Sasquatch Coffee

Finding Bigfoot: Season 2 Update

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 30th, 2011

James “Bobo” Fay, cast member of Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot is also a personal friend of mine, as is Cliff Barackman.

Yesterday, he posted the following on my facebook wall:

Gettin out next week with bart and the week after that w/ paul graves. We’re doin a texas episode so it would be good to see u on our day off if we’re anywhere near you. Hope you and yours are well.

I replied:

You guys are going to do a Texas episode of Finding Bigfoot? Any idea of what part of the state and when. I would definitely come out wherever to hang out!

Bobo then replied:

we don’t know where yet. we need a piece of evidence we can analyze, video or casts with pics etc… and then we base the rest of the episode off of that. we just found out sat we were going to do more. we knew they would do a season 2 but they were talking about late oct or early 2012. now we’re gonna start 1st week of august. i’ll let you know when we find out more. but we’re gonna do 10 reg episodes and then a 1 hr and 2 hour special. we’ll we done by thanksgiving.

I replied:

So 10 more episodes or 4 more to make a total of 10?

And Bobo’s reply was:

We just did a 1 hr recap special making 7 for 1st season and then 10 more regular plus a 1 and 2 hour specials for a total of 19.

Apparently, the Q & A gathering filmed last Sunday, June 26th, will be a bonus seventh episode to finish this initial first season.

Then, it looks like we can look forward to a twelve episode 2nd season.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


52 Responses to “Finding Bigfoot: Season 2 Update”

  1. j stewart responds:

    Very interesting being that ratings have fallen off so drastically. But Animal Planet has a history of hanging on, maybe season two will be better. But it tells us one thing, they don’t find bigfoot on season one.

  2. 76sagi responds:

    This is good news! I think that the last episode in Washington State was the best one yet. I was pretty unimpressed with the first few episodes, but it is starting to grow on me. I’d like to see them spend a bit more time in the Pacific Northwest areas and really explore some of the evidence or sightings in more detail with better analysis.

  3. finfin responds:

    Wonder if they are adding Daphne to the next season line up? (Obligatory Scooby reference) Just joking! Love the show!

  4. matt_moneymaker responds:

    @J stewart: Perhaps you were misinformed, if you heard the “ratings dropped drastically”. The ratings for the series have been steadily rising. It started as one of the most watched premieres on Animal Planet ever, and now the ratings are higher than when the series premiered.

    For those of you may not know about the television industry … “TV ratings” are a measure of how many people watch a show. Don’t let someone confuse you into thinking that an insignificant user poll on a web site is the same thing as TV ratings …

  5. William responds:

    Moneymaker is spot on of course in what he posted. It could be the greatest show ever as far as forums like this are concerned but still not return if the public doesn’t watch it. Thank goodness the fickle public is watching so we have more shows to criticize (LOL).

  6. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Yet the only link Matt has provided regarding ratings is an website showing an “insignificant user poll”. Sorry, Matt, even in the link as proof you provided, the ratings were a whopping 0.5. Ratings are not just a measure of how many people watch…nice try. Anyone can find out the truth there. Ratings are determined by a sample polling of a set of viewers. Here’s a detailed explanation. The most used source of ratings comes from the Nielson ratings reports. On the Nielson website you will not even find Finding Bigfoot.

    If one was to do a search on the internet on Finding Bigfoot, they will find an overwhelming result of negative reviews, polls and ratings. But, I guess those are all insignificant unless they are favorable. While Matt will boast about having 1.4 million viewers (which isn’t really much in comparison to most other shows), it still doesn’t make up for the very low ratings…as pointed out by Matt’s own source link.

    So judge for yourself.

    While I was excited for a bigfoot series, I and many, many others are very disappointed with the lack of a scientific approach and with the very matter of fact bold claims being presented….claims that cannot and have not been backed up by science. If someone states as a fact that bigfoot looks a certain way, walks a certain way, follows power lines, hunts a certain way, screams a certain way or anything else about it….then they better be able to back it up or they will face the inevitable critic calling them out. If you are involved in a fringe science and in the spot light, then you better be ready for the critics. You better be ready to deal with them in a professional manner. We are all still waiting for all of this.

    If Animal Planet does in fact air a second season, then the cast should feel extremely lucky as the show’s ratings don’t pass network standards for continuation. But, if Animal Planet doesn’t have anything better to fill a late hour time slot…then I guess we’ll have plenty more to talk about. :)

  7. Redrose999 responds:

    Well, I hope the cast will have more control over what goes in and what goes out out during the editing.

    Other than that, I’m happy for Bobo, Cliff, Ranea and MM. Hopefully this next season will be less frustrating for them.

  8. Nny responds:

    @Kahil

    1.4 million is a pretty decent number for a cable show.

    Looking at the June 12th ratings was 1.27 million, which turns into something like 1.1 in Nielson ratings.

    Realistically, that’s really not bad for a no-budget show. Bigfoots haven’t caught on like a global phenomena, but the ratings are proving that the people interested in bigfoot (pulling this fact completely out of my arse) are watching the show. For better or worse.

    I remember reading on this site, actually, that MonsterQuest was being canceled and the producer said it wasn’t because of low-ratings, it was because the network was going in a different direction.

    There’s something similar with Finding Bigfoot. People like, like myself, you, and lots of others, are intrigued. It’s crappy, but you still watch. I’ve still watched. Most people in America who ARE interested in bigfoot or cryptids probably watch.

    If the numbers start slagging off… dropping to below a million. Then that will start spelling the end.

    But over a million viewers…. yes, that is something for Moneymaker to be happy about.

  9. matt_moneymaker responds:

    Back for his daily smackdown … crumbling Kahil tries to bamboozle Cryptomundo readers once again, and with even more ludicrous deceptions and misinformation.

    On this day and the last he has attempted to confuse Cryptomundo readers into accepting a patently false definition of “TV ratings” … which he suggests are some type of poll (on a scale from 1-10) based on some type of web reviews, rather than a measure of viewers.

    He writes: “Yet the only link Matt has provided regarding ratings is an website showing an “insignificant user poll”.

    There are NO user polls AT ALL on the website I cited, yet that website DOES clearly state, in two places, that it is showing “Nielsen Daily Final Cable TV Show Ratings”. And right below those numbers it reiterates that it is citing “Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2011 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.” … That kinda sorta means it’s Nielson ratings, and it means that Kahil’s deceptive claims that Neilson doesn’t even calculate numbers for Finding Bigfoot … are nothing more than bamboozling misinformation.

    Kahil also says, “Ratings are not just a measure of how many people watch…nice try. Anyone can find out the truth there. Ratings are determined by a sample polling of a set of viewers.”

    But if you actually go find out the truth about how ratings work … you will find that “polling” people for their opinions has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with. Only someone trying to deceive would suggest that. And only someone trying to deceive would support his bogus claims with a link to a page that actually contradicts what he says!

    The page he mentions to support his claims clearly explains that TV ratings are determined by passive electronic monitoring of viewer habits (i.e. not by votes or reviews or opinion polls). A carefully identified large set of households are monitored to determine which shows they are actually watching, and sometimes the individuals in the household are monitored to determine when they are present near the TV. This is common knowledge, verifiable through any credible source. “Polls” among viewers have absolutely nothing to do with it, in direct contradiction to what Kahil claims.

    Hence the 0.5 number on the TVbytheNumbers mentioned by Kahil has NOTHING to do with any type of poll. It is, in fact, a whopping big *share* number for a cable channel like Animal Planet. Kahil seems to suggest it’s an average score from people asked to rate the series on a scale from 1-10. That’s totally false and ridiculous. I don’t think he is confused about that. Rather I think he is just trying to confuse others.

    Here’s precisely what a 0.5 Neilson share number means (from TVbytheNumbers.com):

    “The most commonly cited Nielsen results are reported in two measurements: ratings points and share, usually reported as: “ratings points/share”. As of September 1, 2010, there are an estimated 115.9 million television households in the United States. A single national ratings point represents one percent of the total number, or 1,159,000 households for the 2010–11 season. Nielsen re-estimates the number of TV-equipped households each August for the upcoming television season.”

    “Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to the program. For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning that on average 9.2 percent of all television-equipped households were tuned in to that program at any given moment, while 15 percent of households watching TV were tuned into that program during this time slot. The difference between rating and share is that a rating reflects the percentage of the total population of televisions tuned to a particular program while share reflects the percentage of televisions actually in use.”

    But Kahil has been arguing that I was providing unreliable information (Neilson ratings) compared to the numbers he was providing. He was citing a web site user poll (a voter score average) on the IMDB web site … It’s ridiculous on its face, and almost superfluous to note that IMDB web site users and poll takers tend to be movie buffs or unemployed screen writers who have a serious grudge against unscripted programming like “Finding Bigfoot”. Moreover, the “users” on the IMDB web site can be easily spoofed by conniving people who will take the time to create multiple identities on that web site in order to skew a poll. In other words, it’s possible for someone like Kahil to actually alter and corrupt a user poll on that web site … but he cannot do it with Neilson ratings.

    I don’t know whether Kahil has actually skewed numbers on IMDB, but I do know it’s possible … and it’s really a moot point … because those numbers have NOTHING to do with “TV ratings”. Let’s not forget that Kahil has been citing that user poll for his claims about the “plummeting ratings” for the series.

    It’s not even grabbing at straws — it’s outright deceit.

    He postures to support his misinformation with a link to a web site that actually contradicts what he claims. According to that site TV ratings are determined with an extrapolation of statistical data based on electronic monitoring. There are no “polls” involved at all. Viewers are either watching or they are not watching. My numbers are not derived from reviews or polls, whereas Kahil’s numbers come only from insignificant, suspect polls on a web site with users who are famously biased against unscripted television programs.

  10. j stewart responds:

    Finding Bigfoot got a .5 share last week which put it dead level with reruns of Law and Order and Lonesome Dove. Which is actually up from the .4 share the week before. So I correct myself and say the ratings didn’t fall on the Nielson. These numbers are per TV By The Numbers website.

  11. Mïk responds:

    I wish ya’ll would just book a room. I wanna talk Bigfoot, not TV. I agree with William up there, it’s not factual and somewhat disjointed, but it’s Bigfoot on TV. If you naysayers get your way, all we’re gonna see is reruns of Law & Order and Lonesome Dove. So, let’s back down; BOTH SIDES; and let’s watch bigfoot on TV.

    I saw a difference in the ‘Frozen Bigfoot’ episode in that it wasn’t “Bigfoot everywhere”. Yes, they did call it bigfoot (and Cliff still does) even after Bobo (poor Bobo, always the Sas, never the bride) recreated the footage perfectly, but a little more reality got thru the lens. I hope they start to narrow the ‘hunts’ down to one or two a show. Some of the stuff written by cast after the fact sound more interesting and entertaining than they put in the show.

  12. Particle Noun responds:

    The series has been getting better and better in my opinion. I’m very glad there will be a second season, and I think the ratings share posted is pretty good for a show on Animal Planet. I think Matt is pretty correct here in regards to this character Kahil. The arguments made in his post today are specious.

    Congrats to the Finding Bigfoot team.

  13. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    And once again Matt is right and everyone else is wrong. No matter how ratings on one site are calculated versus on another, it doesn’t dispute the facts. Ratings from any source are user driven and vary widely. One site asks users directly. One site will only show favorable numbers which was pulled from a select group or demographic. Some are in the middle. We are both right, just depends on your sources.

    Take this into consideration. The show is not on during prime time, its in a late hour time slot…so the meager 1.4 million viewer number is probably high for THAT network at THAT time slot. The point is here that it doesn’t matter how many people watch your show if it doesn’t appeal to a wide range of demographics or, more importantly if people don’t like the show or not. Again, just do a google search everyone will see the same thing to ad nauseum. You will see two main things. Bigfoot sites talking up about the show…and many, many, many sites where viewers have reviewed the show…negatively.

    Problems with the show:
    Unscientific…
    Faked and/or creatively edited “evidence” (no matter who is at fault)…
    Lack of evidence to back up claims and assertions…
    Unprofessionalism…

    Now, will Matt address these issues? Nope. Why?

    The show isn’t scientific. Yes, they do try to explain it away and say it could be a human, but most of the time they always end up concluding that it is almost definitely a “squatch”. No point in trying to debunk a claim if you are just going to state it is definitely a bigfoot.

    We already know about the faked/creatively edited “evidence”. Again, doesn’t matter who is technically at fault.

    On the show there are countless claims about bigfoot. That they follow power lines. How they hunt. How they sound or communicate. Yada yada yada… Yet Matt and the others cannot provide proof to backup those claims. Apparently we all will be on our knees praising the gospel of Moneymaker. 25 years of being obsessed with bigfoot doesn’t make you an expert nor worthy of praise. If your sole goal in the field is to get praise and notoriety, then you are in it for the wrong reason. If you want praise, then bring it. Give the world something praise worthy. Do you have proof to back up any of your claims and assertions about bigfoot?

  14. CDC responds:

    @ Matt Moneymaker

    Ghost Hunter has been on 7 seasons, how many Ghosts have they found? ZERO

    UFO Hunters was on for 3 seasons, how many UFOs did they find? Zero

    If all you care about is lasting season after season, then good for you. You have the viewers to keep you on the air.

    Just as with Ghosts and UFOs, there are enough people interested in Bigfoot that you will have a solid target audience to keep you on the air.

    I think this goes more to the point that you are all about the spotlight, and not about the animal…because you have NO CLUE how to find Bigfoot Matt.

    Your shows have been a combined 4 hours of NOTHING and you know it. If you are going to be proud of 10 seasons of nothing, then good for you, I hope you continue to find nothing and stay on the air.

    Your show makes me so dissapointed some times, I may just go out and find Bigfoot myself, just to get you off the air.

    So keep howling at the moon, listen to more stories from therapy patients, find more thermal hits of horses and homeless men, fake more evidence with the help of your producers, call every deer fart a “squatch” sound, describe every bird feeder damaged by housecats as “Typical Squatch Behavior”, yell at Renae, use BoBo, go from random forest to random forest and spend a week at the Comfort Inn, go ahead Matt, good for you :)

    If you ever decide to ACTUALLY FIND A BIGFOOT, let the viewers know, cause this Gilligan’s Island stuff you are doing now is JUST FOR YOU MATT!

    Yeah congratulations on your ratings, your next season, and your finding absolutly NOTHING…great job.

    Matt Moneymaker, TV star! Famous for, um, ????? Um??? Wait??? Um??? Finding, um??? Oh yeah, NOTHING!

  15. flame821 responds:

    1] Neilson ratings are becoming more and more unreliable as more and more people are not using television to watch tv shows. Hulu type sites, Netflix type sites, Cable websites, DVR and other forms of streaming are becoming more and more popular which will skew ratings particularly where younger viewers (under 30) are involved. This is why sites like Get Glued are also watched to see how a show is doing, plus viewers can state what they thought of episodes/shows for immediate feedback for the cast/director/producers.

    2] From everything I have seen Finding Bigfoot has been holding fairly steady in the ratings. (this is not a pro or con comment on the show, simply on the data)

    3] Discovery owns Animal Planet and they are bringing out a new show with the Hillstrand Brothers regarding Monsters in Alaska or something to that effect (please see the other thread for info on that and the Caddie video) so this may be a new direction or untapped market for them as a network.

    4] As Animal Planet goes, Finding Bigfoot is ranked in their top ten shows. It makes sense that the network would renew it especially as it is very cost effective to them. Travel/ lodging would seem to be their biggest expenses as opposed to wardrobe, set design and building, sound stages, etc.

    My one and only question to Bobo or any other cast members is “DID YOU RENEGOTIATE TO HAVE MORE SAY IN HOW THINGS ARE EDITED AND PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC” -sorry for the caps lock but I want someone to answer.

    We have heard from the beginning that shoddy production practices are the biggest reason for the shortcomings on the show. If the cast is aware of this I HOPE they took the opportunity to remedy the situation before agreeing to do multiple episodes.

  16. etheral responds:

    Well, I’m glad there’s going to be more episodes. I enjoy watching it regardless of how “scientific” it is or not. I love the subject of Bigfoot and this is the only show on about it.

    I regularly read the BFRO sighting reports and enjoy those as well. Are they true? Who knows but it’s still an interesting read.

    I’m what you’d call an armchair researcher so it’s my only view into the world of Bigfoot. I don’t have the time to spend running around in the woods looking for one on my own, so sites like the TBRC and BFRO and last but not least, Cryptomundo are my source for that information.

  17. Nny responds:

    @Kahil

    “Take this into consideration. The show is not on during prime time, its in a late hour time slot…so the meager 1.4 million viewer number is probably high for THAT network at THAT time slot. The point is here that it doesn’t matter how many people watch your show if it doesn’t appeal to a wide range of demographics or, more importantly if people don’t like the show or not. Again, just do a google search everyone will see the same thing to ad nauseum. You will see two main things. Bigfoot sites talking up about the show…and many, many, many sites where viewers have reviewed the show…negatively.”

    Having been a fan of wrestling in the past, let me jump on my high horse and address this. For TV, ratings are what matters. Ratings = advertisers = money. I’m sure you know this. A small show on a small network in a next to late night time slot. Take that into consideration. It’s not going to be a raging success and probably isn’t expected to be a raging success. But it’s supposed to claim a decent piece of the pie, which, like it or not, is apparently happening. Getting a million people to watch is not bad. If they were getting 2 million, that would have probably been considered a huge success.

    Now linking this to wrestling. In the late 90’s, early 2000’s, wrestling was huge. It was known as the ‘attitude era.’ Critics were disgusted at the violence, the storylines, content in general. But people watched. Advertisers paid big bucks. The product was becoming mainstream again. In the years following, the product became PG, lost a decent percentage of viewers but tries to attract a new, younger audience. The ratings aren’t as high, but they’re aiming for a larger audience.

    Another bit about wrestling and bigfoot… neither of them really appeal to a wide demographic. They might even appeal to the same demographic. Regardless, if you have a loyal fan base, you’re product will succeed. If you hate, absolutely HATE the Finding Bigfoot show, the absolute worst thing you can do is watch it. That’s the only way a TV show is supported. If you hate the show and hate what it stands for, don’t watch it. Watching it to criticize it is still watching it. Which is helping it. Which gets it a 2nd season.

    “Problems with the show:
    Unscientific…
    Faked and/or creatively edited “evidence” (no matter who is at fault)…
    Lack of evidence to back up claims and assertions…
    Unprofessionalism…”

    I 100% agree with you. It makes the show so frustrating to watch.

    “Now, will Matt address these issues? Nope. Why?

    The show isn’t scientific. Yes, they do try to explain it away and say it could be a human, but most of the time they always end up concluding that it is almost definitely a “squatch”. No point in trying to debunk a claim if you are just going to state it is definitely a bigfoot.”

    Obviously the show is NOT trying to be scientific. I don’t think Moneymaker would even try to defend that it is. He shouldn’t. Because it’s not. It might be scientific in the field, while they’re shooting(personally I doubt that though), but it sure as heck is not presented that way. I don’t think there’s any argument there from anyone.

    “We already know about the faked/creatively edited “evidence”. Again, doesn’t matter who is technically at fault.”

    Totally agree. Again, one of the flaws and most frustrating things about the show.

    “On the show there are countless claims about bigfoot. That they follow power lines. How they hunt. How they sound or communicate. Yada yada yada… Yet Matt and the others cannot provide proof to backup those claims. Apparently we all will be on our knees praising the gospel of Moneymaker. 25 years of being obsessed with bigfoot doesn’t make you an expert nor worthy of praise. If your sole goal in the field is to get praise and notoriety, then you are in it for the wrong reason. If you want praise, then bring it. Give the world something praise worthy. Do you have proof to back up any of your claims and assertions about bigfoot?”

    Yep– I hate that too.

  18. Nny responds:

    @CDC

    Great points.

    And in general, I guess the main complaint about the show is that it’s possibly doing more harm than good for serious research. Casting a big(foot) redneck shaped shadow over people who do try to do research on sasquatch scientifically. Moneymaker is just living up to his god given surname and makin the money.

    Science and BFRO, or at the very least Matt Moneymaker, I guess shouldn’t go hand in hand or even be associated in ones mind.

    Everyone remembers their stance on Penn & Teller’s hoax a few years back. They remained steadfast in their claims that they *knew* the footage was real and *knew* P&T were lying about faking it. And when it was proved they they in fact did *NOT* know a damn thing…. utter silence. If they could have sued P&T over publicly making them look foolish, I’m sure Moneymaker would have.

    And one more thing…. about the contracts and creative decisions and power over a final edit and all that…. I’m going to guarantee, while openly admitting that I know NOTHING on their decision… that the only thing that might possibly change about season 2 is the use of the backpack mounted cameras filming everyone’s face. It is terrible, and I know Moneymaker has said they would be damned if they used them again…. so if there’s ANYTHING different about season 2, it’s going to be that.

    Also, I apologize for commenting so much and for my comments not being as timely as I imagine others to be.

  19. MarsWarlord responds:

    Well spoken Kahil. Hopefully Moneymaker will drastically alter his approach to ‘finding’ Bigfoot in season two. I try very hard to find anything likable about the program, but the silly ‘expertise’ of MoneyMaker, the repetitive and silly dialogue, and every run of the mill sound emitted by a forest the result of the elusive ‘squatch’, renders it a difficult task. I feel sorry for those who have fallen for this juvenile attempt at presenting cryptozoology as a serious field of research. It’s funny, growing up, the neighborhood kids and I thought that everytime this old oak tree creaked with the wind we thought it was Bigfoot climbing down the tree. Maybe this childhood reaction will be intergrated as typical ‘Squatch’ evidence by MM in season two.

  20. William responds:

    I agree with all the negatives pointed out with the show but someone also needs to point out the positives (and no I am not affilated with the BFRO – (I was actually taken from authorized to post to unauthorized on their site for merely mentioning someone shooting once by accident which is another story) but I actually like the re-inactment parts with BOBO of purported encounters. He is a good sport and does a great job at it. I also love Renae as does mostly everyone – nothing at all negative about her. And the floating goose decoy with a camera was brilliant. These are just a few of the things that are postives and enjoyable (at least for me).

  21. size 13 responds:

    Kahil, Cdc you are watching the show? Right? Nuff said.They got you hooked too! Cdc, please by all means, go out and find a Bigfoot, then you will have more of an understanding of how it has been done and how it should be done, please by all means, SHOW US!

    I always believed in the possibility of the existence of a Bigfoot, but when I had a close up sighting, well now I know they are real. I am not so easily fooled. If you guys want proof, go out for yourselves and see for yourselves, nothing would convince you otherwise. It takes work on your part. Ya gotta get off your duffs and spend the money and time and effort. When you see your first Sasquatch, it will all pay off and you will have a better understanding of where we Bigfoot hunters come from and still don’t have all the answers.They are real and not a “Snipe Hunt” type of thing either. I have been out in the field for several years and have waited patiently for only a few sightings and sounds or tracks discovered. A lot of effort for a little payoff but I think it has been worth it myself. Armchair Investigators just don’t do anything except criticize others and don’t even know how much money and time and effort has gone into what we do. So…

    Please go out and find one and show us how we should do things because we would like to have better answers ourselves.

    I have watched Matt’s show from the beginning and will watch everything they have to offer. It is nice to sit in a cooled house watching instead of beating a path in the woods this time of year in this heat here in Texas. Come the Fall, I will be doing it myself, come and join us in the field!

  22. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    Can’t we all just get along?

    The Texas episodes should be good even for this show. There are a lot of sightings in Texas. I wonder if TBFC will capture Matt and the crew on their trail cams? That would be pretty funny!!

  23. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Just to make it clear… I do think that Cliff, Bobo and Ranae are sincere in their search…even if I may not always agree with them. Matt on the other hand has made it very clear that his ego and fame are his motivation. It comes off as though the rest of the team are just along for the ride of the Moneymaker reality tour.

    Matt can boast about 1.4 million viewers all he wants. Compare that number to the numbers other shows on other networks get. For Animal Planet, that number is probably high. What matters are what viewers think of the show. As for the source Matt has been touting, the fact is that he has no idea how many actual people watched the show. Such numbers are calculated from a small number. They take about 5000 households who are participating in market research for television. They have a special set top box that monitors what they watch. They then take that fraction of the 5000 people who watch a particular show and factor that fraction into the total number of people who watch TV, etc. They don’t know what you watch unless you tell them. Now Matt can try to denounce the relevance of polls…apparently actual viewer reviews and opinions don’t hold any value….apparently younger viewers’ opinions don’t matter…apparently I have some sort of power over the viewer ratings on IMDB to skew the values.

    The writing is on the wall for this show. Those who are still watching the show know full well that it isn’t the show we thought it would be. What we thought would be a well organized, scientific search for bigfoot has turned out to be just another, mostly fake, reality show….and viewers are unloading that disappointment all over the net.

  24. D.R. responds:

    It has been too long since I’ve visited this site. God, I’ve missed it.

    I’ve seen a bigfoot on more than one occasion, and while I’ve not been privileged enough to encounter one in many, many years, I still think about them regularly. It was one of my first experiences with a G.B. that led me to BFRO, and it was a subsequent experience in Colorado that all but sealed my desire to stick with it. That’s when I really got to know Matt Moneymaker. Well, I used to know him. He’s grown a bit since I last saw him, but his personality doesn’t seem to have changed that much. He’s as defensive and paranoid today as he was 10 years ago (sorry, man, I’m just calling it as I see it).

    I only learned about “Finding Bigfoot” last week, but when I did, I immediately began to do some digging. I contacted a couple of friends in LA. One had no idea what I was talking about, the other just laughed at me. Okay, so my next best bet was to contact a friend who’s an ad sales rep in NYC for Discovery. What he told me was that “Finding Bigfoot” is top in its time slot. Its rating were high, then a bit lower, but in repeat they jumped up again. HOWEVER, that’s not saying much given the time slot. The ad rates for that time slot are horrific, but Animal Planet and the “Finding Bigfoot” producers/cast members can’t lose because the low production $ means decent $ for them, so it’s a wiw/win. According to my contact, Matt and his team likely made $5K per episode for Series 1, and will likely make in the $25K ballpark for Series 2 (Matt, if you’re not making at least $20K per episode in Series 2, you’re getting screwed).

    Regarding the post above that addresses Matt’s need to drive the direction for Season 2, no member of BFRO has a say in production. The production team may say they’ll give BFRO SOME ability to control direction, but those would be false promises.

    Matt, you need to stop being so damned defensive and paranoid. What you need to do is sit on your hands and stop posting, altogether. IF you truly respect yourself and your “team,” then you’ll heed my advice b/c there’s a distinct chance that you’ll post a reply in response to someone that will hit mainstream and damn the show … and could likely land you in hot water with Animal Planet’s legal team.

  25. CDC responds:

    @ Size 13

    Lol, it is amazing how many people have had “up close” encounters with an animal science says does not exist.

    Not that I don’t believe you, but, um, I guess I don’t.

    It is equally amazing how these same people claim Bigfoot hunters know what they are doing when after 50 years of searching for Bigfoot, how Bigfoot have they found? Oh yeah, NONE.

    You go on to claim it, “takes work on your part”, and we gotta, “spend the money and time and effort”.

    Wow size 13, how much “money and time and effort” did you put in when you had your, “up close encounter”? Or did you maybe just happen to bump into this animal that science says doesn’t exist, without any “money, time, and effort”?

    Look size 13, I have spent more time in the woods than a near sighted woodpecker, and far much more time than Moneymaker. I know what it takes to find any creature out in the wild, and the show Finding Bigfoot is just a waste of time.

    I hate the Mavericks and the Heat more than any other teams, but I watched the NBA Finals because I love basketball. I hate Matt Moneymaker and Tom Biscardi the same, but if either had a special on Bigfoot I would watch because it is about Bigfoot. You make it seem as though anyone would watch a Matt Moneymaker cooking show…I don’t think so.

    Some of us want to see Matt find Bigfoot, some of us want to see Matt be eaten by Bigfoot, but all of us have seen Matt find NOTHING about Bigfoot so far.

    Alas size 13, my boasting about finding Bigfoot actually is rooted in truth. After over 35 years in the forests of Calif, talking with National Forest Servise personel, hunters, hikers, Rangers, Biologists, ecologists, etc, I actually have a very valid idea of the possibility the animal exists, and even better, possible locations of where the animal may exist.

    Trust me, you will not find remnant populations of extremely rare animals by going from state to state and searching in a few square miles of random forest. It’s silly to believe you will.

    If it exists, it exists in viable breeding populations in isolated pockets of remote forest areas…not from Texas to Florida to North Carolina, in backyards and picnic areas.

    C’mon, think about it before you give Matt Moneymaker your money and go on one of his, “Bigfoot searches”, I promise like every other group he has led, you will find NOTHING!

    Yep, Cryptozoology is a strange hobby, but collecting stamps seems a little boring in comparison. You have your ideas and I have mine. It’s just a hobby so no one is really right and no one is really wrong, it’s just about what is right for you.

    Most folks using logic would agree that I am right and Matt is a little off, but if the Bigfoot animal is never found, then who really cares?

    But I am right :)

  26. Nny responds:

    @Kahil

    “What matters are what viewers think of the show. As for the source Matt has been touting, the fact is that he has no idea how many actual people watched the show. Such numbers are calculated from a small number. They take about 5000 households who are participating in market research for television. They have a special set top box that monitors what they watch. They then take that fraction of the 5000 people who watch a particular show and factor that fraction into the total number of people who watch TV, etc. They don’t know what you watch unless you tell them. Now Matt can try to denounce the relevance of polls…apparently actual viewer reviews and opinions don’t hold any value….apparently younger viewers’ opinions don’t matter…apparently I have some sort of power over the viewer ratings on IMDB to skew the values.”

    First off, Matt’s little ‘for all I know Kahil could sign up to IMDB seven thousand times and influence the ratings” was soooo stupid and ridiculous. He wasn’t claiming it, I know, but it was just stupid and petty of him even suggesting that.

    Next, just go ahead and say it Kahil. You’re skeptically of ALL TV ratings. The way Nielson is set up is supposed to reflect what you said.. but since no one knows for sure what anyone is really watching… I guess you debunked the popularity of Jersey Shore, the cancelation of Arrested Development and the continuance of True Blood.

    And about viewer reviews, opinions and younger viewers’ opinions not mattering…. you’re absolutely right. THEY DON’T MATTER to the people in charge. But it’s not Matt specifically(though I think he doesn’t care as long as he’s paid) that thinks they don’t hold value–it’s the networks. Only when their ships start to sink do they look for input in how to best bail water. When the ratings drop, they look into how to improve it. Not before. Heck, after 4 successful Resident Evil movies the filmmakers have stated they’re going to listen to the fans for the first time, and see what they want.

    “What we thought would be a well organized, scientific search for bigfoot has turned out to be just another, mostly fake, reality show….and viewers are unloading that disappointment all over the net.”

    Why on earth would you associate something with the BFRO’s name attached to it to science? Knowing what you had already known about Moneymaker, why would you think they would do anything scientifically? Do they have a history of using science anywhere? I don’t think so…. but I could be wrong.

    BFRO and science go together like caviar and tennis shoes. They’re just not compatible.

    @ DR

    Dude, right on.

    You sound like a good friend.

  27. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @Nny – Well the point I was making about the ratings in regards to Matt is that he will do everything he can and use circular talk to discredit the validity of any ratings score, poll or review that isn’t in his favor. While most ratings, polls, and reviews that you will find on the show will be poor ones, Matt will only acknowledge the ones that show numbers favorable to him…which would be numbers factored on narrowed terms…like say…the number of people watching at 10pm…then those numbers are only taken into consideration in regards to Animal Planet…then with a specific demographic….then yes, I’m sure those numbers are very favorable for Matt. Now that the summer season for network television is beginning, I’m sure we will see a good drop in viewers and ratings. I believe the official summer season starts on July 11…some have started already.

    As for hoping the scientific aspect would be there… Before the first episode, I had no clue who Matt Moneymaker was, let alone BFRO. The first time I mentioned that here, Matt proclaimed that I clearly didn’t know much because anyone who has been following and reading up on the search for bigfoot would have heard of him and his accomplishments in the field. Apparently making up facts without proof and finding nothing are accomplishments. I actually just read an article about how they even posted an ad on Craigslist for stories and “evidence” of bigfoot. Can you imagine what kind of stories would come up? lol…

    No matter what happens with this show, I see it as having damaged not only the credibility of the cast, but all cryptozoologists out there. They are going to have to try that much harder just to be taken half way seriously by the public and the scientific community. Things like this show, the bigfoot in a freezer incident and others have turned the field into a joke. For any subsequent shows or documentaries there will have to be a significant amount of science over fluff.

  28. CDC responds:

    @ D.R.

    Wow, D.R., what a party pooper you are.

    Telling Matt Moneymaker to stop posting is like telling the Kardashians to stop the drama…who cares about about any of these folks without the drama?

    Truth is D.R. I don’t believe you ever saw a Bigfoot, let alone more than once. For whatever reason you say you did, I could care less…you didn’t.

    The truth also is, it doesn’t matter what I think, it’s only my opinion, and we all are entitled to our opinions…even Matt Moneymaker.

    For you to stand up and tell another grown man not to express himself, well, that is a little arrogant of you. “Heed your advice”, who are you exactly D.R. that anyone needs “heed you advice”?

    A man who claims to have seen a mythical animal more than once should not be so quick to judge others.

    I like that Matt has an opinion, as wrong and as silly an opinion as he has…he is still entitled to it.

    No matter how bad I embarrass Matt over and over again, he has every right to try and defend himself.

    Don’t tell him to run and hide for fear of potentially offending some suit at Animal Planet.

    Yes Matt, keep posting when you are not on one of your exciting wilderness searches for Bigfoot LOL, yeah, those dramatic explorations in the wild must be thrilling :)

    So far on your show you have found a horse, a hobo, and a hillbilly, wow! Can’t wait to see what you find next week, and even better NEXT SEASON YEAH!!!!!

  29. mikfoss responds:

    I have never had the opportunity to witness a Bigfoot, or squatch (I love the word, don’t hate). I love all things cryptozoological but prefer the Ropen and water creatures, but I still love hearing about Bigfoot, the Jersey Devil, Mothman and all the others. All that said I still watch this show, and mostly I like it and will watch a second season as well. My only real wish is that they would use more trap cameras, leave them there for awhile and check back on them later. I know the producers may not like the idea, but trap cameras would seem like a staple for this type of investigation. Quite a few of us on other, less known and more underground forums than this have wondered the same thing. Any chance of this next season Matt?

  30. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @mikfoss – If using trap cams or changing things up a bit will make Matt more money, stroke his ego and/or bring more attention to him…then I’m sure he’ll do it. But on the other hand, using trap cams would be a more scientific approach that wouldn’t mesh with his accomplished skills at detecting squatch calls, identifying squatch kills or tracking squatches along power line routes.

    You’re right, trap cams would be a very wise choice. Someone should team up with the park service for a particular area and setup some long term trap cams. Why team up with the park service? Because the state would see it as a possible aid in monitoring wildlife and poachers and therefore may even help fund the study.

  31. TheBeardedMan responds:

    @ CDC

    “Lol, it is amazing how many people have had “up close” encounters with an animal science says does not exist.”

    And what does that tell ya? :)

    BTW science doesn’t necessarily say bigfoot doesn’t exist but rather there isn’t enough evidence to prove it exists.

  32. Nny responds:

    @Kahil

    Ah, my bad. Because I do agree. Matt seems to skew everything he’s involved in to make himself look better. He likes puttin lipstick on a pig and seeing how many will kiss it.

    And, I didn’t know you didn’t know who Matt or the BFRO was before this. I guess that’s interesting, but who could fault you? Matt! lol.

    The only reason I had heard about the BFRO was when MonsterQuest was on and I was at their messageboards. I learned from a couple of legit posters there who were very passionate about bigfoot that the BFRO and just about every other bigfoot organization don’t get along. That’s where I learned about them believing P & T’s fake sasquatch video up until the moment it actually aired. And that people with an interest in the field tended to believe the BFRO’s bottom line was more money driven than scientific.

    Advertising for stories and evidence on craigslist. LOL! I can imagine the amount of response they would get for that… overwhelming garbage with possibly a couple diamonds hidden buried way beneath.

    And keeping this on topic…. it’s good news coming from Bobo that the team was apparently able to get some of their demands met in regards to season 2. Only time will truly tell though.

  33. flame821 responds:

    @ CDC

    1] You owe me a new keyboard, I think the spray of coffee shorted it out. LOL

    2] I noticed that you think BF lives in small pockets of deep forests. Many theories I’ve read tend towards migration (ie following of blueberry fruiting, pine nut, salmon runs, etc). Besides a concentration of eye witness reports in the Pacific NorthWest, can you further explain why you’re leaning towards static pockets and not a migratory population?

  34. flame821 responds:

    ** Mods, Mr. Woolheater, Mr. Coleman, et al***

    Would it be at all possible to add a new posting/thread? I would very much like to be able to discuss some of the theories regarding bigfoot with the others but don’t want to junk up other threads (like this one) with semi-off topic posts. Such as static populations vs migrating populations, Primate vs other Mammal, herbivore vs omnivore vs carnivore, that sort of thing.

    Thank you

  35. CDC responds:

    @ The Bearded Man

    I have to believe that every single person who claims they have seen a Bigfoot is either lying or mistaken…except two men.

    It’s funny because if some Pygmies in the deepest parts of the Congo say they have seen Mokele Mbembe I would be inclined to believe them. But if Joe Sixpack says he has seen Bigfoot I wouldn’t pay any attenetion.

    I guess it’s because here in the US, we have more ego motivated stories than most places in the world.

    It’s like hey, look at me!!! I’ve been abducted by Aliens, I’ve seen a ghost, I saw a Bigfoot, look at me, look at me, pay attention to me!!!!! NOTICE ME!!!!! I’M SPECIAL!!!!!!

    Reality is, science doesn’t care either way…it can’t care, it’s based on facts. Fact is, there isn’t enough evidence of a Bigfoot type animal to say it exists. Therefore, the animal does not exist according to science.

    You can have all the theories you want about Aliens, ghosts, Sea Serpents, or Bigfoot, but until you can PROVE they exist, they are nothing but theories.

    Sadly, I would say that only two people in history can claim the saw a Bigfoot, and not be called mistaken or liars by anyone. Of course that is Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Those two gentlemen brought back proof of their claim, and NO ONE has been able to disprove their proof after 44 years. Not “ENOUGH PROOF” for science to put the animal in the zoological record, but enough proof to legitimize their claim that they saw what they saw.

    So everyone else has to do more than say, “I seen it”, they have to say “hey look at what I saw, here is my proof”.

    Without ANY proof, well, um, it’s like Alien abductions and Ghost stories…just a lot of nonsense. In my opinion :)

  36. CDC responds:

    @ Flame821

    Yeah, some of my best stuff never makes it past the moderators. Matt Moneymaker would need therapy if not for the moderators here.

    Yes, I wrote a long thread on another site where I too believe that an early spring through late summer migration is likely.

    There is an unpopulated corridor in the United States that runs from Canada thru parts of the mid west. There have been very few Bigfoot sightings in that area, but I believe that is due to the small human population density.

    I believe in order to breed and maintin numbers, there has to be stable winter habitat where they can survive 2 or 3 months out of the year. Remote moutain lakes with viable winter aquatic vegetation would seem reasonable.

    So I would see it more as a seasonal migration, or possibly a latitudinal or altitudinal migration, I don’t believe they do nomadic migration.

    There are just too many people everywhere in the US now that any animal with more than a 500 mile migration would have contact with at least a few hunters and hwys…and one of them would be surely shot by now or hit by a semi.

    Yeah it would be great to chat more about this topic.

  37. Craig Woolheater responds:

    flame821 & CDC,

    Coming very soon to Cryptomundo will be some new features that will allow Cryptomundians to interact with each other outside the confines of the structured posts.

    What will it be? A user forum? Only time, and a very short time at that, will tell…

    Stay tuned…

  38. CDC responds:

    Thanks Craig

    Site is great as it is.

    Appreciate all the time and effort you and others put in!

  39. D.R. responds:

    @ CDC

    Reading your comments, I’m struck by your inner conflict. One post is hot, the next cold; one post justifies moderation, the next praises the site. Your ad hominem attacks are not necessary. You can express your opinion without degrading the opinions and beliefs of others.

    My recommendation to Matt is simply that: a recommendation. He can take it or leave it, but if he read my post I’m sure he understood where I was going. It’s apparent that you like the drama. Good for you, but just as you are allowed to voice your opinion, so are others.

    Personally, I don’t care what your beliefs are as they relate to cryptozoology, but what I do care about is how much of a negative impact the producers of Finding Bigfoot have on the field. I’d prefer that they don’t make such a mockery of the research that it ends up hobbling the legitimate field work that is being done by individual researchers and research groups alike, including BFRO.

  40. TheBeardedMan responds:

    I have to believe that every single person who claims they have seen a Bigfoot is either lying or mistaken…except two men.

    They’re not the only ones who have brought forth evidence of bigfoot, though theirs is by far the best, no doubt. There are some pretty convincing footprint casts as well as even one or two video recordings of sasquatch.

    “Fact is, there isn’t enough evidence of a Bigfoot type animal to say it exists. Therefore, the animal does not exist according to science.”

    One would say that science is inconclusive about the subject… it doesn’t have an answer. Not yet anyway.

  41. flame821 responds:

    *excited*

    I can’t wait to see what you’ve come up with, although I imagine a user forum would require a nearly full time mod if the same user guidelines will be in place. I noticed the app add at the bottom of the page, is that a hint? Cryptozoocial?

    And the site is great, D.R., and while I can understand how you see CDC as running hot and cold I think he is simply separating the tool from the user. Cryptomungo is a tool, a vehicle if you will. It allows us to exchange ideas and theories; sometimes pleasantly, sometimes harshly but almost always civilly.

    We get news items, private-ish info from sources that would either be ignored or laughed at by MSM and behind the scenes looks at a lot of research (and now telly) due to the social and professional network that Mr. Woolheater and Mr. Coleman have established over a life time of work in the field.

    And as any good tool must, it evolves with the user. Social sites are extremely popular, lucrative and engaging. While the posts authored on the site are quite good I often find myself enjoying the comment as much, if not more, due to the many different voices, opinions and theories expressed by various readers who share my curiosity regarding Crypto subjects. Why not take advantage of that?

  42. CDC responds:

    @ D.R.

    Actually, I have never made a negative comment about this site…it is one of my favorites.

    The moderators do make good calls.

    Example, I was updset about that Gator kill where some lawyer killed a 14 foot gator.

    I hated the fact that an animal that had survived in the wild for over 50 years was kiiled by a “LAWYER”!

    I hated the way that guy looked and my post went way beyond what I should have said, and was not posted. Later, I calmed down and was glad it was not posted as I wrote, as I insulted the man personally for many things other than killing a Gator.

    All I wanted to say was kill the Gator for food, or public safety, but not sport. Hunting wild animals for sport is thrill killing which I do not support. I don’t live in Texas, so that is up to the local people to decide how they chose to do things.

    So moderators are like the conscious we all need some time.

    However EVERYTHING I have ever said about Matt Moneymaker is true :)

    And you DO CARE about my opinion D.R. otherwise logically you would not have replied to me if you did not care at all :)

  43. CDC responds:

    @ The Bearded Man

    No, science is not ever “inconclusive” The Bearded Man, science is like pregnancy, either you are or you are not.

    Bigfoot either exists, or it doesn’t, simple.

    There are not a bunch of scientists waiting for that last piece of rock solid evidence to say “OKAY, NOW IT’S REAL”!

    When all the evidence is submitted, it will be decided, it’s not a running debate.

    I don’t make the rules, science does.

    If you or anyone else can find the proof that Bigfoot is real, then God Bless You…but footprints and sounds ain’t it.

  44. D.R. responds:

    @ CDC

    Please read my post carefully before you comment. Don’t put words in the mouths of others.

    You stated in an earlier post that you don’t believe that I ever saw a bigfoot. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your beliefs just as I’m entitled not to care what your beliefs are.

    You said that I do “DO CARE” about your opinion, but I wasn’t addressing your opinion; I was addressing the fact that I don’t care about your beliefs as they relate to cryptozoology (e.g., my alleged sightings). There are differences between belief and opinion. They aren’t exactly interchangeable, particularly within the context of this thread.

  45. CDC responds:

    @ D.R.

    Opinion
    -noun
    1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

    Belief
    -noun
    1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

    “I don’t believe you saw a Bigfoot, let alone more than once”. “It doesn’t matter what I think, it is only my opinion, and we are all entitled to our opinions”.

    I think I got ya covered there D.R. both grammatically and interchangeably :)

    You care what I post because it affected you negatively…I made you angry when I suggested you did not see what you claim to have seen.

    I make comments like that all the time to elicit a response…and it worked with you.

    From that response I learn more information, very similar to playing poker and getting a “read”.

    I actually wanted to see if you indeed did see a Bigfoot, or at least believe you did.

    By your responses, I don’t think you did see anything.

    You stand on principles with your replies, yet I effectively called you a liar and you did nothing to defend yourself.

    The exact same thing I found with Matt Moneymaker with his replies…I can tell he has not ever come close to “Finding Bigfoot”.

    In 1991 I saw President George HW Bush here in Pasadena. On Oct 22 of last year I saw Barack Obama in Glendale Calif. Both times were by chance, and both times I will never forget.

    I will remember the weather, the time of day, people around me, the Pilot cars, the security, the cameras, the cheers (for both), everything.

    If I ever saw a Bigfoot, I imagine it would leave the same sort of imprint on my memory.

    You described your own sighting as “alleged”. Well, D.R., when I saw the Presidents that was a fact, and if you read into most Bigfoot sightings…folks are pretty much all stating that they “believe” they saw a Bigfoot, not that it was a “FACT” that they saw Bigfoot.

    The ONLY two men I have ever seen express their sighting as fact, were Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin…and I “believe” them both.

    So when folks claim they saw a Bigfoot I always listen to how they describe their sighting…on television, or on threads, they all so far fall short. Not all are lying, some just mistaken. Those who actually see one, will know it is fact.

    You didn’t see anything DR, I wish you did, but we both know you didn’t. The stupid thing is I “believe” Bigfoot “may” be out there some where. That’s why we are both here, but I am hoping to prove it as fact, not believe it is possible.

  46. D.R. responds:

    Insert laughing emoticon here.

  47. Papillon responds:

    @CDC Actually, 2 things, Matt Moneymaker isn’t famous for nothing, he is the founder of the BFRO.
    And secondly, people do get offended when you basically call them a liar. I’m not saying D.R. really saw a Sasquatch but you can’t just go and assume you know everything and comapare seeing bigfoot and seeing the president of the united states!
    If the President came, you would be watching him, talking to the people around you making small comments, looking around, and most people wouldn’t be stunned, and shocked.
    If you where standing in front of a tall creature that you thought was fake all along (Or thought you would never see), you would be shocked and thinking “Oh my god, oh my god!” and would be wanting to get out of there! But probably afraid to move. When some people are scared it’s hard to focus on every detail around you.
    And I agree with you I am hoping to prove it as fact, not believe it is possible.
    But when people are scared, they get nervous when talking about it, they’ll probably stutter and leave out things they know they should have said and regret accidentally leaving out later.

  48. Papillon responds:

    @CDC
    “Truth is D.R. I don’t believe you ever saw a Bigfoot, let alone more than once. For whatever reason you say you did, I could care less…you didn’t.”
    You don’t know what he saw or didn’t. You also said

    “You stand on principles with your replies, yet I effectively called you a liar and you did nothing to defend yourself.”

    ?? Just because people aren’t so quick to talk back or debate (Kinda like you..) doesn’t mean their lieing or False.

    I think your trying to pretend you can tell if someone has actually seen this creature.. which, we all know, you can’t. Just because someone doesn’t seem like they are being 100% truthful doesn’t mean it.

  49. Papillon responds:

    @CDC ONE other thing! :)
    When people say “I think i may have saw him!” (Him refearing to Sasquatch)
    Do you ever think that they are just like “It can’t be…!” so they say They Think rather than They Know. Maybe they’re afraid of looking foolish or maybe even stunned by what they saw. Maybe they know what they saw but they are just still skeptical of what they saw. Do you ever think of that?

  50. Fausta responds:

    I am one who almost never posts but have decided to as the reoccurring arguments regarding this Bigfoot show have become ridiculous. I don’t know any of you, including Matt, but it would seem like a better use of time and energy to either discuss the show in a more sensible manner or work together to present ideas on how the show could be made better or more successful instead of trying to prove who has the biggest ego. At least there is a show which features this important cryptid and while under the thumb of a network’s antics is entertaining and helps present to the uneducated public that there is something to this “myth”. Of course it could be more scientific and it would be great if each episode was 4 hours featuring the cast’s 3 week visit to one area, but it is what it is. We all know the producers are not on board with a ‘scientific’ approach, just something to keep you watching after each commercial. Hopefully Matt and co can gain more control of how the episodes are conducted. It is also obvious that some do not like Matt but hurling insults at him when one of his hands is tied by the network is tiring. I think most of us would have taken this gig and been faced with the same problems. It just seems that the constant feuding within Bigfoot community really holds the entire field back.

  51. theklone responds:

    OK gang, I don’t care if you like MM or the rest of the gang or not. If you’re a Bigfoot hunter, Cryptozoologist or just interested in the process, the only thing you should be concerned with is hoping the show makes it for season two. I am in total agreement that the show has got to stop making or jumping to wild conclusions without any evidence to back it up. It needs actual scientific research done on any evidence that is collected. Be it urine, feces, blood, casts, whatever.

    I want this show to work, I don’t care if Donald Duck is in charge. Whoever is producing this show needs to figure out, and fast, how to make it more realistic and credible. Or people will leave it in droves, if they haven’t already. I don’t care who’s telling the truth about ratings from last season. I don’t care if MM is in it to make money as long as he does good research in the process. Some one said that Ghost hunters have never shown a ghost. That is in fact incorrect. There have been multiple videos of objects moving by themselves, shadows, EVP’s and unexplained noises. Are they faked? Maybe, but at least they show something. At least they do a good job of scientifically, to the best of their ability, trying to debunk first. Finding Bigfoot needs that debunking, otherwise it is no better than hearing a tale told by some old uneducated hermit that lives in the woods. Get it right guys. I’m rooting for you to do the right thing. Lets bring “Sasquatch” into the limelight so that someday maybe mainstream science will get involved. Stop fighting and arguing and just do it right. Make the producers see that faked evidence or team dynamics is not what we want to see. Better no evidence at all and a team that proves sightings wrong, than wild assumptions and imagined expertise. Thanks for letting me vent.

  52. PieGrande responds:

    Me and my wife were involved in the New Mexico episode?…do you know if that is going to show on episode 2? they shot up here before they went to Utah and shot that episode.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.