Episode 57 — Recumbent leprechaun — has been discovered on the internet like mythical gold at the end of the rainbow. In this episode, Sam, Scott, and Brian mix it up over the Grays Harbor thermal video, the Stacy Brown thermal footage, Bill Munns’ RHI papers, Bigfoot Files, and other fascinating things as suggested by our listeners.
Enrich yourself through iTunes, Stitcher Smart Radio, or via the incredibly efficient direct download link.
Show notes after the jump…
Show Notes
Stacy Brown Thermal
• Cliff’s naked thermal test
Bigfoot Files
• Is Sykes objective?
Listener questions:
• How easy it is it to fake a plausible bigfoot report? (Pretty easy.)
• Which characters past or present from the world of sasquatcheriness would the team invite to dinner and why?
• For each member of the show, what is your current belief level that this animal exists as represented by a scale of 1-10?
• How can a wood ape could be getting on average 5000 calories a day?
• Would you ever consider tracking down Daryl and have Scott and Daryl do a show covering their sighting?
• Is everyone currently out of Area X and when does the onsite research resume?
• Brian, do your children express interest in what goes on at Area X and what do you tell them?
• Brian, when your driving the last few miles to Area X, what is your general feeling? Nervous, dread, fear, excitement etc. How many NAWAC members have left Area X early due to being overwhelmed by the situation?
• Has anyone at X been struck by a rock and do you think the wood apes are missing on purpose or by accident?
• How can a creature that we think so closely resembles man, walk through snow for miles without suffering frost bite? How can such discovered track lines be real? (Sam mentions the Elkins Creek cast)
• Why are there so many stories that seem to come out of the Fouke, Ark area of sightings by local farmers and ranchers….yet most stories I’ve seem from the PNW are from hikers and travelers and not from the people who work the land in that region everyday?
• It’s NAWAC worry that perhaps other organizations i.e. BFRO might find Area X and exploded?
Fun fact: Testicles have taste receptors. Says the internet.
How long does it take to make an Oreo?
Brian Brown
Samuel Rich
Paul Vella
yetifan7
The Bigfoot Show Blog 
Is there an app that can keep me updated on Scott’s percentage of conviction that the PGF is a fake?
Seems metaphysically impossible to drop below 75%.
I’d like to see an online meter. Maybe an app for my phone, too…
Best 2 hours ever! Brian screaming at Scott about what science is.
Brian, you keep saying a thing is real and true if it can not be dis proven. The thing has to proven real first. Its the believer’s job to prove it. Not for skeptics to dis prove something that you believe in.
That’s not at all what I said. Not even close. I said the only side attempting real science on the question of the PGF is the pro side. The con side only wants to talk about how easy it would be to fake and what a rascal that crafty old Patterson was. And that’s ok. Apparently.
Not how science really works, typically.
I sort of took it as proving a negative too. I see a few people saying it would be easy to show it’s a suit but those people really don’t know what they are talking about. If it’s a hoax, it’s a great one. If it’s real, it’s a damn shame it’s been fought over for this long with nothing better that’s come along to bolster support for it being genuine. I don’t know either way. I’m with Scott on this one.
Skeptics are just not invested in the belief like some people are to SHOW it’s real. So, we won’t take the man-years to investigate it. We moved on. But, hey, always willing to look at new stuff.
Your argument doesn’t really work. It is not necessary to conduct any scientific investigation to “prove” the PGF could be fake because that is already a known fact. It is indisputable that ANY film can be a fake, therefore this film could be fake. End of discussion. Pointing out that there is no scientific inquiry/experimentation on how someone might fake the film makes for interesting discussion but it is logically irrelevant to the issue.
In the case of the PGF, the circumstances strongly suggest that it is a fake, therefore people naturally try to find some evidence that could be real. Of course the circumstances don’t prove it is or isn’t a fake – just that it is more likely to be a fake.
You misunderstand my point and also make it at the same time.
“In the case of the PGF, the circumstances strongly suggest that it is a fake…”
But the analysis says it doesn’t. So why is the “it’s a fake” camp allowed to just say it’s a fake based on circumstantial evidence and leave the actual analysis by experts unanswered?
That’s what we do with the PGF. It’s the opposite of the scientific process. There is essentially zero analysis of what’s on the film by the side who thinks it’s a fake even in the face of compelling findings like those Munns brings to light.
Don’t think they’re compelling? Prove it.
Exactly Brian. I love the back and forth with you and Scott as it reminds me of the conversations I have with close friends. I am 99.999 percent sure Patty is 100 percent squatch. Funny all the attempts to make a suit have been laughable,totally ridiculous looking suits. Ya know,all these skeptics should go out and make a suit just like Patty and prove their point! Heck should be easy if a 2 bit con man like Roger could do it..right? I know the burden of proof is on those making the claim but come on man,for those that are so adamant about this being fake….just make the suit with what was available back then and see what happens. Hell,even taking today’s technology nothing looks near as good as Patty,even the high dollar CGI models or the suits made for modern films pale in comparison. Time to give Roger his due…either he has the most significant film in the history of mankind or he is the greatest makeup artist/suit builder/special effects guru ever! Just my opinion. While I agree with Brian on the PGF film,I have to agree with Scott on the kill/no-kill debate. The show is fantastic..keep it up fellas.
Having watched the Sykes shows I don’t think he is one of those guys just looking for easy pot shots at the ‘bigfoot community.’ To be fair to him as a leading light in his field of science in the most prestigious educational establishment in the world I think he’s actually putting a reasonable amount of credibility on the line just engaging in this topic, and he comes across in the show like he has a real interest.
Indeed, rather than just scoff at it, surely the biggest coup for a scientist would be to discover the dna evidence for a yet undiscovered animal, be it primate or not. Equally, I don’t think we should get too snooty when he pulls apart some of the evidence that is presented to him. For years many have decried the lack of serious credible scientists engaging with the topic, then when they do and they present evidence that disappoints, then they are pilloried.
Ditto. Exactly what I was thinking. He would have LOVED to nab Bigfoot DNA. Also, I think Mark Evans is not a douche. He is English. They come off that way. Nice guy.
As an Englishman i’d like to see some evidence for your assertion that ‘we’ “all come off that way”. Would that be the same way that self-professed ‘critical thinkers’ all come off sounding self-satisfied? Just an observation…
I actually was wondering how to assess the critical-thinking chops of anyone who thinks all the English come off as douches. I mean, whoa Nellie.
If she’d done her research properly she would know that we all live in a place called Cockney, all wear bowler hats, all have bad teeth and walk around exclaiming ‘cor blimey!’.
Forgot fish and chips and double-decker buses. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Why do all you English come off this way?
Anyone pillorying Sykes is missing the mark.
Anyone thinking that he’s coming down with some kind of blanket finding on the subject of hairy hominoids is, too.
All he is doing – all he ever said he was doing – is testing what is brought to him, by people who send it in. This isn’t A Battery Of World-Class Experts Bringing The Best Evidence; it’s a smattering of random folks with some hair. Not a single hank of which is accompanied by any compelling evidence that it came directly from the subject under discussion.
All Sykes is commenting on is the samples he tested; anything he comes up with is utterly restricted to those samples. Way it is; way it should be taken.
And anyone thinking that “Himalayan polar bear” – from sites at opposite ends of the range – isn’t a way cool finding should put their thinking caps back on straight.
Why did the the guy filming the Grays Harbor footage not simply walk closer to that thing? We have enough blob-squatch videos, so I’m not sure why you guys give this one any attention.
But the filmmaker’s lack of initiative reminds me of similar inactivity in area X: when strange noises are heard outside the cabin the response is to stay huddled in the cabin. That’s some good work boys.
You have no idea what you’re taking about.
As we said on the show, the guy with the thermal didn’t recognize what he was seeing at the time. Therefore, he had no reason to advance. He was reportedly just fooling around with the device.
WRT to the work in X, nobody familiar with what’s been reported about it would fairly characterize it as “huddling in the cabin.” Total mischaracterization.
OK, I did not catch that detail about the Grays Harbor video. Regardless, there is nothing at all compelling about the footage. It’s an indistinct blob. Yawn.
WRT to area X . . . I’m not inclined to re-listen to all the episodes about that, but I do recall at least one instance when you guys heard something, but were too frightened to go out and investigate.
I’m only half way through but so far Scott and Sam are spot on with why “skeptics” aren’t replying to Munns. He’s WAY too subjective and it’s all been said. And, yes, we aren’t invested in proving PGF a hoax when the real question remains: What are people experiencing when they say they’ve seen Bigfoot?
Also, I’ve not looked to deep into Munns stuff because he’s too biased for my tastes (he asked for two hours to present at a skeptics meeting one time where the main speakers like Bill Nye only get 30 minutes), but he is drawing more information out of the same piece of footage. It’s exceeded its ability to provide any new data – blood from a stone at this point. We have run out of pieces to analyze, I think. We need something new.
Brian, thanks for your continued work in exposing Wood Ape Denialism as one of the most misguided and intellect-free religions out there.
I am tired of hearing about “proving a negative” and “a suit can’t be proven; it’s too hard. You can’t expect anyone to do now what somebody did in 1967. They’ve only had 46 years to try.”
Proving a negative? How about clinging like grim death to a position for which one has no evidence and that one cannot prove? If suit skeptics – the only truly skeptical people on this question – think it would be easy to do now, AND THEY ARE RIGHT, IF IT WAS DONE THEN, why do the other “skeptics” never offer ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that they “don’t know what they are talking about?”
“I’ve not looked to deep into Munns stuff because he’s too biased for my tastes…”
I cannot imagine a person saying such a thing and expecting to be taken seriously. Munns went into this utterly without bias; his work has been exhaustive…and airtight. How can you say “I’se ignant on this topic” better, without saying it, than that, right up there?
It really strikes me, going back over it….
“I’ve not looked to deep into Munns stuff because he’s too biased for my tastes …”
“I’m not inclined to re-listen to all the episodes about that,…”
“…he is drawing more information out of the same piece of footage. …” (Oh. No he’s not…)
“…we won’t take the man-years to investigate it….” (Except for the ones who are on BF websites talking about it over and over and over…with nothing to say…)
Does it only strike me as funny that in a scientific debate, the position that steadfastly refuses to address the evidence expects to be taken seriously?
I have one life to live . . . slogging through hours of The Bigfoot Show searching for the brief moment when Brian reports huddling in the cabin out of fear is not a priority right now. If my memory is flawed about the matter, no big deal. That would just bolster my case about how unreliable humans are as eyewitnesses . . .
Humans are extremely reliable witnesses. All anyone has to do is think of the number of times each hour he takes the word of someone else.
“Skeptics” like to trot that one out. It’s a non-starter. It only refers to humans who are *motivated* to misrepresent. What motivation would anyone have to steadfastly insist they saw something that isn’t real?
Sure, when my girlfriend says bananas are on sale, I believe her as an eyewitness. But if she claimed to see an alien . . .
Millions of folks claim they have been abducted by aliens. They even pass polygraph tests, so it seems they really believe they were abducted.
But do you believe them?
Why are you here? Nobody I know interested in the subject of bigfoot spends time trying to convince skeptics on their own turf that bigfoot is real, but so many skeptics feel compelled to show we simpletons the error of our thinking. Why?
What in the WORLD do aliens have to do with this topic?
Linking the two shows a fundamental lack of acquaintance with the truth. Finding out truth is a complex process with which bigfoot skeptics (who clearly aren’t skeptical) don’t seem too acquainted.
Aliens are something our science is likely unequipped to detect unless the proverbial take-me-to-your-leader happens. Sasquatch is a simple biological question that is simply resolved.
And if your girlfriend ain’t a liar, something I have presumably ascertained through experience, I’m going to get some bananas.
See the difference?
Is that true? No Bigfooters ever argue on the JREF forum? I’ve never been on the JREF forum, so I wouldn’t know.
But as a skeptic I care about what is true. And as a skeptic I know how humans are prone to confirmation bias: seeking out only evidence that supports what they already believe.
So I’m here to avoid confirmation bias.
If you too want to avoid confirmation bias, you ought to welcome me here.
I don’t welcome anyone here who doesn’t care about the truth.
And people that come on to sites like this and crow on and on about what they know, showing mainly what they don’t know, don’t seem to me to care about the truth.
Folks who are fundamentally unacquainted with the breadth and depth of the evidence for sasquatch are very plainly unconcerned about the truth. I mean, if they keep coming on and on here acting as if they know something they demonstrably do not.
Simple enough?