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.
Craig Woolheater – has written 2387 posts on this site.
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.