“The Blogsquatcher” – The Archives

March 19, 2009 6:00 AM

Note, if you have missed it, here is part 1 and part 2.

Some quick links — Henry’s website.

And also a direct link to Henry’s book.

Henry: Like I said, they believe that one day they are going to understand self consciousness and awareness by studying DNA and smaller and smaller processes and chemical and physical properties of these processes. I think theyʼre.. I hate to say they are religious zealots. Thatʼs too strong a term. They have an ideological faith that any day now they are going to understand life. But they donʼt understand it yet. The donʼt understand what animates living organisms yet. And what makes self conscious creatures self conscious, aware creatures. They have a million theories, like, gee, if we make a neural net complicated enough, will that make it self aware? Thatʼs one of the holes in modern science.

DB: Yeah. I kind of feel like maybe weʼve come about as far as the mechanistic reductionism is going to take us, and thereʼs going to have to be a.. one of those paradigm shifts here pretty soon.

Henry: I think that biology will have that, I think thatʼs coming for institutional biology.And I really think that when it comes to bigfoot, boy, its time should come sooner,because I think that.. I donʼt know, I donʼt think that Iʼm going to create a paradigm shift. I think Iʼll just be a lone eagle out there, saying from my little soap box on the corner, “I donʼt think you guys are gonna really get it!” (laughs) “You gotta sort of shift your thinking there a little bit.”

DB: (laughing) Yeah. Well explaining bigfoot is probably beyond our powers at the moment, although there are definitely avenues that you can follow that lead toward explanations. Finding it is possibly within our powers..

Henry: Iʼm hoping we can get a handle on it. Because all I ever wanted and I still want is just to understand my own experiences. I want to know if he was laughing at me because of my lame physics. Actually, as time has passed, Iʼm almost certain he was.

DB: Well, if youʼre right that we took the wrong turn in the ʻ20s when we went into quantum mechanics and all that, then he would have had reason to laugh about that. But if heʼs laughing specifically about the first three minutes after the Big Bang..

Henry: Yeah, it was the whole Big Bang thing that really set him off, see.

DB: Right, he couldnʼt stomach that! (laughing) Well, you have to wonder, what is bigfoot physics like? Maybe thereʼs something that they can tell us?

Henry: This is my lifetime pursuit! (laughing)

DB: Understanding bigfoot physics!

Henry: Since 1994 thatʼs been a question in my mind, well, what are their physics? They apparently.. if they are people they probably have science, so whatʼs their science? So thatʼs the line of inquiry Iʼve been on, away from everybody because, you know, mainstream bigfoot research does not move in that direction. The BFRO and others.. like I said, I commend Moneymaker for creating his dream. Iʼm surprised because so many people have had really profound experiences who have gone along on his expeditions. More than I would have expected. I think itʼs a good thing that he is actually enabling people to encounter the unknown, up close and personal. I think thatʼs good. Thatʼs really the thing that leads further down the path. Until you start having your own experiences, thereʼs no way for you to know. I say all the time, no one ever believes you when you tell them. They find out for themselves.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: And ten years ago when I left the building, that was something I probably said a hundred times. Youʼve just got to find out for yourself. I had got to that point a long time ago where I really didnʼt expect to persuade anybody, ever again, of the reality of bigfoot or anything. I just said, geez, youʼve just got to go find out for yourself.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: And the BFRO.. Iʼm glad they enabled that somewhat. Thatʼs a good thing,and all the other guys looking. Which used to be me, because.. you know once I was the only bigfoot moderator on the only bigfoot discussion group. (laughs)

DB: Right.

Henry: And to see today, with ten thousand groups and all, itʼs just amazing. Who knew? I had no idea this would become so popular.

DB: Yeah, nobody could have foreseen it back then. Well you might have been able to foresee it, because bigfoot has always been..

Henry: You know I had 400 on my list at the most? The biggest my list ever got was 400, maybe? Yeah, I didnʼt know that there would be a bigfoot club in every state. At least one. And that specialization would come, just like in every field.

DB: It definitely has exploded since the BFRO launched their website, and especially since they started doing those expeditions. But you know what Iʼm reminded of? You were telling a story about a time when you and Peter Byrne and the rest of the Bigfoot Research Project got a report from some people in a valley, and you were only a few hours behind it. And there were three separate groups of people involved in the report, and something odd came out of it. I wonder if you could talk about that?

Henry: Sure. Itʼs like your experience where your companion saw this bigfoot run in the bushes and you found no trace of it. Itʼs basically that sort of experience. Early on, we dreamed.. we had this 1-800 number and we dreamed of getting what we called the 24 hour report. We would collect these reports, and just like the BFRO today, theyʼd be from five years ago. Ten years ago, you know? “Oh, back in 1978 I saw a bigfoot!”

DB: Right.

Henry: We dreamed, and one day, we were in Hood River, Oregon, and one day we get a report from The Dalles, Oregon. From two hours before. And we race over there. We had three employees, and I was just hanging around the office bugging everybody that day. Raced over there. These three groups you mentioned.. there was a valley just outside of The Dalles, and there was a group of  hunters, a group of sledders, and a group of skiers, I think it was, and they were in three different places in the valley. Far apart from each other. They didnʼt know each other. There were twenty people in total. And one by one we interviewed these groups. Each one of them said they saw seven bigfoot walk over the hill down at the end of the valley. And they all described the same thing, they came from the left, the went over the hill right about the center and they went out of sight. Boy, were we hot to go. So we had Peter Byrne, Todd Deary. We crawled all over that hill. It was two feet of snow, with a bit of ice on the top, about a quarter inch. We actually found mouse tracks, we found rabbit tracks, we found deer tracks. We ourselves made tracks. Tons of tracks. We destroyed the hill looking for tracks. But there was not a single bigfoot track. Not a hint. And Peter Byrne, being a sober, rational human being, said, “They must have been mistaken.” And so we marked it down as a mistake. And that was that. It didnʼt make it into the database as a sighting report, because obviously these people were mistaken. There was no trace of any bigfoot having ever walked up this two-foot deep snow covered hill.

DB: Well thereʼs that data suppression thing going on again!

Henry: Yeah, because, see, my experience that day was a little different, because.. one of the things I learned, one of my rules of thumb.. you know everybody develops their own antenna for identifying hoaxes. So when I would interview these people we chased around Oregon and Washington, when they were really really shook up, that was one of my indications that, yeah, they probably really had a sighting.

DB: Yeah, it has an emotional impact on them that is very hard to fake.

Henry: There is a noticeable emotional impact, where it freaked them out and they were still pretty freaked out about it. So that was one of the ways that I would read to see if it was a hoax or not. And almost all of these twenty people were really shookup. And I said, well, you know, thatʼs the mark of credibility in my own private way of telling credibility. So I stored that away, and I know that Peter and Todd and the scientists say they were mistaken, that was that. But I didnʼt think so, didnʼt add up for me..

DB: Yeah, you knew that they saw something.

Henry: I said maybe thereʼs some way they could actually walk through the snow and not leave a trace. It just seemed like.. I couldnʼt imagine what the logical explanation was for it, but I said, maybe that could happen. Now, once again, later,and I even bring it up in my book, I had an Indian friend who described that happening to him. He was sitting at a campfire in the middle of the winter in the middle of the woods, and bigfoot came up and shared his campfire with him. And as he walked up he left no tracks in the snow.

DB: Uh huh!

Henry: And then I said, ah, okay! And this was an Indian witness that I really trusted,who had 100% credibility with me. And I said, well, okay, they really can do that. I actually bring that story into my book.

DB: Cool.

Henry: That was one of those first hand times, early on — that happened in 1994, and that was one of those times where I said, wow, this bigfoot thing is way weirder than all of these people want to portray it.

DB: Well speaking of that Indian friend of yours, was he able to confirm that the bigfoot had corporeal, physical presence there? I mean, could he touch it, or..?

Henry: He.. yeah, well he could smell it, he said. And having smelled it myself, this isone of those things — it smelled like an animal. You canʼt imagine that itʼs not an animal because it stinks like an animal.

DB: Yeah, Iʼve smelled it too — itʼs very very physically there when you are smelling it.

Henry: Youʼre like, man, that smells like a wet dog! But itʼs not a wet dog, itʼs much stronger and more pungent. So youʼre like, oh, man, what is that? You know what he actually confirmed for me was.. it did seem to be a physical creature to him. It sat down at his fire with him. It sat there for a long time, and then the bigfoot raised its arms over its head and disappeared. So he was the one who confirmed for me that, yes, they can turn invisible.

DB: Or they can blip out of our material universe or whatever..

Henry: However that works, somehow they can blip out or something, but they can raise their hands over their head and be gone. Whatever it is. And leave no tracks inthe snow. So he was the one sighting report that confirmed those two things for me. It made me know, yes, thereʼs another who has experienced what Iʼve experienced, up close and personal. Over time Iʼve found others like that. I mean thereʼs a lot of.. Iʼve talked to a lot of Indians now. And now of course I know that one can not generalize about what Indians think, because they are all individuals. Some will tell you, yes Iʼveseen them turn invisible, and they are mutli-dimensional, and Iʼve seen them step into this doorway right here. And others that will tell you, those guys are crazy! (laughs)

DB: Right! Donʼt listen to them, they donʼt know what they are talking about!

Henry: They are out of their minds! There is no such thing as bigfoot, and Iʼve spent my life in the mountains and Iʼve never seen them.

DB: Itʼs depending on their experience. If they havenʼt ever had the experience, itʼs a lot easier to say it didnʼt happen to the other guy.

Henry: Yeah, exactly. And you find that dichotomy everywhere. Once I went, a longtime ago, to the Estacada Ranger Station. Early on I was all idealistic and I went, oh, ranger, ranger, did you ever see bigfoot? And there was a young ranger there and there was an old ranger there who was obviously the boss. And the old ranger just gave me the standard line, and said, itʼs crap, Iʼve spent my whole life, my whole career here at Estacada and Iʼve never seen anything, no trace, itʼs just baloney, itʼs garbage. And the other ranger, the younger one, said, “No, theyʼre real. Iʼve seen one.” (laughs) So, really, you can find that problem in a small office.

DB: Yeah!

Henry: Yeah, but youʼre right, itʼs all experience. I wish others had weird experiences like me, because then I wouldnʼt be such a lone eagle.

DB: I think that other people have had those experiences, itʼs just that it has been a hostile place to try to air them in the bigfoot community.

Henry: Itʼs very difficult to..Yeah, like on the forums, if you try to bring any of that up, you pretty much get slammed down pretty hard.

DB: And then banned!

Henry: Yeah, it violates what people think is possible. Theyʼre afraid, I think, a lot of times, that science will unravel if thereʼs anything weird going on. (laughs)

DB: Yeah, like the world wonʼt be the same anymore..

Henry: But really, science will adapt, donʼt worry!

DB: Right, weʼre just saying reality plus this, not that reality is replaced by this. This is something that has been going on the whole time. Itʼs not just starting now..

Henry: As a student of the phenomenon.. one of the things I do in my book is I go through a lot of weird stories from the Indians from the 1920s and 30s. So this is nothing new. And even back then, the same exact themes are present. The people telling those stories say, “No one ever believes you if you tell them this: they turn invisible. Ah, god, I donʼt even want to tell you!” Itʼs the same.. of course, itʼs the resistance of the rational and logical people! (laughs) But when it comes to this guy, this particular species, these guys came to be unique like weʼre unique. You know,we humans are unique compared to all the other animals. We do things that are quite different from the other animals. I think bigfoot is another species like us. They are unique, and they do things differently than all the other animals. So I think they are an exception, like we are. You canʼt successfully lump them in with all the primates and gorillas. You have to look at the hominid line.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: And thatʼs another thing. One of the things we found when we looked at the Patterson film.. I donʼt know if MK Davis also found this in modern times.. was that the Patterson creature, Patty, had a big butt and she had an occipital protuberance on the back of her head. And when you have a gluteus maximus, a big butt, and an occipital protuberance, the point on the back of the skull — thatʼs really the adaptation of the hominid line. Thatʼs not a primate, thatʼs a hominid.

DB: Uh huh!

Henry: Thatʼs the adaptation for upright posture in the hominid branch. So just by looking at the occipital protuberance and the gluteus maximus in the Patterson film, we pretty much said, boy that really suggests that bigfoot is a hominid, on our branch. Now, I donʼt know, that was never accepted by the dominant bigfooters, or perhaps Grover Krantz brought his gigantopithecus skull forward again and did another three television appearances of the same interview where he showed the skull. Whatever happened, itʼs like people never noticed that particular fact that can be derived from the Patterson film. And I think itʼs one of the most convincing things about the Patterson film — hey, itʼs a hominid! (laughs) Didnʼt you guys realize that? So I know that thereʼs a lot of.. thereʼs nothing definite, and people are still wondering if the Patterson film is real or not. I was convinced when I paid a group of scientists $500,000 to find a zipper, and they couldnʼt prove it was a hoax.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: That pretty much cemented it for me, personally. I said, you know, that looks like itʼs not a hoax. Canʼt prove it.

DB: It does look really convincing in the stabilized versions anyway, where you can see the muscles shaking and the hair looks like natural hair. In the suits that people use, the hair looks pretty ridiculous when you put it on film.

Henry: Back then in 1993-98, we were looking at that, and we saw all those muscles moving underneath the hair, and we actually could see grains of sand stuck to the footpads underneath.. we could see the bottoms of the feet in some frames. And,yeah, it looked real. All those details were spot on. And so I always said, wow, how can people overlook that? That the drunken rodeo cowboy.. no, he was actually a drunken rodeo clown. Roger Pattersonʼs chief form of employment was rodeo clown. And he was a drunk.

DB: And he came up with the film.

Henry: Well, you know, the.. many have said, well maybe some sophisticated guy hoaxed the film and just fooled Roger as well, and Iʼm like, no, thatʼd be a really sophisticated guy who understood physiology really well! (laughs) Iʼm glad that people see that now with the stabilized things that.. you know part of the thing that happened with the Bigfoot Research Project is that it all ended in tears.

DB: Yeah?

Henry: With tremendous acrimony. Peter was fired and then Jeff Glickman was put in charge. And then Jeff Glickman was fired, and then another one took over. Then all of the data wound up with me. I was given all the data that had been collected. And the Patterson film digitizing, and all the stabilized stuff and everything like that disappeared off with Glickman and everybody, and the power behind the throne who had funded it all, who had remained anonymous, this industrialist fellow was behind it all actually. So all that stuff never really made it, you know, the stabilized footage, and the 70 CDs with the Patterson film — that disappeared forever. So a lot of our achievements disappeared. I was the only one who would still talk to the bigfoot research community at all. Everyone else.. well Peter, maybe. I donʼt know what Peter is up to, maybe he still visits and says hello to the bigfoot community. But everyone else hated all bigfoot researchers with such passion. Just despised them,and just hated it. Wanted never to talk to anyone again, and they never have. And I was the only one who, well I think Glickman also was sort of like, “Eh, well, it went down the drain.” But Iʼm the only one from the project who has ever come forward, ever, and said what happened.

DB: Let me ask you, is Glickman still around?

Henry: Heʼs around. He has nothing to do with bigfoot research. He was a real scientist. He was actually a member of the.. he was a forensic scientist. And he had a lot of work in his area of expertise, and did a lot of stuff. This was just another contract for him, and he did that contract. He did some bigfoot work, and he did excellent work. Then he moved on back to real contracting that paid real money in other areas. When bigfoot was paying money, Glickman was there. He was a serious individual, a serious scientist that actually had nothing to do with bigfoot. So he was only around as long as we paid him! (laughs)

DB: You havenʼt had any conversations with him since then?

Henry: Iʼve remained friends with him, actually, ever since. I was like Ringo in the Beatles. I was never paid by the project, I was just on the..

DB: Everybody still likes Henry! (laughs)

Henry: Yeah, exactly. I was on the board of advisors and I was still everybodyʼs friend. Everybody still likes Henry from the project, but a lot of them donʼt like each other. Glickman.. a lot of the others were really mad at him. It just was a sad disaster, actually, in terms of the net result. Glickman, we published his paper. We could not put it in a peer reviewed journal, which was his hope. Because he is a serious scientist and the whole thrust of what he was trying to do was get something reviewed. Dahinden refused. Everybody just said to hell with it. The funding went away. Everyone left and got real jobs. And I wound up with the data it in my closet, for a decade. I mean I just took it and put it away. Because for a long time I said, God, I want nothing to do with these guys either. I want to go do some real biology.(laughs)

DB: You know thereʼs an interesting parallel with what happened with your project, and the original Tom Slick project..

Henry: Peter Byrne was part of that project too.

DB: Yeah. Well that one ended up with everyone hating each other..

Henry: Yeah, it did.

DB: And thereʼs no data left over from that one either, because when Slick died, everything went to his heirs, and they didnʼt release it.

Henry: Well, in this case what happened was the 438 sighting reports went to me. That was the only thing I was interested in. And Patterson film.. yeah, the digitized Patterson film, that just basically went to the heirs of the guy who funded it and went(whistles), so thatʼs gone. And then Glickman went on to other work. And today, if someone bugs Glickman about bigfoot, he refers them to me! (laughs)

DB: You talk to Henry!

Henry: ʻCause Iʼm the only sucker that still talks about it with people. So thatʼs the funny thing, is that he, yeah, he doesnʼt pass that many to me. Because they have to pass the Glickman filter. He doesnʼt waste my time. I think he did a lot of really great– I think he advanced the field back then, and due to history just kind of going away, a lot of is was just done again, and some of it not so well. The 2nd or 3rd iteration of the Patterson film analysis were not as good as the one we did. Itʼs amazing to me, but thatʼs what happens. Now I feel, now that Iʼm older and more experienced, that the idea of convincing institutional biology to take it seriously is like 50 years premature.

DB: Right.

Henry: Just like mechanism, a lot of what keeps bigfooters going, is that they have a religious faith that any day now a body is going to show up. They think itʼs just a matter of time, itʼs just around the corner, any day now, someone is going to find abody. Maybe itʼs going to be Tom Biscardi! (laughs)

DB: Yeah. Doesnʼt he find a body about every two years?

Henry: Yeah, I mean, to an old dog like me itʼs like, my God, havenʼt you guys been through this three or four times already? However, he does, heʼs been finding bodies for a long time. Oddly enough, they look like the MInnesota Iceman. Hmm. Very peculiar!

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: I think the bigfoot community is vulnerable to Tom Biscardi because they do believe that a body is going to show up. I assume a whole different framework. I think they are people, I think they are intelligent, and that they bury their own dead. Itʼs that simple.

DB: And there wouldnʼt be that many of them, either. That was something that I meant to ask you from before. When you ran that population analysis, what were the kind of numbers that you were coming up with for how many of them there would be, say, in North America?

Henry: Hereʼs the weird thing. The only hard number that we came up with was an upper limit. Their population could be no larger than 20% of the human population.

DB: Okay.

Henry: That was one of the only facts we could derive statistically. And thatʼs not very much, you know what Iʼm saying? (laughs)

DB: Well I wouldnʼt be able to tell you what that number turns into because, along with being scientifically illiterate, Iʼm also mathematically illiterate! [Note: I think I misunderstood Henryʼs point here -- it seems to me now that he meant that getting that one fact out of the statistics is not much.]

Henry: Itʼs 20% of the human population, so 20% of 6 billion. Thatʼs 120 million? My number brain may not be working too well either! But itʼs a lot. However, thatʼs just the upper limit that we came to. It would certainly be smaller than that.

DB: Okay.

Henry: Now another interesting thing. Totally different topic. But itʼs related to getting up close. One of the things that has always bothered me about footprints is, I think there is a weight problem. I think if youʼre actually one of the people who actually finds footprints, thereʼs a weight problem. The prints are always too deep or too shallow for the surrounding material. It almost always gets explained away.Everybody that finds a footprint, they jump up and down right there and go, well, the footprint was pushed two inches in, and my foot only could go down a quarter inch, and I weigh 250 pounds.. and so based on this ad hoc analysis, they say something like, ah, it mustʼve weighed five or six hundred pounds. The deep footprints are always explained away as soil compression. But what I would say is, if you ever run the numbers on it, and you look at the surface area, and you calculate the amount of force needed to push that surface area two inches deep into the soil, like what happened with Glickman, is he estimated the weight at 1800 pounds! That really upset everybody, because, they were like, well, no way! Nothing can be that heavy. Canʼt be 1800 pounds. However, what I would say is that there is also the opposite. There are many times when you will find one or two footprints and you wonʼt find anymore. Or theyʼll be very shallow, in a place where you can leave a deep footprint,and yet the footprint you find is not as deep as yours. And these are the kind of things that I say, if you have a first hand experience and youʼre actually there investigating the footprints and casting them, and really paying attention to what youʼre doing and what youʼre casting, you too may say that thereʼs a weight problem here. They are too heavy or too light. Or thereʼs not the right number. There are too few. Even when one really studies the footprints closely, and one does not cling to the idea that the footprints have to be just like a 500 pound animal, because thatʼs what Grover Krantz said, one starts to notice that..

DB: Thereʼs another anomaly there.

Henry: The footprints themselves are weird. They are not altogether just totally simple, they are weird. Thereʼs weird parts to them. They are too deep or too shallow. I find that most people have never found footprints so they donʼt know that.They just have that second hand experience.

DB: Yeah, you read about somebody else finding the footprints.

Henry: You read about all those footprints and you know you see people that have collected casts, like Dr. Meldrum. A large part of  his cast collection he bought from Paul Freeman.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: Paul Freeman was thought to be a hoaxer by most people. Dahinden in particular was convinced Freeman was a hoaxer. And so was Peter Byrne. And yet Dr. Meldrum looked at the casts and said, no, theyʼre real. And he bought the collection for $2,000. And one of the other things about Freeman was that he had about fifteen hair samples, and he gave them to Dr. Fahrenbach, and Dr.Fahrenbach found that two of them were legit. Two of them fit his morphological bigfoot hair idea that he found. So Paul Freeman was not a hoaxer 100% of the time, that is for certain. He actually had real hair samples, and Meldrum actually bought his cast collection. So itʼs really hard.. once again, itʼs that filtering thing youʼre talking about. During his lifetime, or most of his life, Freeman was thought of as a clown by quote unquote, “serious” bigfoot researchers. And yet now that heʼs gone,and thereʼs just these artifacts heʼs left, one realizes that he was on the level, at least part of the time.

DB: Right.

Henry: Itʼs an interesting thing, weʼll see what history brings us all.

DB: Yes. That problem with hoaxing is a serious one because it throws such a monkey wrench into our ability to really know what evidence we actually have found.

Henry: This was my original argument with Matt Moneymaker, actually. Why he did the BFRO and I did not. Because at the time, Glickman and I had discussed it, and we said, if we make an internet database for sighting reports, we are going to enable hoaxers to bombard us. And we had just run this 1-800 bigfoot number for like three years, and, boy, I canʼt tell you.. we got five calls a day from, “Hey, bigfoot slept with my mom!” We got five a day of crazy bigfoot calls. And so we were fed up with the hoax thing. So we said, “Do not!” We even suggested to Moneymaker, donʼt do this, donʼt make an internet sighting report database, because youʼre just going to help all the hoaxers hoax. And Moneymaker said, no, Iʼm going to do it, and he went and did it, and then once it started to take off, Glickman and I said, “Ok, the BFRO is the official sighting report database!” (laughs)

DB: You know the thought I had about that is, yes you will get hoaxes, but if you are using that database as a researcher looking for an area to research, the hoaxes donʼt really harm you. Because you choose to research in the areas of multiple reports. If someone throws a hoax in with five good reports, it didnʼt hurt you.

Henry: Yep. And you know, thatʼs one of the great uses of it, that you can find hotspots. And actually Dahinden used to say that. He used to say something that was relevant: “Everybody knows where the hotspots are.” Once you become a pretty good bigfoot enthusiast, and you can peruse the BFRO database, you get a sense of where the hotspots are, because youʼll see five or six reports coming out of a locality over a period of time, and youʼll say, well, thatʼs interesting. It can really help you home in on areas, thatʼs for sure. I, of course, think that itʼs better to look at Indian place names than the sighting reports when one is looking for areas, because I feel that the Indian intelligence gatherers were far more astute than the modern guys, most of the time. Itʼs not always the case. But thatʼs part of what I also go on and on about in my book. Indian place names, where the Indians said they lived, thatʼs always been where I went. Thatʼs been my secret. Thatʼs how I look for bigfoot. I pretty much disregarded modern reports and said, Iʼm going with where the Indians said they lived a hundred years ago. And Iʼve always gone that way. And, you know, others may disagree with my methods, but those are my methods and Iʼve had tremendous success for myself. I must say, Iʼve had seven or eight encounters pursuing my alternative view. Now the thing is that, over time, I certainly did the thing where I take Greenʼs sighting data, the BFRO sighting data, and my Indian place name data, and I show how they actually correlate with each other 62% of the time,or thereʼs 62% correlation. Meaning that they are all kind of the same. And I show how Indian place names are pretty much in the same places as the sighting reports are, and suggest the same places. Thereʼs a little difference. Whereas sighting reports might be 20 miles over here and the Indian place name is 20 miles over there, thatʼs where I might go over to that other place, and avoid the modern guys who are all wandering 20 miles away. And so thereʼs a lot of times where Iʼm 20 miles off from where the modern guys are looking. (laughs) Continue to part 4.

 

 

Filed under: Blogsquatcher