Sasquatch Experience Classics: Melissa Hovey (3.25.2007)

On this edition of Sasquatch Experience Classics, Sean, Henry and Baker talk with Melissa Hovey, a researcher from Texas, about her endeavors in the field as well as her hopes around the future of bigfoot research. This was record on March twenty fifth, two thousand and seven. Well, good evening everyone. Is that time of the week again for the Sasquatch Experience. I'm your host, Sean Forker alongside Henry May, joined the night by James Baker and the very beautiful Melissa Hovey. How are you doing tonight, everybody? Oh? Great, great, great, Sean great and. Looking forward to this me too, Melissa. Thanks for joining us tonight. James Baker's there often off far in the distance, but with us going to field his questions to us as we go along here, Henry, what do you got for us in terms of news this week? Well, not a whole lot as far as news, I guess, hmm, what has been going on? There's just not a whole lot going on. You know. There's a story about the arvybil woodpecker which is being sought in Texas, and oh, this is an interesting news item. Now scientists create a sheep that's fifteen percent human. Wow. That is interesting, like jelly madison fifteen percent human. Wow. Now, now going back to the Ivybilt woodpecker, Henry, I was reading somewhere that a scientist believes that was what was ever photographer caught on film was not an ivybill woodpecker. Do you remember seeing that. Yeah, some of them think it's what they call a piolated woodpecker, which is very similar. It's also a large woodpecker, much like the ivy build. But apparently the Armory build has a very distinctive we call it wing wing pattern, and that's how they were able to determine that it was an army build. Okay, so that's how they were able to tell it was because of the wing pattern. So this other gentleman or ever doctor, whoever they may be, is saying that they've misidentified it. Well, they're saying that they've misidentified it as an army buil. But you know, some of them, some of the skeptical scientists, think it's appilated with pecker. So you know, there you go. Well, it's still important in terms of you know, in terms of discovery, and then just to show, you know that, well, what could be one man's huge find is another man's, you know, a chance to prove someone else wrong. It's now it's kind of funny because now there's even that certain percentage of doubt that it could even be an ivory bill with pecker. Yeah right, and that's right in front of him. Yeah. People have been seeing this thing and they've seen it now. They're looking for it in Texas, they've seen it in Arkansas, they've seen it in the pananimal of Florida. These people are seeing something, you. Know, that's very interesting. I just every once in a while, folks whould like to talk about our other fellow cryptids. So it's a little bit, you know, to go off on a tangent from the sasquatch every once in a while. Right, But that is a little bit of interesting news that in the fifteen percent human sheep. Yeah, yea, glad to have you here, Hahn, How are you. I'm doing good, that's good. Matter of fact, let's see. Oh, yes, Henry and Melissa, tomorrow collectively is your birthday. Yep's birthday to Melissa. Yeah, happy birthday to you two. Henry. You guys are both turning eighteen again, I see, so, yes, how does it feel to be so young? Feels great to me. Oh, we have a comment from the chat room. Tom Sheen says, how about the clouded leopard? You know, I'm not familiar with that. I'm not too familiar with that. But if Henry a week and he'll be up to date. You know, we don't want to be accused of being horrible researchers again, So right, well, we'll wait a little bit to tackle that one, folks, But thank you for bringing that to our attention. Tom Good, Old Hollywood. Yeah, well, let's to tell us a little bit about your research in Texas. I know recently you've been out, you've been out in the field on a few expeditions, and just tell us a little bit about your expeditions, but more so your research in Texas well. Actually I have I haven't been on an expedition since last year. But when I go out in Texas on expeditions, you know, groups of two or more. It's always in conjunction with the TBR scene Fixfoot Research And they've now changed their name so they're now known as the Texas Fixfoot Research Conservancy. You changed that one little word and it throws me off completely. I tell you what I know. Yeah, I keep I keep messing up to don't feel bad. But so when I go out with them, I'm really kind of reluctant to actually discuss what I do in the field because they have excellent spokespeople, one being Craig Willheater. He's a great man and I'm more than happy to let him talk for the group. And Daryl Collier, he's another great guy. He does the majority of the planning for the larger expeditions. And but recently here they just posted about the January two thousand and six expedition into the Big Thicket. That was my first full expedition, and it was it was a large it was a large group of people and we were out there for approximately I believe it was five or six days, and I'll tell you it was, it was. It was a week. It was a tough week. So yeah, from what I read, you weren't drinking enough of water, which I can't stress the importance enough to everybody out there who does go into the field to make sure you're plenty hydrated right right. And you know, since since all of that, I learned that very quickly you know, being from the north, you're just not subject to the type of to the kind of heat and humidity that you have down here. So if you're not pushing fluids out there, I mean, you're not doing yourself any favors. So always do that, yea. Even definitely, even more so down south where it is a lot hotter. Right, It's even enough up here during the daytime when you're out hiking up in Pennsylvania and it's one hundred degrees outside with one hundred percent humidity, And I'm not exactly a, as they say, in the best of shape. So it doesn't help either going out there in the forest looking for Bigfoot and sweating. Crisco. Well, I think we all could be doing a little bit better in that respect. But I mean down here, I mean, I'm I mean I probably when I went on this expedition, I mean I I wasn't I would consider myself in good shape. But I'm telling you, during the daytime, even in January in the state of Texas, even in the even in that time of the year, I mean, during the day it's hot and you sweat, and but then at night it gets so cold, you know, I mean, you can actually see your breath in front of your face. And I think a lot of it is just, you know, the extremes is what gets to you physically. So transition between hot and cold. Right right, And that that was the way it was in Chicago. I hated that. Yeah, yeah, So, I mean it's it's something that the researchers here really have to deal with. And I mean I give them all kinds of credit because it's not easy, but it's not and that we have to learn to deal with. So and I learned that lesson the hard way. Well not just the extreme weather, but you guys have a more so of a variety of wildlife than we do. Some of that very dangerous. I have to watch out for snakes. You guys have all kinds of things to watch out for. So Sean Palker might be postponing his trip to Texas to research Bigfoot for a few more years. Yeah. I mean when I first moved down here, I mean I knew that, you know, this was the Palace and and I realized that that they had snakes and things like that, but I guess the reality reality of it really didn't hit until I started going out into the field with these people, and you know, you start hearing things like, well, you definitely need to buy snake boots. Oh yes, you know, things like that bear spray, you know, and then you start thinking about it. They're going on, I'll wait a minute. But you know, I mean, after being out there a couple of times, you know, you you start to know what to do and what not to do, you know, and the fear kind of starts to subside, and you know, you just do what you're there to do. You know, you just know not to walk up to the side of a lake or a river and you know, hang over the edge. You know, just something that you don't do. I'm afraid of possums. I don't like them very much. Oh I don't like Darren Magillo. Yeah, they scare the crap out of me. Possums poms around here. We have this one little white faced possum. He is so funny. We we he's been around here since he was little, you know, and he'll give the trash. Can you know. My mom will see him in there, she'll chase him out of there, and he'll run a little bit, look back, run a little bit, look back. Now you know. Henry's from Mississippi when he has a pet possum hanging. Around right, and raccoons. So we got raccoons too. They're like rats the side of the Small Dogs. Fact, the Melissa's story here, guys. So, so you're out on expedition, come across anything interesting. Well, being in a in an organization the size of the TBRC, you have the opportunity to do things that you don't you wouldn't normally do if you were just out there with somebody. You know, it's just like a group of two or three researchers. With the TVRC, we actually can organize day operations and night Basically, that means we have researchers in the field in the middle of the night, and then during the day we have day teams that go out and look for evidence of things that could have possibly happened the night before, like tracks or anything like that. And or you know, the day teams will go and scout out a new potential area to research for the night before or the night the night to come. So, I mean, that's that's always pretty interesting. The first night I was out, the first night I arrived down there, I actually slept out on a sandbar and Uh, that was interesting for me because I'm you know, a lot of people like to pick on me about the fact that I'm such a city girl. But I stayed out on a sandbar all night and it got cold. But as far as interesting, I mean, I it's really that's something that's really hard for me to say because you just, you know, I don't know what to compare interesting too. At this point, I tried to stay very objective about what I hear, or see or or anything out in the field unless I was to actually walk up on one of these animals. You know, I really try to stay as objective as I possibly can. Now if I'm walking through the field one day and I actually bump into one, things will probably change. But I can say that the Saturday morning that we were there in the field. That morning, I was on a day team with a couple other researchers, and I came across something, and I to this day, I still don't have a good explanation for what it is. And I mean I don't know. I know. We tried for well over an hour to push out whatever it was into the open into a clearing so that one of us could get a visual and we just were not able to do it, and whatever it was, which is kind of would go out further into the brush, which was really sick and it was really thick, dense brush in this area. But then as soon as we would go back, whatever it was would circle back and come back to where we all started, and then we would just start this all over again. So I don't know what that could have been, but I'm sure there's probably a logical explanation for it. I just don't know what it is yet. So I'm looking for people might have ideas. And that's very similar to the experience I had. I don't know what made it or what caused the experience I had. And it's always healthy to keep that certain amount of objectivity and skepticism because you don't want to, you know, make assumptions, right because then in the end you're the one that looks horrible over it. Well, when you're out there in the field, you're not out there to make assumptions. You're out there to get evidence, and evidence is proof of what you're seeing or not. So if you jump to conclusions, then you're really negating the whole process. You're there to get evidence, period and that's the way I approach it. So what do you say to those that are out there and they believe beyond a shadow of a doubt or what they've seen, that they have no evidence to back it up, no supporting and you know, anything corroborative to their story. You know, what do you say to them go out and try to collect better evidence, or especially the people that have made up their mind that they're one hundred percent positive what they've seen. Well, I think it all depends. I mean, I have two different standards, you know. I mean, and you've got to in this. There's the witnesses that are not involved in bigfoot research. These are just your normal, part everyday person who's just doing what they do. Now, let's be clear one thing. For the audence, she says she has two sets of standards, not meaning she has double standards. Right right, thank you. I mean, these are just the witnesses that report via the website or they dial an eight hundred number. These are just people and if they're if they're good witnesses, they're just reporting something that they've seen and they don't understand what it was, and they're hoping somebody can help them figure that out. But then when you have researchers out there who are out there specifically to try to either prove or disprove this animal's existence, I think the bar is a little higher for the standard of evidence that they bring in. I mean, I'm less likely to you know, just jump right behind a researcher who says, oh, my gosh, I heard the animal. I heard it made? Would not I did? I was there and all, my goodness, I couldn't believe it. Well, then you ask them, do you have it on video? Do you have any audio recordings? Though not to mention the facts that we still don't have any evidence that wood knocks are conclusive, right, you know, are conclusive proof that they are made exclusively by sasquatch. We don't know that, right, But I mean, I think that the standard of proof has to be higher for the researcher, because that's the person who's supposed to be out there doing the work. But don't you think one thing that would be more beneficial to us as researchers is having that standardized, you know, method methodology standardized, you know what's accepted as evidence. I do, and we don't have that yet. But then the problem also becomes at that point, and I totally agree with that way of thinking. I do think that certain things in this need to be standardized. But then you come across the issue of how do you get researchers to go along with this? Because you have to remember researchers out there, I'd say ninety five percent of them are independent, and you can't force people to do something. And then there's also the part of that that says, hey, wait a minute, because it's generally accepted doesn't mean that's the correct way to do things either. Right exactly. So I mean, how do you get people that are, you know, outwardly and very happy about the fact that they're independent, they're not taking marching orders from anyone. How do you get them to accept and then incorporate these standards into their research. See. I don't think there's anything wrong with being independent, but I think there has to be some sort of standardized, you know, set of rules we follow, set of I'm searching for the term here. I just don't have it at the moment. Verbally, you know, there has to be that those standards set a standard operating procedure, if you would, right, you know, we have to have that. Well, science has that. I mean, I don't think that when other scientists are out in the jungle searching for new animals, I don't think that they're just doing it, you know, and not keeping up with or not keeping track of what they're coming across. They're doing things that are methodical, and they're doing things to document every step of the process. And that's what we're going to need, I mean, especially for people like me who don't want to have to kill the animal in order to prove that it exists. And I'm definitely with you on that. I'm a very big proponent of the no kill philosophy and I'm going to stay that way. I don't think we need to kill kill a creature to prove its existence. But the only way to do that though then because I don't think video is going to be the only thing that did it. But then I'll do it. They all think, yeah, And I don't think a footprint is going to be the only thing that does it. It's going to be how researchers actually compile and how they they present the evidence that they have collected. It's gonna come out to Okay, yes, I have a video of this animal, but at the same time, I have footprints of this animal, I have this, I have recordings I have You know, it's gonna come down to how much evidence do you have to throw on the table all at the same time. The quality of quantity of evidence is going to help us. Just what you're saying, I have this to say. You know, those who say that footprints are not physical evidence, well we need to Hindon put it so bluntly, he said, you know people, he said, people say the footprints are not physical evidence. He said, let's see, he said, how would you like if I hate you over the heads of those footprints plaster casts? Don't you think that would be physical? Well, but the point is it is physical evidence, but it's secondary, meaning that we did not see it. We did not physically see something make that footprint. I mean, it's all nice and dandy, didn't want to want to try to make that physical evidence. But unless you saw the sasquatch stick is slit in the mud, you know, we have no proof what made it. I mean, look at you know, all these years later and Ray Wallace still makes all the fake bigfoot prints in America, you know what I mean. And the guy's been dead now. Yeah, well, well the evidence we have. The only time that a sasquatch has been seen making tracks for sure was actually filmed, and of course that was the Paterson Gimlin movie. And then there's still those that debate that that's actually you know, a man in the suit. So well, that's going to be the problem with video too, unless it's high quality and a shot from multiple angles. And you know, we're asking for the impossible in terms of physic and video evidence, but that's what it's going to take. Right. Well, you know, here within the last few weeks, a couple of guys that we both know, Billy Willard and Tom Lancaster, they actually posted on their website how they I mean, they step by step methodically put down on paper the graph and I mean, you can't even imagine how great that this is. And that's exactly what needs to be done. Right. They took an entire scene and they broke it down and they put it on paper and you can look at this and see the exact alleged pathway that this unknown animal took. And I mean I thought that was phenomenal and more researchers should pay attention because it's going to be. It's going to be things like this, you know, how people put it down on paper and how you're documenting your evidence that's going to turn the head of science. Now. I've actually been out in the field with Billy Willard, and I tell you what, if I ever go out in the field with anybody again, I'd like it to be Billy Willard because I learned quite a bit from him that night we were out, and he's just a fun person to go out with, but he's always in tune of what's going on around on them. He's always both him and Tom. Why I haven't had the privilege of going out with Tommy, and I did speak to Tom on the phone one night we were out in the field. But Billy and Tom know their stuff and they're really right now. I'd consider them some of the top researchers in America. I really would, right and you know I mean, And regardless of whether or not you think after looking at this information, whether or not you think what they what they actually outlined and graphed is actual Bigfoot movement, whether or not you think that it's all secondary, in my opinion, the fact that these guys actually put the paper the way these different scenes I think, in my opinion, should be cataloged, and they set it down. I mean, and I looked at that and I thought, you know, that's that's some damn good work. I wanted to refer back to something Sean said earlier, referring to if we can get good video footage. Well, you know, some researchers, some researchers, what they want to do is, you know, they say that if you can get footage of a sasquatch doing something which would be physically impossible for a man to do, you know that video footage would go a long way towards perhaps proving you know, that the sasquatch exists. Well that's fine, but unfortunately, to this date, I have not heard sasquatch do anything that a man cannot do. And that's talking from a strictly flesh and blood aspect. Well, I think at this point, I think I'd just be happy to see clear footage of a masquatch. I mean, I'm with you there, yeah, I mean it's nice to say those kinds of things that, you know. I mean, at this point, we just have to hope and pray that we get the best possible footage that we can. I mean, I don't know even if the best possible footage is ever going to be enough, but I mean, yeah, it would be nice to be able to get on film Sasquatch doing something that that a normal man couldn't do. But I mean, realistically, I'll just take it on film, period. Quality film. And there's so much technology after today that that shouldn't be you know, that shouldn't be a problem. Yeah, it continually is One thing I was always asked by Rob McConnell is with so many digital you know, cameras and digital equipment and cell phones, why isn't there you know, the definitive proof, definitive picture of Sasquatch. And the problem is when you're and I'm just going to go off on a tangent for a second, and the technological aspect, when you look at a cellular phone camera or video camera, you're looking at what at one point three megapixel camera, right, You're not looking at a very high quality camera that can do, you know, anything more than just take a low res picture. And so, first of all that that's a moot point because it's just you're not going to get that kind of picture from a cellular phone. The other thing is these creatures, and this is just speculative only, I think they're able to recognize metallic objects rather they be guns, knives, video cameras. The point is when you point something out a creature, and you can do this experiment with deer or other wildlife, when you pull something out at them that they're not expecting and try to take even a picture of them, they're not going to appreciate it too much and they're going to try to run from it. They're not going to stick around. It's kind of like when I try to take a picture of my dog. She won't stay in one spot for no parent reason. If I stand there five seconds later, she'll sit there and look at me like she knows, But the second I pull that camera out, she bolts. You know. It's just you know, and I think part of the reason is that is, you know, all kinds, all electronics emits some kind of frequency, and animals, you know, just have that natural ability to sense those things that we wouldn't necessarily pick up on. And that's just my theory on that. Take it what it's worth, my two cents, but that's what I believe. Well, yeah, I've heard all kinds of theories as to why we're not able to get this animal on film, and I just think, honestly, it's just the cameras are not in the right place at the right time. I don't think it's some big, you know, mystery about how an animal can sense the camera. I really don't believe that. I think that like in situations like when you have an animal in your home, like you know, the the gentleman that was just saying, I think that's because probably the dog had been flashed before in the eyes and the dog will remember that. So I mean, it's like you've just trains your dog to stay away from you when you have a camera. So I think that it's things like that. But at the same time, you're not having cameras in the right place at the right time. Why are we putting up game cams. Well, hopefully they'll be in the right place finally for. Or why I haven't they yielded results. I mean, we can get bears on game cams and you're another wildlife, but at the same time, we're also dealing with a creature that's that may have some form of intelligence, But. It also could be though too, that we're getting deer and bear on game camps, because there's so many more of those than the possibility of a Sam squatch walking in front of a game cam. I mean, I would probably get the numbers are probably nowhere's near? Is high? Is what some people think? Definitely not, But just for the sake of, you know, continuing this conversation, if we put these cameras out for extended periods of time and areas where they have a large amount of a sasquatch activity, Dan Paul, if you're familiar with Tom Powell's book The Locals, one thing I can say is that there are some interesting pictures of shadows or shadowy images, but nothing that can be deemed conclusive. And those pictures were on the BFUR website if you went on his book, and I'll post that link on the website after the show on the blog and you can see what I'm talking about if it's still up. But it was pretty interesting, and that was an ongoing study, but it still yielded no conclusive results, right. But I mean it also could boil down to shutter speed, you know, and there's so many other variables that work into that. I mean, I'm not. I'm just not ready to say that. I mean, I'm not saying that this is not a smart animal. It very well could be. I don't know. But at the same point, I'm just not at the point where I'm ready to say that this animal is so smart you can figure out what a game can is. I don't think it's smart enough to be able to recognize what an object is and do avoid it's detection. I think it is smart enough to really that when a human being pulled something out that is not recognizable to them, or maybe something that they do recognize from experience, they can they know that it's something that they don't want to be involved with, you know what I mean. It's not exactly intelligence more so than instinct. Yeah, well, it's pointed at them. You know, they're gonna think, oh my god, it's a gun or you know. Well, that's what I mean. I mean, you're not gonna take a camera after a bigfoot then take pictures of it, you know, hold it out to you and take a picture to the side. You've got like five seconds to take the picture of the lifetime. Well, but then you're also but then you're also going against the fact that there's researchers out there who believe that the animal is attracted by shining objects. So, I mean, it's half a dozen of won and you know so, I mean, it's kind of it's really difficult to say. For sure. It would be nice to at least just get a picture of a period. It would be wonderful to have that picture. But do I think we're gonna get it? No, No, Unfortunately, I think if anything's gonna happen, and this is a very grim approach, I think that perhaps that someone from the pro kill component proponent might get one, or hopefully what I hope happens. And folks don't take this the wrong way, but I hope one day that a logging truck smacks into one. Well I'd rather see that happen than somebody take one out with a shotgun. Me too, sure, So. I was gonna say something, oh about Oh shoot, I forgot. It'll come to me. It's nothing, Oh now, yeah, I remember. Apparently some some researchers have speculated that sometimes these creatures can smell metal, like a gun or a camera. And that's why, you know, they're able to avoid being seen so much. You know, if if they know you've got metal, if they can smell that metal, then may or they'll avoid you. Hell. But then there's also that theory that we were talking about a few weeks ago about the Sasquatch and attracted to you know, I talked about Henry the trailers or whatever, shiny metallic objects. Yeah, that was last week. That was last week, the ever controversial Lauren Coleman. Well, and you know, he has his rights to his theories as everyone else does. But but the one thing to understand is that we're talking theory. And the one thing, Melissa that I love about you the most is that you're more science. You're more science than theory. And you know, to take a step back, theory. Helps us come up with ideas to help push this forward in that research. But it's going to be the technology and the science that's going to prove it to the world exactly. But in order to come up with these hypotheses, we have to theorize, right, And you know, it's all a very important part of the scientific. Process, right, And I completely agree with that. I mean, if we're not going to come up with the ideas that we're just not going to be able to you know, if we're not coming up with more ideas and we're just not very good researchers. Right, it has to be a critical part of your research coming up with ideas. What's next? You know, what are you going to do next? Move forward? What did you do this last time that you thought maybe could have had a little bit of success. What are you going to do the next time to hopefully push it more forward? So that's I mean, I love discussing theories and ideas, but I'm hoping that when people discuss theories that it's working towards something. But the one thing I like about this conversation we're having tonight that the theories we have are in the realm of possibility, right, I mean, these theories that we're discussing aren't far out or you know, they're right, you know, And to some this you know, isn't what they like to hear, but they stay within the flesh and blood aspect in rome and what we consider them to be, you know, realistic, realistically. I'm not going to have unrealistic conversations about an animal that I don't even know exist exactly. I Mean, it's bad enough that we taught you know, that everything we're talking about right now, even the existence of this creature is pure speculation. I mean, we do have we do have what we consider evidence. Obviously science doesn't think it's enough. And and actually I agree, we don't have enough evidence. What do you think about that, Molica, Do we have enough? No, we don't and I and I totally agree with that. With that, with that way of thinking, and we're not going to have enough if researchers don't put serious thought into what they're doing. I mean, it's serious business that we're doing out there, and I mean I can't when I talk to other researchers. I mean I don't streuss enough how important it is to gather and maintain and preserve evidence properly. It is extremely important. Especially if you think that you have the best track that you've casted in your lifetime, It is extremely important how you preserve that and maintain it. And when you come upon these different areas in your research areas, how you catalog everything that you see is so important because nobody's going to care. If you just say this happened because I said it happened, that's not going to impress anyone. It's going to be what you have on paper and what you can show me that's going to turn the head of somebody that you want to listen. So, in terms of that evidence that we have that we neither one of us don't deem to be the best evidence. But within that realm of possible evidence we have, what do you consider to be the best piece of it? Starting to feel like James Lipton, I'm. Sorry, Yeah, well, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, if I had to pick and choose what I think is the best potential evidence that we have, I would have to say that it's the Skukum cast and quite possibly different tracks that are have been preserved, and that, in my opinion, is it's something that we can work on. And I sea basically based on these tracks that have been casted at least of what the foot may look like if this animal is really out there. The one thing I really that I really think is awesome that doctor Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt, you know, doctor Chilcutt, after examining, you know, the collection of Jeff Meldrum's footprints, you know, and the appearance of the friction regis the dermal ridges and now we have that type set. Do you know what I mean? You have that, you know, starting to recognize these things and cast. However, now finding out that that's also not entirely infallible. Well I guess it all depends. I mean, you have done some really good work to prove that. Then I could be wrong to try to dispel the dispel the friction ridge. I'm searching for the terminology again because I just can't word it correctly. Your experiments with flip castings, and you put a lot of hard work into that, So why don't you go instead of me trying to steal your thunder, why don't you go into that a little bit. Well, I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, and that's been the I think the biggest misconception about my work. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong. My whole point in this work that I'm doing is to help researchers understand what they need to be looking for in these tracks and how to properly cast when they actually come across the track that they think is worthy of preserving. That's what my goal is. And if if researchers could you know understand that if this animal does this. If these tracks do belong to this animal, then these are something that we need to know how to preserve. And I mean, I just I can't stress that enough. But in order to do that, researchers need to understand how to properly mix the casting agents, how to properly put it into that track, and then what to do with it later. And there are so many different variables that go into into casting that I don't even think a lot of researchers really thought about because I never even thought about it. And I've worked with plaster of Paris and for years and I never even knew that some of these things that I've come across could actually create issues within your own casting. So and but I think that this is important for researchers to understand. I mean, otherwise, don't even don't waste your money. I mean, this stuff is not cheap, hydrocl is not cheap, and all the things that go into it. If you're not going to do it properly, I don't even know why people would want to waste their money. And there, once again it goes into that we need that standard operating procedure in research. But as you said, as in with so many other things. There's that variable, you know, there's those variables that sometimes you know, make that you know, what would be the standard operate operating procedure is not exactly work, such as soil temperature, moisture levels, you know, all those factors that have to be taken in consideration when you make it, when you make a cast. Absolutely absolutely, and a lot of people don't think though, a lot of people think we just whip up the bisquick and pour it in the trash, right, you know, for lack of a better term, And well, that's just not how it happens. There's a lot to go into it, right. Well, you know, and that's that was one of my that was a really big surprise for me actually was finding out that temperature does play an important role and for anybody to discount that, well, they're just flat out wrong. Temperature of the water and temperature of the soil, all of those things can create issues within your own plastic, your own casting, and. They always have to look at it kind of like baking, right, you really do. There's a science to baking. Storry to rupture there, no, no, that's okay, but no, you're right, and I mean, it's really not that difficult. And I found that generally, if you stay between you know, within five degrees of air temperature, I mean, you're casting should work out fine. But it's like you know, when researchers go to the nearby lake or they go to the nearby stream, those that water is not temperature. You shouldn't be doing that. I mean, take a long water, get it out of your tap, put it in an old milk jug or something, but let it sit out and get to air temperature. Because if as long as you stay within a plus or minus of five degrees, you know, you should be fine. But it's when it's when you introduce extreme into your casting, that's when I start seeing the biggest problem. But I still to this day, I mean I've got probably I don't even know how many casts I have, but to this day, I still have not been able to duplicate the artifacts that have been discussed that look like dermal ridges. And but I'm still working at it, still trying. But it comes down to I mean, it may just be something that only happens in one type of soil. So I don't know. No, I'm reading here in the chat room and right now they're talking about pheromoneships. Have you ever actually had the privileges a pheromone trip? Oh? Lord, I did. Eric Altman told me my mentor Airic Goltman I got in the field with last year on the expedition, told me not the smell the pheromone trip. We got them from doctor Bambenek, doctor Juice, and of course me being the Green, you know, I opened up the jar stick my face and I swear to God, that thing burt my nostrils. It was the worst thing I've ever smelled. Oh my god, it was awful. So don't ever do that, folks, if you're listening, do not ever sniff a sasquatch pheromone trip because you will regret it. I swear to god, I had that smell embedded to my nose for weeks at a time. Yeah, taught. I'm a phone number out there, folks, folks through in the night. Number is three four seven, calling. With your questions for Colleen. Well listn't I have to say this has been one. This is a great show we're having tonight, a lot of good productive discussion and and we've. Got a question from our good friend Bill Green from the chat room less on what's the best Texas bigfoot encounter as you investigated with the tb rc M. Actually, I have not had the privilege of actually going out and investigating, you know, a one on one sighting with with a witness yet my unfortunately, my job and other issues have just kept me way too busy and along with casting you can add casting right up there. But I do know. I mean, there's been some reports that I've read on the website, and one in particular, I actually was able to meet that witness and his his fighting was I thought very credible, and I mean I'd like to have the opportunity to speak with him some more. But I mean he was he he showed up at a meeting to talk about it, and I mean he, to me, sounded like somebody who saw something that he could not explain. Basically, his sighting involved two one being male and one with female, and I really don't want to discuss specifics, but his sighting was with one that I don't hear much of, so it was pretty amazing. I just wanted to add that those of you who have been regular listeners on my show have heard about the encounter I had in the Woods last year and the Chestnut Ridge in Pennsylvania. I don't know if I should say this or not, but the area where I had my encounters as having ongoing activity lately and right now today we sent two researchers out to investigate it. What's going on out there. We got some pretty interesting stuff coming from Pennsylvania. To just keep your ears posed to listen to the show for more details. That's pretty awesome. Yeah, it kind of validates the encounter you've had. Well, it doesn't validate because, like I said before, I never seen what you know made you know. I can't explain what made me feel the way I did that day. All I can do is theorize. But it does add a little bit, and I'll say this, it does add a little bit more validity in terms of possibility of what I encountered that day. I all I know is that when I had that experience, I didn't want to go back, and I'm still very I still have a lot of apprehension of going back. To be honest with you, Oh yeah, it's an experience I had that I don't particularly like to remember. It's something that I've never felt, so I felt for lack of a better term. Once again, I felt violated, like paralyzed, and emotionally and mentally drained. It just drained me. I would never want to feel that way again. And Billy Willard, who you know, the investigator in Virginia, also had a similar experience to mine. He'll tell you the same thing. He didn't care. He wouldn't care if he ever felt that way again. So it's not exactly a fun experience. But nonetheless, I'll get back up on the horse and I plan on going back out there in a few leagues shielding tonight's investigation results. So I'll keep you posted. Melissa, I have a question for you, Okay, what is your opinion of the Lake Worth Monster signings in the late nineteen sixties. I'm sure you've heard about them, and it's interesting they only occurred that one summer, and I don't think there have been any signings in that area since. I was just wondering what your opinion on that was. Well, I really don't know that I have an opinion one way or the other. It was it was such an it was so long ago. You know. I basically have a rule where I mean, if something happened within the last six months to a year. It's that's something that I'm extremely interested in when you start going back onto reports that are twenty five years old, and they're interesting. They add to the collection of reports and the corroboration of other witnesses. But I mean, I don't I mean, I really don't know. I've read about it, and you know, I mean people talk about it, but I mean I really don't have an opinion about it one way or the other, with as I don't with most reports, so especially if I have never spoken to the person myself. That's something that I prefer to do before I decide one way or the other. We do have a comment here from anonymous Melissa, and I'll address this, and then of course I'll let you address this as always, the comment being let me go back up here and get it Addie. A standardization is good, but I think some don't want their dream crushed. That comment, and it stood out for me for one reason. First of all, I don't think I think being a dreamer is all right, okay, but I don't think that when you're looking for an animal that may or may not exist, and you're trying to apply scientific principle to it, I don't think there's any room for dreaming, right. I think it's that you either you know, are objective and collect the evidence or you've already made up your mind and the evidence really isn't that important. I think if somebody wants to believe in something so much that nothing they find is going to be able to change their mind anyhow. Right, Well, frankly, and I mean no offense to this person, but if okay, I'm involved in this because I think the possibility is there for this animal to actually exist. Do I know it exists? No? But I'm not interested in dreams personally. And if if there's a researcher out there who's doing this strictly because they're wanting to dream big of what this will do to their life and how this will make them important, and on and on and on, I really don't care if the dreams get crushed. I really don't because I'm not in this. This should be about the animal itself. I mean, do you care about whether or not the animal exists? And if you do care, what do you want to do to protect it? What do you want to do to make sure this animal does not become extinct? That's why I'm in this. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not in this for my dream, you know, And I don't think of it that way about. Me, And I'm in it pretty much for the same reason you are molist that there is that a creature out there. Obviously, its numbers are very low and it needs protection. Right. This isn't going to and we're not going to cue any corny music or anything. This is very serious. We're notorious for driving species of animals to the brink of extinction and even making them go extinct. It's not a joke. It's not funny. Look at John Green, you know, in terms of dreamers, John Green has been in this for fifty years, and outside our little community he's not famous at all. But John Green never got in this to be famous. He got in this to document the story and because it's a huge interest of his. He's probably the most well known researcher aside from maybe a select few, But he didn't get in this to be famous. And you know, I mean, onnest the up top of my head, I can't think of one researcher that I know that in this because they're dreaming of what could be. I mean for them personally, I mean, I can't say that I know one researcher who even thinks that way. Everybody I talk to in this research is more concerned about documenting the animal and getting it protected. And we'll take a step backward now, so we're not getting a little melodramatic back to evidence. For a long time, I've been a big believer that we need to sort of applying forensic and scientific principles to the collection of evidence. So many times we've run into the issue that our evidence has been contaminated, you know, rather be through the collection of hair, blood samples that supposed to be collected from the ground, even you know, saliva, stuff like that that could prove to be very vital has been completely destroyed by mishandling. And one thing I want to point out is that on Sasquatch Legend Meede Science, one thing that bugs me during that whole documentary is the gentleman that is analyzing the hair and he is not wearing any protective covering on his hair at all. Not just him, but the gentleman at the end, and the DNA taking the DNA extractions from the apple, not one time did he ever, did they ever even examining the Skukum cast, did they ever wear hair protection? And that bothers me. I agree with you, and it's. Just something simple like hair that really drove me over the edge. But this DVD is clouded, This documentary is cloud as being the best documentary on sasquatch. Yet simply looking at that and realizing that the you know, so called experts, you know, really aren't even doing a great job but evident evidence. Handling, well, I agree with that. I mean, we're all human, we're subject to mistakes and errors, but when you're doing something that's so important. Right, But you're also talking about a group of people who at the time they thought they had a good idea of what they might have, but they didn't have any proof of it. And at that time in this research, I don't really think a whole lot of people put a great amount of thought into how do you preserve evidence? So I mean that's yeah, it was a mistake, but you know what, we move on and we learned from those mistakes. I'll bet you if you ask Rick No if you'd ever do the same things again, he'd probably tell you. Now, just like anybody else who's made a mistake like that. But there's so many different ways that DNA evidence can be ruined before you even get there. So but that doesn't negate the fact that researchers need to use proper protocol if they think that they are going to be encountering any kind of evidence that could contain DNA. You still need to do the proper procedures and you need to know how to properly collect and preserve that evidence. But you know, I don't. I have researchers all the time, if you know, when they bring up a conversation, what do you do? And I just shake my head and I think to myself, well, you know, this is why we get you know, contaminated on our results or you know, unknown or whatever. But unfortunately, evidence collection for most of us is a work in progress, right, you know, we're not most of us don't have any you know, specific law enforcement training to collect evidence or you know, forensics training is or anything of that sort. But however, I don't think that negates us from the responsibility of learning it right, and we're all capable of learning, and I think it's very important that we, you know, make this you know, once again refer to that a part of standard operating procedure. I think it's just a necessity that we do this. And you know, if the independent investigators don't want to join up and you know, agree to this, you know, this is how we're going to collect evidence, then you know, let's see what their evidence yields for them. Right, you know there's a price to pay for independence. That's right. Everybody always thinks they have the right answers. And I'm not saying our answers the right way. I'm saying our answers the you know, the best way, not our answer is the best way. Our answers a step in the right direction. Well, it's better than walking up to a potential hair stamp and picking it up with your fingers, you know, I mean, come on, either, you're gonna either. You want to be serious about this. As Chuck add an off, he says, CSI sasquatch right exactly. Well, and we you're handling things like this, you should be careful if you think that there's any kind of biological evidence. You need to be careful regardless, because you don't know. I mean, if you come across a like a even a known animal like a bear or something in the woods. There can be all kinds of contaminants that on the body of that animal that you want to pick through. You know, you need to know how to handle these types of situations for you first and then for your evidence collection, you know as well. So I mean there's all kinds of things that you need to think about, and unfortunately, not you know, the scientific the community is not coming together on this issue, but it's starting to happen, which I think is very positive. One thing that concerns me is, and it's just for health and safety reasons, is when people collect scat, one mistake is I've seen people actually stick their faces down almost right on top of that and inhale. They don't realize all the bacteria and the potential you know, viruses they're getting from handling you know, feces. It's not exactly a I'm not a big fan of collecting feces. I'm not a big fan of feces period now. But I think there's a you know, people should be listening to night should be very aware that health dangers involved in collecting some evidence, right absolutely, But I think that's going to be the challenge that maybe I'll lay out to os Melissa, we could work on in the American Bigfoot Society with other groups and make this a big task between every group is coming up with that adopted standardized procedure. And more hands in the pot the better, because the more ideas that get I think will be on the way to collect to some good evidence. Is Paul Villa that said, Paul Vella, the researcher that you know, asked the question, should we discard all the evidence that we've collected up to this point and start new? And I don't, And sometimes I really agree with that. I sometimes I think we have to start fresh. But you know, without learning from our mistakes, we're not going to go anywhere. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, you know that kind of situation. Reading interesting comments in the chat room here, are. There any fans of feces? What's all this talk about a dangered feces? I'm reading them? Crap is bad? Yeah, I see it, I see it all. Job, but someone's got to do it. That's time to wait to ankle deep. Well, we got three minutes, bro Well. Final thoughts, I beg your pardon. Final thoughts, you're the last piece of advice you'd like to give everybody that you're listening. Here, Well, just get out there and look. If you don't know something, learn it. Learning is always a good thing. I mean, read up on the subject, talk to other searchers, you know, spend time on the internet board and get to know the other researchers from across the country. And I you know, just get out there, get up. And perfect advice. Uh. Melissa, thank you very much for joining us tonight in a very special birthday wisch gazatia from me and mine and I hope you have just you and Henry both have such a terrific day tomorrow. Enjoy it, be glad you're on this earth another day, and just when you wake up in the morning, take a nice, deep, fresh breath of her. Yeah, and Melissa, Billy Billy Billy Uh passed along a big hug to you. Uh, big hugs back to you, Billy. I think tonight's been an extraordinary show. I think it's it's it's been one for the record books. I think we had a serious discussion, a serious slock, but at the same time addressed some really good issues. Melissa always a privileged to have you here with us. Thank you, Sean, always happy to be here. And you can you can find more on Melissa at Texas Sasquatch dot blogspot dot com or now the New Sasquatch the search for Sasquatch formats uh search search for Bigfoot dot org. Yep, that's the fight. And I have to say though, that that website is running conjunction with my partner, Charita Hall. Fantastic woman, great researcher out of Arkansas, and I couldn't be happier about sharing the forum with her. That's great, and folks stay tuned because you never know what's going to happen in the Sasquatch experience. I'm always very proud to have great researchers on our show. It's such a privilege for me to talk to such great people and people that are always on the same page. This community has a big division in it, and I think this show is just one of the stepping stones to start bringing us together because in the end, we're all after the same thing, and the more we work together, the sooner we'll get this solved. If we can solve it. Yep. Getting kind of deep tonight, folks, getting kind of deep. And no we're not drinking. For the record, I'm drinking a cherry coke. It doesn't get more virgin than that. I'm having green tea. She's having green tea, and Henry hasn't had anything because I haven't had her covied a flushed this this whole episode. So that's a record. What a great show. It's been the night, folks, Melissa once again, thanks for joining us. James Baker, thanks for joining us again, my friend Henry, take us home. You'll be good or be good in it. Thank you, folks. You've been listening to The Sasquatch Experience. Next week we have the Sasquatch Salute super Larry Lund and the following week is our open mic discussion. Stay tuned and I hope you all join us for those shows. Henry will be flying solo next week Wednesday, join us nine thirty pm Eastern for the Sasquatch Experience. Light and just because things happen from time to time, please check out the blog Sasquatch Experience dot blogspot dot com. Thank you all tonight, folks, it's been a pleasure. Keep on squatching. Thank you for listening to this classic episode. For more about Sasquatch Experience, go to sasquatchexperience dot com or find us on social media. Sasquatch Experience on Facebook or Instagram, Squatch exp on x. Join our Patreon for as little as two dollars a month. Patreon dot com slash Sasquatch Experience