Speaker 1: Today, I want to tell you about a journey that
Speaker 1: I've been on for most of my life. Ever since
Speaker 1: I was a kid, I've heard tales of bigfoot and
Speaker 1: wild men while spending time with my friends and family.
Speaker 1: As I grew older and read more about the paranormal,
Speaker 1: my interest in encryptids and other things strange only deepened.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm so excited to share with you what
Speaker 1: I've personally become involved with the Untold Radio Network. The
Speaker 1: Untold Radio Network is a live streaming podcast network that
Speaker 1: airs a new show every day across all podcast platforms, YouTube,
Speaker 1: and more. They have eight different shows on all sorts
Speaker 1: of exciting topics such as bigfoot, cryptids, UFOs, aliens, and
Speaker 1: much more. I even have my own show called Weird Encounters,
Speaker 1: where I talk about all things strange. This is more
Speaker 1: than just a podcast network. It's a community that allows
Speaker 1: me to meet so many amazing people who share their
Speaker 1: stories and experiences with strange. If you're interested in hearing
Speaker 1: more of these stories and learning more about the paranormal
Speaker 1: and encryptids, make sure you check out the Untold Radio
Speaker 1: Network for all kinds of exciting shows. It's free to subscribe.
Speaker 1: So what are you waiting for visit www dot untold
Speaker 1: radionetwork dot com today.
Speaker 2: Now, what are your reporting? I got a screen going
Speaker 2: on here. Something just kid with my dog, something to
Speaker 2: kill your dog? My dog. We're flying through there over
Speaker 2: the tree. I don't know how it did it? Okay, damn,
Speaker 2: I'm really confused. All I saw was my dog coming
Speaker 2: over the fence and name was dead once you hit
Speaker 2: the grill. I didn't see any cars. All I saw
Speaker 2: was my dog coming over the fence.
Speaker 3: Happen?
Speaker 2: What are you reporting? We got some wonder or something
Speaker 2: crawling around out here? Did you see what it was?
Speaker 2: It was enough out here. Look, I'm new to the
Speaker 2: window now and I don't need anything. I don't want
Speaker 2: to go outside. Its fight. Hello, hit the boddy out here?
Speaker 2: What quent on out there? I thought of a bit
Speaker 2: about text nine. I don't know. Easy ann out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm walking right, heady, all right, folks want welcome
Speaker 1: our guest to the show. It is Neil from across
Speaker 1: the Pond in the United Kingdom. Welcome to the show, sir.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's a privilege to be on the show today.
Speaker 1: I am so glad to have you. I was fascinated
Speaker 1: by your initial email that you sent in about your
Speaker 1: analysis and your breakdown of some of the BFRO database stuff.
Speaker 1: So we're definitely going to get into that, but before
Speaker 1: we get there, I want to start where I start
Speaker 1: with everybody, what in the world got you interested in
Speaker 1: the subject of Bigfoot to begin with?
Speaker 4: Like I guess, I've always been interested in the paranormal,
Speaker 4: had interesting things happen throughout life that you think, yeah,
Speaker 4: it's possible. But I guess from a big Foot perspective.
Speaker 4: Harry and the Hendersons was big when we were little.
Speaker 4: I think as time went on, but we started having
Speaker 4: TV shows in the UK which would cover quite a
Speaker 4: lot of paranoral stuff. Then Bigfoot would be introduced to
Speaker 4: the Paddy film. I listened to another podcast they cover
Speaker 4: quite a lot of paranal aspect things and been listening
Speaker 4: to that since it just after sort of year two thousand,
Speaker 4: they kept bringing up the subject to Bigfoot, and for
Speaker 4: me it was like, oh, okay, I thought there was
Speaker 4: just one sighting, and then as time progressed, there were
Speaker 4: more videos, there were more people talking about Bigfoot sightings,
Speaker 4: and that got me really intrigued. As time goes on,
Speaker 4: you start hearing more and more stories than you think.
Speaker 4: Can it really be that all these people are lying?
Speaker 4: It seems impossible that could be the case, And so
Speaker 4: I went down that rabbit hole. I suppose I could
Speaker 4: have chosen anything. I could have chosen aliens, I could
Speaker 4: have chosen ghosts, big foot side of things. It intrigued
Speaker 4: me because I think there's a real possibility that does exist,
Speaker 4: and there's so much data out there to support the existence.
Speaker 4: Scientists may so there's not enough data. I myself would
Speaker 4: probably say that as well with the BFRO database, we
Speaker 4: need more reports, we need more data. These sightings by
Speaker 4: themselves are great, they're entertaining, but if you don't put
Speaker 4: them together with the other sightings, you're not going to
Speaker 4: find those trends. You're not going to find that repetition
Speaker 4: that science needs. So yeah, that's what got me into Bigfoot,
Speaker 4: and I'm very firmly into it. But obviously, being in
Speaker 4: the UK, we have the odd sighting of something every
Speaker 4: now and again, but I don't think we're dealing with
Speaker 4: the same Reddit comedy. If it is to all or
Speaker 4: a make comedy bilder this interpretation, I guess I wanted
Speaker 4: to know what I could do to be more involved.
Speaker 4: My background, I've worked in HR for nineteen years in
Speaker 4: various different roles, but spent quite a lot of time
Speaker 4: working with data, using data sets to inform big decisions
Speaker 4: within PAHRD apartments. It's getting that balance of using the
Speaker 4: data but not drawing two many conclusions on it because
Speaker 4: you need that human aspect just go alongside it. The
Speaker 4: data is good, it points you in the right direction,
Speaker 4: but you've still got to have that sort of balanced
Speaker 4: attitude to things. So I really enjoy that about Hi's
Speaker 4: that if you have a decent data set, you can
Speaker 4: really analyze what's going on and look at multiple things
Speaker 4: at once. So from a HR perspective, I might look
Speaker 4: at say turnover, high levels of recruitment, high levels of
Speaker 4: sickness that are all happening in one department, and those
Speaker 4: three things together tell you a story about there's a
Speaker 4: problem in that department because you've got all these things
Speaker 4: going on at the same time. So that's how I
Speaker 4: got onto thinking what about the BFRO information. It's open
Speaker 4: sources on their website. Maybe we could do something with that.
Speaker 4: And there's something really powerful about where you take a
Speaker 4: data set and then add in additional things. And the
Speaker 4: good thing about the BFRO database is it's got georeferencing,
Speaker 4: so pinpoint where that sighting took place, and if you've
Speaker 4: got a date, you can add a date to it.
Speaker 4: Then you can go and find a set of data
Speaker 4: that will tell you what the weather was like on
Speaker 4: that day in that location. You can start adding in
Speaker 4: that information. Today it's not in the report, but even
Speaker 4: today I was doing some more because every day I
Speaker 4: get a new fought and think, oh, I wonder if
Speaker 4: I could try that.
Speaker 3: I managed to get hold of.
Speaker 4: The size of all the US states and the populations
Speaker 4: of all the US states and work out population density.
Speaker 4: Then from that I can work out a sighting too
Speaker 4: population density score, and most states are somewhere between zero
Speaker 4: point one and two. But then right at the top
Speaker 4: there's a group of states that sort of shout out Oregon, Washington, Alaska.
Speaker 4: And what that suggests to me is there are more
Speaker 4: reports coming out of those states than there is in
Speaker 4: terms of population density. So what you'd expect to be
Speaker 4: coming out as an normal, if there was an even
Speaker 4: distribution of sasquatch across the US, would be roughly between
Speaker 4: zero and two but actually looking at it. Alaska, for example,
Speaker 4: is one that really stood out, particularly with Fred on
Speaker 4: your shows. I noticed there's only twenty one sightings in
Speaker 4: the data set that I had from Alaska. We know
Speaker 4: that Fred's said that a lot of people don't want
Speaker 4: to come forward, but I thought, oh, that's very low.
Speaker 4: But when you look at the sightings for population density,
Speaker 4: it is off the scale. So it means that amount
Speaker 4: of twenty one sightings is actually higher than you'd expect
Speaker 4: to have based on a normal distribution of big foot
Speaker 4: across the US. So that was quite exciting for me
Speaker 4: to see this morning and think, wow, that it really
Speaker 4: jumps off the page.
Speaker 3: I love the fact that.
Speaker 1: You're interested in that aspect of it, because frankly, I
Speaker 1: don't think there's a lot of people that are doing that.
Speaker 1: You have people like the BFROO that are taking these
Speaker 1: accounts and putting them in a database that gives you
Speaker 1: all this data that they're inputting. Very much like you
Speaker 1: said with Goo locations, I could look at the weather
Speaker 1: and all the things that they collect during these investigations
Speaker 1: that they do. You also have people like Scott Tompkins
Speaker 1: over at the Bigfoot Mapping Project. He's pulling from the BFRO,
Speaker 1: but he's also pulling from some of these other databases
Speaker 1: and places that maybe they don't get reported to the BFRO,
Speaker 1: and they're getting reported in different places. Fred you mentioned
Speaker 1: in Alaska is another repository of tons of stories. It
Speaker 1: hits me every time I post one of those episodes
Speaker 1: from Fred where he's telling a couple of different stories
Speaker 1: over the course of forty five minutes or whatever I
Speaker 1: put together. I think to myself all the time, he's
Speaker 1: getting these reports directly from these people, in most cases
Speaker 1: their first nations, they're Native Americans, that they're not sharing
Speaker 1: anywhere else. So you have that subset of data that
Speaker 1: is collected in these repositories and other podcasts. My podcast,
Speaker 1: I'm shocked that there are other podcasts out there who
Speaker 1: cover that. I thought mine was the only one. But
Speaker 1: all jokes aside, you do have all of these other
Speaker 1: shows that interview people that I've never talked to, and
Speaker 1: the majority of the people I'm satisfied, And this is
Speaker 1: not something that I normally ask people. That I think
Speaker 1: I'm going to start adding to the questions that I
Speaker 1: ask people is have you reported this to the BFRO
Speaker 1: or any other organization that tracks these kind of sightings,
Speaker 1: because I do think that's important because they're coming in
Speaker 1: and talking about it on a podcast, but it may
Speaker 1: not necessarily be in the database, and you don't have
Speaker 1: that way to go back and check these things other
Speaker 1: than listening through an entire episode of the show, or
Speaker 1: whatever the case may be. So I am so thankful
Speaker 1: that there are people out there like you who a
Speaker 1: have the background and the patients to go through and
Speaker 1: sift through this data, because I have said it from
Speaker 1: day one. It's one of the reasons I started this
Speaker 1: podcast was to become a repository for these stories that
Speaker 1: people could go back and listen to ten years later.
Speaker 1: They might have an experience and go, Wow, this guy
Speaker 1: that Brian talked to in Alabama had a very similar
Speaker 1: experience that I had in nineteen seventy four in Alaska,
Speaker 1: or whatever the case may be. I think it's fascinating
Speaker 1: that you're doing that and you have the ability to
Speaker 1: extrapolate all of these things put them into something like
Speaker 1: this document that a couple of documents that you've sent
Speaker 1: over to me that make it easier for people to digest.
Speaker 1: You started looking into the BFRO database, how did you
Speaker 1: get into that? Was it overwhelming for you the process
Speaker 1: of getting into all of these reports? How did you
Speaker 1: approach that when you were starting to dive into the
Speaker 1: data and pull out the things that you were looking for.
Speaker 4: I think it was important to approach it with a
Speaker 4: sort of data mindset, because you can get lost in
Speaker 4: lots of text and information. There's a lot of data
Speaker 4: points within there that can be extracted out. For me,
Speaker 4: it was important that you can get an average from figures,
Speaker 4: but ultimately I wanted to put things into categories like
Speaker 4: low temperature, high temperature, middle range, what's an average temperature?
Speaker 4: That sort of thing, to try and make that data
Speaker 4: more valuable, because once you start grouping part to the
Speaker 4: data together, it then becomes more valuable as an analytical
Speaker 4: tool because things will jump off the page, Whereas if
Speaker 4: you're just staring at reports and minus leets typing in
Speaker 4: information into a spreadsheet, it can get a bit much.
Speaker 4: But there is an excitement still for me looking at
Speaker 4: new categories as well that aren't necessarily they're within the text,
Speaker 4: but they're not necessarily something that I can draw out.
Speaker 4: So setting up new categories around like size, height, always
Speaker 4: found wait a bit of a funny one, and I
Speaker 4: think the only people in the UK who could tell
Speaker 4: you what the weigh of something is probably a butcher.
Speaker 3: So when people.
Speaker 4: Say, oh, it's about four hundred pounds or eight hundred pounds,
Speaker 4: I think do hunters weigh their animals when they've take
Speaker 4: them back?
Speaker 3: Is what it is.
Speaker 4: I definitely do a great deal of hunting here in
Speaker 4: the UK. So yeah, it was seven foot, it was
Speaker 4: eight foot. Breaking out those categories making it something that
Speaker 4: can then be reported on in a better way, and
Speaker 4: we might then start seeing patterns of certain sizes of
Speaker 4: sasquatch correlating to Ban's or all the Canadian sightings are bigger.
Speaker 4: It's a bit of a task, but I feel like
Speaker 4: this is the tip of the iceberg. I feel like
Speaker 4: there's more stuff we can do every day. I'm thinking
Speaker 4: about new aspects that can be added into that data.
Speaker 4: Almost like the sighting report becomes a smaller element of
Speaker 4: what we're looking at, and we're actually taking in the environment,
Speaker 4: we're taking in regional climates, we're looking at all the
Speaker 4: moving part that make things complex.
Speaker 3: I guess that's when my hr head.
Speaker 4: Comes in, looking at organizations and how they function and
Speaker 4: if you push a button over here, it's probably going
Speaker 4: to add an adverse effect over here. So just getting
Speaker 4: my head around some of those data sets and just
Speaker 4: getting them into nice pots of data that can then
Speaker 4: be used time and time again.
Speaker 3: It can be correlated together.
Speaker 4: Are there two subsets of category that if you put
Speaker 4: them together they stand off a page? Certainly, things like
Speaker 4: temperature precipitation seems to have a significance in citing reports.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about some of the basics when it comes
Speaker 1: to the BFROL. People have heard the Bigfoot Field Researchers
Speaker 1: organization for many decades. It's definitely by far one of
Speaker 1: the biggest bigfoot organizations that are out there in the
Speaker 1: zeitgeist for folks to digest information from report to go
Speaker 1: on outings with. We've all heard of the Class B,
Speaker 1: Class A, Class C sidings. Can you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about once you got into those, how you approached
Speaker 1: breaking those down, how they approach breaking those down, and
Speaker 1: what that means as far as your data versus say
Speaker 1: somebody has a Class A versus A Class B or
Speaker 1: Class C siding, and what some of those characteristics are
Speaker 1: that go into those sidings, And how did you start
Speaker 1: looking into that data.
Speaker 4: Really, I've taken their class sightings, but you know what
Speaker 4: they would define it as. Really, but what I found
Speaker 4: was so a Class A sighting is where the witness
Speaker 4: has a clear view of the creature, leaving little room
Speaker 4: for misinterpretation. They're obviously considered the most credible reports. They
Speaker 4: typically a close range. There tends to be more detail
Speaker 4: in that report, so they'll talk about the size of
Speaker 4: the creature, what it was doing, was it running, was
Speaker 4: it pishing, that sort of thing. With a class B
Speaker 4: sighting as footprints, they saw something, but it couldn't carry
Speaker 4: exactly it was a big foot. But they may have
Speaker 4: found footprints with it howlings or rock throwing, but they
Speaker 4: didn't actually see the creature. They all fit into that
Speaker 4: class B category.
Speaker 3: Primarily.
Speaker 4: The database is made up of class A and Class
Speaker 4: B to pretty much a sort of fifty fifty ratio.
Speaker 4: When in looking at most of the data that didn't
Speaker 4: seem to be a the conditions, the weather conditions, the climate,
Speaker 4: the environment didn't seem to have an impact on whether
Speaker 4: you have a Class A or Class B sighting. They
Speaker 4: seemed to be possible in the same weather conditions. A
Speaker 4: class C sighting is less direct, more ambiguous. It might
Speaker 4: be a friend of a friend told me this and
Speaker 4: I've reported it.
Speaker 3: I think there's any thirty on the.
Speaker 4: Database, So yeah, it's a bit hard to put weight
Speaker 4: behind thirty cases. But that's the main difference between those.
Speaker 1: Let's get into some of the trends that you identified,
Speaker 1: like the geographical trends, the seasonal figures and trends, the
Speaker 1: temperature like you mentioned earlier, precipitation. I guess there's a
Speaker 1: ton of data to go through, so we can talk
Speaker 1: about any and all that you want to talk about.
Speaker 1: But is there anything that's stuck out to you in
Speaker 1: any of those categories as far as the trends, whether
Speaker 1: it be geographical, seasonal, that stuck out to you that
Speaker 1: maybe surprised you a little bit. In those trends that
Speaker 1: you found.
Speaker 4: Probably would have said that you would see more bigfoot
Speaker 4: in the summer, But actually October is the most likely month.
Speaker 4: October is when most of the sightings have happened, and
Speaker 4: I don't really know what that could be. It could
Speaker 4: be it's the last of the berries so that they're
Speaker 4: out and about shutting up for the winter. In some states,
Speaker 4: I believe it out mating season is in October. Some
Speaker 4: deer categories may also have it. Oh, we know sascots
Speaker 4: could be mating in October. That's why they're out and about.
Speaker 4: That's an interesting one. Saturday's sprung off the page. Most
Speaker 4: days you have a twelve to fourteen percent chance of
Speaker 4: having an observation, but on a Saturday that then spikes
Speaker 4: up to twenty one percent. So if you think about it,
Speaker 4: that's a fifty percent increase on a Saturday that you're
Speaker 4: more likely to see a big foot or witness some
Speaker 4: sort of evidence of a bigfoot. Now I put that
Speaker 4: down to this is just my opinion from the UK.
Speaker 4: You may think it's slightly different. But Saturday is a
Speaker 4: recreational day. More people go camping, more people go hunting, fishing,
Speaker 4: more people out in the wilderness. It's more likely that
Speaker 4: you will see a big foot because of the human
Speaker 4: behavior on that day.
Speaker 3: They get drawn into campsites, that kind of thing.
Speaker 4: And on a Sunday that tends to be the day
Speaker 4: when people take off for dusk, they go back home,
Speaker 4: or they don't tend to stick around on the Sunday evening,
Speaker 4: they're not going to get the same level of sightings.
Speaker 4: That was why, just general sort of theory around what
Speaker 4: it could be that makes that differentiation. Interestingly, winter sightings
Speaker 4: in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia we're at twenty five percent,
Speaker 4: and that's the highest across the whole of the state.
Speaker 4: And I think that's probably because they are in the
Speaker 4: south and their climate is a bit warmer in the winter,
Speaker 4: so you're going to have more bigfoot walking around, you
Speaker 4: can have more people walking around, and therefore there is
Speaker 4: a more opportunity in those states to see or witness something.
Speaker 4: I've been quite careful in this report to use the
Speaker 4: word observation because although they are called Class B sightings,
Speaker 4: only really Class A is you can call a sighting.
Speaker 4: So throughout the report I talk about observations because it
Speaker 4: is the full range of observation.
Speaker 3: Full moon and waning moon.
Speaker 4: Obviously, that gives you more visibility, so there is a
Speaker 4: higher percentage of observations on a full moon or a
Speaker 4: waning moon. Visibility again, if there's high visibility or medium visibility,
Speaker 4: you're more likely to see that bigfoot.
Speaker 3: And of course if it's raining.
Speaker 4: I found that if it's light rain or if it's
Speaker 4: clear then you are more likely.
Speaker 3: To observe a bigfoot.
Speaker 4: If it's pouring down with rain, visibility is going to
Speaker 4: be bad anyway, so the likelihood of actually seen something
Speaker 4: is quite low. And that that's come out the sighting reports.
Speaker 4: It did look at something else around, like the weather
Speaker 4: reports for those days to see if that impacted the
Speaker 4: human behavior and where it said it wasn't going to rain.
Speaker 4: Sixty seven percent of the sightings all fit into that category,
Speaker 4: so it's almost like people have looked at the weather
Speaker 4: report before they've gone out that it's not going to rain today,
Speaker 4: let's go for a walk.
Speaker 3: That sort of played in.
Speaker 4: What I find fascinating is there's a human behavior element
Speaker 4: to this and a bigfoot behavior element.
Speaker 3: It's hard to draw conclusions because.
Speaker 4: We know where the people live, we know roughly where
Speaker 4: the bigfoot are going to be found. You're not going
Speaker 4: to find them walking down the high street. It is
Speaker 4: very interesting to see that could draw a conclusion from
Speaker 4: this data that sascotch is a fair weather creature because
Speaker 4: we see him more in fair weather. But actually the
Speaker 4: flip of that is we are fair weather people and
Speaker 4: so therefore we are likely to see tascots when we're
Speaker 4: out comfortable in favorable conditions. Just having a look on
Speaker 4: here to see if there's anything else that really stood out.
Speaker 4: A lot of the observations were in medium or very
Speaker 4: high air pressure, which tends to be at lower elevations.
Speaker 4: You can imply a height from air pressure because the
Speaker 4: highest air pressures around sea level, and then as you
Speaker 4: go up the air pressure drops, so you can get
Speaker 4: an idea from the data of where that took place. Obviously,
Speaker 4: air pressure can change on a dynamic basis on a
Speaker 4: day to day basis, but generally it does give an
Speaker 4: indication or suggests an elevation to the vast majority of
Speaker 4: sightings have been seen lower down, but again that's where
Speaker 4: humans tend to live. If we live near we don't
Speaker 4: tend to live on top of the mountain. Yeah, it's
Speaker 4: just very interesting stuff. I guess there was a real
Speaker 4: spike of cases between the year two thousand and two
Speaker 4: thousand and it might be thirteen where it went up
Speaker 4: into triple figures a year, and then that spite in
Speaker 4: two thousand and four there's two hundred and forty one sightings,
Speaker 4: and then two thousand and five was two hundred and nine.
Speaker 4: Since that point the corresponds a bit to finding big fits,
Speaker 4: So you've got a thing. Actually, Matt money Maker was
Speaker 4: probably quite stretched during that period and probably couldn't do
Speaker 4: a lot of the follow ups that perhaps he might
Speaker 4: have wanted to do, And I've got a lot of
Speaker 4: respect for that and what he's done for the subject
Speaker 4: to bigfoot, And obviously it's a volunteer group beer for
Speaker 4: all right, the sightings dropping off after sort of twenty
Speaker 4: thirteen to now, and we haven't had one hundred sightings recorded.
Speaker 3: Since I think it's around twenty thirteen. Off the top
Speaker 3: of my head.
Speaker 4: They seem to have dropped when you would think we've
Speaker 4: got bigfoot programs on TV now there's multiple bigfoot programs
Speaker 4: on TV, but podcasts, we've got social media channels. Surely
Speaker 4: more people are into this and more people are seeing
Speaker 4: them and more people are reporting them. But actually, in
Speaker 4: terms of the recorded sightings on the BFRO website, need
Speaker 4: to be clear about that because there could be a
Speaker 4: number of reports that just haven't been investigated sitting behind
Speaker 4: the scenes.
Speaker 3: So we just got to be a bit careful with
Speaker 3: the data.
Speaker 4: For me, that siting drop off is a real concern
Speaker 4: because this database there are databases, but this one holds
Speaker 4: a lot of history and sightings on their own, as
Speaker 4: interesting and as entertaining as they can be to listen
Speaker 4: to that don't hold the weight of trends and repetition
Speaker 4: that have scientists would appreciate.
Speaker 1: I guess yeah, you even mentioned it, and as you
Speaker 1: were talking, I was googling because I couldn't remember when
Speaker 1: Finding Bigfoot premiered and when it went.
Speaker 3: Off the year.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't correspond with what I was thinking initially
Speaker 1: when you were talking about the siting train going up
Speaker 1: and down. Finding Bigfoot basically premiered in twenty eleven. Then
Speaker 1: the sightings as you see them on the BFRO website
Speaker 1: trended downwards starting in twenty fifteen. If you would think
Speaker 1: it would be the opposite, like you said, But I
Speaker 1: think what I found is happening is I think less
Speaker 1: people know about the BFRO because I've talked to so
Speaker 1: many people that had a siding, had an experience back
Speaker 1: in the early two thousands. They google and the first
Speaker 1: thing that comes up when they do a web search
Speaker 1: is the BFRO. It's the most prominent or was the
Speaker 1: most prominent thing out there now if you just search
Speaker 1: the word bigfoot, nine thousand things are going to come up,
Speaker 1: probably way before you see the BFRO. So I think
Speaker 1: that's what happens a lot of times when people get
Speaker 1: into the subject, and very much like you said, I
Speaker 1: even made a note of it while you were talking.
Speaker 1: It's interesting to me how many people you still talk
Speaker 1: to this day, twenty twenty four that think Bigfoot was
Speaker 1: only seen once in nineteen sixty seven when they filmed
Speaker 1: this film. These two cowboys filmed what looks like a
Speaker 1: bigfoot out in California. That's their reality a lot of
Speaker 1: times when it comes to Bigfoot. But if you go
Speaker 1: out and start searching tons of things, hopefully my show
Speaker 1: comes up in a bigfoot search when people are looking
Speaker 1: for Bigfoot. But it does, in my opinion, pull away
Speaker 1: from the BFRO database and some of the other databases
Speaker 1: that may be collecting these stories. Because again I said
Speaker 1: it earlier, I think a lot of people forego reporting
Speaker 1: to the BFRO. I've had experiences, tons of experiences. Guess
Speaker 1: how many times I've reported it to the BFRO exactly zero, Right,
Speaker 1: I report it on my show. I talk about it
Speaker 1: on my show because I have that platform to do that.
Speaker 1: But I don't know that I would even report it
Speaker 1: to the BFRO had I not started this podcast and
Speaker 1: have this platform to talk about my experiences, I don't
Speaker 1: know that I would, so it's not getting documented. I
Speaker 1: had experiences out in the Pacific Northwest a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago that completely changed my life and changed my
Speaker 1: perspective on these creatures being real, and I haven't reported
Speaker 1: that to the BFRO or anybody. Frankly, haven't even talked
Speaker 1: about it on the show yet. I think that does
Speaker 1: a lot of things. I think Bigfoot in general is
Speaker 1: in everybody's home. I think you can go into any
Speaker 1: household nowadays in the United States across the board, mom
Speaker 1: and two kids and a dad, all four of them
Speaker 1: on some level. If the kids are old enough to talk,
Speaker 1: they're going to know something about Bigfoot. It's out there
Speaker 1: in that way. But when it comes down to where
Speaker 1: do you report these kind of things or do you
Speaker 1: report a potential siding or an experience that you heard
Speaker 1: something in the woods or something weird happened where something
Speaker 1: was throwing rocks and there was no people around.
Speaker 3: Do those people report that? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I think it's been a double edged sword with shows
Speaker 1: like Finding Bigfoot and Expedition Bigfoot, and all the documentaries
Speaker 1: that people have done, and podcasts frankly that document these
Speaker 1: kind of experiences. They're a great repository because I can
Speaker 1: tell you I'm five hundred plus episodes of my show.
Speaker 1: There are other podcasts out there that have over a
Speaker 1: thousand episodes of Bigfoot encounters. They're not all on the
Speaker 1: BFRO website. To your point earlier, it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: gather any data from those. They're entertaining. They're great, and
Speaker 1: you can go back and compare them to the data
Speaker 1: that you might get on the BFRO website. But I
Speaker 1: think by and large, people have just shied away from,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, reporting those. Then I had a conversation
Speaker 1: with somebody this morning, David Bakara, who owns the Bigfoot
Speaker 1: Museum out in Blue Ridge, Georgia. He's going to come
Speaker 1: on the show and share some of the amazing stories
Speaker 1: he's collected there in Blue Ridge and some of the
Speaker 1: experiences he had as a BFRO investigator. David came up
Speaker 1: with this, and I know it's not necessarily in the data,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to know if you considered this. David
Speaker 1: thinks that these things, to my surprise, I didn't really
Speaker 1: know where he stood on this until this morning when
Speaker 1: we had a conversation and he asked me where I
Speaker 1: was on Bigfoot. Do I think it's some sort of
Speaker 1: a relict tominoid. Do I think it's a great ape?
Speaker 1: You know what I think these things are? And I
Speaker 1: told him where I stand, very flesh and blood. I
Speaker 1: think there's some sort of a relic tominid. And he
Speaker 1: was surprised by that because he thinks it's complete opposite.
Speaker 1: He thinks these things are way more, there's way more
Speaker 1: to them than this flesh and blood creature. But he
Speaker 1: mentioned to me that he and other BFRO investigators have
Speaker 1: experienced over the years the fact that people are having
Speaker 1: weird experiences in relation to Bigfoot, and it doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: fit the BFRO narrative, so they toss it out with
Speaker 1: the bathwater. It never makes it into the reports. Somebody says,
Speaker 1: I saw this eight foot tall, hairy bipedal creature that
Speaker 1: had glowing red eyes. Sometimes the glowing red eyes part
Speaker 1: doesn't make it in there. I guess the question for
Speaker 1: you is, obviously, I don't know if you ran across
Speaker 1: anything that stood out to you in the database as
Speaker 1: far as the overall data that you were mining, Was
Speaker 1: there weird things that you picked up on on the
Speaker 1: BFRO website and where are you in general on that
Speaker 1: and how that fits into the data set that we
Speaker 1: have on Bigfoot.
Speaker 4: I guess my view is it's a reddit a minute.
Speaker 4: My mind is always open. What's to say that there
Speaker 4: aren't an alien race that is walking through the forest
Speaker 4: as well?
Speaker 3: Who happened as well?
Speaker 5: There?
Speaker 4: You could have multiple things, And I know you can't
Speaker 4: really start a theory by you're starting the theory with
Speaker 4: something that technically doesn't exist at most people and then say, oh,
Speaker 4: it could be multiple things. But I guess the interesting
Speaker 4: thing for me was I did run a formula on
Speaker 4: words to come up in the report. So there are
Speaker 4: things in here such as running that came up two
Speaker 4: fifty five times, deer one thousand, three hundred times. The
Speaker 4: typical things that we as a community understand about Bigfoot
Speaker 4: were coming up. When I put in cloaking, I got
Speaker 4: a zero return, and when I put in mind speak,
Speaker 4: I got a zero return. So that probably does reflect
Speaker 4: that conversation that you've had, because maybe people just don't
Speaker 4: approach the BFO if they have a for wanter of
Speaker 4: their woo event or something that they can't explain. It
Speaker 4: is interesting. There are so many words that I searched
Speaker 4: that came back at least five hundred times, and you
Speaker 4: start looking at things that you would think that they eat,
Speaker 4: so rabbits, elk hogs, they were all coming back over
Speaker 4: one hundred times from various different reports, so nearly people
Speaker 4: that there is a connection there. And those trends were
Speaker 4: really interesting for me because it tells you a lot
Speaker 4: about habitat, location, behavior, and diet of these animals, stuff
Speaker 4: that perhaps we just take for granted because if you've
Speaker 4: been in bigfooting for a while and you've been listening
Speaker 4: to a lot of things, you would just assume that
Speaker 4: all the things would be in there. But it's quite
Speaker 4: nice to actually go in there and find it, and
Speaker 4: it does tell that story. I think it's a relict hominid.
Speaker 4: I guess I've got a story to tell. When I
Speaker 4: was younger, I grew up in Somerset in England. In
Speaker 4: my village, I was going for a walk along the
Speaker 4: canal one day and all of a sudden I saw
Speaker 4: a wallabee stick its head up of a cornfield and
Speaker 4: I thought a wallabee or cut kangaroo. I didn't know
Speaker 4: it was either a wallaby or a kangaroo I saw
Speaker 4: in this cornfield and I thought, oh my god. It
Speaker 4: was like, that's not in the right place. It shouldn't
Speaker 4: be there. What's that doing in England? But it wasn't
Speaker 4: until I got home I realized there actually are populations
Speaker 4: of walla bees in Somerset and there are some in Derbyshire,
Speaker 4: and no doubt they're somewhere in between. That sort of
Speaker 4: placement of something that shouldn't be there, that shock for me.
Speaker 4: I guess some of the interpretations of what might be
Speaker 4: regarded as wo might just be the shock, the sort
Speaker 4: of emotional shock to the individual and then their perceptions
Speaker 4: altered by what they're seeing. Because it's dark, you may
Speaker 4: have a bit of rain, visibility might not be that great.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's a difficult one.
Speaker 4: I'd like to keep my mind open, but certainly from
Speaker 4: looking at the data centers there we can rule out
Speaker 4: cloaking and mind speak.
Speaker 3: That's not to say that they weren't in the original
Speaker 3: reports that were submitted.
Speaker 1: That's interesting you say that I was in summerset looking
Speaker 1: at a conference and I saw no wallabies.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be back over there.
Speaker 1: Next year, probably in May, so I'm definitely going to
Speaker 1: keep my head on a swivel looking for possible wallaby sidings.
Speaker 1: You mentioned a couple of things there that I want
Speaker 1: to talk about. Let's talk about the size, just to
Speaker 1: continue the thought process you were going through there with
Speaker 1: people in their sidings and how things, depending on the conditions,
Speaker 1: can get misconstrued over time as people tell their stories.
Speaker 1: I've gotten a lot of flak recently for some of
Speaker 1: the comments that I've made on of their podcast. I've
Speaker 1: been a guest on some of the live shows we've
Speaker 1: done recently saying, look, I don't think these things are
Speaker 1: necessarily ten or twelve feet tall. Some people have reported them.
Speaker 1: Let's start there. I don't know if you have this
Speaker 1: or not. As far as the data that you've compiled
Speaker 1: from the BFROO website, as far as an average height
Speaker 1: that people are reporting based on the totality of all
Speaker 1: the sidings, maybe across the lower forty eight, and how
Speaker 1: that would possibly compare with some of the outstanding, what
Speaker 1: I would call more sensational stories of people saying these
Speaker 1: things are ten twelve feet tall. I personally think they're
Speaker 1: probably more along the average of what I use as
Speaker 1: six and a half to seven and a half feet tall,
Speaker 1: and a lot of that extra height gets added on
Speaker 1: with the fear factor and maybe the conditions people not
Speaker 1: being a very good judge of height and weight those
Speaker 1: kind of things, because most people aren't. I was a
Speaker 1: cop and we were trained if we had to give
Speaker 1: a split second identification of somebody who was shooting at us,
Speaker 1: who was running from the scene, we had to be
Speaker 1: pretty good at saying the guy's six foot one, approximately
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty pounds, wearing dark clothing, red shoes.
Speaker 1: Most people don't do that in their daily lives. If
Speaker 1: your job is not to give those kind of descriptions,
Speaker 1: it's difficult for people to do, especially in a high
Speaker 1: stress situation. Did you find anything in the data as
Speaker 1: far as maybe an average height and or weight of
Speaker 1: what people are describing for these things, and do you
Speaker 1: think it's possible that some of those people that are
Speaker 1: saying these things were nine ten twelve feet tall, maybe
Speaker 1: they were closer to seven feet tall, and there might
Speaker 1: be some other things going on that's affecting how they're
Speaker 1: looking at how tall this thing might have been.
Speaker 3: That makes sense.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, I'll be honest, I'm still populating the sized data.
Speaker 4: I'm still pulling that out to expand the data set,
Speaker 4: but I haven't come across a ten or.
Speaker 3: Twelve foot report as yet.
Speaker 4: Is probably in the ballpart you're talking around to around
Speaker 4: us six foot, seven foot eight foot.
Speaker 3: That's about it so far.
Speaker 4: That's not to say that there won't be a whole
Speaker 4: section of reports of larger animals. You've got to take
Speaker 4: into account things such as if it's uphill from you
Speaker 4: and you're looking up a hill, you're going to make
Speaker 4: it taller because of your perception because it's up on
Speaker 4: the hill looking down on you, and that perception in
Speaker 4: itself is going to make you feel that it's a
Speaker 4: lot bigger than you, as opposed to being a bit bigger.
Speaker 4: The factors like that to consider. I wouldn't want to
Speaker 4: throw it out completely because quite a lot of people
Speaker 4: say they go along with a yardstick or something and
Speaker 4: actually measure where a tree or branch was. But from
Speaker 4: what I've seen so far, and perhaps I just need
Speaker 4: to do a recap report at some point, added in
Speaker 4: a bit more, because, like I said, this is just
Speaker 4: the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 3: I think we can get a lot more out of this.
Speaker 4: We do need more reports, but certainly out the data
Speaker 4: that exists can put out quite a bit.
Speaker 1: One more question. You mentioned in the summary or towards
Speaker 1: the end of the report you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the Patterson Gimbler film. You talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the Legend of Boggie Creek. Infamously, I have been
Speaker 1: accused of not being a real Bigfoot researcher because I
Speaker 1: had not seen the Legend of Boggie Creek until recently.
Speaker 1: I think it was probably three or four months ago
Speaker 1: that Wayne and I actually were texting back and forth
Speaker 1: and we decided we were going to watch it at
Speaker 1: the same time, so we watched it in the same night.
Speaker 1: We actually did an entire episode of that Bigfoot podcast
Speaker 1: about the.
Speaker 3: Legend of Boggie Creek.
Speaker 1: Frankly, I wasn't impressed with the movie. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it was just I'm watching it in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four versus in the seventies when it initially came out.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.
Speaker 1: I found it cheesy. But here's the thing that I
Speaker 1: didn't find cheesy, and I want to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about strictly the data. If you compare and I
Speaker 1: did this. I wrote down an entire litany of things
Speaker 1: that I took notes while I was watching this film
Speaker 1: that are repeated over and over again in modern day
Speaker 1: citing accounts, whether they're shared on a podcast with me
Speaker 1: or other shows, or whether they're on the BFRO website.
Speaker 1: This is one of the things that I brought up,
Speaker 1: which was not a very popular thing to say, But
Speaker 1: I stand by what I believe. I think most people
Speaker 1: who report seeing a bigfoot or having an encounter with
Speaker 1: a big foot are being completely genuine and honest. Do
Speaker 1: they believe that they saw what they think they saw
Speaker 1: or experienced what they experienced. They may not be sure
Speaker 1: exactly what it is what they heard or.
Speaker 3: What they saw.
Speaker 1: The buy and large, I think those people are genuine.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're making that up whole cloth. There
Speaker 1: are parts I think that might get stretched, like those
Speaker 1: fishing stories. Right, it was six and a half feet
Speaker 1: tall and then by the time you tell three people
Speaker 1: it's nine feet tall. The gist of what they're saying
Speaker 1: is true. Here's what I found with the Legend of
Speaker 1: Buggie Creek. And I've done no statistical analysis. I'm not
Speaker 1: a data guy. This would be something for you to do.
Speaker 1: But I guarantee you if you watch the Legend to
Speaker 1: Boggie Creek and you take notes about what is allegedly
Speaker 1: going on in those sightings. Then I initially asked the
Speaker 1: question on the show when I talked about this with Wayne,
Speaker 1: did the person who wrote this movie just make this
Speaker 1: stuff up? When I did a little digging, they actually
Speaker 1: did take reports from the surrounding area and things that
Speaker 1: were actually going on, somewhat real to life scenarios and
Speaker 1: portrayed those in the movie. But in the data today,
Speaker 1: you have those boxes that you check from what happened
Speaker 1: in the Legend of Boggie Creek. Everything went quiet, The
Speaker 1: woods were alive, and then they just went quiet. Even
Speaker 1: the cricket stopped and there was a bigfoot. You have
Speaker 1: the smell, you have the vocalizations, you have the eerie feeling,
Speaker 1: the hair standing up on the back of all of
Speaker 1: these things. When it comes to the data, how much
Speaker 1: of that I don't even know if you can really
Speaker 1: answer this question outside of just being subjective and giving
Speaker 1: your opinion. How much of the data that you see
Speaker 1: or hear on podcasts and even on the BFRO website.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of how to phrase this to
Speaker 1: make sense. How much of that data do you think
Speaker 1: is really happening to people? And how many people do
Speaker 1: you think may have watched the Legend of Boggie Creek
Speaker 1: or some of these other things and they're incorporating that
Speaker 1: in the story because they feel like that's what's supposed
Speaker 1: to be happening while they're having that experience. I know
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to just look at raw data and
Speaker 1: extrapolate that, but you do listen to podcasts and you
Speaker 1: listen to other things, and you hear a lot of
Speaker 1: people tell their stories. Do you think that plays a
Speaker 1: part in some of the modern day sightings that because
Speaker 1: I asked people on the show, Hey, they're going to
Speaker 1: share an experience that they had maybe ten years ago.
Speaker 1: What got you interested in the subject? Oh, I watched
Speaker 1: the Legend of Boggie Creek when I was a kid,
Speaker 1: and then I watched Monster Quests, and then I watched
Speaker 1: Finding Bigfoot, and I watched all these shows. I feel
Speaker 1: like that has at least some effect, even if it's
Speaker 1: subconsciously on some of the things that we hear today
Speaker 1: during some of these encounter reports that people share. How
Speaker 1: much of that do you think has made its way
Speaker 1: into the data?
Speaker 4: A little bit, Yeah, I am certainly from reading the
Speaker 4: reports you can get a sense of there are stories
Speaker 4: where there's almost too much information, so you think, oh,
Speaker 4: they've given a really good account of their observation. I
Speaker 4: think in reality, to have that much information from what
Speaker 4: sometimes is a fleeting moment, maybe a bit too much,
Speaker 4: that the story might be a bit embellished in that sense.
Speaker 4: So I think there is some subconscious aspect that's rolling
Speaker 4: into the reports. I couldn't say it was for every
Speaker 4: single one. Some of them are quite short and to
Speaker 4: the point we saw it, run across the road, stood up,
Speaker 4: looked at us, ran across the road. You can tell
Speaker 4: some of the reports that told by people who probably
Speaker 4: have been on podcasts afterwards, because they seemed like a
Speaker 4: natural storyteller.
Speaker 3: They set the scene.
Speaker 4: They're driving in a car, they're going camping for the weekend,
Speaker 4: and everything about that person and the people they're with,
Speaker 4: which is quite nice because that's what we like hearing
Speaker 4: on the podcast as well, But yeah, I think it's
Speaker 4: probably a mix. Obviously, there's always going to be those influences,
Speaker 4: I think now more than ever because of the amount
Speaker 4: of exposure things like in Bigfoot and Expedition Bigfitt. Certainly
Speaker 4: for me, Legend of Boogie Creek. I've still not seen it,
Speaker 4: but although my son's quite into poor Bigfoot movies, we've
Speaker 4: watched a couple recently and he really enjoyed it, like
Speaker 4: really bad, cgi gorilla.
Speaker 3: Like thing ripping things down.
Speaker 4: I'm sure we will watch it at some point, perhaps
Speaker 4: when he's a little bit older.
Speaker 3: He won't go through the woods with me anymore.
Speaker 1: We're going to have to throw out everything you've said
Speaker 1: for the last forty minutes because you can't be a
Speaker 1: real researcher if you've not seen the Legend of Boggy Greek.
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry, folks, I didn't vet him another fortunate
Speaker 1: with him on the show. Everything that Neil had to
Speaker 1: say was complete horseshit. I'm just kidding the last thing.
Speaker 1: I guess I'll leave it with you. Final thoughts on
Speaker 1: your analysis of everything that you've been able to look at.
Speaker 1: What's next is for is your research into the subject
Speaker 1: of bigfoot.
Speaker 4: I really think that there's some scope to span factors
Speaker 4: such as how many witnesses were there? Will that give
Speaker 4: me more credibility to certain stories. How many Big football
Speaker 4: winners did they see a female with a juvenile? That
Speaker 4: combination of what people have seen and where they saw it,
Speaker 4: because if there's I'm not sure I've delved into the counties,
Speaker 4: but Pierce County in Washington was the most likely county
Speaker 4: to have a sighting. If you could pin it down
Speaker 4: to that county and you had a trend where people
Speaker 4: were saying they were seeing juveniles and a mother, you
Speaker 4: could say, Okay, maybe they're nesting somewhere around there, and
Speaker 4: maybe we can focus our efforts on that. And I
Speaker 4: think that's the powerful thing. With five thousand reports spread
Speaker 4: across the whole of the US, you can get some
Speaker 4: good trends at the sort of macro level, but the
Speaker 4: micro level, once you start diving down into the hotspots,
Speaker 4: you really don't have a great deal of data that aligned.
Speaker 3: It's quite random.
Speaker 4: You might get your house, you might get your footprints,
Speaker 4: but that correlation is diluted, and that's why we need
Speaker 4: more reports in the same place. I don't want to
Speaker 4: do a disservice to podcasts because I love podcasts a
Speaker 4: big part of my life and TV as well. That's
Speaker 4: why I like the bigfoot Man project as well. But
Speaker 4: he's obviously trying to do a similar sort of thing
Speaker 4: with pulling that data sets together, and I quite like
Speaker 4: looking at that on a weekly basis, just to see
Speaker 4: what new reports came in that week. And I think
Speaker 4: the other week there was like a blonde sess question
Speaker 4: for oh in Utah, and it's just things like that
Speaker 4: are quite exciting to read it on a sort of
Speaker 4: live basis. I haven't actually checked that report to see
Speaker 4: if it's gone into the BFRO database, but it'd be
Speaker 4: interesting to see if that has gone in there. So
Speaker 4: I'm not sure if I really included on everything that
Speaker 4: I think I've probably went off with a bit of
Speaker 4: a tangent, but I think in terms of what's next, Brian, yeah,
Speaker 4: I want to look more at the database. But I
Speaker 4: did have this strange thought about being in the UK,
Speaker 4: being in Wales and potentially trying to make a case
Speaker 4: for a statistical model that we could support a relict
Speaker 4: commented in Wales or the UK Scotland. Yeah, because I've
Speaker 4: been looking at some data sets for that as well.
Speaker 4: I think we lost a million and sheep over the
Speaker 4: last year or the year before that. Deer populations have
Speaker 4: been increasing year on year for a long time, so there's.
Speaker 3: Plenty of stuff out there. We have loads of berries.
Speaker 4: From a Welsh perspective, we've got a lot of people
Speaker 4: in cities in the south, and then you've got your
Speaker 4: valleys and mountains where it's quite sparse. You've got areas
Speaker 4: of really dense tree canopy where people just don't go.
Speaker 4: A lot of our roads have been carved out because
Speaker 4: a lot of time, if you're going somewhere else, you
Speaker 4: have to go the long way around. There's potential there.
Speaker 4: It's a bit of.
Speaker 3: A mad idea.
Speaker 4: I'd like to build a model that thought says, yes,
Speaker 4: we could support a relict hominid in the right conditions.
Speaker 4: It was a group of people who decided to break
Speaker 4: away from society in Wales and they went and lived
Speaker 4: at the top of the mountain. I think it's near Pembroke, Pembrokeshire.
Speaker 4: They were living there for five years before they got
Speaker 4: discovered living in hobbit homes in the last twenty years,
Speaker 4: and it was only a survey plane going over the
Speaker 4: top that picked up that they were there, And then
Speaker 4: there was a lot of discussion with the councils. I
Speaker 4: think it's a nature reserve and they're saying you can't
Speaker 4: live here, But over time they said, as long as
Speaker 4: you look after the forest, you can live here. But
Speaker 4: I think that's a good example of people can go
Speaker 4: off grid and nobody know that they're there. If they
Speaker 4: can be there at the top of a mountain, why
Speaker 4: could a bigfoot not be there, or probably a smaller version.
Speaker 1: I think you definitely have to put that together, man,
Speaker 1: because I'd tell you when I was over in the
Speaker 1: Somerset Bridgewater area earlier this summer, I was shocked to
Speaker 1: go out into the woods and see the conditions out there,
Speaker 1: and frankly, I could see a bigfoot living in that
Speaker 1: area and something was dragging sheep through a fenix. There
Speaker 1: was tons of bones carcasses that we found in this area.
Speaker 1: I said to the locals. I said to Daniel and
Speaker 1: some of his family, Dude, what kind of predators you
Speaker 1: guys have over here? That could pull a four or
Speaker 1: five hundred pound sheet through and kill it.
Speaker 3: It's like we have fox over here. That's it. It's
Speaker 3: just far.
Speaker 1: I've talked to people since then that say there's tons
Speaker 1: of big cats over there. People say they're not there,
Speaker 1: but they are. People see them and have experiences with
Speaker 1: big cats, so that would make sense to me. But
Speaker 1: something was dragging these sheep through this fence area and
Speaker 1: killing them, clearly and eating them. Because there's piles of
Speaker 1: bones everywhere. You definitely need to put that together. I
Speaker 1: think it is certainly a possibility over there. It's highly improbable,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's impossible that these things could
Speaker 1: exist in the.
Speaker 3: UK on some levels.
Speaker 1: Neil, I really appreciate you coming on the show man.
Speaker 1: I've had a blast talking to you. I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: going to be tons of questions and we'll certainly have
Speaker 1: to have you back at some point in time, and
Speaker 1: maybe I think it'd be great to do a live
Speaker 1: show and give people the opportunity to ask them questions
Speaker 1: and maybe share some of their own data sets. I
Speaker 1: think it'd be a cool conversation man, So thanks so
Speaker 1: much for coming on.
Speaker 3: It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 5: They say you don't got to go home but you
Speaker 5: can't stays joy.
Speaker 3: There's a child that chard everything.
Speaker 6: Call it right back, ride back.
Speaker 3: No joy for me.
Speaker 6: Joy, stay right there, you come it right away. Still still.
Speaker 2: S s s.
Speaker 6: S S says.
Speaker 3: Things to come, doss
Speaker 6: Games and sssssssss