Speaker 1: Greetings, fellow seekers of the unknown. It's Brian and I'm
Speaker 1: here today to share something truly extraordinary with all of you.
Speaker 1: As you know, my journey to uncover the truth of
Speaker 1: all things strange has taken me on a wild ride
Speaker 1: filled with incredible experiences and encounters with the unseen, and
Speaker 1: today I want to share that journey with all of
Speaker 1: you by introducing you to Hanger one Publishing. Hanger one
Speaker 1: Publishing is the premier destination for books on all things
Speaker 1: strange and mysterious, from Bigfoot to Cryptid's UFOs and the paranormal.
Speaker 1: They cover it all, and let me tell you, the
Speaker 1: books in their catalog are simply amazing. One book that
Speaker 1: I'm particularly excited about is The Freeman Bigfoot Files by
Speaker 1: Michael Paul Freeman. This is no ordinary book, my friends.
Speaker 1: This is an immersive experience unlike any other. With Hanger
Speaker 1: One's proprietary immersive book technology, you can see and hear
Speaker 1: audio and video in the printed books. You'll get exclusive
Speaker 1: access to the highest resolution, full color premium print pages,
Speaker 1: over one hundred full color photos, and dozens of exclude
Speaker 1: jusef audio and video clips that have never been revealed
Speaker 1: until now. It's a one of a kind experience that
Speaker 1: will take you deep into the world of Bigfoot. Another
Speaker 1: book that I simply can't recommend enough is The Bigfoot
Speaker 1: Influencers by Tim Halleran. This book features candid, compelling conversations
Speaker 1: with the biggest names in the Bigfoot community and it
Speaker 1: will give you a behind the scenes look at what
Speaker 1: they really think about this mysterious creature. You'll hear from researchers,
Speaker 1: scientists and investigators and get a glimpse into the inner
Speaker 1: workings of the bigfoot world. And finally, for all of
Speaker 1: my fellow British Bigfoot enthusiasts, I want to mention Beast
Speaker 1: of Britain by Andy McGrath. This book is a must
Speaker 1: read for anyone interested in the cryptids of the British Isles.
Speaker 1: McGrath has spent over twenty five years researching and obsessing
Speaker 1: about these unknown creatures, and in this book he shares
Speaker 1: his findings in current research. It's a journey into the
Speaker 1: darkness where nobody ventures into the woods anymore and where
Speaker 1: the many yet to be discovered Beasts of Britain lie.
Speaker 1: So if you're ready to take your journey into the unknown,
Speaker 1: to the next level. Then you need to check out
Speaker 1: Hanger one Publishing. These books are more than just books.
Speaker 1: They're gateways into a world of mystery and discovery. And
Speaker 1: the best part, you can find their entire book catalog
Speaker 1: at Hanger one Publishing dot com. So what are you
Speaker 1: waiting for? Visit Hanger one Publishing dot com today and
Speaker 1: let the journey begin. Hey everybody, this is Left Striving Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: I know aka Survivor Man, and you're listening to Brian
Speaker 1: on sasquatch Audis. Get there and welcome back to sasquatch ODIs.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being with us in the show.
Speaker 1: It is Friday. I hope you've had a quick week.
Speaker 1: We're having a mix a guest line though before you,
Speaker 1: but as always, want to start by by if you've
Speaker 1: had an encounter and you'd like to be on the show,
Speaker 1: shoot me an email you and get me at Brian
Speaker 1: at Paranormalworldproductions dot com.
Speaker 2: Get head over to the website, check out the blog,
Speaker 2: become a member there and help.
Speaker 1: Support the show. I got to sit down and talk
Speaker 1: to Jimmy Aiken. He is a podcaster and he does
Speaker 1: quite a few shows on so many different topics, but
Speaker 1: we had Jimmy on to talk specifically about Bigfoot, his theories,
Speaker 1: where he was on Bigfoot, where he is now. It
Speaker 1: was a great conversation. I think you guys will really
Speaker 1: enjoy it. I've got a link to Jimmy's website so
Speaker 1: you can check out his stuff here after the interview.
Speaker 1: I think you will enjoy this conversation as much as
Speaker 1: I did. So without further ado, let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Jimmy's on the line, he's ready to go.
Speaker 2: All that's left for you to do is sit back, relax,
Speaker 2: and enjoy the show.
Speaker 1: Lord to welcome our guest to the show. It is
Speaker 1: Jimmy Aiken. Welcome to the show, sir, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: It's my pleasure to be here. I am glad to
Speaker 1: have you. I saw you for the first time over
Speaker 1: on the Untold Radio Network with Alex and Doug Hijack.
Speaker 1: I was finding what you guys were talking about very interesting.
Speaker 1: You guys were talking about a lot of stuff in
Speaker 1: the beginning of the show, and then Bigfoot towards the end. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this is sasquatch odyssees. We're going to turn it around
Speaker 1: and do the Bigfoot stuff first. Today let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about what got you interested in the subject
Speaker 1: of Bigfoot in the paranormal. To begin with, I grew.
Speaker 3: Up in the nineteen seventies, and back then there was
Speaker 3: lots and lots of TV documentaries about the paranormal, including Bigfoot,
Speaker 3: so I watched all those. I thought it was very fascinating.
Speaker 3: The legend of Boggie Creek came out. Then they had
Speaker 3: shows like Leonard dee Moy's In Search of and Art,
Speaker 3: some of Arthur C.
Speaker 1: Clark shows.
Speaker 3: I've had an interest in the paranormal for a long time,
Speaker 3: and I work with a podcast. Note I do a
Speaker 3: bunch of podcasts, but I work some of them are
Speaker 3: with a group called Stark West, which is a podcast
Speaker 3: in network. I'm on the board there, and six years
Speaker 3: ago we were revitalizing our podcast line at Stark West.
Speaker 3: I said I could do a show based on mysteries.
Speaker 3: They immediately lit up, it got green lighted. It's called
Speaker 3: Jimmy Aiken's Mysterious World. We look at scientific mysteries, historical mysteries,
Speaker 3: true crime, paranormal, psychic stuff, UFOs, Bigfoot, everything. Unlike a
Speaker 3: lot of mystery based podcasts, we actually try to solve
Speaker 3: the mysteries to the extent possible. We don't just generate
Speaker 3: wonder and imagine what we actually we give the background
Speaker 3: on the mystery. Then we look at it from the
Speaker 3: twin perspectives of faith and reason and we say what
Speaker 3: would reason tell us about this? And what would the
Speaker 3: Christian faiths say about it? If anything, It's become the
Speaker 3: most popular network on the show. We're a top twenty
Speaker 3: documentary podcast on Apple Podcasts in the US, and we
Speaker 3: estimate we've got more than two hundred thousand lesseners a week.
Speaker 1: That is awesome. You are speaking my language from one
Speaker 1: multiple podcast host to another. I certainly appreciate the work
Speaker 1: that goes into just doing one show on a regular
Speaker 1: basis and doing it well, but to do multiple podcasts
Speaker 1: is a ton of work. So you and I definitely
Speaker 1: have to have a conversation about that offline. Nobody tunes
Speaker 1: in to hear me talk about podcasting. I go down
Speaker 1: that road sometimes because I love it so much. But
Speaker 1: we're going to stick to the Bigfoot stuff. Let's get
Speaker 1: into the Bigfoot thing. I know you and I were
Speaker 1: talking before we went on the air, and you've had
Speaker 1: a change in feeling about Bigfoot. I'm going through that myself,
Speaker 1: and we can certainly get into some of that today.
Speaker 1: Talk about where you started with Bigfoot, where were you
Speaker 1: on some of the evidence that you were seeing, and
Speaker 1: where did you go from where you started and where
Speaker 1: you've ended up now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, before I did Mysterious World, I didn't really have
Speaker 3: any settled opinions about Bigfoot. I was somewhat skeptical but open,
Speaker 3: and of course I'd love Bigfoot to be real. That
Speaker 3: would be massively awesome. I decided early on. In fact,
Speaker 3: it was Bigfoot was our third episode six years ago.
Speaker 3: We just had our sixth anniversary, so it was six
Speaker 3: years ago. One of the things I do as a
Speaker 3: matter of self discipline when I write Mysterious worldscripts is
Speaker 3: I forced myself to have a bottom line. So at
Speaker 3: the end of every episode, my co host Don Bettnelli
Speaker 3: will ask me, so, Jimmy, what's your bottom line on
Speaker 3: this mystery, and I'll give a summary of my opinions.
Speaker 3: That way, I hold myself accountable.
Speaker 1: I don't just.
Speaker 3: Let things drift with no conclusion. I was fairly skeptical.
Speaker 3: I was still open, but fairly skeptical of the existence
Speaker 3: of Bigfoot. In episode three. Looking back, I would say
Speaker 3: that was due to a couple of factors. One of
Speaker 3: them is I was just starting out, and I hadn't
Speaker 3: done a lot of organized research, and some of.
Speaker 1: The data I got was bad.
Speaker 3: It was I thought that, oh, the Patterson Gimlin film
Speaker 3: is just definitely a hoax, and here's this guy who
Speaker 3: claimed to make the costume for it, and here's this
Speaker 3: guy who claimed to be in the costume, and that
Speaker 3: just settled the matter for me. I later learned as
Speaker 3: I did more research that actually, there's a much better
Speaker 3: case to be made for the Patterson Gimlin film than
Speaker 3: what I had been led to believe, because in addition
Speaker 3: to Bigfoot hoaxers people who hoax Bigfoot, there are also
Speaker 3: Bigfoot hoax hoaxers who hoax hoaxes about Bigfoot and claim
Speaker 3: responsibility for things that they weren't really responsible for. So
Speaker 3: that opened the door a bit. I also read Jeff
Speaker 3: Mildram's book Sasquatch, which I was very impressed by, not
Speaker 3: only his discussion of the Patterson Gimlin film, but a
Speaker 3: lot of other evidence for Bigfoot. That has led me
Speaker 3: to be more open to Bigfoot than I used to be.
Speaker 3: But there's still arguments against Bigfoot that I have to
Speaker 3: take seriously. But now I'm in a position where I
Speaker 3: see more positive evidence for Bigfoot than I was previously
Speaker 3: aware of. So I'm not convinced that Bigfoot is real,
Speaker 3: but I'm more open to it than I was. Let's
Speaker 3: talk a little bit about some of the evidence.
Speaker 1: You mentioned The Patterson Gimlin film from the nineties. The
Speaker 1: Freeman stuff comes to mind, Paul Freeman. For me, that
Speaker 1: footage is probably number two as far as I'm concerned
Speaker 1: in the Bigfoot world of looking at film in particular video.
Speaker 1: How did you feel about the Patterson Gimlin film. Obviously
Speaker 1: you thought it was probably a hoax, but you read
Speaker 1: Sasquatch Legend Me Science by Jeff Meldrum. I've read his book.
Speaker 1: It's on my shelf. Now I've watched that documentary. I
Speaker 1: know that Doug is working on Legend Meet Science too.
Speaker 1: They're actually supposed to be coming out here at some
Speaker 1: point in time in North Carolina to interview me for
Speaker 1: Legend Meet Science too, So I'm excited to see what
Speaker 1: they're doing as far as that documentary. But i know
Speaker 1: for me, the Patterson Gimli film has been one of
Speaker 1: those things that has been such a journey that it's
Speaker 1: not a straight road for me. It's been more like
Speaker 1: a zigzag. When it comes to the Patterson Gimlin film,
Speaker 1: I'm a very skeptical person when it comes to Bigfoot
Speaker 1: as well. For me, the Patterson Gimlin film is one
Speaker 1: of those things that immediately I saw it and I thought, Wow,
Speaker 1: that's crazy. Then you get deeper into it and you
Speaker 1: see some of the enhanced footage. People have done a
Speaker 1: ton of work to enhance that stuff. Bill Muntz comes
Speaker 1: to mind. Obviously, MK Davis has got to be mentioned
Speaker 1: in that. And now even more recently, you've got this
Speaker 1: Todd Gatewood guy who's working on this film and doing
Speaker 1: some processes to enhance this footage. And when you see
Speaker 1: some of that stuff, it is fascinating to me. I still,
Speaker 1: fifty plus years later, can't look at that and say, man,
Speaker 1: that's definitely a Bigfoot, or man that's definitely Bob Eronymous
Speaker 1: in this suit. So how have you evolved over the years?
Speaker 1: What has changed your mind? Maybe it is just the
Speaker 1: Meldrum stuff. Has it been the foot Prance, has it
Speaker 1: been the gate What is it about the Patterson Gimlin
Speaker 1: film that has you leaning more toward that's possibly a
Speaker 1: sasquatch in not a manency.
Speaker 3: I think there are a few factors, and it didn't
Speaker 3: just Jeff Meldrum. He played a big role in it,
Speaker 3: but there were others too. There's another podcast called Astonishing Legends,
Speaker 3: and they are famous for deep dives. They will do
Speaker 3: multiple hours of multiple episodes looking at a single thing,
Speaker 3: and I totalled it up once. They did several episodes
Speaker 3: devoted a whole odyssey on the Patterson Gimblin film. They
Speaker 3: looked at it from every conceivable angle, and I think
Speaker 3: the whole thing came to either eleven or thirteen hours
Speaker 3: of content just on the Patterson Gimblin film, and I
Speaker 3: listened to the whole thing. There are a variety of factors.
Speaker 3: One of them, though, I think, is obvious even before
Speaker 3: you look at the details. It's evident from the film
Speaker 3: itself that the creature in the film is female because
Speaker 3: it's got breasts. That's something that you wouldn't expect a
Speaker 3: hoax her to do. You would expect that they would
Speaker 3: if someone who was building a suit to get into
Speaker 3: and hoax the Patterson Gimblin film, you would expect them
Speaker 3: to make a male Bigfoot because people don't think of
Speaker 3: female bigfoots very often in the bigfoot community.
Speaker 1: They do, but this was.
Speaker 3: Back in the late nineteen sixties. The imagery and iconography
Speaker 3: connected with Bigfoot didn't really focus on females. So the
Speaker 3: fact that Patty, as she's called in the film, is female,
Speaker 3: that's already something that would tend to weigh in favor
Speaker 3: of this not being a hoax. Also, if you think
Speaker 3: about the behavior of the creature in the film, it
Speaker 3: walks across their field of vision, it turns and looks
Speaker 3: at him, and then it keeps walking off. If big
Speaker 3: feet are so secretive that they just do not want
Speaker 3: to be seen under any circumstances, and then why would
Speaker 3: it behave that way. A plausible explanation is that it's
Speaker 3: a distraction because females who are caring for offspring will
Speaker 3: frequently act in a way that is more obvious in
Speaker 3: order to keep potential dangers and predators away from their offspring.
Speaker 3: So this is not a strong argument to me, but
Speaker 3: it's a notable argument that the behavior of the creature
Speaker 3: in the film could be explained for an otherwise very
Speaker 3: secretive creature. If she's protecting her offspring by acting in
Speaker 3: a more obvious way and drawing attention to herself deliberately,
Speaker 3: not getting too close, but drawing attention to herself deliberately
Speaker 3: in order to distract Patterson Gimlin from wherever her child
Speaker 3: or children were. So that's some kind of obvious level
Speaker 3: stuff in terms of what I subsequently learned. One thing that, Oh, also,
Speaker 3: it would be weird for Bob Hyronymous or any similar
Speaker 3: man to get into a female suit and do that.
Speaker 3: That would be counterintuitive for a man in the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 3: But among things I learned later about the film, our
Speaker 3: costume in technology was not really that advanced. In nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty eight, we had Planet of the Apes, we had
Speaker 3: two thousand and one, and in neither of those are
Speaker 3: the ape costumes as advanced as what appears to be
Speaker 3: the case in the Patterson Gimlin film. It's a little
Speaker 3: hard to say that with one hundred percent confidence. People
Speaker 3: will say, you can see the muscles.
Speaker 1: Ripplin under the fur.
Speaker 3: Okay, maybe I'm not one hundred percent sold on that
Speaker 3: because of how worried it is, but it doesn't look
Speaker 3: like the kind of costumes that were available even by
Speaker 3: Hollywood costume makers in the late nineteen sixties. This is
Speaker 3: one of the things that astonished and legends covered. They
Speaker 3: actually interviewed Hollywood costume makers about this and they said, yeah,
Speaker 3: we couldn't do that.
Speaker 1: Then stay tuned for more sasquatch out to see. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back after these messages.
Speaker 3: So I think that is impressive. Of course, the gate
Speaker 3: of the creature is notable. Partially That argument, though, is
Speaker 3: dependent on the frame rate at which the film was shot,
Speaker 3: because if you put it at a certain frame rate,
Speaker 3: it looks pretty normal, It looks like a person just
Speaker 3: walking along. But apparently there's evidence that it was not
Speaker 3: shot at that frame rate, and therefore, when you put
Speaker 3: it at the frame rate it apparently was shot at,
Speaker 3: it does not look like a natural human gait. So
Speaker 3: there's a variety of different factors that are at play there,
Speaker 3: but those are some of the ones that come to
Speaker 3: my mind. I've gone into it so far, so deep
Speaker 3: down the rabbit hole. On the PG film, I interviewed
Speaker 3: MK Davis and Todd Gate. Would it was months and
Speaker 3: months ago, have been towards the end of last year,
Speaker 3: and that's one of the things. Todd Gatewood actually has
Speaker 3: not the camera but the exact model camera that was
Speaker 3: used by Patterson to film that film. Even showed me
Speaker 3: picked it up and showed where the default rate was
Speaker 3: on that you would have to physically change the rate
Speaker 3: at which you were shooting the film. It just didn't
Speaker 3: make sense of the counterintuitive So that kind of cleared
Speaker 3: up the gate question for me. But one of the
Speaker 3: things that you brought up is interesting to me, and
Speaker 3: I've had this conversation with several people.
Speaker 1: Doug Hichek comes to mind. Not the Frameman footage, for example.
Speaker 1: He believes that's a postpartum female in the Frameman footage.
Speaker 1: Obviously Patty is female. There's been other incidents. William Rowe
Speaker 1: incident from ten years before the Patterson Gimlin film comes
Speaker 1: to mind. That's one of the things I've went back
Speaker 1: and forth on too, because some people say it's odd
Speaker 1: that you would fake a female Bigfoot Devil's Advocate. I'd
Speaker 1: say if Patterson was interested, and he was clearly interested
Speaker 1: in the William Row incident because wrote his book and
Speaker 1: he featured the William Row incident with a drawing of
Speaker 1: what William Rowe reportedly saw and what he put in
Speaker 1: his affidavit. So it's interesting that to me, I get
Speaker 1: into conversations with people I had a PhD on the
Speaker 1: show a couple of times. Now, Doctor Hogan Chirou, he's
Speaker 1: got a PhD in primatology. He studied gorillaz. He studied
Speaker 1: chimpanzees in the wild. As a matter of fact, the
Speaker 1: last time I had him on the show, just a
Speaker 1: month or so ago, he was headed back over to
Speaker 1: Africa with his daughter to go back out into the
Speaker 1: wild and interact with gorillas. So he knows his primates.
Speaker 1: And one of the conversations that he and I got
Speaker 1: into was something similar about apes. For example, there's no
Speaker 1: great apes that we know that have these big, pendulous
Speaker 1: breasts like we see on Patty, So that was something
Speaker 1: that stuck out to me. But of course I go to,
Speaker 1: if sasquatch is something different that we've never seen before,
Speaker 1: how do we know that they're not closer to human beings?
Speaker 1: And that would explain.
Speaker 3: That, in fact, they have to be closer to humans
Speaker 3: because sasquatch is fully by pedal. No other great apes
Speaker 3: are fully by pedal. Chimpanzees walk on their knuckles most
Speaker 3: of the time. Gorillas walk on their knuckles most of
Speaker 3: the time. But in the Patterson Giveland film, and according
Speaker 3: to lots of reports, sasquatch is fully by pedal the
Speaker 3: way we are, and that shifts the way you carry yourself.
Speaker 3: It shifts the shape of your spine, and that's going
Speaker 3: to have an effect on what your breasts look like,
Speaker 3: among other things.
Speaker 1: Very good point. You mentioned it earlier, and I certainly
Speaker 1: want to weighe into this a little bit. You talked
Speaker 1: about some arguments for and against the existence of sasquatch. Again,
Speaker 1: that was one of the conversations that I got into
Speaker 1: with doctor Hogan Chiau. He makes very good points about
Speaker 1: why he believed that sasquatch don't exist. I disagree with
Speaker 1: most of those. So let's see where you and I
Speaker 1: cross paths and where we agree, maybe in disagree on
Speaker 1: some of the arguments for and against. Start wherever you want,
Speaker 1: but talk a little bit about where you feel the
Speaker 1: arguments or the possible existence of these creatures are, and
Speaker 1: what about the arguments against their existence? Okay, why don't
Speaker 1: we start with arguments against and then move to arguments for.
Speaker 1: To me, there's one major argument against the existence of
Speaker 1: sasquatch in North America. Now, there are loads of cryptids
Speaker 1: in the world. There are loads of creatures that are
Speaker 1: not known to science, but the vast majority of them
Speaker 1: are small.
Speaker 3: I'll put it this way. They're either small or they
Speaker 3: live in an area where humans don't go. They may
Speaker 3: be underwater. Humans don't live underwater, so there can be
Speaker 3: bigger creatures down underwater. Similarly, they're in parts of the
Speaker 3: world where there's not much human habitation, there can be
Speaker 3: bigger creatures there. They periodically discover new species of taper
Speaker 3: and things like that are larger size animals, but most
Speaker 3: of the creatures that remain undiscovered science are tiny. They're insects.
Speaker 3: Maybe they're the size of lizards or things like that,
Speaker 3: but they're not bigger than human. If you're going to
Speaker 3: propose a bigger than human thing, you would expect to
Speaker 3: find it either underwater or in a wilderness where there
Speaker 3: are no humans. So if you wanted to say there's
Speaker 3: a great ape that's larger than a human, now I'm
Speaker 3: talking here, I'm assuming Bigfoot is just a primate, not
Speaker 3: a supernatural creature. If he's a supernatural creature, all bets
Speaker 3: are off, and I don't know how to evaluate it
Speaker 3: if he's a supernatural creature. But assuming he's a primate,
Speaker 3: if you wanted to say, there's a larger than human
Speaker 3: undiscovered primate in Nepal, the roof of the world as
Speaker 3: it's called, or to bet or up in the Himalayas, Okay,
Speaker 3: there's not a lot of people there, so I could
Speaker 3: imagine one being undiscovered to science. The locals might see it,
Speaker 3: but I can imagine why scientists wouldn't have a vouchers best,
Speaker 3: which is what you typically need in order to have
Speaker 3: a scientific discovery. So that all could make sense to me.
Speaker 3: But North America is a whole different kettle of fish.
Speaker 3: We have a lot more people here now. There are
Speaker 3: big tracks of wilderness in the United States and in Canada.
Speaker 3: I've been through some of those, and yeah, there's big
Speaker 3: open spaces people who live in the eastern half of
Speaker 3: the United States. That's where most of our population is,
Speaker 3: the Atlantic and the Central time zones. Even here. I'm
Speaker 3: in Arkansas. I was driving to another town in Arkansas
Speaker 3: this weekend. I'm going through big stretches of open country
Speaker 3: up in those arc mountains without a lot of towns
Speaker 3: and with very small towns there, but still North America
Speaker 3: has a pretty big population, and it's a population with
Speaker 3: a lot of scientists. We have tons of scientists here,
Speaker 3: and we've got lots of Bigfoot watchers here, people looking
Speaker 3: for bigfoot, and we've got a lot of technology like
Speaker 3: camera traps things like that. So we've got loads of
Speaker 3: eyeballs both natural and artificial, looking for bigfoot in North
Speaker 3: America and it hadn't been discovered. We've got some alleged films,
Speaker 3: but I would think we would have more, because it's
Speaker 3: not just one that we're looking for. In order for
Speaker 3: a primate to survive, it isn't just one.
Speaker 1: If you've got.
Speaker 3: One primate, that species will last generation and then it'll
Speaker 3: all be gone. So what you really need is a
Speaker 3: breeding population. There have to be enough of them to
Speaker 3: keep the population alive. They have to be centralized enough
Speaker 3: so that they can get together and, as they say
Speaker 3: in The Incredibles, get busy in order to produce that
Speaker 3: next generation. So to me, that's the big objection, that's
Speaker 3: the strongest argument for why this creature shouldn't exist at
Speaker 3: this point, because we've been looking for it for decades,
Speaker 3: and the purported evidence we have is still pretty thin,
Speaker 3: at least in terms of having solid documentation. There are
Speaker 3: claims like, oh, we've got Bigfoot DNA, but as Jeff
Speaker 3: Mildron points out, until we've got a type specimen or
Speaker 3: about your specimen, we don't know what that DNA is too.
Speaker 3: All we can say is it's unknown what it's tue.
Speaker 3: We can't say it's to Bigfoot. So to me, that's
Speaker 3: the big argument against What do you make of that argument?
Speaker 1: Let me mudy the water for you a little bit.
Speaker 1: Let's start with I too agree with you about the
Speaker 1: breeding population. So many people have speculated and it is
Speaker 1: all speculation obviously, because we have no idea. People speculate
Speaker 1: on what they think the population could be, or maybe
Speaker 1: of sasquatch compared to black bear, for example. I think
Speaker 1: Jeff Mildrim is at the point now we've spoke at
Speaker 1: an event together in the UK, and I think he's
Speaker 1: talking maybe for every five hundred black bear, there may
Speaker 1: be one sasquatch in that area, right. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that would work out as far as the total
Speaker 1: number of these things. I think about the fifty five
Speaker 1: hundred rule in biology, you get down to a minimum
Speaker 1: of fifty individuals to avoid inbreeding, and then up to
Speaker 1: five hundred to reduce genetic drift. So you know, the
Speaker 1: number thing has always been an issue for me and
Speaker 1: the discovery. Frankly, as you said, it's very easy to
Speaker 1: get lost in the fact that there are a lot
Speaker 1: of fast spaces where these things could exist. But there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people in North America. But here's
Speaker 1: why I'm muddy the water. I think a little bit
Speaker 1: for you because I've had this conversation with so many people.
Speaker 1: I had a conversation with doctor Russ Jones last year
Speaker 1: about this when he was on the show, and he said, look, Brian,
Speaker 1: because I argued the same thing. Look, dude, we should
Speaker 1: have found this thing by now. We've been beating our
Speaker 1: head into the wall. We've been trying and we I'm saying,
Speaker 1: as the community, have been trying to find these things
Speaker 1: and prove this species is real for so long. And
Speaker 1: Russ says, look, dude, I go in the woods a lot.
Speaker 1: He's a practicing chiropractor, but he gets a lot of
Speaker 1: time off. He said, I'm in the woods probably two
Speaker 1: hundred plus days a year, but I am a minority.
Speaker 1: People have this idea that there are so many people
Speaker 1: out there looking for bigfoot, but in fact, I bet
Speaker 1: there's probably less than one hundred bigfoot researchers that I'm
Speaker 1: aware of that are in the woods every weekend. That's
Speaker 1: leaving the other five days open for day jobs. I
Speaker 1: don't think there is as many people looking for these
Speaker 1: things as some people would think because bigfoot is very popular.
Speaker 1: You go to a conference, which you and I were
Speaker 1: talking about earlier. We both speak at quite a few
Speaker 1: conferences bigfoot and other things. You go to these conferences,
Speaker 1: there's thirty five hundred people there, and you say, man,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people into bigfoot. But guess what.
Speaker 1: The majority of those people are armchair researchers. They're scouring
Speaker 1: the internet, they're watching YouTube, They're probably watching you on
Speaker 1: YouTube talk about some of these things. Here's the thing
Speaker 1: they're not in the woods looking for. So I think
Speaker 1: to me, it goes either way as far as the
Speaker 1: argument is concerned. There are a lot of cameras out there.
Speaker 1: When I talk to people like at Area X, for example,
Speaker 1: the North American Wood Ape Conservancy. I've had those guys
Speaker 1: on the show, a ton of them I've featured some
Speaker 1: audio from them just over the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: They've talked about setting up camera traps. The strange thing
Speaker 1: about it to me is, and this is the rub
Speaker 1: for me when it comes down to Bigfoot, because I
Speaker 1: haven't seen one. These guys are in an area where
Speaker 1: they claim to have had tons of experience, sightings, vocalizations,
Speaker 1: rocks being thrown at them. Every year. They go out
Speaker 1: for about three to four months out of the year.
Speaker 1: They are twenty four hours a day, seven days a
Speaker 1: week for almost four months. They do it in shifts,
Speaker 1: they do it in teams. Right. They've put up camera traps.
Speaker 1: They spent I think fifty thousand dollars a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago to do a passive system where they could
Speaker 1: observe all the time, twenty four hours a day. They've
Speaker 1: gotten exactly zero images of any of these creatures. So
Speaker 1: I don't think that. To me, I'm supposed to rule
Speaker 1: it out as a skeptical person because I am skeptical.
Speaker 1: It just says to me there may be something else
Speaker 1: going on here that we're just not aware of, because
Speaker 1: other animals do that. Right. I think the Humboldt Martin
Speaker 1: was seen for the first time during a camera trap
Speaker 1: set up out at Bluff Creek where they were looking
Speaker 1: for bigfoot, and then they end up finding this Humboldt
Speaker 1: martin that everybody thought was extinct because you'd never see
Speaker 1: them on camera. Same thing with some of the big
Speaker 1: cats and other things. There's even been I know recently.
Speaker 1: It was either male coyotes. Alpha male coyotes or alpha
Speaker 1: male wolves or both are very rarely, if ever, been
Speaker 1: seen on camera traps. You'll see the females, debate of females,
Speaker 1: but you never see the alpha males. It's like they
Speaker 1: avoid cameras. So I don't know did that muddy the
Speaker 1: water any at all? I think you got it.
Speaker 3: By the way, I did a quick look up on
Speaker 3: number of black bears and it looks like there's about
Speaker 3: four hundred thousand in the US, and so that would
Speaker 3: mean there could be about eight hundred big foot. That
Speaker 3: one to five hundred ratio, you could have a breeding
Speaker 3: population of eight hundred and something could survive.
Speaker 1: But you wouldn't expect.
Speaker 3: Them to be reported all over the United States because
Speaker 3: they need to be centralized enough that they can find
Speaker 3: each other in order to make the new generation so
Speaker 3: they can't be too thinly distributed, and if they were
Speaker 3: more thinly distributed, it would also make them easier to find.
Speaker 3: In terms of your argument, I agree bigfoot has an
Speaker 3: outsized social presence in the US.
Speaker 1: When I was driving, I mentioned I was driving to.
Speaker 3: A town this weekend here in northern Arkansas, and I
Speaker 3: would drive past businesses and they'd have bigfoot signs and
Speaker 3: silhouettes of Patty and stuff like that out in front
Speaker 3: of their businesses. So there's definitely a big social presence bigfoot.
Speaker 3: I agree most people who are into bigfoot do not
Speaker 3: go squatching. They don't go out into the woods and
Speaker 3: actively look for bigfoot. But on the other hand, there
Speaker 3: are a lot of camping enthusiasts and they may not
Speaker 3: be looking for bigfoot, but they're interested in going out
Speaker 3: in the woods. And there are hunters who go out
Speaker 3: in the woods. I would expect that a lot of
Speaker 3: hunters use camera traps, not looking for bigfoot, but looking
Speaker 3: for game and things like that. Also, there are zoologists
Speaker 3: who go out in the woods, not looking for bigfoot,
Speaker 3: but looking for other things. Like my sister is a zoologist.
Speaker 3: She used to work for OH. I think it was
Speaker 3: a National Park Service, and she would be out in
Speaker 3: California surveying snails because there was a desire on the
Speaker 3: part of the Park Service to have a census of
Speaker 3: all of the different types of snails that lived in
Speaker 3: a particular wood.
Speaker 1: So she'd go out.
Speaker 3: With a team of people and that section off the
Speaker 3: plot of land with cords so they got a square grid.
Speaker 3: Then they would go through each square grid and look
Speaker 3: at and count all the snails there. It's actually funny
Speaker 3: what you have to do in order to to not
Speaker 3: count a snail twice. They would have a laminated board
Speaker 3: that they would put the snails on as they found them.
Speaker 1: And stay tuned for more sasquatch out to sea, we'll
Speaker 1: be right back after these messages.
Speaker 3: So they could count them and make sure we're not
Speaker 3: double counting any of these things. But you had to
Speaker 3: be careful because some species of snail are actually carnivorous
Speaker 3: and will go after other species of snail, so you
Speaker 3: had to mind your snail board to make sure that
Speaker 3: you're not seeing a slow motion murder attack by one
Speaker 3: of the carnivorous snails on one of the herbivorous snails.
Speaker 3: Then they put them all back and they do their
Speaker 3: count but the thing is they were out in the woods,
Speaker 3: and if a bigfoot ambled by or started throwing rocks
Speaker 3: at them or something like that, they didn't need to
Speaker 3: be looking for bigfoot to encounterwet and get evidence that
Speaker 3: there's something out here that we don't know what it is.
Speaker 3: So even though not a lot of people people are
Speaker 3: doing the squatching on a regular basis, there are a
Speaker 3: lot of people who do it informally and really we're
Speaker 3: just going camping, but we're calling it squatching because it's
Speaker 3: more fun. They're still out in the woods, and there's
Speaker 3: lots of other people who are out in the woods,
Speaker 3: at least periodically. So I think that there's a point
Speaker 3: there that the number of active bigfoot field researchers is small,
Speaker 3: but they're not the only ones who could encounter bigfoot
Speaker 3: in the woods.
Speaker 1: Good point. Let's move into the arguments for the existence
Speaker 1: of these creatures. What have you come up with to
Speaker 1: feel like this is a possibility that these things are real.
Speaker 3: One of the things that's most impressive to me, and
Speaker 3: this is I think this is the most impressive piece
Speaker 3: of evidence concerns the footprints that we have now back
Speaker 3: in the day. There were a lot of footprints taken,
Speaker 3: and a lot of those footprints were obvious hoaxes, because
Speaker 3: people would make big wooden feed and put them on
Speaker 3: their feet and go tramping around and then say, look,
Speaker 3: we've got bigfoot here. I even remember I was watching
Speaker 3: a documentary. This must have been in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 3: but I was watching a documentary about bigfoot and they
Speaker 3: were interviewing a father and his like twelve year old
Speaker 3: son about having a bigfoot encounter outside their home in
Speaker 3: some rural place. It wasn't just one bigfoot they encountered.
Speaker 3: It was like a papa bigfoot and a juvenile bigfoot.
Speaker 3: I'm gone, oh, we got a father human and a
Speaker 3: juvenile human son. And then they're encounter a father bigfoot
Speaker 3: and a juvenile bigfoot and they've got these footprints, and
Speaker 3: I'm thinking, these are two guys having fun. This is
Speaker 3: a father and his son pulling a hoax. So there
Speaker 3: are lots of hoax footprints. There are also footprints that
Speaker 3: have been distorted by nature, because mud, for example, will
Speaker 3: expand and contract and distort depending on what happens to it.
Speaker 3: But there are other footprints that are much harder to
Speaker 3: explain in this way. Now, when it's obvious if there's
Speaker 3: no flexion in the footprint, that okay, this was made
Speaker 3: by a stiff board, this was not made by a
Speaker 3: real foot. But we've got footprints that do show flexion
Speaker 3: because a human foot, if you go step on an
Speaker 3: uneven surface, your foot is going to flex. That's part
Speaker 3: of what it does. And we see flexion in some
Speaker 3: of the big foot footprint casts that have been taken.
Speaker 3: Even more impressive than that to me is dermal ridges
Speaker 3: in footprints, and Jeff Meldrim talks about this in his book.
Speaker 3: One of the things that humans have, and this is
Speaker 3: not true of all species. If you look at a
Speaker 3: dog's paw, they don't have this, But humans have dermal ridges.
Speaker 3: Dermis is our skin. So we have skin ridges. We
Speaker 3: call them fingerprints and toeprints and so forth, and we
Speaker 3: only have them on the contact surfaces of our hands
Speaker 3: and the contact surfaces of our feet. We don't have
Speaker 3: them on the backs of our hands or the backs
Speaker 3: of our feet. And they serve an evolutionary purpose. What
Speaker 3: their function is is to create more friction. Because our
Speaker 3: ancestors grew up being primates, they grew up swinging around
Speaker 3: in trees. So if you're swinging around in a tree,
Speaker 3: you don't want to reach out for a branch and
Speaker 3: have your hand slip off of it. So we developed
Speaker 3: dermal ridges on the contact surfaces of our hands and
Speaker 3: feet to make it easier for us to grasp branches
Speaker 3: in particular and not fall to our death on the
Speaker 3: jungle floor. We also developed another technique that will increase friction,
Speaker 3: which is as a little kid, you would notice whenever
Speaker 3: you're in the bath for too long, your fingers and
Speaker 3: toes start to wrinkle up. I remember, skin, Why does
Speaker 3: that happen. One of the explanations I heard was the
Speaker 3: oil leaches out of your skin and that makes it
Speaker 3: wrinkle up. That is totally wrong. It's a reflex. You
Speaker 3: can actually sever nerves that will kill that reflex. But
Speaker 3: it's a reflex because when our hands are feet or underwater,
Speaker 3: it's slipprier. If you're wading through a creek, those rocks
Speaker 3: that have water flowing over them, they're slipprier than rocks
Speaker 3: that don't have water flowing over them. So when our
Speaker 3: bodies detect that our hands and feet are underwater, it
Speaker 3: deliberately causes that wrinkling in order to increase it's like
Speaker 3: a secondary layer of dermal ridges to increase the amount
Speaker 3: of friction so that we can more easily walk on
Speaker 3: and grasp things underwater. It turns out that in some
Speaker 3: occasions the media in which bigfoot tracks are found is
Speaker 3: fine enough that it captures their dermal ridges. That's notable
Speaker 3: because it would be really hard to make a fake
Speaker 3: foot that would have dermal ridges. I'm sure we could
Speaker 3: do it today with three D printing and stuff, but
Speaker 3: these are older than that. It would be really hard
Speaker 3: decades in the past to create a fake foot that
Speaker 3: has flexion and dermal ridges. And apparently these dermal ridges
Speaker 3: are consistent from one specimen to another in how they're formed,
Speaker 3: and it's not the same way that human dermal ridges
Speaker 3: are on feet. In humans, the dermal ridges in our
Speaker 3: feet are like those on our hand they go across
Speaker 3: the foot. But apparently my understanding is with bigfoot they're
Speaker 3: more vertically oriented on the feet, and that's consistent from
Speaker 3: one specimen to another, which if this were hoaxers, you
Speaker 3: wouldn't expect that even if they had the technology to
Speaker 3: build hoax feet this sophisticated you wouldn't expect them to
Speaker 3: be coming up with this certain le in casts that
Speaker 3: have been around for a long time. So to me,
Speaker 3: that's the strongest argument I've encountered in favor of Bigfoot.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought up the dermal ridges. That's something
Speaker 1: that I have went down the rabbit hole several times
Speaker 1: in the past on and I frankly, I've found and
Speaker 1: casting footprints on our property here in North Carolina. Cool.
Speaker 1: I've gone through this a couple of times. The first
Speaker 1: thing that when you put any evidence out in Bigfoot,
Speaker 1: everybody comes out of the woodwork and it's either the
Speaker 1: greatest thing they've ever seen or you are the biggest
Speaker 1: hoaxer that they ever known and none of your stuff
Speaker 1: is real. I've gotten into this recently. I hosted another
Speaker 1: podcast called That Bigfoot Podcast and my coast and I Wayne,
Speaker 1: we're talking about this recently because there are standards when
Speaker 1: it comes to bigfoot. You mentioned doctor Jeff Meldrum. Cliff
Speaker 1: Berrickman comes to mind from finding Bigfoot. Cliff has examined
Speaker 1: tons of footprints and cast of footprints and tons of
Speaker 1: impressions over the years, and into the dermal ridges. I
Speaker 1: tried a couple of years ago actually to get in
Speaker 1: touch with Jimmy A. Chilcut, who was famously the one
Speaker 1: who discovered these ridges, and he was a fingerprint expert
Speaker 1: for the police department. But I read an article back
Speaker 1: it was I think it was two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: It was The Skeptical Inquirer. So take that as you
Speaker 1: will chime out with this article, and they had this
Speaker 1: guy from I believe he was a pharmacist from Seattle.
Speaker 1: This guy was interested in these bigfoot prints. So he
Speaker 1: tried and tried and did so many different experiments until
Speaker 1: he was able to recreate the dermal ridges that were
Speaker 1: in the Onion Mountain cast, the same thing with the
Speaker 1: wrinkle foot Paul Freeman's cast, to the point where he
Speaker 1: took I think three or four of these samples, like
Speaker 1: in two thousand and five, around to some Bigfoot conferences
Speaker 1: and fooled everybody. I think, as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, Daniel Perez from the Bigfoot Times
Speaker 1: named him Bigfoot of the Year, and he had created
Speaker 1: these dermal ridges to prove that it could be done,
Speaker 1: because he didn't believe that they were real. So I
Speaker 1: said all that to say I certainly want Bigfoot to
Speaker 1: be real. I have gotten to the point where I
Speaker 1: used to be twenty percent that these things are real.
Speaker 1: And I was a fifty to fifty guy, and I
Speaker 1: had to go through the seventy thirty phase and the
Speaker 1: eighty twenty phase. But these footprints that I found on
Speaker 1: my property multiple times now, and the set that I
Speaker 1: cast back in October have single handedly convinced me that
Speaker 1: Bigfoot is real. And they stepped on my property because
Speaker 1: I can tell you what it's not. It's neither the
Speaker 1: two people who live on the forty acres. It's neither
Speaker 1: one of us. I don't know about Arkansas, but here
Speaker 1: in North Carolina, you don't wander onto other people's property
Speaker 1: that you're not invited on and walk around barefoot because
Speaker 1: it's just the way of the world around here. So
Speaker 1: I don't think one of my neighbors is walking around.
Speaker 1: But I said this because it brings up this whole
Speaker 1: other thing. Because we always go to the couple of
Speaker 1: people that can verify these casts or can look at
Speaker 1: these things and use the standard that they're comparing the
Speaker 1: cast to. That was one of the conversation. Is the
Speaker 1: first thing that came up when I posted this on
Speaker 1: social media, was has doctor Jeff Meldrum looked at him?
Speaker 1: Or has Cliff looked at him? And I'm like, no, man,
Speaker 1: I just got the replicas done because I was so
Speaker 1: proud because I went through the process of making the
Speaker 1: mold to get the replicas. As soon as that was done,
Speaker 1: I did call Cliff and I'm going to send them
Speaker 1: out to them. I'm actually going to mail them out tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'm leaving town on Wednesday. But I said all that
Speaker 1: to say, where are you on this sort of gatekeeper
Speaker 1: mentality that we sometimes have in the Bigfoot community. I
Speaker 1: wrote a newsletter about it today. The folks who subscribe
Speaker 1: to the newsletter got this afternoon. I think we have
Speaker 1: to be careful when it comes to things like this,
Speaker 1: because we are talking about something that's not recognized as
Speaker 1: a species. Right to everybody in the world, Bigfoot doesn't
Speaker 1: exist unless you're a person who's seen them and you
Speaker 1: are a nowhere. But I feel like we get in
Speaker 1: this place sometimes in the community that if the powers
Speaker 1: that be don't look at evidence and bless it in
Speaker 1: a way, then some people don't bring evidence forward because
Speaker 1: of that very reason. I almost didn't. I waited. I
Speaker 1: had these casts since October of last year, and the
Speaker 1: only place that I put out any photographs was in
Speaker 1: my book when it came out back in March, because
Speaker 1: they were really good casts, and I knew people were
Speaker 1: going to say it's either fantastic or it's fake. And
Speaker 1: until somebody looks at something and says one way or
Speaker 1: the other, it's hard for the people producing that evidence
Speaker 1: to say, this is what I got. I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'm making sense or not, but how do you
Speaker 1: feel about evaluating evidence? Because I approach it from this standpoint,
Speaker 1: I'm a critical thinker. I write a lot about that
Speaker 1: in my book, about people using their critical thinking skills
Speaker 1: for themselves and using what they know to make an
Speaker 1: informed decision about what they're looking at for themselves. That's
Speaker 1: the approach I take when it comes to evidence. When
Speaker 1: you're evaluating evidence, whether it be bigfoot or whether it
Speaker 1: be UFO evidence, or whatever phenomena you're looking at, how
Speaker 1: do you approach that in vetting the evidence for yourself?
Speaker 3: This is actually an area where even though I'm not
Speaker 3: a Bigfoot investigator, I have some transferable knowledge because I'm
Speaker 3: actually a trained paranormal investigator. So I'm trained in how
Speaker 3: to evaluate Haunton's operations, oldergeists and things like that. I've
Speaker 3: done that kind of case work. From hearing you describe
Speaker 3: the situation in bigfoot research, it sounds very much the
Speaker 3: situation in paranormal researched.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: One of the intersection points is the skeptical enquirer. Now
Speaker 3: they are determined to debunk anything that is paranormal. They
Speaker 3: are not genuinely open, and as a result, some folks
Speaker 3: in the paranormal community would say they're not skeptics. Where
Speaker 3: if you're a paranormal investigator, you're trained to be a skeptic.
Speaker 3: If you have a report of something, you make a
Speaker 3: list of every possible explanation for that report, and you
Speaker 3: look at the normal explanations first. Only if you can
Speaker 3: eliminate all the normal explanations, because normal phenomena are more
Speaker 3: common than paranormal phenomena. So only if you can eliminate
Speaker 3: all the normal explanations do you have a basis for
Speaker 3: proposing that the experience was genuinely paranormal. You're taught in
Speaker 3: any given case to expect to find some of the
Speaker 3: phenomena connected with a case to be normal, because once
Speaker 3: people think I've got a poltergeist in my house, suddenly
Speaker 3: every little creek in the night gets attributed to that poulterergeist.
Speaker 3: Actually some of them are not. You're boultergeist. So you
Speaker 3: expect to find normal phenomena. But if they can't all
Speaker 3: be explained normally, then you've got a basis for saying
Speaker 3: something that's paranormal. So paranormal investigators are trained to be skeptical.
Speaker 3: But the folks from the Center for Inquiry or whatever
Speaker 3: they call themselves these days, the skeptical enquirer folks, they
Speaker 3: are not open minded. They are debunkers. Sometimes they're called
Speaker 3: pseudo skeptics. So I'm not at all surprised that someone
Speaker 3: was able to come up with dermal ridges in a
Speaker 3: fake cast. In my opening discussion of that, I mentioned
Speaker 3: ways you could try to do that today, like with
Speaker 3: three D printing. But just because you can fake something,
Speaker 3: I mean you have evidence that it was faked. In
Speaker 3: this case, you can perform any kind of paranormal effect
Speaker 3: you want using stage magic, but that doesn't mean that
Speaker 3: stage magic was being used in every paranormal case that appears.
Speaker 3: You have to look at the circumstances. In a particular case,
Speaker 3: if I'm investigating a poultergeist and I learn the guy
Speaker 3: who's reporting the poltergeist is a stage magician, that would
Speaker 3: have an effect on how I look at his report
Speaker 3: of what happened. Similarly, you know you can fake anything
Speaker 3: if you haven't under controlled conditions. The problem with both
Speaker 3: Bigfoot encounter and most paranormal phenomena that spontaneously occur is
Speaker 3: that they occur out of controlled conditions with very few witnesses.
Speaker 1: And stay tuned for more sasquat Chatasy will be right
Speaker 1: back after these messages.
Speaker 3: So that naturally raises a question because it's easy to
Speaker 3: fake something if you are out of controlled conditions and
Speaker 3: there are very few witnesses. So I think there is
Speaker 3: a role not for debunkin and just dismissing them all,
Speaker 3: but I think there is a role for having competent
Speaker 3: investigators look at the evidence and give their opinion. For example,
Speaker 3: I would feel more confident about a paranormal case. Mentoring
Speaker 3: paranormal investigations is an investigator named Lloyd Auerback. He also
Speaker 3: teaches at the Ryan Education Center, and I've taken bunches
Speaker 3: of his courses. If I know there's a report of
Speaker 3: a ghost in a house, and I know Lloyd looked
Speaker 3: into it and found a basis for saying it's paranormal.
Speaker 3: I would trust that more than I would if I
Speaker 3: just heard the report itself and nobody had ever looked
Speaker 3: into it, or if an incompetent investigator had looked into it.
Speaker 3: So I think there is a role for expertise. There
Speaker 3: has to be, because humans can't be experts in everything. Consequently,
Speaker 3: if there's something we're not an expert in personally, we
Speaker 3: need to get opinion from someone who is an expert
Speaker 3: in that saying. Now, that doesn't mean that we just
Speaker 3: automatically agree with them or never challenge them or anything
Speaker 3: like that. In the marketplace of ideas, there needs to
Speaker 3: be a competition of opinion among the experts. That includes
Speaker 3: even the pseudo skeptics, because sometimes they're going to be right.
Speaker 3: We need to look at all the different opinions and
Speaker 3: see what survives in the marketplace of ideas. So I'm
Speaker 3: not advocating gatekeeping. We're certain if you don't get the
Speaker 3: blessing from His Holiness the expert, then you utterly dismiss something.
Speaker 3: But I do think there is a role for expertise
Speaker 3: in looking at these things. Very well said.
Speaker 1: We've mentioned it a couple of times. Let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about your shows, your multiple podcasts. Give us
Speaker 1: the rundown on what to expect. What's the names, where
Speaker 1: can people find them? And tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about what they can expect from each show.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, let me see. I work for a ministry
Speaker 3: called Catholic Answers. Our website is Catholic dot com because
Speaker 3: it was the nineties and we thought ahead. We have
Speaker 3: a nationwide radio show called Catholic Answers Live. It's on
Speaker 3: between three and four hundred terrestrial stations in the US.
Speaker 3: It's also available via podcast at YouTube. Every week I
Speaker 3: appear on that show and I answer questions on whatever
Speaker 3: people want to ask me. Most days I get primarily
Speaker 3: religious questions, but not always. One of the policies I
Speaker 3: have is my philosophy. There is no such thing as
Speaker 3: a bad question, only bad answers, So I will answer
Speaker 3: any question that a person puts to me straight. I
Speaker 3: take every question seriously. I never want to dismiss a question.
Speaker 3: If someone wants to know something, I'll give them my
Speaker 3: straight opinion. So the audience eventually noticed that about me,
Speaker 3: and they decided, let's push this and see how far
Speaker 3: it goes. So they started asking me deliberately weird questions.
Speaker 3: If you're a vampire, can you kill yourself to avoid
Speaker 3: per dating on other people? I'd give them a moral
Speaker 3: analysis of that question. Or they'd ask, so suppose you
Speaker 3: have some zombies, can you use them for slave labor? Again,
Speaker 3: I do a moral analysis. You can't use them for
Speaker 3: slave labor, but if they are just handicapped humans at
Speaker 3: this point, you could. You could potentially use them as
Speaker 3: a kind of work rehab facility, just like we have
Speaker 3: work rehab for people who are disabled. After people started
Speaker 3: asking me these questions, the producers of the show decided
Speaker 3: to carve out a special segment we do every couple
Speaker 3: of months called Weird Questions with Jimmy Aikin, where for
Speaker 3: two hours we just do here's all these weird questions
Speaker 3: that people have come up with.
Speaker 1: That's one podcast I do.
Speaker 3: I also have another podcast with Catholic answers called a
Speaker 3: Daily Defense, where I offer very brief This is like
Speaker 3: three to five minutes, very brief explanations to objections to faith.
Speaker 3: I'm about to have another podcast with Katholic Answer just
Speaker 3: called the Jimmy Akin Podcast that's going to focus on
Speaker 3: religion and the defense of religion. With Starquest, I'm on
Speaker 3: Secrets of Star Trek, which is a Star Trek review show.
Speaker 3: I'm also on Secrets of Doctor Who, which is a
Speaker 3: Doctor Who review show. And my most famous podcast, as
Speaker 3: I mentioned, is Jimmy Aikins Mysterious Podcast. You can check
Speaker 3: that one out by going to Mysterious dot fm as
Speaker 3: inn fm radio. You can also go to my YouTube
Speaker 3: channel and see the video version. My U YouTube channel
Speaker 3: is YouTube dot com slash Jimmy Aikin. All you've got
Speaker 3: to do to get there is spell my name correctly.
Speaker 3: It is Jimmy jay I and why and AKN is
Speaker 3: so easy. It is exactly like it sounds, a k
Speaker 3: I N a ken. There are no e's, t's, or
Speaker 3: s's in my name.
Speaker 1: It is just a kin.
Speaker 3: So if you go to YouTube dot com slash Jimmy
Speaker 3: Aikin you can check out all of my videos and
Speaker 3: including interviews on shows like this Mysterious World is there.
Speaker 3: You can also, like I said, go to the Mysterious
Speaker 3: World homepage at Mysterious dot fm or you can check
Speaker 3: out my personal website, which is Jimmy Akin dot com.
Speaker 1: I will make it easy, as we always do for
Speaker 1: you guys. I will have links to that right here
Speaker 1: in the show notes. All you got to do is
Speaker 1: click the button and go check out Jimmy's stuff. Jimmy,
Speaker 1: I've had a blast talk it to you man. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for coming on the show. Yeah, no problem.
Speaker 3: I thought i'd mentioned that I have cryptid episodes, not
Speaker 3: just the Bigfoot episode, and I'm going to be doing
Speaker 3: more on Bigfoot in the future on Mysterious World, but
Speaker 3: I cover other cryptids too that people might be interested in.
Speaker 3: I've looked at were wolves and there are something like
Speaker 3: were wolves in the real world. I've looked at zombies
Speaker 3: and there are real zombies in the real world. I've
Speaker 3: looked at the Tasmanian tiger or thylacine and whether that's
Speaker 3: still around. I've looked at flying snakes, which are reported
Speaker 3: in ancient literature. I've looked at the question beast from
Speaker 3: Arthurian legend, and there is a real animal that corresponds
Speaker 3: to the question beast. So I have quite a number
Speaker 3: of cryptied episodes. So for folks who are interested in cryptids,
Speaker 3: you can check them out. Oh, unicorns too.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 3: Not only are unicorns real, there are multiple types of unicorns.
Speaker 1: There. You have it, folks, go check it out. Good stuff.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate your time and coming on. That was great.
Speaker 1: We'll have to have you back for sure.
Speaker 4: They say you don't gotta go home, but you can't stay. No,
Speaker 4: I don't want to be long. We're all loving.
Speaker 5: Chid, this job, that chid everything call ride back right
Speaker 5: back the joy.
Speaker 4: For me, Joy stay right, come in right away, dons
Speaker 4: muside things.
Speaker 5: Sissie still stay, says side inside state State still.
Speaker 6: Susy say games still states, states and things
Speaker 5: Used to stay st