SO EP:515 The Bigfoot Mystery

you by introducing you to Hanger one Publishing. Hanger one Publishing is the premier destination for books on all things strange and mysterious, from Bigfoot to Cryptid's UFOs and the paranormal. They cover it all, and let me tell you, the books in their catalog are simply amazing. One book that I'm particularly excited about is The Freeman Bigfoot Files by Michael Paul Freeman. This is no ordinary book, my friends.

This is an immersive experience unlike any other. With Hanger One's proprietary immersive book technology, you can see and hear audio and video in the printed books. You'll get exclusive access to the highest resolution, full color premium print pages, over one hundred full color photos, and dozens of exclude jusef audio and video clips that have never been revealed until now. It's a one of a kind experience that

will take you deep into the world of Bigfoot. Another book that I simply can't recommend enough is The Bigfoot Influencers by Tim Halleran. This book features candid, compelling conversations with the biggest names in the Bigfoot community and it will give you a behind the scenes look at what they really think about this mysterious creature. You'll hear from researchers, scientists and investigators and get a glimpse into the inner

workings of the bigfoot world. And finally, for all of my fellow British Bigfoot enthusiasts, I want to mention Beast of Britain by Andy McGrath. This book is a must read for anyone interested in the cryptids of the British Isles. McGrath has spent over twenty five years researching and obsessing about these unknown creatures, and in this book he shares

his findings in current research. It's a journey into the darkness where nobody ventures into the woods anymore and where the many yet to be discovered Beasts of Britain lie. So if you're ready to take your journey into the unknown, to the next level. Then you need to check out Hanger one Publishing. These books are more than just books. They're gateways into a world of mystery and discovery. And the best part, you can find their entire book catalog

at Hanger one Publishing dot com. So what are you waiting for? Visit Hanger one Publishing dot com today and let the journey begin. Hey everybody, this is Left Striving Yes, yes, I know aka Survivor Man, and you're listening to Brian on sasquatch Audis. Get there and welcome back to sasquatch ODIs. Thank you so much for being with us in the show. It is Friday. I hope you've had a quick week.

We're having a mix a guest line though before you, but as always, want to start by by if you've had an encounter and you'd like to be on the show, shoot me an email you and get me at Brian at Paranormalworldproductions dot com.

I did. So without further ado, let's get to it. Jimmy's on the line, he's ready to go.

and do the Bigfoot stuff first. Today let's talk a little bit about what got you interested in the subject of Bigfoot in the paranormal. To begin with, I grew.

true crime, paranormal, psychic stuff, UFOs, Bigfoot, everything. Unlike a lot of mystery based podcasts, we actually try to solve the mysteries to the extent possible. We don't just generate wonder and imagine what we actually we give the background on the mystery. Then we look at it from the twin perspectives of faith and reason and we say what would reason tell us about this? And what would the Christian faiths say about it? If anything, It's become the

most popular network on the show. We're a top twenty documentary podcast on Apple Podcasts in the US, and we estimate we've got more than two hundred thousand lesseners a week.

into the Bigfoot thing. I know you and I were talking before we went on the air, and you've had a change in feeling about Bigfoot. I'm going through that myself, and we can certainly get into some of that today. Talk about where you started with Bigfoot, where were you on some of the evidence that you were seeing, and where did you go from where you started and where you've ended up now.

I forced myself to have a bottom line. So at the end of every episode, my co host Don Bettnelli will ask me, so, Jimmy, what's your bottom line on this mystery, and I'll give a summary of my opinions. That way, I hold myself accountable.

just settled the matter for me. I later learned as I did more research that actually, there's a much better case to be made for the Patterson Gimlin film than what I had been led to believe, because in addition to Bigfoot hoaxers people who hoax Bigfoot, there are also Bigfoot hoax hoaxers who hoax hoaxes about Bigfoot and claim responsibility for things that they weren't really responsible for. So

that opened the door a bit. I also read Jeff Mildram's book Sasquatch, which I was very impressed by, not only his discussion of the Patterson Gimlin film, but a lot of other evidence for Bigfoot. That has led me to be more open to Bigfoot than I used to be. But there's still arguments against Bigfoot that I have to take seriously. But now I'm in a position where I see more positive evidence for Bigfoot than I was previously aware of. So I'm not convinced that Bigfoot is real,

but I'm more open to it than I was. Let's talk a little bit about some of the evidence.

It's on my shelf. Now I've watched that documentary. I know that Doug is working on Legend Meet Science too. They're actually supposed to be coming out here at some point in time in North Carolina to interview me for Legend Meet Science too, So I'm excited to see what they're doing as far as that documentary. But i know for me, the Patterson Gimli film has been one of those things that has been such a journey that it's not a straight road for me. It's been more like

a zigzag. When it comes to the Patterson Gimlin film, I'm a very skeptical person when it comes to Bigfoot as well. For me, the Patterson Gimlin film is one of those things that immediately I saw it and I thought, Wow, that's crazy. Then you get deeper into it and you see some of the enhanced footage. People have done a ton of work to enhance that stuff. Bill Muntz comes to mind. Obviously, MK Davis has got to be mentioned

in that. And now even more recently, you've got this Todd Gatewood guy who's working on this film and doing some processes to enhance this footage. And when you see some of that stuff, it is fascinating to me. I still, fifty plus years later, can't look at that and say, man, that's definitely a Bigfoot, or man that's definitely Bob Eronymous in this suit. So how have you evolved over the years? What has changed your mind? Maybe it is just the

Meldrum stuff. Has it been the foot Prance, has it been the gate What is it about the Patterson Gimlin film that has you leaning more toward that's possibly a sasquatch in not a manency.

devoted a whole odyssey on the Patterson Gimblin film. They looked at it from every conceivable angle, and I think the whole thing came to either eleven or thirteen hours of content just on the Patterson Gimblin film, and I listened to the whole thing. There are a variety of factors. One of them, though, I think, is obvious even before you look at the details. It's evident from the film itself that the creature in the film is female because

it's got breasts. That's something that you wouldn't expect a hoax her to do. You would expect that they would if someone who was building a suit to get into and hoax the Patterson Gimblin film, you would expect them to make a male Bigfoot because people don't think of female bigfoots very often in the bigfoot community.

at him, and then it keeps walking off. If big feet are so secretive that they just do not want to be seen under any circumstances, and then why would it behave that way. A plausible explanation is that it's a distraction because females who are caring for offspring will frequently act in a way that is more obvious in order to keep potential dangers and predators away from their offspring.

So this is not a strong argument to me, but it's a notable argument that the behavior of the creature in the film could be explained for an otherwise very secretive creature. If she's protecting her offspring by acting in a more obvious way and drawing attention to herself deliberately, not getting too close, but drawing attention to herself deliberately in order to distract Patterson Gimlin from wherever her child or children were. So that's some kind of obvious level

stuff in terms of what I subsequently learned. One thing that, Oh, also, it would be weird for Bob Hyronymous or any similar man to get into a female suit and do that. That would be counterintuitive for a man in the nineteen sixties. But among things I learned later about the film, our costume in technology was not really that advanced. In nineteen sixty eight, we had Planet of the Apes, we had two thousand and one, and in neither of those are the ape costumes as advanced as what appears to be

the case in the Patterson Gimlin film. It's a little hard to say that with one hundred percent confidence. People will say, you can see the muscles.

it does not look like a natural human gait. So there's a variety of different factors that are at play there, but those are some of the ones that come to my mind. I've gone into it so far, so deep down the rabbit hole. On the PG film, I interviewed MK Davis and Todd Gate. Would it was months and months ago, have been towards the end of last year, and that's one of the things. Todd Gatewood actually has not the camera but the exact model camera that was

used by Patterson to film that film. Even showed me picked it up and showed where the default rate was on that you would have to physically change the rate at which you were shooting the film. It just didn't make sense of the counterintuitive So that kind of cleared up the gate question for me. But one of the things that you brought up is interesting to me, and I've had this conversation with several people.

that you would fake a female Bigfoot Devil's Advocate. I'd say if Patterson was interested, and he was clearly interested in the William Row incident because wrote his book and he featured the William Row incident with a drawing of what William Rowe reportedly saw and what he put in his affidavit. So it's interesting that to me, I get into conversations with people I had a PhD on the show a couple of times. Now, Doctor Hogan Chirou, he's got a PhD in primatology. He studied gorillaz. He studied

chimpanzees in the wild. As a matter of fact, the last time I had him on the show, just a month or so ago, he was headed back over to Africa with his daughter to go back out into the wild and interact with gorillas. So he knows his primates. And one of the conversations that he and I got into was something similar about apes. For example, there's no great apes that we know that have these big, pendulous breasts like we see on Patty, So that was something

that stuck out to me. But of course I go to, if sasquatch is something different that we've never seen before, how do we know that they're not closer to human beings? And that would explain.

It shifts the shape of your spine, and that's going to have an effect on what your breasts look like, among other things.

some of the arguments for and against. Start wherever you want, but talk a little bit about where you feel the arguments or the possible existence of these creatures are, and what about the arguments against their existence? Okay, why don't we start with arguments against and then move to arguments for. To me, there's one major argument against the existence of sasquatch in North America. Now, there are loads of cryptids

in the world. There are loads of creatures that are not known to science, but the vast majority of them are small.

Maybe they're the size of lizards or things like that, but they're not bigger than human. If you're going to propose a bigger than human thing, you would expect to find it either underwater or in a wilderness where there are no humans. So if you wanted to say there's a great ape that's larger than a human, now I'm talking here, I'm assuming Bigfoot is just a primate, not a supernatural creature. If he's a supernatural creature, all bets are off, and I don't know how to evaluate it

if he's a supernatural creature. But assuming he's a primate, if you wanted to say, there's a larger than human undiscovered primate in Nepal, the roof of the world as it's called, or to bet or up in the Himalayas, Okay, there's not a lot of people there, so I could imagine one being undiscovered to science. The locals might see it, but I can imagine why scientists wouldn't have a vouchers best, which is what you typically need in order to have

a scientific discovery. So that all could make sense to me. But North America is a whole different kettle of fish. We have a lot more people here now. There are big tracks of wilderness in the United States and in Canada. I've been through some of those, and yeah, there's big open spaces people who live in the eastern half of the United States. That's where most of our population is, the Atlantic and the Central time zones. Even here. I'm in Arkansas. I was driving to another town in Arkansas

this weekend. I'm going through big stretches of open country up in those arc mountains without a lot of towns and with very small towns there, but still North America has a pretty big population, and it's a population with a lot of scientists. We have tons of scientists here, and we've got lots of Bigfoot watchers here, people looking for bigfoot, and we've got a lot of technology like

camera traps things like that. So we've got loads of eyeballs both natural and artificial, looking for bigfoot in North America and it hadn't been discovered. We've got some alleged films, but I would think we would have more, because it's not just one that we're looking for. In order for a primate to survive, it isn't just one.

next generation. So to me, that's the big objection, that's the strongest argument for why this creature shouldn't exist at this point, because we've been looking for it for decades, and the purported evidence we have is still pretty thin, at least in terms of having solid documentation. There are claims like, oh, we've got Bigfoot DNA, but as Jeff Mildron points out, until we've got a type specimen or about your specimen, we don't know what that DNA is too.

All we can say is it's unknown what it's tue. We can't say it's to Bigfoot. So to me, that's the big argument against What do you make of that argument?

be one sasquatch in that area, right. I don't know what that would work out as far as the total number of these things. I think about the fifty five hundred rule in biology, you get down to a minimum of fifty individuals to avoid inbreeding, and then up to five hundred to reduce genetic drift. So you know, the number thing has always been an issue for me and the discovery. Frankly, as you said, it's very easy to get lost in the fact that there are a lot

of fast spaces where these things could exist. But there are a lot of people in North America. But here's why I'm muddy the water. I think a little bit for you because I've had this conversation with so many people. I had a conversation with doctor Russ Jones last year about this when he was on the show, and he said, look, Brian, because I argued the same thing. Look, dude, we should have found this thing by now. We've been beating our

head into the wall. We've been trying and we I'm saying, as the community, have been trying to find these things and prove this species is real for so long. And Russ says, look, dude, I go in the woods a lot. He's a practicing chiropractor, but he gets a lot of time off. He said, I'm in the woods probably two hundred plus days a year, but I am a minority.

People have this idea that there are so many people out there looking for bigfoot, but in fact, I bet there's probably less than one hundred bigfoot researchers that I'm aware of that are in the woods every weekend. That's leaving the other five days open for day jobs. I don't think there is as many people looking for these things as some people would think because bigfoot is very popular. You go to a conference, which you and I were talking about earlier. We both speak at quite a few

conferences bigfoot and other things. You go to these conferences, there's thirty five hundred people there, and you say, man, there's a lot of people into bigfoot. But guess what. The majority of those people are armchair researchers. They're scouring the internet, they're watching YouTube, They're probably watching you on YouTube talk about some of these things. Here's the thing they're not in the woods looking for. So I think to me, it goes either way as far as the

argument is concerned. There are a lot of cameras out there. When I talk to people like at Area X, for example, the North American Wood Ape Conservancy. I've had those guys on the show, a ton of them I've featured some audio from them just over the last couple of weeks. They've talked about setting up camera traps. The strange thing about it to me is, and this is the rub for me when it comes down to Bigfoot, because I

haven't seen one. These guys are in an area where they claim to have had tons of experience, sightings, vocalizations, rocks being thrown at them. Every year. They go out for about three to four months out of the year. They are twenty four hours a day, seven days a week for almost four months. They do it in shifts, they do it in teams. Right. They've put up camera traps. They spent I think fifty thousand dollars a couple of years ago to do a passive system where they could

observe all the time, twenty four hours a day. They've gotten exactly zero images of any of these creatures. So I don't think that. To me, I'm supposed to rule it out as a skeptical person because I am skeptical. It just says to me there may be something else going on here that we're just not aware of, because

other animals do that. Right. I think the Humboldt Martin was seen for the first time during a camera trap set up out at Bluff Creek where they were looking for bigfoot, and then they end up finding this Humboldt martin that everybody thought was extinct because you'd never see them on camera. Same thing with some of the big cats and other things. There's even been I know recently. It was either male coyotes. Alpha male coyotes or alpha male wolves or both are very rarely, if ever, been

seen on camera traps. You'll see the females, debate of females, but you never see the alpha males. It's like they avoid cameras. So I don't know did that muddy the water any at all? I think you got it.

actively look for bigfoot. But on the other hand, there are a lot of camping enthusiasts and they may not be looking for bigfoot, but they're interested in going out in the woods. And there are hunters who go out in the woods. I would expect that a lot of hunters use camera traps, not looking for bigfoot, but looking for game and things like that. Also, there are zoologists who go out in the woods, not looking for bigfoot, but looking for other things. Like my sister is a zoologist.

She used to work for OH. I think it was a National Park Service, and she would be out in California surveying snails because there was a desire on the part of the Park Service to have a census of all of the different types of snails that lived in a particular wood.

Then they put them all back and they do their count but the thing is they were out in the woods, and if a bigfoot ambled by or started throwing rocks at them or something like that, they didn't need to be looking for bigfoot to encounterwet and get evidence that there's something out here that we don't know what it is.

So even though not a lot of people people are doing the squatching on a regular basis, there are a lot of people who do it informally and really we're just going camping, but we're calling it squatching because it's more fun. They're still out in the woods, and there's lots of other people who are out in the woods,

at least periodically. So I think that there's a point there that the number of active bigfoot field researchers is small, but they're not the only ones who could encounter bigfoot in the woods.

a documentary. This must have been in the nineteen eighties, but I was watching a documentary about bigfoot and they were interviewing a father and his like twelve year old son about having a bigfoot encounter outside their home in some rural place. It wasn't just one bigfoot they encountered. It was like a papa bigfoot and a juvenile bigfoot. I'm gone, oh, we got a father human and a

juvenile human son. And then they're encounter a father bigfoot and a juvenile bigfoot and they've got these footprints, and I'm thinking, these are two guys having fun. This is a father and his son pulling a hoax. So there are lots of hoax footprints. There are also footprints that have been distorted by nature, because mud, for example, will expand and contract and distort depending on what happens to it. But there are other footprints that are much harder to

explain in this way. Now, when it's obvious if there's no flexion in the footprint, that okay, this was made by a stiff board, this was not made by a real foot. But we've got footprints that do show flexion because a human foot, if you go step on an uneven surface, your foot is going to flex. That's part of what it does. And we see flexion in some of the big foot footprint casts that have been taken.

Even more impressive than that to me is dermal ridges in footprints, and Jeff Meldrim talks about this in his book. One of the things that humans have, and this is not true of all species. If you look at a dog's paw, they don't have this, But humans have dermal ridges. Dermis is our skin. So we have skin ridges. We call them fingerprints and toeprints and so forth, and we only have them on the contact surfaces of our hands

and the contact surfaces of our feet. We don't have them on the backs of our hands or the backs of our feet. And they serve an evolutionary purpose. What their function is is to create more friction. Because our ancestors grew up being primates, they grew up swinging around in trees. So if you're swinging around in a tree, you don't want to reach out for a branch and

have your hand slip off of it. So we developed dermal ridges on the contact surfaces of our hands and feet to make it easier for us to grasp branches in particular and not fall to our death on the jungle floor. We also developed another technique that will increase friction, which is as a little kid, you would notice whenever you're in the bath for too long, your fingers and toes start to wrinkle up. I remember, skin, Why does

that happen. One of the explanations I heard was the oil leaches out of your skin and that makes it wrinkle up. That is totally wrong. It's a reflex. You can actually sever nerves that will kill that reflex. But it's a reflex because when our hands are feet or underwater, it's slipprier. If you're wading through a creek, those rocks that have water flowing over them, they're slipprier than rocks

that don't have water flowing over them. So when our bodies detect that our hands and feet are underwater, it deliberately causes that wrinkling in order to increase it's like a secondary layer of dermal ridges to increase the amount of friction so that we can more easily walk on and grasp things underwater. It turns out that in some occasions the media in which bigfoot tracks are found is

fine enough that it captures their dermal ridges. That's notable because it would be really hard to make a fake foot that would have dermal ridges. I'm sure we could do it today with three D printing and stuff, but these are older than that. It would be really hard decades in the past to create a fake foot that has flexion and dermal ridges. And apparently these dermal ridges are consistent from one specimen to another in how they're formed, and it's not the same way that human dermal ridges

are on feet. In humans, the dermal ridges in our feet are like those on our hand they go across the foot. But apparently my understanding is with bigfoot they're more vertically oriented on the feet, and that's consistent from one specimen to another, which if this were hoaxers, you wouldn't expect that even if they had the technology to build hoax feet this sophisticated you wouldn't expect them to be coming up with this certain le in casts that

have been around for a long time. So to me, that's the strongest argument I've encountered in favor of Bigfoot.

is real. I've gotten into this recently. I hosted another podcast called That Bigfoot Podcast and my coast and I Wayne, we're talking about this recently because there are standards when it comes to bigfoot. You mentioned doctor Jeff Meldrum. Cliff Berrickman comes to mind from finding Bigfoot. Cliff has examined tons of footprints and cast of footprints and tons of

impressions over the years, and into the dermal ridges. I tried a couple of years ago actually to get in touch with Jimmy A. Chilcut, who was famously the one who discovered these ridges, and he was a fingerprint expert for the police department. But I read an article back it was I think it was two thousand and six. It was The Skeptical Inquirer. So take that as you will chime out with this article, and they had this guy from I believe he was a pharmacist from Seattle.

This guy was interested in these bigfoot prints. So he tried and tried and did so many different experiments until he was able to recreate the dermal ridges that were in the Onion Mountain cast, the same thing with the wrinkle foot Paul Freeman's cast, to the point where he took I think three or four of these samples, like in two thousand and five, around to some Bigfoot conferences

and fooled everybody. I think, as a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, Daniel Perez from the Bigfoot Times named him Bigfoot of the Year, and he had created these dermal ridges to prove that it could be done, because he didn't believe that they were real. So I said all that to say I certainly want Bigfoot to be real. I have gotten to the point where I used to be twenty percent that these things are real. And I was a fifty to fifty guy, and I had to go through the seventy thirty phase and the

eighty twenty phase. But these footprints that I found on my property multiple times now, and the set that I cast back in October have single handedly convinced me that Bigfoot is real. And they stepped on my property because I can tell you what it's not. It's neither the two people who live on the forty acres. It's neither one of us. I don't know about Arkansas, but here in North Carolina, you don't wander onto other people's property that you're not invited on and walk around barefoot because

it's just the way of the world around here. So I don't think one of my neighbors is walking around. But I said this because it brings up this whole other thing. Because we always go to the couple of people that can verify these casts or can look at these things and use the standard that they're comparing the cast to. That was one of the conversation. Is the first thing that came up when I posted this on social media, was has doctor Jeff Meldrum looked at him?

Or has Cliff looked at him? And I'm like, no, man, I just got the replicas done because I was so proud because I went through the process of making the mold to get the replicas. As soon as that was done, I did call Cliff and I'm going to send them out to them. I'm actually going to mail them out tomorrow. I'm leaving town on Wednesday. But I said all that to say, where are you on this sort of gatekeeper mentality that we sometimes have in the Bigfoot community. I

wrote a newsletter about it today. The folks who subscribe to the newsletter got this afternoon. I think we have to be careful when it comes to things like this, because we are talking about something that's not recognized as a species. Right to everybody in the world, Bigfoot doesn't exist unless you're a person who's seen them and you

are a nowhere. But I feel like we get in this place sometimes in the community that if the powers that be don't look at evidence and bless it in a way, then some people don't bring evidence forward because of that very reason. I almost didn't. I waited. I had these casts since October of last year, and the only place that I put out any photographs was in my book when it came out back in March, because they were really good casts, and I knew people were

going to say it's either fantastic or it's fake. And until somebody looks at something and says one way or the other, it's hard for the people producing that evidence to say, this is what I got. I don't know if I'm making sense or not, but how do you feel about evaluating evidence? Because I approach it from this standpoint, I'm a critical thinker. I write a lot about that in my book, about people using their critical thinking skills for themselves and using what they know to make an

informed decision about what they're looking at for themselves. That's the approach I take when it comes to evidence. When you're evaluating evidence, whether it be bigfoot or whether it be UFO evidence, or whatever phenomena you're looking at, how do you approach that in vetting the evidence for yourself?

look at the normal explanations first. Only if you can eliminate all the normal explanations, because normal phenomena are more common than paranormal phenomena. So only if you can eliminate all the normal explanations do you have a basis for

proposing that the experience was genuinely paranormal. You're taught in any given case to expect to find some of the phenomena connected with a case to be normal, because once people think I've got a poltergeist in my house, suddenly every little creek in the night gets attributed to that poulterergeist. Actually some of them are not. You're boultergeist. So you expect to find normal phenomena. But if they can't all be explained normally, then you've got a basis for saying

something that's paranormal. So paranormal investigators are trained to be skeptical. But the folks from the Center for Inquiry or whatever they call themselves these days, the skeptical enquirer folks, they are not open minded. They are debunkers. Sometimes they're called pseudo skeptics. So I'm not at all surprised that someone was able to come up with dermal ridges in a fake cast. In my opening discussion of that, I mentioned ways you could try to do that today, like with

three D printing. But just because you can fake something, I mean you have evidence that it was faked. In this case, you can perform any kind of paranormal effect you want using stage magic, but that doesn't mean that stage magic was being used in every paranormal case that appears.

You have to look at the circumstances. In a particular case, if I'm investigating a poultergeist and I learn the guy who's reporting the poltergeist is a stage magician, that would have an effect on how I look at his report of what happened. Similarly, you know you can fake anything if you haven't under controlled conditions. The problem with both Bigfoot encounter and most paranormal phenomena that spontaneously occur is that they occur out of controlled conditions with very few witnesses.

paranormal investigations is an investigator named Lloyd Auerback. He also teaches at the Ryan Education Center, and I've taken bunches of his courses. If I know there's a report of a ghost in a house, and I know Lloyd looked into it and found a basis for saying it's paranormal. I would trust that more than I would if I just heard the report itself and nobody had ever looked into it, or if an incompetent investigator had looked into it. So I think there is a role for expertise. There

has to be, because humans can't be experts in everything. Consequently, if there's something we're not an expert in personally, we need to get opinion from someone who is an expert in that saying. Now, that doesn't mean that we just automatically agree with them or never challenge them or anything like that. In the marketplace of ideas, there needs to be a competition of opinion among the experts. That includes even the pseudo skeptics, because sometimes they're going to be right.

We need to look at all the different opinions and see what survives in the marketplace of ideas. So I'm not advocating gatekeeping. We're certain if you don't get the blessing from His Holiness the expert, then you utterly dismiss something. But I do think there is a role for expertise in looking at these things. Very well said.

religious questions, but not always. One of the policies I have is my philosophy. There is no such thing as a bad question, only bad answers, So I will answer any question that a person puts to me straight. I take every question seriously. I never want to dismiss a question. If someone wants to know something, I'll give them my straight opinion. So the audience eventually noticed that about me, and they decided, let's push this and see how far

it goes. So they started asking me deliberately weird questions. If you're a vampire, can you kill yourself to avoid per dating on other people? I'd give them a moral analysis of that question. Or they'd ask, so suppose you have some zombies, can you use them for slave labor? Again, I do a moral analysis. You can't use them for slave labor, but if they are just handicapped humans at this point, you could. You could potentially use them as a kind of work rehab facility, just like we have

work rehab for people who are disabled. After people started asking me these questions, the producers of the show decided to carve out a special segment we do every couple of months called Weird Questions with Jimmy Aikin, where for two hours we just do here's all these weird questions that people have come up with.

Doctor Who review show. And my most famous podcast, as I mentioned, is Jimmy Aikins Mysterious Podcast. You can check that one out by going to Mysterious dot fm as inn fm radio. You can also go to my YouTube channel and see the video version. My U YouTube channel is YouTube dot com slash Jimmy Aikin. All you've got to do to get there is spell my name correctly. It is Jimmy jay I and why and AKN is so easy. It is exactly like it sounds, a k I N a ken. There are no e's, t's, or s's in my name.

still around. I've looked at flying snakes, which are reported in ancient literature. I've looked at the question beast from Arthurian legend, and there is a real animal that corresponds to the question beast. So I have quite a number of cryptied episodes. So for folks who are interested in cryptids, you can check them out. Oh, unicorns too.