International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Moneymaker Confirms Matilda

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 21st, 2013

Yesterday on twitter, Matt Moneymaker replied to a question about the reality of Matilda, the subject of the short piece of video released by Melba Ketchum and obtained from Adrian Erickson of the Erickson Project.

After discussing it with the others, we are allowing the video to go public with the following requirements:

This is a very short clip of a female Sasquatch sleeping that we licensed from the Erickson Project for use with the paper. Her respiration was timed at 6 breaths per minute, which is an indication that the video shows something unusual. This clip is now copyrighted to the Sasquatch Genome Project and any use or reposting MUST give proper attribution.Melba Ketchum


From the Bigfoot Evidence blog:

Shortly after the announcement was made that Adrian Erickson had obtain footage of a teenage Bigfoot named Matilda, Wally and Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO was flown to Colorado to see the footage for themselves. When asked about the facial details of the creature he saw on film, Wally mentioned seeing fangs, and the creature having a “black tongue” as it approached the camera. In the video, Matilda’s eyes dart around, looking paranoid and aggressive. The Bigfoots have a feral look about them.

Others who have seen the footage say it’s much more detailed than the Patterson-Gimlin film. On the full facial close-up shot, one witness described:

    • Nose similar to ours (but with larger nostrils)
      Slightly chapped, rosy lips
      Pink mouth, blackish tongue
      Pointed teeth, like fangs
      Deep set eyes that dart around and don’t blink
      Her head is round, shaped more like ours than a gorilla’s, but her brow is much more prominent
      She has lots of fine, flowing hair on her head (dark reddish brown) and soft short hair on her face
      When she walks away, she moves just like the female in the Patterson Film
  • Wally’s description blew our minds, but what he did not mention around the campfire was that there were two Bigfoots in the film. We learned from Matt Moneymaker on Twitter yesterday that there were actually two creatures in the full-length Matilda footage — an adult female and a juvenile female. When asked whether or not Matilda is real, Matt answered, “Yes, Matilda is real.” “The sleeping one was the adult female,” he confirmed.

    ~ Shawn Evidence

    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.

    51 Responses to “Moneymaker Confirms Matilda”

    1. Wee Falorie Man responds:

      Wow, they sure are making lots of impressive claims! When will they be releasing the actual footage so we can see for ourselves?

    2. MR JOSHUA responds:

      So basically “Matilda” looks nothing like what has been reported for over 100 years. Even “Patty” had a conical shaped head and she was a purported female sasquatch. Pointed black teeth, like fangs? Not sure how that happens with one of our very close relatives according to Ketchum’s DNA study. I don’t know any great apes or humans that have black fangs. Sounds a lot more like a Chewbacca costume I saw once. And the fact Moneymaker supports this video just further confirms the fact the BFRO has lost all credibility. No surprise this is “Sketchum’s” ground breaking video associated with her study.

    3. Jason Kelley via Facebook responds:

      When do we get to see the rest of the footage?

    4. Sal DiGennaro via Facebook responds:

      I agree, why the cover up?

    5. odingirl responds:

      “Yes, Matilda is real.” What a bizarre statement to make when you haven’t witnessed the creature in question yourself, you’ve simply taken a look at some unverifiable footage. Why would you not temper your assessment with something a little more credible, such as acknowledging that you have no way of knowing whether the creature is ‘real’ but that the footage looks compelling and warrants further investigation? This is why Matt Moneymaker is an entertainer and will undoubtedly remain so.

      Another question would be for the Erickson Project: Why release cryptic bits of film with no context (such as something visual that tells the viewer how large this animal is, for example) or facial footage? If there is a “full facial close up” of such unquestionable quality and veracity, why would you not release that instead? In the current dog-and-pony show atmosphere of so much doubt, why would you choose a few seconds of film with an animal’s most telling features (face, hands/paws, feet, etc) obscured – once again – by branches, etc?

      Does anyone know if forensic samples were gathered from these sites? Surely there would be plenty in an area where this creature has bedded down.

    6. Ragnar responds:

      Really? Moneymaker thinks a rug sample is real? First time I saw this I thought “it looks like tribble fur”. Fake fakety fake.

    7. Alan Clark Huffines via Facebook responds:

      My goodness. Lots of momentum on all this.

    8. gridbug responds:

      Agree with odingirl… why even bother with releasing a sketchy-at-best DNA study if you’ve got CLEAR FOOTAGE that shows that these creatures are real? Come out with the visual evidence and validate their existence and support it with the DNA report etc. Until we see this “mind blowing footage” I’m staying firmly on the fence with this one.

    9. odingirl responds:

      Ragnar, I agree. It’s been bothering me ever since I first laid eyes on it, especially since it’s reminiscent of a matted sheepskin rug. I finally just looked up a vendor for faux fur and found something identical that can be dyed to whatever your preference may be – a poly blend with a 3″ pile. It’s very common.

      It doesn’t account for the oddly mauve-ish color of the ‘fur’ in the Erickson video, but as we know, dyeing synthetics is tricky and can have unintended results.

    10. Redrose999 responds:

      Don’t know, the fur is off to me and so is the movement. It looks like the creature is moving its arm to make it look like it’s breathing. Not enough to see though. I’ll hold my judgement for the actual release.

    11. cryptokellie responds:

      The long fur reminds me of some of the Wookie costumes that are readily available.
      So lets see, you happen upon a sleeping Bigfoot and you take what surely would be conclusive video evidence and you release a 10 second clip. No head, hands or feet shown? We wouldn’t want to wake her up now would we? Baloney.
      If this were a video of a real Bigfoot, you could become an instant celebrity and receive substantial monetary reward for the rights to show this video world wide. It would become front page news all across the globe in less than 24 hrs, much in the same manner that Duchess Kate’s nude photos did. There would be much less reason to sit on this footage than the Duchess Kate photos as I seriously doubt that the real Bigfoot has lawyered up.
      The spirit of PT Barnum lives on – and on – and on…
      BTW; Why doesn’t Animal Planet get the photographer that photographed William and Kate to hunt down Bigfoot…just a thought.

    12. slappy responds:

      i’ll believe it when i see it and since i don’t think we’ll ever see it, i will never believe it

    13. TheBeardedMan responds:

      @ MR JOSHUA

      Black tongue, not teeth.

    14. Sebastian Wang via Facebook responds:

      I wonder what evidence does he have to confirm the subject is real?

    15. springheeledjack responds:

      So I’m assuming Moneymaker has seen the entire footage? And that it’s genuine and provable as genuine? That’s the only reason I can see for making such a statement… unless you’re foolhardy. :)

      There’s a lot of red flags with this whole mess–too many to count… so I’m just gonna sit back and watch–but so far there’s no proof of anything for the general public… for science either on that front.

    16. dconstrukt responds:

      LOL… while very interesting, until I see the video for myself it’s all nonsense and talk.

      if you’ve got the proof, real proof, you should have zero reason to hide it.

      … just sayin’

    17. c_streed responds:

      The reason only a short clip was released is because the full footage has been sold to NatGeo. NatGeo wants the bang for their buck when the full footage is released on one of their shows (Finding Bigfoot? animal planet is owned by NatGeo). They released the short clip to show that they have footage of the living sasquatch that supplied the blood sample for the Ketchum project. Moneymaker was not making his statements based on the short clip we have seen. He was making his comments based on the full HD up-close footage that he has seen.

      This was not a random video where someone accidentally happened on a sleeping bigfoot. The full video is of two relatively “tame” Bigfoots that live near a remote human residence. The people who live there have befriended these bf’s. The blood sample was obtained from glass shards hidden in some pancakes left for it to eat.

      I’m not saying any of this is legit, but these are the answers to some of the questions.

    18. mrdark responds:

      Look, once again people are missing the forest for the trees.

      If -anyone- had legitimate footage of a bigfoot of that quality, they wouldn’t ‘sell it to NatGeo’. They’d be selling it to CNN or whoever is the highest media bidder, for tens of millions, and it’d be on the news by nightfall. That’s the psychology of bigfoot. One of the last great mysteries. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would have that kind of evidence and sit on it. They gain nothing by doing so and stand to lose everything if someone else comes out with similar evidence first.

      Science, greed, curiosity, pride…name your motive for capturing that footage, it all pushes IMMEDIATE release, not long-delayed, partial release.

      You can easily debunk hoaxes by stepping back and looking at the psychology with a critical mind.

    19. painted8 responds:

      Can something look so fake that you want to give it some credence? I mean, that looks laughably bad for such a high profile Bigfooter like Matt Moneymaker to throw his support behind (not that I’m sticking up for him…), that you’d want to believe that if it was hoaxed footage, the people behind it would have done a better job. So how did a cameraman get that close to a sleeping BIgfoot?

      Surprising that if the rest of what has been described is legit and accurate, that this part was released as the teaser.

    20. slappy responds:

      c_streed, Animal Planet is owned by Discovery Communications, not NatGeo.

    21. Raiderpithicusblaci responds:

      I belive this and many other different films of other animals(including the ten to twelve foot tall one) are slated to be released on the Erickson projects bombastic dvd set, to coincide with the finalized, confirmed dna results. I said earlier this week that what WE have been shown of this footage looks dubious (in my opinion); however i have not seen the entire film, so i must withold any comments to its veracity until such time as i have been able to view it in its entirerty. What ever Moneymaker’s reputation is at this point, if he has viewed the “HD, UP CLOSE” article for himself, and proclaims it to be real, well…perhaps we sould wait and see for ourselves before proclaiming it false. I hear the big guys pretty photogenic.

    22. c_streed responds:


      I disagree. The motivations of these humans with their pet bigfoots is to prove their existence in order to protect them, not to make money. I would imagine these are pretty remarkable individuals if they did in fact accomplish the feat of befriending sasquatch. That being said, they sold it to the most appropriate bidder, not the highest bidder. National Geographic is a highly respected and well known scientific organization. They don’t want an exploitative news media bonanza. It’s going to take the scientific community and the news media a long while to come to terms with their skepticism in accepting this impossible creature actually being real. It’s the reason ketchum had to self publish.

      I’m not saying this is all real. I am saying the way things have been unfolding is not implausible.

    23. c_streed responds:

      As far as the video looking fake…It does look like giant dirty rug, but they said these creatures looked feral. This is kentucky after all. Hill Billy Bigfoots? We’ve all had bad hair days?

      I am witholding judgement until the full video comes out. If it is what they say then it will end all debate.

      The video was not ketchum’s to sell or release. She received permission to release just that little teaser. The rest belongs to NatGeo.

    24. c_streed responds:

      This is not your stuffy Pacific Northwest bigfoot, this is redneck joe-six pack bigfoot that went and got itself caught.

    25. shmargin responds:

      As someone well versed in the internet, and all things and lies that float around it, cryptozoology and Bigfoot, seem to be the hardest thing for me to know all the players in, and know who, if anyone you can trust to be providing REAL information, or just information that will make someone some money when it can, or a minute in the spotlight.

      Here is my biggest problem, other than when I see this “sleeping bigfoot footage” it screams fake at me right away, OTHER than that…Matt MONEYMAKER…

      Your name that you try to sell this stuff, or comment under, is MONEYMAKER…

      If I was born, and my god given name was MONEYMAKER, and I was interested in uncovering the truths of the world, I would NOT keep the last name Moneymaker. When I try to research him, I cant come up with if that’s his parents name or not, BUT, REGARDLESS, it does NOT help the cause of anyone who thinks Sasquatch might exists, to have someone whose name, sounds like a porn director, MONEYMAKER, be at the front of it.

      Anything that has the name Moneymaker on it, looks suspicious automatically, and maybe that just me, maybe I’m the only one, maybe I’m being insensitive to the roots of that name. But, it just feels to me, like someone trying to make a buck.

      Isn’t that the biggest excuse people give for some crazy guy saying they think Bigfoot is real? They think hes just some crazy guy trying to make a buck? When I think of doubters, that’s what I think of. So for someone to come around, sporting the name “Moneymaker” and be “interested” in the truth of Bigfoot, it makes it hard for me to take them seriously. And since I consider myself a possible believer, it makes me wonder, “what does the standard skeptic think of some guy named ‘Moneymaker’ trying to show all this loose unproven evidence?” I think, it makes the standard skeptic think, exactly what any sane person would expect, that what hes saying is lies.

      It’s hard for me to get all this down in a coherent fashion. I’m not a writer, but I hope some people can read this and see what I’m saying. This guy, and his name, FEEL fishy to me. And I think I’ve seen enough Bigfoot evidence to think they exist. I just don’t feel like FAKING that evidence, is the way to prove they do…

    26. c_streed responds:

      If you were a fraud, why would you choose the name moneymaker? That’s the worst possible name to choose unless he is an evil genius. He’s not. His last name is unfortunately Moneymaker. We can’t choose our parents.

    27. c_streed responds:

      I should change my name to moneymaker. Perhaps I could make some money.

    28. c_streed responds:

      I will reiterate:

      This is not your stuffy Pacific Northwest Bigfoot, this is Redneck Joe-Six Pack Bigfoot that went and got itself caught.

    29. Reverend responds:

      The fact that Moneymaker has seen the entire video makes me think it’s a fake. Why him? Why would Nat Geo (or whoever owned it at the time) show it to Moneymaker, of all people?

      Secondly, that doesn’t look like something breathing: It looks like something being INFLATED. Big difference.

      And thirdly… WHY PUT GLASS IN PANCAKES TO GET A BLOOD SAMPLE!? Where did that info come from? That’s utterly nuts! If they could get that close to BF for filming, and they are ‘semi-tame’, why do something as ludicrously irresponsible and downright dangerous as putting glass in food? That would very likely cause immense pain and a slow death.

      Total joke. On us.

    30. faron27 responds:

      The sasquatch is by no means the rarest but far and away is the most elusive creature on earth. Their intelligence and ability to avoid detection goes far beyond any recognized species.

      (this is from EP website) so how did they get so close?

      why oh why are we to believe some guy who runs around in the dark saying Squatchy!

      how much will you have to pay to see the video?

    31. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

      Guys, seriously, this has nothing to do with us. Being quoted like that is one more opportunity to get an additional 5 seconds of air time in the mainstream media. All of this isn’t about finding Bigfoot, it’s about making money (both puns intended). Everyone involved stands to make money, whether it’s a TV show or selling papers at $30 a pop.

    32. MR JOSHUA responds:

      @BeardedMan – Black tongue, black teeth, black socks….its a fake. Pancakes with glass? Give me a break. This is the worst hoax yet and I am embarrassed to say I believe in Bigfoot’s existence thanks to people like this. Can’t wait to wait a year to see the rest of this footage on Finding Bigfoot season 4 episode 1 “Pancakes with Bigfoot.” What a joke.

    33. chetvaldes responds:

      Why didn’t they fly Dr. Meldrum in to view the footage, unless the final release is geared toward sensationalism instead of science?

    34. BigfootLives1971 responds:

      Like a lot of cryptomundians, I’m riding the fence on this one, although it looks fake to me.

      Regarding the financial aspect of this potentially exciting video, I remember that Inside Edition (I think it was them) paid the ferry boat captain over $100,000 for rights to the fuzzy blobsquatch footage in Manitoba. Some posters stated that NatGeo purchased the rights to this footage, and they come highly more respected than Inside Edition, in my opinion.

      What is news to me is that a Kentucky family has befriended these creatures, and yet this is the only footage they have, albeit a 19 second clip from longer footage? It seems that they would document/memorialize their amicable relationship if not for money, but for their own ancillary rewards, while at least obtaining footage. Heck, I video the hummingbirds, pileated woodpeckers, red-tail hawks, etc. that frequent my property to send to my friends in Miami, FL. I know that these birds aren’t cryptozoological animals, but I would still record the events for my own personal enjoyment.

    35. DWA responds:

      And the one, what, doing jumping jacks was the juvenile female?

      At last: a confirmed hybrid of an unknown hominin and Dynel ™.

      Moneymaker. Oh yeah. I remember him. He had lucid moments once. Then everything went squatchy.

    36. DWA responds:


      See, for those mundane boring things you’re recording, you don’t have the following considerations:

      1. Stealing their spirit;

      2. Instilling a fear of paparazzi;

      3. Bad user rating in the 2013 edition of “Hangout With Habituators” (Avoid. THEY FILM.

      I could continue with this, but you just don’t seem to understand:

      Bigfoot. They’re Not Us. They’re Better. ™

    37. DWA responds:

      “Shortly after the announcement was made that Adrian Erickson had obtain footage of a teenage Bigfoot named Matilda, Wally and Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO was flown to Colorado to see the footage for themselves. When asked about the facial details of the creature he saw on film, Wally mentioned seeing fangs, and the creature having a “black tongue” as it approached the camera. In the video, Matilda’s eyes dart around, looking paranoid and aggressive. The Bigfoots have a feral look about them.”

      Wow! They’re using Melba Ketchum’s writing team!

      Scientists may have uneven grasp of plain English …but “Wally and Matt…was flown…?” [teethgrind]

      When asked about the facial details, Wally said: huh? ‘sa rug, man, can’t you see that?

      A ‘feral look about them’? Well, sasquatch aren’t domestic after all! The veil lifts…

      And “a teenage bigfoot named Matilda”? OK, first, Moneymaker says Matilda is the adult female; OK, second, is that her real name or a pseudonym?

      Wow. Some things just say: if you are gullible, press 5.

    38. springheeledjack responds:

      I pressed 5 but got no answer…

      It disturbs me greatly that all of these sources are becoming intertwined–Ketchum, Erickson, Moneymaker–now it’s no longer a question of who do I trust as a source, but who is there left to trust? The fact that they’re all “in cahoots” means to me that unless we get some bonafide proof in the near future…I’m going to take it on faith that they’re all just out for their 15 minutes and as much money as they can fleece the crypto crowd for.

      It’s sad that trust is such an issue in the crypto community. We should be working together to solve this than monkeying around trying to flim flam each other.

      Go ahead prove me wrong. I dare you–

    39. DWA responds:

      I only trust one thing now: evidence and those who are actively pursuing it.

      In other news, and right here on C’mundo: Jeff Meldrum is about to issue a pocket-size sasquatch field guide. That may turn out to be bigger than anything else seen on this board in months. Getting as many laymen involved as possible in solving this mystery is, in view of the mainstream’s clear disinclination, imperative.

      (You bet I’m getting one, even though I probably have memorized everything on it.)

      (Right. Show me the field guides for ghosts; werewolves; shapeshifters; centaurs; and unicorns. I’ll reply: cool. But how could a scientist confirm this?)

      And it’s gotten one comment.


      Go figger.

      Vultures do cluster around what stinks. There is that.

    40. William responds:

      While I certainly see the skeptical sides of this and agree the facts weigh awesomely heavy in their favor, I cannot help but cling to a slight hope that perhaps, just perhaps, there is some truth that Nat Geo does have the rest of the footage and it will be handled and revealed in a respectible manner to the world.

      If these creatures are real and were in fact, habituated sucessfully by some extremely smart people, I can see why they would not want to release tons of footage as the media would descend upon them like the fans in Baltimore did for the Ravens when they won the superbowl. If I cared about maintaining the safety and continual contact with these wonderful creatures, I would be very cautious about releasing details of where they are located and guard it with secrecy at all costs. So perhaps that is precisely what is going on here instead of all the sinister assertions?

    41. Goodfoot responds:

      I don’t know which is more embarrassing, a shag carpet with a dog underneath it, or the word, “simyular”,

    42. cryptokellie responds:

      To DWA…

      “Vultures do cluster around what stinks…”
      Truer words were never spoken.
      I love it.

    43. Alamo responds:

      OK Mr. Moneymaker, Matilda is real… a real what?

    44. plowboy1065 responds:

      If NatGeo really had Earth shattering footage they were sitting do you really think it wouldn’t have leaked by now? I call BS on this how subject and I’m willing to bet we never see anything other than the rug clip.

    45. Bob K. responds:

      Nothing to see yet. That little snippet of film shows/proves nothing. Really, these little games are getting annoying.

    46. Dr Kaco responds:

      Before we all go ‘Biscardi’ on Matt Moneymaker, Melba Ketchum & Adrian Erickson lets wait to see the whole video. I wonder if Todd Standing can ‘one-up’ this story ;p

    47. William responds:

      I do think a teenage bigfoot would be much easier to fake than a full grown one the size of “Patty” in the PG film or bigger. It would stand to reason a teenager would be thinner and lanky, not nearly as developed. Thus it would be likely within more average human height and weight. Ergo,much easier to portray one in a costume as it would not require somone like Andre the Giant or Shaquille O’Neal to don.

    48. Goodfoot responds:

      Young or old, big or small, I refuse to believe they look like a piece of shag carpet.

    49. springheeledjack responds:

      If there was footage and it got to a network it would come out pronto. How about the giant squid footage they got last November–that hit the network within a couple of months…

      I’ll buy in when they offer up some GOOD evidence and proof…in the mean time, yeah, I’m waiting for the Bigfoot fieldguide from Meldrum…

    50. eyeofstrm responds:

      You will never see the entire film because it is a HOAX. I do believe Bigfoot exists, just not on this film. Otherwise they would release the entire film.

    51. Alamo responds:

      I agree with Goodfoot, it looks like Mr. Snuffleupagus fur…

    Leave your comments

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    |Top | Content|

    Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


    Connect with Cryptomundo

    Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


    DFW Nites

    Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


    |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.