Sasquatch Coffee

Finding Bigfoot: Moneymaker Knows Bigfoot’s Nose

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 5th, 2011

Matt Moneymaker answers critics’ questions regarding statements he made in the “Swamp Ape” episode of Finding Bigfoot.

And the second was when he tried to discredit the fisherman eyewitness when he said that apparently to his knowledge all BF have black noses. If he truly believes this than he must believe the Patterson film is a fake because the creature in it certainly does not appear to have a “black” nose. Explain that Mr. Moneymaker please?William

Also as someone else posted Moneymaker appeared to be leading the fisherman with his line of questions and then he states all Bigfoot noses are black like a dogs.rmvass

I would further like to add that the creature I have seen with my own eyes from 30 feet away did not have a black nose like a dog. So by asking leading questions and boldly slamming the fisherman’s witness account was just wrong. So are we to believe M.M has a sasquatch for a pet in his backyard? Finding Bigfoot would be a pretty good show if the arrogance of Mr.Moneymaker was not present! My opinion of course.docbashford

Another thing that really struck me as wrong was how he treated John, the witness who was fly fishing when he saw a sasquatch. He didn’t seem to give him a chance to tell his account completely before he had to jump in and start leading him in circles. He was so busy trying to puff himself up in front of the camera, I feel he did that witness a real disservice. He did more to confuse him than allow him to tell his account in his own words.

And how in the heck does this guy know for a fact that ALL sasquatches have black skin on their noses? That is the most ludicrous statement I’ve ever heard come out of a bigfoot researcher’s mouth. Its statements like that that do more to discredit this field of research than help it.InTheGloaming

Also I wasn’t sure if the “leading questions” they asked the fisheman proved that he was lying or not. Not all descriptions of “squatch” faces are the same, but Matt M. made it seem like there is a known appearance-they all have black noses like dogs? Never heard that before…sasquatch

If I had been watching the program, without having participated in it, I would have had a problem with the part about the black nose. In the TV show it appeared as those I concluded that John’s story was not credible because of the nose description, etc.

In actuality, the nose issue was only a minor thing among various other issues I explained ad nauseum for the cameras at the time. I even went on to explain that his description of the eyes and nose could be explainable. For example, it might have merely appeared to a be a certain color, or his mind could be filling in the blanks for details that he can’t perfectly recall. That’s not usual, especially when the incident occurred decades before, and it didn’t last long, and emotions were running high at that moment.

When those scenes were shot I talked a whole lot about his sighting, and brought up several issues with the story, but they only included me talking about one or two of those issues … and NOT EVEN THE MAIN ISSUE that I was hung up on.

That main issue was the one for which I said “it doesn’t fit into the reality that I know to be true.” I didn’t say that about the nose color. I said that about the log issue, but because of the way the show was edited it appeared that my problem with the story was all about the nose.

The Log Issue:

John’s report was submitted to the BFRO a few years prior. We were familiar with the story before we met him, and before he took us to the location where it happened. When we met him in person he told us the exact same story, and when he took us to the location he told us the exact same story again. The story didn’t change, but our understanding of the story changed when he took us to the spot where it happened.

According to John’s story he and his buddy stopped at the part of the trail where you could go no further. It was totally washed out beyond that point and there was a fairly steep drop down to the river below (about 60 feet below). He says he and his buddy (the buddy is completely out of touch now, according to John) stood there for a little while talking about what they were going to do.

While they were standing there they heard a thud sound behind them — not a loud thud sound, mind you. What he described was something you would hear if you dropped a large rock onto soft soil from about six inches in the air. When they heard it they didn’t know what made the sound, and they didn’t look around to investigate.

They eventually decided to head back down the trail. When they started heading back down the trail they came upon this large log laying across the trail, and they knew it wasn’t there when they came up the trail. He described it as being as big in circumference as a large car tire and about 12-15 feet long.

After they stepped over the log they heard a noise above them on the hillside and they looked up to see this bigfoot standing not too far way looking down at them, completely exposed … in broad daylight …. Assumably it was the bigfoot that threw down the log, because the bigfoot was standing on the hill right above where the log came down from.

Here’s the problem: For this large log to go from where ever it came from, and then land where he says it landed …. it would not have made just an unremarkable thud sound. It would have made a major kaBOOM sound. It would have shaken the ground under their feet and scared the living hell out of them, because it landed only about 10 feet away from them.

The log was so big and so close that it would have killed them both if it had merely fallen at a different angle. That’s how close they were to where it hit the trail. They certainly would have at least turned around and noticed it right behind them. They would have turned around immediately and seen it there.

After seeing where John said it happened, I asked John about this more than once, on more than one day. I told him the log would have definitely made a mighty crash sound right behind them, and they would have noticed it right away, so it makes no sense to me that it didn’t happen that way. It makes no sense that they didn’t notice the log until they turned around to leave.

After bringing up the log issue with John a few different times, John eventually admitted that it didn’t make sense to him either … but he would only say that he couldn’t explain it. I was not coy in telling him it just wasn’t physically possible. He did not disagree with that.

So the short of it is … I didn’t lose faith in his story due to the nose color issue, but that was the ONLY issue they showed me talking about in the episode.

They try to keep this series as “action packed” as possible, so they didn’t want to devote several minutes of the show to me going into detail about the various problems I had with John’s story. Too much talking and not enough action, I guess. The one issue they chose to include was the one to which they could attach an interesting visual to — the face sketch you see in the show.

As for the black nose …. Yes, they do have black noses, like a dog’s nose. I’ve seen legit close range footage of a sasquatch face (the KY face shot, in the unreleased Erickson documentary). I’ve also spoken to several very close range eyewitnesses who describe very similar features. Some close range witnesses describe the hair on the face as being too bushy for the nose to stick out much. In other cases the tip of the nose is visible, and the skin is described as having the same color and texture as a dog’s nose. In fact, you see that same color and texture on the noses of almost all large wild mammals in geographic regions that dip below freezing for much of the year. Look up photos of the faces of deer, elk, bear, raccoon, coyotes, etc., to see what I’m referring to.

Bigfoots do not have huge prominent noses. A witness needs to be within about 30 feet of a bigfoot in daylight to even see the tip of the nose at all. It is mostly obscured by fur.

I’m not going to describe all the particulars of their noses, because it’s still a good way to distinguish fake photos from real photos. I’ll say this … hoaxers usually model the nose after a gorilla nose or chimp nose, but it looks nothing like those.

Chimps and gorillas are designed for tropical environments. Whereas bigfoots are designed for places that get below freezing. A large animal with big wide open nostrils like chimps or gorillas would not survive in places that get very very cold, because the lungs would freeze. Large mammals from cold regions have noses and nasal structures that allow the air to warmed up a bit before entering the lungs.

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.


26 Responses to “Finding Bigfoot: Moneymaker Knows Bigfoot’s Nose”

  1. NiceGuyJon responds:

    Just when I thought he was completely avoiding the “nose color” comment by talking about the fallen log, Moneymaker addresses it, and pretty well I might add. I too thought it was preposterous to talk about the nose like that, but if he is using the Erickson footage as the base for his claim, that gives it more credibility in my mind because all accounts seem to be that this is by-far the best Bigfoot footage (Bigfootage?) ever produced.

    However, about the log, I don’t see that as being any more a reason to discredit that man’s story any more than “the nose was wrong”. He says that if the log would have fallen that close to them, it would have been very loud and shaken the ground beneath them, and that is likely true. HOWEVER, the man did specifically recall that the sound was not very loud, and specifically described it as dropping a rock on the ground from about 6 inches. Why would he make up such an out-of-place detail like that? The answer is that the log may not have “fallen” in that moment. Perhaps it was an already-fallen log that the animal had moved there. If I had a large log in my hands that I wanted to place on the ground I would put one end down, then lower the other end to about, oh, I don’t know, about six inches from the ground and drop it the rest of the way.

    I don’t know whether this was just the editing or not, but it came across that Moneymaker was bullying this guy, and would not even let him get his story out. I understand that they were familiar with the story before they even met the man, but I don’t know how professional it is to already file it under “hoax” before you meet the guy. Clearly, Moneymaker met the man with the intention of discrediting him in front of the cameras, and he did it for a completely BS reason IMO.

    In a field where people keep these stories to themselves for years and sometimes forever for fear of ridicule, Moneymaker trotted this guy out on national TV just to humiliate him, all in the name of giving himself some kind of pseudo “credibility” (See! I don’t believe every story!) which he has destroyed time and time again in the subsequent episodes by thinking EVERYTHING is a result of a Sasquatch, as though they are the only animal in the woods.

    I feel bad for that guy, and I hope he didn’t find out he was being humiliated by watching the show with his family.

  2. aaronlife responds:

    I couldn’t tell if John was telling the truth, sometimes I can during these interviews from the sound of the person’s voice, but I couldn’t with John; it was like he lacked confidence in what he was saying; that caused me to question what he was saying, but not discount the incident. That requires further analysis.

    I see what I think are some weak points in Matt’s analysis, and conclusions, which I’ll share, and maybe he or someone can elaborate or dispute them…

    1. The end of the trail vs. location of log (10′ or ??)

    I’ve hiked on trails years after first hiking them, and things change… that creates a lack of familiarity, a confidence that “I know I was here, but it looks different”.

    Thus, people can believe what they are saying is accurate, but know sub-consciously something isn’t right, and yet, they know it should be… that could explain the feeling I got from John’s voice quality.

    John’s story:

    John said he and his friend walked to the end of the trail, where it had washed out. If the trail end was washing out, years prior, it could have washed out further in the years since the incident first happened.

    IF that was the case, it changes the distance between where John was actually standing when he heard the noise, and the location of the log which would not have changed if he was accurate with the log’s location.

    John’s confusion about that might have led to a lack of truthfulness in relating his location, but not the actual incident he experienced. Perhaps John was really 30′ from the log’s location when he heard the noise, with some bushes or trees in between them?

    I don’t know, thus, it was hard for me to tell how close John really was to the object they heard hit the ground, and it was unclear how much further down the trail they got before turning back.

    Matt says it was 10′, but I’m not sure if that’s accurate from the information we’ve been given.

    Matt writes:

    “…When they heard it they didn’t know what made the sound, and they didn’t look around to investigate.

    They eventually decided to head back down the trail. When they started heading back down the trail they came upon this large log laying across the trail, and they knew it wasn’t there when they came up the trail. He described it as being as big in circumference as a large car tire and about 12-15 feet long….”

    This makes it sound like they were farther than 10′ away from the log; especially if they didn’t look around to investigate… their instincts would have made them look around if a large object landed 10′ behind them, but perhaps not 30′.

    2. How do we know bigfoot threw the log from above?

    It’s entirely possible that a bigfoot placed the log on the trail, rather than throwing it, especially if it was 12-15′ long and as wide as a car tire, and especially if bigfoot wanted to send a message and avoid killing John.

    That would explain the sound being quieter than a loud crash.

    Have you ever tried to move a section of log? The log, as described, could have easily outweighed bigfoot by twice his weight.

    Consider an 18″ circumference 10′ long log could weigh over 800lbs:

    http://www.woodweb.com/cgi-bin/calculators/calc.pl

    If bigfoot placed the log on the trail to block their way, it might sound like a large rock was dropped somewhere behind them on the trail, not a crashing thud from being tossed from above.

    Personally, I find it unreasonable to think bigfoot could or would throw a 1/2 ton log; have you ever tried to throw your weight, or more than your weight?

    e.g. ever try throwing a person? much easier to carry them.

    So, again, the questions are:

    How close was John really to the log when it was supposedly placed there by bigfoot? Did bigfoot have the strength to carry the log and drop it? Do we know the log’s original location? Was there enough time, between the sound, and John “eventually” deciding to head back down the trail for bigfoot to climb up on the ridge above?

    It seems to me that John’s story could easily be explained, completely, except for one thing…

    Where is the log now? I don’t think a log that size would decay that quickly; it can take decades for large logs to decay. Logs that size usually don’t disappear/rot away that quickly, and would be unlikely to be moved by a human 10′ from a trail-end.

    We’d have to know what kind of log it was.

  3. aaronlife responds:

    Just to give you an example:

    An 18″ 10′ long red alder would weigh over 700 lbs. A 24″ 12′ long yellow birch would weigh over 2200 lbs

    It’s much more likely that bigfoot could carry/drag and place a log that size rather than throw it (have you ever tried throwing more than your own weight?), especially if the intent was communication rather than harm.

    That explains the quiet noise as the other poster explained; add 10-20′ to John’s distance between himself and the log noise based on changes in the trail end and the story makes total sense.

    I think if it had been 10′ behind him, his instincts would have made him turn around and see the log… not go about a conversation and then discover the log only once he headed back down the trail.

    I think in haste to discredit the story, and jump on inconsistencies, Matt may have made the wrong call here, but how can I know sitting at home on a computer, right?

  4. Massachusetts responds:

    Mr. Moneymaker, please tell us more about the Erickson Project and what you saw. Close up video: that’s amazing! More interesting and significant than this guy’s fair to middling personal anecdote. Thanks

  5. Ragnar responds:

    I’m not a biologist and neither is Moneymaker, but when he said this,

    “Chimps and gorillas are designed for tropical environments. Whereas bigfoots are designed for places that get below freezing. A large animal with big wide open nostrils like chimps or gorillas would not survive in places that get very very cold, because the lungs would freeze. Large mammals from cold regions have noses and nasal structures that allow the air to warmed up a bit before entering the lungs.”

    it made me laugh. Neanderthals lived in Ice Age Europe and have some of the largest nasal and sinus cavities of any hominid. And polar bears, who live in cold areas, have huge nostrils.

    Oh, and not all dogs have black noses. At best, you can say that some Bigfoot have black noses, not all.

  6. trapper9990 responds:

    Moneymaker………. What can you say? I thought he had already proved that he has no business in the bigfoot field what so ever. I myself don’t know much other than what I’ve read in books, and many different sightings, but what I do know, is that MM doesn’t have any authority at all to say what a bigfoot nose looks like. Even if he saw the Erickson footage, and I doubt he did, and supposing that the nose is black, that is but one animal. Not nearly the whole population. It seems MM is falling into his own trap of making things look gorilla like. After all the black leathery skin is a gorilla trait around the nose. Therefore his fake analysis makes no sense. This again proves that his crazy comments and reactions that we see each week are exactly what hes like in real life and not due to editing. It seems like hes taking the gorilla model and going with it, that or he saw the Erickson footage, it fit with what he thought, and he just is assuming all bigfeet have this nose feature. To my knowledge MM has had no up close encounter with a bigfoot that you can trust, and he has no authority. If I was going to trust someone’s description of a bigfoot, it would be the Indians. Take Tribal Bigfoot and the Hoopa Project for instance, try reading those MM and looking at the sketches. Puppy dog noses aren’t mentioned. I can’t wait for this animal to be proven so that MM can look like what he truly is, what that is, I think we all know.

    I also agree with the above poster. The witness in actuality seemed very credible. He stuck to his story even under pressure, even though it didn’t seem to have a good explanation, and he knew that. But he knew what he had seen and that’s that. Could he have been lying, sure, but I believe that guy a whole lot more than Moneymaker any day. The reason the dude didn’t hear a loud crashing is because if it did happen, the animal probably drug it across the path and that could have been the slight thud as the tree was let down from a small distance off the ground, or that noise could’ve been something else all together, the bigfoot definitely could have slid that log in the path quietly. In any event, lord knows the guy had to be lying, because the AUTHORITY in Bigfoot, Matt “Bigfoot has black dog noses” Moneymaker said so. Afterall this guy has such great credibility, such as getting kicked out of the Erickson project, running through the woods like a maniac when he hears something, making false accusations about call blasting and wood knocking, and being a great outdoorsman to boot.

    in any event, MM will soon be revealed for what he is.

    Have a good one everybody.

  7. Cernovog responds:

    I’m not certain what Moneymaker is describing when he says “Yes, they do have black noses, like a dog’s nose” so I may be misinterpreting him. However, I think he is referring to a rhinarium which may be familiar to most people as a “wet nose”. He is right when he says most mammals have this feature. Just look at your household dog for an excellent example.

    I am surprised to hear this feature associated with Bigfoot. A rhinarium is unheard of in apes. Even primates who live in cold climates like Japanese Snow Macaques do not have a rhinarium. In primates, they are present in lemurs and are a distinguishing feature between strepsirhines (primates like lemurs and lorises with a high dependency on olfaction) and haplorhines (monkeys, apes, and humans with a greater emphasis on vision and less dependence on olfaction).

    A rhinarium is not an adaptation to the cold, rather the wetness facilitates olfaction. It helps trap odors and enhances an animals ability to pick up faint smells.

    He is accurate when he says a big, bulbous nose helps warm cold air when inhaled. That is likely the reason humans have big fat noses that stick out out of our faces.

    He cites raccoons, moose, and bears as an example, but if you look at desert and tropical versions of these animals in the same niches — coatis, ringtails, Patagonian cavies, sun bears — they have the same noses. It’s for olfaction, not thermoregulation.

    Could Bigfoot posses a rhinarium? Who knows? It’s an unknown creature with an evolutionary history we can only guess at. If it does possess a rhinarium it either evolved the feature a second time, independently after the split from its haplorhine ancestors OR Bigfoot is a strepsirhine and evolved its ape-like features (bipedalism, dermal ridges, loss of a tail) independently. The second scenario is much less parsimonious than the first, but, again, who knows?

    There is another possibility. I may be misinterpreting Moneymaker completely. When he says “black nose” maybe he just means the color or maybe he’s talking about a feature that is unique to Bigfoot entirely.

  8. D.R. responds:

    … and he continues to deal in absolutes.

    Ugh.

  9. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @ D.R. – You are right. I have been saying that for quite some time here. In his exhausting message above, he doesn’t answer the main question at hand…how does Matt know for a fact that all bigfoot look or don’t look a certain way? He never has answered that question. Matt can blame the production company all he wants, but that still doesn’t discount what he has said here. Whenever it comes to bigfoot, Matt speaks in absolutes, yet has never once provided proof to backup his bold statements of fact.

    Since Matt has found no proof in 25 years to prove or backup his claims. Yet he continues to make statements about bigfoot as though it is an absolute fact. If you criticize those claims and/or say anything that would contradict his facts, he will do everything he can to try to discredit you despite it being his credibility that is in question. Basically he avoids answering the questions by using lame lawyer tactics.

    It is really simple Matt. When you make a bold claim or statement about Bigfoot, be prepared to back it up. If you can’t back it up with verifiable proof, then be more conscientious about how you say things. Instead of saying something IS…try saying “it is believed that”. Makes a big difference.

    Now… taking what we know here: 25 years of bold statements and ZERO proof to back those statements up with, then one can make the conclusion that Matt in fact knows nothing about Bigfoot. That what he proclaims as fact is nothing more than guesses or complete fabrications.

    He really needs to do some fact checking here. There is nothing in biology that states a flat nosed primate or animal cannot survive in cold weather. There are several species of primates that live in and thrive in extreme cold weather locations. Such as Golden Monkeys in China, Japanese Macaques, and even Mountain Gorillas who live in the cloud forests of Africa where the average temps of 20 to 8°C. For larger primates, it isn’t the cold air, their noses and lungs that is a prohibiting factor…it’s insulation. The monkeys who live in sub-zero temp ranges can because of thick fur and communal huddling. Humans can only do so because of clothing. Even the likely anthropological link to bigfoot, Gigantopithicus, is always depicted as having a more gorilla-like nose. If this link is valid, then all of the well educated scientists would be wrong in their depiction. More importantly, having a dog-like nose would make Bigfoot the ONLY ape to have such a nose. It simply isn’t an evolutionary trait among apes. For Bigfoot to logically have such a nose, then it would have to have evolved from the same line that monkeys and baboons evolved from…which would go against all accepted thought on Bigfoot evolution.

    Anyway…not gonna hold my breath waiting for the facts.

  10. YowieLover responds:

    Chewbacca wasn’t ‘real’ Matt!

  11. flame821 responds:

    “Chimps and gorillas are designed for tropical environments. Whereas bigfoots are designed for places that get below freezing. A large animal with big wide open nostrils like chimps or gorillas would not survive in places that get very very cold, because the lungs would freeze. Large mammals from cold regions have noses and nasal structures that allow the air to warmed up a bit before entering the lungs.”

    I do recall hearing something similar to this regarding the differences between neanderthal man and modern humans. How the neanderthal had a WIDE, large nose and massive sinus cavities (more internal surface area for the mucus membranes) due to enduring most of the ice age. This nose allowed it to hydrate and slightly warm the air to help protect the lungs, however as the ice age receded and air grew warmer and more humid this adaptation proved to be a problem as now fungus and bacteria found easy breeding grounds in neanderthal nasal passages.

    PS, I have 4 border collies, 2 have black ‘noses’, one has a huge pink splosh on a black nose and the other’s nose is almost entirely pink. The pink noses are on the tri-color ones, black on the bi-color however all are related so that may simply be a fluke of their particular genetic pool.

  12. flame821 responds:

    “More importantly, having a dog-like nose would make Bigfoot the ONLY ape to have such a nose.”

    nose, are we referring to a human-type nose or a muzzle? Is the facial profile pronounced like a bloodhound or is it flattened like a pug?

    I think we need to get some more details and agree on definitions before we can even hope to weed fact from fiction.

  13. Joxman responds:

    He had me until the whole “dog nose” bs. It is not a hominid trait in any way. A bipedal species has no need for a rhinarium like a bear, unless he thinks Squatch is a werewolf or werebear. (I do believe in werewolf like canines, like the Beast of Bray Road)

    4 legged animals did develop rhinarium because it suits a 4 legged stature. If you live close to the ground olfactory senses are more important, and vision and hearing are adaptive depending on whether you are prey or predator. I think Giraffes have a more human like nose then dogs.

    It just doesn’t fit common sense and biological adaptivness in my mind.

    :P

  14. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @ flame821 – I’m talking about noses. Apes don’t have a muzzle like you would see in a baboon. If you look at the known ape species: gibbons, gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and humans…not one of them have a nose that remotely looks like that of a dog or deer. As you pointed out, having a wide set nose, the Neanderthals were more than capable of keeping the air on their lungs moist and warm without freezing their lungs.

    The point is that science does not support the claims that Matt is trying to pass off as facts. As he clearly pointed out, he is basing his assertions based on some images he claims to have seen…not first hand experience with the creature. Basically, he is making it up as he goes and he cannot back it up with cold hard facts. Cold hard facts are what is needed to satisfy believers and skeptics alike.

  15. mjm responds:

    I haven’t been back to Cryptomundo for a few weeks and am quite suprised that people are still giving this show (and this man for that matter) any thought at all. It all should just be dismissed. Ad nauseum indeed.

  16. YowieLover responds:

    @ mjm….if the ‘nonsense’ isn’t talked about, the general community may come across it somewhere on the internet and believe it as lore. Cryptomundo is doing a service to the community by highlighting the distortion of reality purported by Moneymaker and should continue to do so in that spirit. The Crypto subject and Cryptomundo itself loses credibility by the tonne when people like this aren’t pulled up for their ‘take’ on the subject.

  17. bladerunner313 responds:

    I have worked in the broadcast field, and I know editors can make people appear as however they want them too. You could edit a Ghandi speech and make a Tyrant out of it and likewise you could make Idi Amin into a benevolent ruler. After watching the show and reading Matt Moneymakers comments, I feel they are probably doing that to Matt to make it more interesting. I don’t know Mr. Moneymaker in person and have no idea how he is in real life. but it is most likely not how he appears on screen.

    I also have a comment about the fisherman’s story. A lot of people enjoy an adult beverage when they fish. I am not being derogatory towards the fisherman in anyway or calling him a drunk. But if he and his friend were having a few while they were out fishing, maybe they didn’t notice all the details or notice all the sounds, maybe if there was a sasquatch there it pushed the log down the hill longways. Maybe the they just saw a light rimmed outline and actually didn’t see the details well at all. Then again, maybe it’s all made up. There are always going to be parts of a story people see or remember differently.

  18. bladerunner313 responds:

    I don’t mean that Matt and the show are not interesting, I love the show, I just mean to cause drama and make it more entertaining in thier opinion. And sorry about my spelling as well.

  19. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    Expert:
    1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert.
    2. Military .
    a. The highest rating in rifle marksmanship, above that of marksman and sharpshooter.
    b. a person who has achieved such a rating.
    Now I would think Jane G. of the Chimp world falls under this category. Matt M. uh, NO!! Not even close. There is no one that can be classified as a Bigfoot expert by definition. There isn’t even any proof Bigfoot exist. That is like saying you are an expert at nothing. To make a statement and claim it is factual about Bigfoot is simply nothing more than BS. All Bigfoot females paint their toe nails pink. Why because I say so..….come on!!
    Yes there are people that are more knowledgeable than most when it comes to BF research and are experts in their own fields such biology, anthropology, botany and so on. That does not make them Bigfoot experts.

  20. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @ whiteriverfisherman – Just as a point of clarification to your post… As no one has studied a bigfoot hands on over an extended period of time, then therefore there is no such thing as an expert on bigfoot. At best you can be an aficionado or hobbyist on bigfoot. One’s expertise in other fields, such as biology or anthropology, would not make them an expert on bigfoot, but it would lend credence to their educated assumptions on such a creature.

    spending 25+ years going out into the woods screaming and hitting trees with baseball bats doesn’t make anyone an expert. neither does charging gullible people good money to go out in the woods to see something they won’t see. Its frustrating isn’t it…lol…

  21. flame821 responds:

    @ Kahil

    This is why I want MM (or anyone who is speaking for him) to clarify for us EXACTLY what he means by a ‘black nose’. Originally I thought he was referring to (I’m not sure of the politically correct way to phrase this) the broad, flat nose typical of many humans of African descent. But when he mentioned ‘like a dog’ I immediately thought muzzle. So now I am confused as to what MM meant when he ‘black nose’.

    If the nose was humanoid but very broad and flat that can still be an ape-like or human-like characteristic. If it was more along the lines of a muzzle that would lead me to think either baboon-like or bear-like. I do remember hearing plenty of horror stories regarding baboons from several of my Sub-Asian friends and I have no reason to doubt them or their parents when they talk of baboon raids, attacks, etc. But Baboons are trooping animals and that doesn’t seem to fit with documented Bigfoot sightings.

  22. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the nose itself…as in just the end of the muzzle. Think of what the little black, plastic nose you might find on a teddy bear. The point that I was trying to make is that none of the great apes have such a nose. Great apes have a broad, flat nose…including humans. The more prominent nose found in people of European and Asian dissent have is a fairly new feature in our evolution…in relative terms that is.

  23. Know it all responds:

    As youths we used to pick up the heaviest “rounded” fireplace logs that we could barely lift and toss it forward at each other. When impacting the grass sod or dirt it does indeed make just a dull thud. Tree trimmers when cutting limbs way up generate noise by the cracking of the limb’s final separation & impacts with twigs splintering & leaves rustling on the way down & at impact. Throw wood fire place logs from a third story apartment balcony into the grass below with ground observers listening a short distance away for the impact.

    If the log was two & a half feet diameter & over a dozen feet long and a solid light wood like poplar or aspen, or a heavier partly hollow oak log, we’re talking of something approaching or exceeding 1000 lbs in weight. Perhaps instructive is the estimated weight and matching trajectory from the top of that hill that the average man can throw to land in the same place.

    If we are talking about a ten lb small fireplace log tossed with both hands by a human male, then that makes that particular Sasquatch male(?) 100X stronger than a human male.

    Male chimpanzees are 7X stronger than human males.
    Male gorillas are over 10X stronger than human males.

    Large male Sasquatches are far stronger than bears. Take precautions as suitable. I believe the various Native American Indian reports that certain groups of Sasquatch over the centuries are reported to be “Cannibals”… Man-eaters.

    In fact within the past generation a Canadian Native American was alledged to have been grabbed off of his porch near a Reservation by a lone male Sasquatch habituated to the human encampment as a nuisance bear would be, In the struggle the Sasquatch broke all of the Indian man’s limbs to render him helpless (possibly as a later food cache), while a couple of days later a large Indian posse armed with hunting rifles tracked & caught up with them, shooting down the Sasquatch with multiple volleys & recovering the dying man who had a look of terror on his face.

  24. Mausinn responds:

    Black noses aside, I find it interesting that when ever anything is brought out critical about the show, it always ends up falling in the lap of the producers. If there’s a lack of objective investigation, it’s the producer’s fault. MM is playing the drama queen, well that is the producer’s fault. A witness gets bullied and made to look a fool, again, the producer’s fault. When is someone going to step up and take responsibility for this show? Perhaps all this is just another way to make a buck, and there is no real thought given towards reputation or credibility. Makes one wonder about the professionalism of all involved. On second thought, perhaps it all about professionalism, that of the oldest kind.

  25. kidquid responds:

    Whoa. Where can I find that story, Know it all? Pretty intense!

    As far as the show, meh, at least it is bringing more attention to the subject. They are trying to entertain, people! I think overall it’s a mixed bag but I like watching it for what it is.

  26. ithilien responds:

    i think double m doth protest too much. it’s always the production crew editing that makes him look bad, never himself.
    i think he knows exactly what’s being done, is in agreement… more drama…better ratings…show renewed…more moneymaking (in pocket and on tv.)
    just sign me, gomer



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.