as black

53:02

bear? Yes. Yes. To the public as

53:04

well as the sample owner? Yes, that's

53:06

the idea. Yeah, we're planning and we're

53:08

certainly planning publication out of this. You

53:11

know, what we obviously what we publish

53:13

and where we publish and when we

53:15

publish, all of these things are going

53:17

to depend on, you know, what are

53:20

the results that we are getting. There

53:22

are a... quite a few rather interesting

53:25

results that we could have.

53:27

There are lots of things

53:29

that can help push science

53:31

forward. I know that your

53:34

listenership is particularly

53:36

interested in what if we

53:39

were to find unknown species.

53:41

And in that case, I

53:43

think that's where it's particularly

53:46

interesting because in that case,

53:48

we probably would hold back.

53:51

at least for a while on

53:53

sharing publicly, we would certainly have

53:55

it peer-reviewed, but

53:57

from sharing publicly the

54:00

the sequencing, the sequence data

54:02

of a novel species, simply

54:04

because it wouldn't necessarily be

54:06

ethical to put that information

54:08

out there publicly until we

54:10

understood something about that species,

54:13

what are its numbers, what

54:15

are the factors that may

54:17

be impacting it, what it,

54:19

you know. What are its

54:21

social customs? All these sorts

54:23

of things, the culture, if

54:25

you will. Those things would

54:27

all be very important because

54:29

we don't know at this

54:31

page. I mean, what, we

54:33

don't have any idea. I

54:36

mean, I don't have any

54:38

idea whether such a species

54:40

even exists. If it does,

54:42

what is it like? Is

54:44

it endangered? Do we need

54:46

to make sure it's on

54:48

the endangered species list before

54:50

we release this information? What

54:52

are those steps? Need to

54:54

think very carefully because we

54:57

want to be ethical about

54:59

how we how we release

55:01

not the information that exists,

55:03

but release specific information that

55:05

could potentially be used to

55:07

threaten that species. a positive

55:09

and my God there's something

55:11

out there there's a thing

55:13

out there and it's it's

55:15

it's it's it's here on

55:17

the evolutionary tree and blah

55:20

blah blah you had all

55:22

this that that you had

55:24

all the stuff that DNA

55:26

could tell us about the

55:28

next step the actually the

55:30

actual the actual ecological study

55:32

of these things would Basically

55:34

have to start from ground

55:36

zero because of the dubious

55:38

nature of the vast majority

55:41

of the data that has

55:43

been gathered thus far. Even

55:45

citing reports. Now luckily there's

55:47

probably enough citing reports that

55:49

statistically you could probably do

55:51

some stuff and squeeze some

55:53

information out of it because

55:55

the outliers would separate themselves.

55:57

But between the the cultural...

55:59

and just the filters that

56:01

the investigators who listened to

56:04

these reports, who recorded these

56:06

reports, even their cultural perspective

56:08

and all that, comes into

56:10

play here. And this isn't

56:12

a, this is not an

56:14

objective database. There's a lot

56:16

of subjectivity in here, as

56:18

there would be with any

56:20

soft evidence like testimony. I

56:22

imagine a thorough ecological study

56:25

of these critters would be

56:27

five or 10 years down

56:29

the road. because scientists who've

56:31

been denying their existence for

56:33

so long know far less

56:35

than you know us amateur

56:37

investigators do at this point

56:39

even though much of probably

56:41

what the vast majority of

56:43

Bigfooters think will probably be

56:46

proven wrong at some point

56:48

you know or certainly vastly

56:50

refined are you suggesting that

56:52

if you did get a

56:54

hit that you think would

56:56

be strong enough to prove

56:58

the species at least to

57:00

geneticists who understand the sort

57:02

of data that it may

57:04

not be announced for until

57:06

an ecological study is done

57:09

on the animal which could

57:11

take five or ten years?

57:13

No, no, I'm not suggesting

57:15

that. What I'm suggesting though

57:17

is that if, for example,

57:19

such a thing were shown

57:21

and there were specific novel

57:23

DNA sequences that identified this

57:25

species versus any other species

57:27

on the planet, right? Which

57:30

is, that's what DNA does

57:32

when you have a, you

57:34

know, full genome, you have

57:36

a new species, you have

57:38

a known species. The problem

57:40

then is that releasing the

57:42

particular sequence could potentially put

57:44

it in the hands of

57:46

individuals or potentially, potentially corporations

57:48

to create primers specific for

57:50

that species that could. that

57:53

could enable the species to

57:55

be tracked down, hunted, so

57:57

on and so forth. So

57:59

again, we're talking, we're talking

58:01

a what if scenario here, but

58:03

it wouldn't be responsible

58:05

of me to, even if I think

58:08

that there's a very small chance of

58:10

that happening, it wouldn't be responsible of

58:12

me to not think a little bit

58:14

down the road about that. But even

58:17

thinking about the, just think,

58:19

for example, about the pharmaceutical

58:21

industry. Well, the pharmaceutical

58:24

companies might be competing with one

58:26

another to try to track down. such

58:28

a species that would

58:30

presumably be closely related

58:33

to human because of

58:35

the possible discoveries

58:37

to be to be had there and

58:39

the possible money. Yeah, so

58:41

I think the bottom line is

58:43

just that, you know, not the

58:46

not the fact of a new

58:48

species, but specific information about that

58:50

species that could that could

58:53

compromise a population. That's

58:55

the information that

58:57

might need to be kept

58:59

very close to the

59:01

vest for a while. What's

59:03

interesting to

59:05

me about this is the

59:08

range of folks who are

59:10

really excited about this study.

59:13

And I get it. I

59:15

know that some people are

59:18

using the term historic, and

59:20

I have to confess, yes,

59:22

it really is. To have...

59:24

The team that's working on

59:27

this to have these things

59:29

looked at in a scientifically

59:32

credible way, that this is

59:34

not just we're going to look

59:36

at 8 or 12 or 15

59:38

samples and call it a day. It

59:40

is historic. I find

59:42

support on the one hand

59:44

from folks in the

59:46

Bigfoot community who are

59:49

convinced that this will be

59:51

the study that's finally going

59:53

to prove. Bigfoot as

59:55

a species. I also have folks

59:58

who are more skeptical. in

1:00:00

their ideas who think, ah, this

1:00:02

is finally going to be the

1:00:04

study that looks at lots and

1:00:06

lots of the quote unquote best

1:00:08

samples and figures out that they're

1:00:10

all known species and maybe this

1:00:12

Bigfoot thing will go away. I

1:00:14

have people who say, oh, this

1:00:16

is gonna find that Bigfoot is

1:00:18

descended from the Gibbon family. I

1:00:20

have others who say, aha, this

1:00:22

is what's finally gonna show that

1:00:24

it's. descended from paranthropists. Everybody has

1:00:26

their ideas, everybody has their thoughts

1:00:28

as to what we'll find. I'm

1:00:30

just really curious. I'm just really

1:00:32

curious to see what do we

1:00:34

have here? And it will be

1:00:36

what it is. Yeah, to summarize

1:00:38

John Green into Hindon, something is

1:00:40

making these footprints. And it sounds

1:00:42

to me like you're just on

1:00:44

a quest to find out what

1:00:46

it is, except now we're living

1:00:48

in a more modern age. It's

1:00:50

no longer just footprints. It's actually

1:00:52

DNA and biological material. So fantastic.

1:00:54

I'm excited. Well Darby thank you

1:00:56

so much for coming on and

1:00:58

sharing about the project this is

1:01:00

an exciting thing I think any

1:01:03

big footer who is looking at

1:01:05

the goalpost here and wondering can

1:01:07

we can we move the ball

1:01:09

well I shouldn't use sports metaphors

1:01:11

you know me but man any

1:01:13

big footer that wants want some

1:01:15

sort of resolution to this should

1:01:17

be excited about this project. And

1:01:19

I can't do anything else, but

1:01:21

wish you the best of luck,

1:01:23

but I'll tell you, I'm going

1:01:25

to put my boots on the

1:01:27

ground in my best areas, and

1:01:29

I'm going to put the word

1:01:31

out to all the best researchers

1:01:33

I personally know to participate in

1:01:35

this. And of course, it is

1:01:37

open to anybody, if you have

1:01:39

bigfoots on the property, this is

1:01:41

an opportunity for you to participate

1:01:43

as well. Who knows? It could

1:01:45

be your sample to actually win

1:01:47

the game here. So, the links

1:01:49

are in the show notes in

1:01:51

the places you can submit. samples,

1:01:53

like if you want to fill

1:01:55

out the entry form for Darby's

1:01:57

project, the link is in the

1:01:59

show notes, and also something we

1:02:01

didn't mention, this is an ongoing

1:02:03

project. I mean, Bart Darby said

1:02:05

it several times, there is no,

1:02:07

there's not necessarily a budget that

1:02:09

is going to run out here,

1:02:11

but it's not like they couldn't

1:02:13

use a little extra money either.

1:02:15

And there is a donation form.

1:02:17

We'll put that link in the

1:02:19

show notes as well. If you

1:02:21

want to throw 50 bucks or

1:02:24

5 bucks even, how about a

1:02:26

dollar? Anything towards it, it goes

1:02:28

straight to the university and this

1:02:30

study, is that a way people

1:02:32

can help out and participate? the

1:02:34

North Carolina State University and they

1:02:36

are earmarked for my research area

1:02:38

as you'll see online. Fantastic. We're

1:02:40

not shaking our tin cup but

1:02:42

some people out there may not

1:02:44

have samples or may have no

1:02:46

hope of getting any and maybe

1:02:48

they want to participate in some

1:02:50

other way as well. So there

1:02:52

is that. Any final thoughts Darby

1:02:54

before we get going? Well I

1:02:56

really appreciate you all getting the

1:02:58

word out. I think that we

1:03:00

you know folks need to understand

1:03:02

that we We can't find what

1:03:04

we're not offered samples of. So

1:03:06

this is the opportunity for those

1:03:08

who feel like they have something

1:03:10

compelling. This is the opportunity to

1:03:12

present it. This is the opportunity

1:03:14

to find out what it is.

1:03:16

Bottom line, this is the opportunity.

1:03:18

And it depends on you. Thank

1:03:20

you very much, Darby. Really appreciate

1:03:22

your expertise, your talents, and the

1:03:24

opportunity to maybe get this thing

1:03:26

done. And thank you so much

1:03:28

for coming on the podcast. Yeah,

1:03:30

thanks for what you're doing. Thanks

1:03:32

for coming on, Sharon. All right,

1:03:34

folks, you heard here. We got

1:03:36

Darby Arca from NC State University.

1:03:38

They're on the case, so let's

1:03:40

get them some samples. And until

1:03:42

next week, y'all know what to

1:03:45

do. Keep it squauchy. Thanks

1:03:49

for listening to this week's episode of Bigfoot and

1:03:51

Beyond. If you liked what you heard, please rate

1:03:54

and review us on iTunes. Subscribe to Bigfoot and

1:03:56

Beyond wherever you get your podcast. and follow

1:03:58

us on Facebook and Instagram

1:04:00

at Big Foot at Bigfoot and

1:04:02

Beyond You can find us

1:04:05

on Twitter us on Twitter at Bigfoot

1:04:07

that's an N in

1:04:09

the middle, an and the us

1:04:11

your thoughts and questions

1:04:13

with thoughts and questions with the hashtag Bigfoot and

1:04:16

beyond.