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