“The Blogsquatcher” – The Archives

March 17, 2009 12:30 AM

As I mentioned last week, I spoke with Henry Franzoni on a multitude of issues relating to bigfoot, or as he calls them, Seatco. Henry has a lot of very interesting things to say and we covered a lot of ground. In a lot of cases I’d probably pare back the interview to hit the highlights, but really, it’s mostly highlights. So I’m inclined to run the whole thing. But it’ll take a long time to get it all up. For one thing, I’m not finished transcribing it!

Some quick links — Henry’s website.

And also a direct link to Henry’s book.

But be forewarned — Henry’s views of the bigfoot phenomenon are not your garden variety views. He has a very idiosyncratic viewpoint built up over years of personal experience, and also though interacting with various PNW Indian tribes. I know that some of what Henry says and thinks will be very hard for most bigfoot enthusiasts to swallow. But I hope you’ll read through it all and get a feel for where he’s coming from. And even though we spoke at length, we still didn’t have time to uncover all of Henry’s thoughts. But, if you want to know more, you are in luck, because Henry does have a book wherein he lays his theories plain: In the Spirit of Seatco. I’ve just finished reading the book and I found it very interesting indeed. A lot of it, I have to admit, went over my head. I’m not an electrical engineer, nor anything close, so there were some gaps in my knowledge that prevented me from getting a firm grip on all of it, but what I did understand seemed to come together into a world view that would, if Henry is correct, not only allow for bigfoot to have “Puzzling Powers,” as he calls them (following Rupert Sheldrake), but would even explain how they have these abilities.

I’m pleased that Henry has decided to come forth with his ideas at this time. The recent death of Erick Beckjord left the paranormal position without a clear champion. In Henry Franzoni, whether he wants the mantle or not, they have got not only a champion, but a clear thinking, science-minded advocate who actually bothers to try to make sense.

I know that will throw some people, because they already know about the invisible bigfoot and the starter motor. But just wait until you see what a starter motor has to do with Nikolas Tesla and his alternate theory of electricity.. and how that would relate to bigfoot and their puzzling powers. If you were writing a mystery, you couldn’t put it together better.

But that’s to get ahead of the game. First and foremost, as you will see here, Henry will talk about his research connecting sighting reports and geography.

So let’s get to it.

**************************************

Henry: Hello, this is Henry

DB: Well hello Henry, this is DB!

Henry: Greetings!

DB: Yes, good to talk to you.

Henry: Likewise. What would you like to talk about? Bigfoot? I mean, I want you to know that I would be happy to talk about any bigfoot related topic whatsoever.

DB: Well, my discussions are often wide ranging, so we might get around to any and all! (laughs) But I wanted to start with some things that I read in your book. Now I’m only about 50 pages in so far..

Henry: Okay, that’s alright. Thank you! I’m glad you read 50 pages! I hope you liked it.

DB: I did and I’m gonna read the whole thing, so don’t worry about that. And it’s fascinating because the way that you were.. now I’m not very scientifically minded at all. I come from a Liberal Arts background. I was an English major. So I know a little bit about science, but just by reading it in the popular books and magazines. So I don’t come to it from the side of applied science. So, you know what I mean? I read..

Henry: I do. Later in life I got hijacked into science. It was post college. I was always interested in it somewhat, but I was actually a history major in college.

DB: Huh!

Henry: American history.

DB: Very interesting.

Henry: I styled myself as an historian. But Iʼve always had abilities in science. And later in life, after bigfoot, I became a professional scientist, and ran large wildlife monitoring systems for the federal government.

DB: Right, I remember hearing you talk about that on one of the talk shows you were on.

Henry: Yeah, basically I was.. and believe it or not, today, ʻcause Iʼm unemployed right now, I just got an interview with the state of Oregon to basically run a tagging program on the coast.

DB: Uh huh!

Henry: So I have an interview for another wildlife position, which, well.. letʼs just saythat if I wind up in a wildlife position for the government again — and Iʼm getting an interview, and Iʼm applying for them!

DB: (laughs)

Henry: ..I may have to keep very discrete about bigfoot.

DB: Right, yeah. Well I certainly understand that.

Henry: Down the road. I may have to.. weʼll have to see. It just goes with the territory.Itʼs part of why I.. there are many reasons why I left for ten years, but that was one o fthem.

DB: Well, let me ask you.. this makes me think of a question that we often ask people who are in government. Do you ever get any overt pressure not to talk about bigfoot from somebody?

Henry: No. No one takes it seriously. Itʼs a laugh.

DB: Right.

Henry: All my scientific colleagues laugh. My role was as the computer guy. ʻCause whatʼs happened in biology, in a nutshell, is that they have so much data now. I mean they have clouds and clouds of data. So that doing biology involves, especially quantitative biology, the reduction and analysis of an unbelievable amount of data.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: For example, the study I was part of tagged three million fish with transponder tags and then followed them for their entire lifetime through a network of antennas that were placed at every mainstem dam in the Columbia river, and itʼs tributaries, and a fishing trawler towing an antenna array out in the mouth of the river. And the amount of data that came from this giant network of antennas and three million fish over ten years — you can imagine how big these databases were.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: And so the government got the idea that what they needed.. they had always tried to train a biologist to handle these massive data problems. And finally they said, you know, why donʼt we just get a hard-core computer guy, and weʼll train him in biology? And I just happened to stumble along at that moment as a hard-core computer guy. I had developed software and hardware and things for twenty years. And I wanted to change my career. And they said, well, youʼre just what we need! And it actually worked out. They taught me biology from nothing. I was not a biologist. I brought to the table a whole bunch of advanced data analysis skills.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: And design skills for building huge regional networks and things. And so it all worked out really well for everybody. Thatʼs how I kind of, backwards, fell into science. And so eventually I wound up getting more and more involved in fish and wildlife monitoring, doing a lot of stuff for US Fish and Wildlife, and the tribes. A lot of tribes. And so.. I donʼt know how we got totally into that, but oddly enough, it was bigfoot that led me into that.

DB: Well that is interesting. But of course you were helping out with Peter Byrne and Glickman.. there was science involved in that, or at least thatʼs the way itʼs presented..

Henry: Yeah, we — you know, the true story has probably never been told..

DB: Well letʼs tell it!

Henry: (laughs) of what happened with the Bigfoot Research Project.

DB: Yeah!

Henry: We got funding. Peter Byrne is a master of bigfoot funding. Whatever you think of him, whether you.. you know, some people disparage him. I have always been fond of the old man myself.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: He got paid more to look for bigfoot than anybody ever. I still think he holds the funding record! (Laughing)

DB: Right!

Henry: He has.. through the Academy of Applied Science in Boston, which is actually the outfit that funds Robert Rhines. We got five million dollars to look for bigfoot in1993 — Peter Byrne did. I met him then, got hired to — well not hired. There was a paid staff, there was a project, and I was put on the board of advisors.

DB: Ok.

Henry: Which was a board of esteemed old men! (laughing)

DB: Uh huh. (laughs)

Henry: Mostly! Anyhow, one thing that we did was a Patterson film analysis. We voted and hired Jeff Glickman and his company, Photek, to do it. And we paid PattyPatterson $20,000 to take her copy of the Patterson film from the safety deposit box that she has it in and digitize it. And at that time, in 1993, we digitized it in NewJersey at a place that restored old films.

DB: Right.

Henry: Each 16mm frame of the 953 frames of the Patterson film we digitized to 2480pixels by 1800, such that each image was 35Mb. We stored it in the RAW data format with no compression whatsoever, and put it on CDs eventually.

DB: Wow.

Henry: Anyhow, Glickman did this really incredible analysis that has passed from history without much notice. In my opinion itʼs one of the most scholarly things thatʼsever been done in bigfoot research. We really endeavored to do straight science. We tried Glickman, we tried to pay scientists to come. Glickman at the beginning was a complete skeptic. And our whole premise was, “Prove that this is a guy in a gorilla suit. Find the zipper. Find something that proves itʼs a hoax.”

DB: Right.

Henry: So we approached it from the negative, and he was unable to do that. Which, as bigfooters, we have to say, hey, thatʼs a positive!

DB: Yeah!

Henry: We spent $500,000 of other peopleʼs money paying Glickman and Photek to do this. Even back then Glickman made a motion-stabilized version of the Patterson film.

DB: Oh yeah?

Henry: It was shown at the 1998 University of British Columbia Sasquatch Symposium. And that seems to have vanished from memory also. He actually took all the jiggles out of the Patterson film way back then.

DB: Huh. That has been forgotten, because everybody credits MK Davis with doing that. And thereʼs even been a more recent one that I just saw that, I think, the Discovery channel did. So theyʼve all forgotten about the one that you guys did backin 1998. Which was probably higher quality because of the way you used up all that memory digitizing it.

Henry: Right. And we paid, like I said.. we also got one of the first copies of the Patterson film as our source by giving Patty Patterson $20,000.

DB: Right.

Henry: We paid René Dahinden $10,000 for the rights to use thirty stills from the Patterson film in a paper. But Dahinden was really anti-scientist. I mean he had along hard road in life with scientists so he really despised them.

DB: Yeah, thatʼs the reputation heʼs got.

Henry: So he specified.. his contract for that ten grand specified, although we could publish a science paper, and distribute up to.. 300 copies was, I think, at that time the limit. We could not publish it in a peer reviewed journal. It was forbidden to actually publish it in any scientific journal in the contract with Dahinden. He wouldnʼt sign it otherwise.

DB: Wow.

Henry: So thatʼs something that I think MK Davis didnʼt have to deal with. I hope!

DB: Yeah.

Henry: Thatʼs the thing — one learns this about the world of bigfoot. The wheel gets reinvented over and over because the ones that come before are forgotten very quickly. A new generation comes and thereʼs, you know, for whatever reason, or no reason.. itʼs like pop music or something. Once youʼre off the stage, thatʼs it!

DB: Iʼll tell you what I think the reason is, and this is actually one of the purposes thatI set up my blog, and that is that there is no community of.. You know how scientists, they not only have to publish, but they have to talk about what other people did before they came along. You canʼt just publish your stuff, you also have to make reference to everything that came before. That has never happened in bigfootresearch. And Iʼve been trying to get people interested in looking back and remembering what has come before, and trying to make it more of a scientific discipline, even though I know that itʼs not, and itʼs not going to be any time soon. We could at least start to build in some of the structures that scientific disciplines have. And if we did that, one of the things weʼd get out of it is weʼd stop forgetting what other people already did. Weʼd know it.

Henry: Very interesting. Because there were others before me too, you know, I was apart of Peter Byrneʼs third project. In 1993. There was a flurry of activity in the early70s in Oregon.

DB: Yeah, he wrote about that one in his book, so we have some of that history.

Henry: Right. So, yeah, there are some long histories that are interesting. And of course there was ʻ58-9, ʼ67 Bluff Creek, you know, thereʼs been different periods where thereʼs a flurry of activity.

DB: Right.

Henry: There are people, a lot of times, like me — one of my rules back in the day was, that you could accomplish anything you want so long as everyone else takes the credit.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: Thatʼs how I operated. And so I really saw my role back in the ʻ90s as empowering people. Because we had the money! And really my job on the board was to vote on who got the money.

DB: Right.

Henry: That was really my job. And I was only paid occasionally an honorarium. But they helped me out. For example, they bought me the Geographical NamesInformation System on CD back then in 1993.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: Or maybe it was like ʼ96 when they bought it for me. So they helped my research. But that was what we were doing, helping peopleʼs research.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: We werenʼt doing the research as much as funding it. No, I take that back, we were doing it. We had a 1-800 bigfoot number. We had a team. We investigated 438 sighting reports in Oregon and Washington. We assembled a database. We had avery early GPS, accurate to within 300ʼ. So we went and marked all of the points withGPS, all the sighting reports. And we interviewed all of the people. And we had a lot of gear.

DB: Right.

Henry: Like modern guys. In many ways, it seemed to be a dream that I inspired others to live, in part. You know, the thing that I did then, where I had a website and Iwas appearing in movies as a narrative character — I made six.

DB: Yeah?

Henry: We had a snowmobile, and a helicopter with a FLIR on call..

DB: Really?

Henry: Yeah, we had all kinds of gear. Hey, we had money! (Laughs)

DB: (Laughing) That makes me want to ask, did you ever catch anything on a FLIR?

Henry: Nope. Never.

DB: See thatʼs still happening now. You would think that would be one of the most useful devices, and we rarely get anything solid or credible from a FLIR..

Henry: Isnʼt it interesting that itʼs so hard to get a picture of these guys?

DB: Well, itʼs very interesting, and eventually we will get into some of that..

Henry: Yeah, itʼs so hard to get a picture. Um hmm!

DB: Absolutely!

Henry: We did a whole science thing, and.. there was really a lot of political stuff going on at the time in bigfoot research, like today.. But, really, I was on a different tangent than everybody else. Because I kind of came to bigfoot because I was trying to find out about Indian things. And I went down the direction, even then, of chasing after.. Like what my book is about..

DB: Right.

Henry: Some people, like Dr. Robert Pyle. saw — I gave him my notes early on and he appreciated my contribution to Where Bigfoot Walks.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: And youʼll see that I have.. I was always a peripheral character, like he mentions me in his book, Glickman mentions me in his paper. Glickman also uses my Indian place names stuff in his paper a little bit because he saw a lot of it back then too.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: However, I didnʼt share it publicly very much back then. In fact I got to the point where I said, “Nah, Iʼm not going to share this.” And I see in the intervening decade, no one else really went in that direction, so.. anyway, it looks like itʼs new today!

DB: Yeah. Well, you know, I did hear the, “Look in the Skookum places.” I heard that from.. it was either Matt Moneymaker or someone else. Iʼm not sure who said it. But it was a very offhand and informal thing when they said it. Some people remembered it. They werenʼt publishing it, but they remembered what you had said.

Henry: Matt Moneymaker is someone that I think I.. Well actually Matt may tell you himself that he looked at me and the mistakes I made, and then he invented the BFRO as an improvement.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: Learning from the mistakes I made.

DB: Right.

Henry: Thatʼs what he says! (Laughing) I think thatʼs his opinion. Or perhaps that could be corroborated one day by him, if he cared! But the truth is that I too learned from my mistakes. But my solution was a different one than his!

DB: Yeah.Henry: And I really never had the same dream as Mr. Moneymaker. Iʼm really happy for him that he was inspired to pursue his dream and has made considerable headway. But I never shared that with him. I really was much more interested.. call it selfish — all I really wanted to do was understand for myself the weird experiences Iwas having with bigfoot.

DB: Right.Henry: Thatʼs really what it has all been about for me. I didnʼt want to.. even though I had created at that time an organization and a website and a bigfoot discussion group and all those things, I wasnʼt really interested in that at all. I wasnʼt interested in persuading the masses, or persuading institutional science to take it seriously anymore. I gave it a real good try for five years with the Bigfoot Research Project. Ourgoal was to persuade policy makers and scientists to take it seriously and to, in fact, provide funding for scientists to pursue inquiry and experimental stuff.

DB: Well let me ask you — when the five years were up, did you have enough evidence that you thought that they should have been persuaded?

Henry: You know, thatʼs an interesting question. No! I would say no. What I had after five years was a really solid understanding that experience never rises to the level of scientific proof.

DB: Right.

Henry: And what you basically have with the bigfoot phenomenon is a whole lot of experiences. You had a whole lot of sighting reports, and you had a whole lot of footprint finds and casts..

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: A couple of hair samples, which still appear to be inconclusive, even though theyʼre getting closer to getting.. maybe one day they are going to get a DNA thing, you know, hey.. However, really, scientists say that anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. Itʼs no evidence. And so, since you just have all these witnesses, you really donʼt have.. and this is an interesting thing — you really donʼt have a science problem is what I say.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: What I came to at the end of five years was, I said, well, these experiences will never rise to the level of scientific proof. Itʼs just too easy to say that the witness is mistaken, or he was drunk, you know, all the standard things — it was really a bear that was misidentified, or a moose, whatever. The thing is you wind up in a placewhere you realize itʼs a dead end to pursue certain things, because you say, if theyʼre a dumb animal, then of course we can do this science. If itʼs an ape, then we can do this science, and weʼre just studying an ape and weʼre, like, trying to get close to the apes.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: But if itʼs an intelligent person-like being. A creature thatʼs like a person. Then weʼre not engaged in science, weʼre engaged in an intelligence operation. Weʼre gathering intelligence about a phenomenon that is under intelligent control.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: So to presume that they are intelligent, like you and me, then you have to presume that you really canʼt do science on them because.. you canʼt get them into a lab, first of all. You canʼt prove they exist, second of all. Canʼt get a photo! Thatʼs hard. And they are apparently intelligent enough to evade pursuit for at least fiftyyears.

DB: Thatʼs right.

Henry: Year after year, they continuously evade us. (laughing) So it looks like an intelligent, person-like being rather than an ape, to me.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: So I got to the point where I said, no, the sighting reports were “intelligence”on a phenomenon that is under intelligent control. Itʼs not an animal intelligence, I thought, after seeing what I had seen and chasing after this thing so obsessively for five years. I said, hmm, seems like theyʼre people, not apes. Seems like, sure, scientific principles can apply, and using science, when you can, can apply and help, but really youʼre not going to be able to bring this into a laboratory and do an experiment.

DB: Right.

Henry: And the one thing that you can measure of the phenomenon is the footprints. And there are scientist, such as Dr. Meldrum, who are all over that. And Dr. Krantz. Because thatʼs the one thing that you can measure about the phenomenon, that you can actually do some science on. There it is, an artifact in your hand.

DB: Right.

Henry: Other than that, thereʼs not a whole lot of science you can do with the sighting reports. Although, when you look at them as “intelligence” you realize.. and thatʼs what everybody does anyhow. They get a picture of what bigfoot is by reading all the sighting reports, and seeing all the different things that happen, the things that people would go through in their experiences.

DB: Well you have been able to do a little bit of science with the reports and the geographical data, in that, when you normalized it for populations.. and this, you know, since this is applied science, I get lost at right about this point, but you do something with the numbers, and that tells you where they are most likely seen, or most often seen. And that was a pretty interesting thing that you did. The fact that you did it with two different sets of data and got the same answer, and then you did it with the geographical names and got the same answer.. I thought that was pretty powerfully presented.

Henry: That was a.. I took a really good stab at trying to do science with sighting reports! (laughing) We also did that in 1998. Originally Glickman.. that was Glickmanʼs idea, originally. But he never had the data that was available after his time. Because he left the bigfoot world and went on to other things quickly.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: He did it for a rough approximation of America, I could do it for all of North America. He had, I donʼt know how many sighting reports. Not that many. I, of course, Benefitting from today and the internet, have at least four thousand. You know, John Green, and the BFRO summaries.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: The idea is really simple. Itʼs from population modeling. Glickman presented it more thoroughly, because thereʼs more than just these two probabilities, really, but..Thereʼs the probability of an observer being in the area — thatʼs us, people.

DB: Right.

Henry: And the probability of an animal being in the area. Thereʼs two probabilities, so you divide the probability an animal is there by the probability that a person is there, and you get an approximation of the animal population.

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: Because what youʼre trying to do is take the human observers out of the equation. You want to say, gee, if I have a lot of sighting reports where there are a lot of humans, Iʼm going to reduce that and say, gee, the chance of a sighting report is really high. Because there are a lot of humans there. So Iʼm going to normalize it and lower that. And in a place where there are hardly any humans, like in the Northwest Territories, and you have a sighting report, then, well Iʼll normalize that too and take into account that there is only one human observer per five hundred square miles.Itʼs a simple idea. And when you look at it that way, and you look at these monstrous continental wide databases that way, you see that it looks like the population of bigfoot is mostly in the north, and the more north you go, the more there are. If you take the population of humans out of the equation, thatʼs what it looks like. Roughly.And Iʼm only doing a model thatʼs province by province and state by state, so itʼs really crude.

DB: Okay.

Henry: And yet John Greenʼs, and the BFROʼs data both show that. They show that itʼs far more likely to run into a bigfoot above the 45th parallel than below.

DB: Yeah?

Henry: Thereʼs more of them there. Thereʼs more humans below the 45th parallel,but thereʼs more bigfoot above the 45th parallel. The second thing I see in the data when you look at it that way is that the continental divides actually appear to be.. letʼs say, when you rank all the provinces and states, and you look at the top ten provinces and states, the continental divide goes through eight of them.

DB: Yes.

Henry: And thatʼs for both sets of data, so what I say from that is, well, it looks like more bigfoot are in fact around the continental divide. There are not that many people there. Itʼs very high mountains, and the Rocky mountains and everything. But there seem to be a lot of bigfoot there. This is just looking at all the bigfoot reports from the thirty thousand foot view.

DB: Right.Henry: But that also.. see, once again, we put that whole idea forward in 1996. We presented it in 1998, and no one pursued that line of inquiry since.

DB: Yeah, thatʼs really surprising, because reading your book is the first Iʼve heard of all of this..

Henry: Weʼre there again. There you go!

DB: ..all of the normalization of the population, and that thereʼs probably more of them north of the 45th parallel — yeah thatʼs surprising to me.

Henry: Yeah, Glickman didnʼt take it to that conclusion. He didnʼt come to the conclusion that north of the 45th parallel, or the continental divide like I did. But then he didnʼt have hardly any data to use. I had the data.

DB: Ok.

Henry: He used the back of John Greenʼs book, The Apes Among Us, for his datasource. Because it had a picture of his state by state and province by province sighting total. And I think John Green only had about two thousand reports at that time. 1980. Because he used the 1980 edition.

DB: Wow.

Henry: He really didnʼt have what we have today. So, yeah. I know that no one ever took it all the way to the continental divide and the northward skew of it. I guess privately I had done that back then. By 1998 I had played with enough data to say, hmm, the continental divide.

DB: Right.

Henry: And then every continent appears to be the same. You have the yeti found inNepal, in the Himalayas, which is a continental divide. And the yeren and the tienshan are found in the tien-shan mountains, which is the continental divide just north of that. And just north of that is the pamir and the hindu Kush, and thatʼs the continental divide there were the mande barung are found. And keep going north to the Ural mountains, still the continental divide, and the almas and almasty are found there. And in Australia, the Blue mountains are where most of the yowie sightings are, and thatʼs the continental divide of Australia. And then in South America.. I can never remember.. I just have a mental block about remembering..

DB: (laughing) And I canʼt help you so weʼre just going to be stuck on that one!

Henry: The southernmost point of South America was named bigfoot. Thatʼs how it translates. The state thatʼs at the tip of South America actually translates as bigfoot.Thatʼs where Magellan, when he went by in 1565 or whenever that was, said he saw giants on the beach.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: Yes. I just have a mental block about the name of that. But anyhow, my point is, it really looks like the continental divide in every continent is a favored locale for the hairy giants.

DB: Right.

Henry: Yeah, at least to me. When you look at the data. So Iʼm glad I came back to bring this up again, ten years later!

DB: Well now maybe people will catch on to it and listen and keep a hold of it this time.

Henry: But your project is such a wonderful idea, because we have to have some idea of what people have done, because there were some great pioneers before my time. People like Lee Trippett, who in the sixties were doing some really interesting stuff.

DB: You know, I would say thatʼs a name that Iʼm not even familiar with. So Iʼm going to write it down!

Henry: Yeah, well heʼs one of those — heʼs a generation before me. In Oregon. He lived in Oregon, so maybe thatʼs why I know about him, ʻcause heʼs an Oregon guy. But anyway, I find that the sighting reports are really useful for at least that overall thing where you can say, hey.. you know what this means to the bigfooter is, the place youʼre most likely to see a bigfoot, you the individual observer, is probably in the continental divide in Alaska.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: (Laughing) I mean if you wanted to go where the most of them were, that would probably be the place.

DB: Well thatʼs interesting.

Henry: Yeah, you know.. and I wonder if the South Pole.. Iʼve always wondered if itʼs the same when you go south?

DB: That is an interesting question. I wonder if there are enough sighting reports from South America to help us out on that?

Henry: You know, I wonder. Maybe one day. Or Indonesia, or Australia. Or NewZealand! New Zealand, I guess, is really South.

DB: I know a guy from New Zealand, and he declares that there are no credible sightings from New Zealand, so (laughing) we may have to take them off our list! ButAustralia certainly has plenty of them.

Henry: Yeah. The yowie sounds like our guy for sure.

DB: You know, I read the book The Yowie by Tony Healy and Paul Cropper. Andwhen I was reading their description of the yowie, and the experiences that people have with the yowie, you know you could take that description and put it in North America with no problem at all. And that includes the weird stuff that happens to us, you know, where people feel like someoneʼs staring at them, or they get a feeling like, “Iʼm not welcome here, I gotta get the hell out of here.” Theyʼre having those same things happen in Australia. And as far as I know, it wasnʼt until, you know, the internet age, that people from Australia could have heard some of these things from people in North America. So the fact that they have these stories going back decades suggests to me that not only is the yowie and the bigfoot really there, but they must be related. They are not unrelated animals.

Henry: Yeah, I would hypothesize they are the same species.

DB: Right.

Henry: It might be like humans, like the difference between an asian and an anglo.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: It might only be that much of a difference. So itʼs not a species difference, just different traits within a species. And, you know, we have no data! Thatʼs the wholething, we have no.. Iʼd be interested about the aborigines, if they too had yowie stories. I imagine they would.

DB: Yeah..

Henry: The reason I bring that up is because the Indians here in the North West, many tribes, have a lot of really kooky stories about psychic powers and these guys. And a lot of those stories are really pretty old. They were written down in the twenties and thirties. Of course, they are from oral traditions so they are older than that.

DB: Right.

Henry: And so I wonder if the aborigines.. I bet you they do, but Iʼve never seen anything. Iʼve never seen any collection of aborigine yowie stories.

DB: Yeah.

Henry: Iʼd love to see those, Maybe Paul Cropper..

DB: Yeah, there are some, at least a few aborigine stories in The Yowie. Itʼs a great book to read because itʼs so well written, and so well organized, and they obviously researched it very well.

Henry: Now I knew Paul Cropper back in the day. Many years ago we used to correspond.

DB: Oh, did you?

Henry: But I havenʼt corresponded with him in a decade. As I recall, he was a fine fellow. He was a life-timer!

DB: Uh huh.

Henry: Yeah, he was fascinated by this for a long time. But the Indian stories here fall along the lines of, they have tremendous hypnotic powers, and they can kill game with their hypnotic power. They can knock you unconscious with their hypnotic power.

DB: Right,

Henry: They can even take control of your body. Many Indians here tell stories about how they are basically possessed — these guys take control of their bodies and make them walk near cliffs and things like that. Thereʼs Indians that say that. Indians have been seized control of and just marched right off a cliff and killed.

DB: Would you like to hear something very interesting? You may have already read about this because it just recently hit the news. I think itʼs the military that is experimenting with this. There is a way of using ultrasound. Now this is not infrasound, which bigfoot people have been talking about for years, but ultrasound. If used at the proper frequency, will actually get through your skull and it affects your brain. And they are looking into ways of making people do things with ultrasound. Just with a sound! And ultrasound is so focusable, itʼs so easy to focus ultrasound,that you can make a device that would control just one person. So you arenʼt broadcasting to everyone and they all have to do something, you could just be focused on the one guy there. And thatʼs with just a sound.

Henry: Wow, I havenʼt heard of that. Thatʼs interesting.

DB: Yeah, it kind of blew me away too. And they also have shown that exposure to ultrasound can cause some of the same things that people report when they have a bigfoot experience. Such as thinking somebody is staring at you.. And theyʼve certainly used ultrasound to take sound and beam it to one person so no one else can hear it, but that one person hears it and canʼt really tell where itʼs coming from. So a lot of that stuff that they were talking about, weʼre getting close to being able to accomplish. Now we can already do the beaming of the sound to a person thing, some of the other things, like controlling someone just via sound are on the drawing board. Now people have hypothesized that bigfoot, because they are so large, might be using infrasound. But I think this ultrasound thing is even more interesting,because weʼve always had the problem with the self-luminating eyes. Which I donʼtknow how it sounds to you, but to me, doesnʼt that just sound like itʼs got to be ap aranormal creature of the night? (laughs) I mean, nothing else has self-luminatingeyes. But I went looking for explanations for that and I found out thereʼs a certain kind of shrimp that can make light in salt water through the use of ultrasound. So what you need is ultrasound and a solution of salt water, and then you can make light. And that might explain self-luminating eyes.

Henry: Interesting theory!

DB: Yeah, itʼs just a theory, but.. (laughing)

Henry: I have my own theories about those things, but that are a little different, but..You know it could be ultrasound. I think that the bigfoot can focus energy with their minds. And I think that applies to sound energy also.

DB: Well that might be what we mean, but we didnʼt even know before we understood about..

Henry: See, thatʼs the thing.. let me tell you — Iʼll give you a personal experience..Continue to part 2 of my interview with Henry Franzoni

Filed under: Blogsquatcher