Finding Bigfoot: Moneymaker on the Spokane Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 11th, 2011

We talked about this iPhone video footage here, here, here & here on Cryptomundo when it surfaced on youtube a couple of weeks ago.

Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot had Matt Moneymaker give his thoughts on this piece of footage.

Finding Bigfoot- Spokane Bigfoot Sighting a Hoax?

Matt Moneymaker examines the recent video from Spokane, Washington in which the person who took the video claimed to have captured Bigfoot on tape. He offers possible explanations for it and his personal take on the video!Animal Planet

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.

33 Responses to “Finding Bigfoot: Moneymaker on the Spokane Bigfoot Video”

  1. myakkad responds:

    And I would totally agree with Matt.

  2. Kahil responds:

    Its good that he didn’t say it was a bigfoot as it is clearly a human. The only disconcerting thing would be his comparison points, as in when he says it doesn’t look like an adult or juvenile bigfoot. This implies that he knows what an adult and juvenile bigfoot looks like. As we all know, no one knows. May have been better to say something like…the figure doesn’t fit the profile of what we believe bigfoot to look like and it fits the profile of a human more.

  3. Redrose999 responds:

    I honestly don’t think the Spokane Bigfoot was worth addressing. The darned vid was so obviously a teenager pulling a prank. If folks could just ignore that sort of stupidity folks might take BF stuff a little more seriously. Giving pranksters this kind of attention (negative as well as positive) will just fuel more hoaxers in hopes they will be talked about or shown on Discovery.

  4. SirKen63 responds:

    I would have to agree with Matt. It either a person that was hiking or a Hoax. Matt saying it does not look like a Adult or juvenile would mean that Matt knows what a bigfoot looks like and I do remember reading and hearing that he has said he has some proof (picture he has not shared) and encounters with Bigfoot.

    Matt I would really like to hear your encounters. And any of then seeing the younger ones. I do enjoy a good bigfoot story , and would never tell someone that has seen one that it didn’t happen. I was not there and I can not say one way or another. So please share with us your stories, and how many times have you seen a bigfoot. Hate to say this though, encounter with someone else that can confirm it would be better. Like Bobo or cliff….Thanks

  5. Richard888 responds:

    Human doing something private in the bushes and desperately running to hide from encroaching humans.

  6. riverguy responds:

    @redrose999 what a great statement, and ironic. Feels like that’s what goes on here in the Cryptomundo ‘Comments’ section after each Finding Bigfoot or Moneymaker post.

  7. dabode responds:

    One interpretation could be implied he knows what a adult or juvenile look like however I got the idea he may mean that there might be some differences in size/shape between immature vs mature animals however slight.

    I’m in my 50’s, my son just turned 18. We both look human but I’m bulkier, (with more of a gut) and less of the hair, so there are differences.

    Now if I saw this video before I read I was supposed to submit to this guy’s will, I’d say it makes sense.

    And still does, it’s just after a few unnecessary posts, I don’t want to hear any more from or about Mr. Moneymaker.

    You know what makes people tons of money??? Controversy and stirring the pot. It works well in show business and politics why not crypto??? So I think I’ll be one hand less stirring the pot and leave the moneymaking thing behind and get back to the good stuff here on Cryptomundo.

  8. Redrose999 responds:

    @ riverguy

    Sorry to be confusing, I was actually referring to Discovery communications pushing any of the obviously phony internet vids ranging from the Spokane vid to the werewolf man in a ghillie suit vid. I expect Cryptomundo to address these things, it’s the point of the blog, and Loren and Craig post these things and though discussion we determine the validity of these vids. I’m sure the BFRO forums do the same with BF material. But that is within the crypto-community. Say, inside the family business, not dealing with outsiders who have no idea how folks here take things apart and analyze things. Outsiders who really just want to make a buck on a flash in the pan prank/controversy.

  9. Kahil responds:

    @SirKen63 – If Matt has proof, as in a good picture….and if his goal is to prove that Bigfoot exists….then why hasn’t anyone seen the picture? Why hasn’t he shared it? That seems contradictory to his goals and counterproductive for Bigfoot research. To me, that’s the same as telling someone you have a girlfriend but they wouldn’t know her because she goes to a different school and they’ll just have to take your word for it.

    If your goal is to prove something and if you have evidence…then show your cards or fold.

  10. Redrose999 responds:


    TV networks do have folks sign legal documents like non disclosure agreements. He could get in bit legal trouble if he broke the contract. I don’t know Discovery’s policy, but I wouldn’t be surprised. But if I was involved in the Bigfoot community I’d find it difficult to keep it quiet. Also, the lack of rumors running around makes me highly doubtful that any such discovery was made.

  11. riverguy responds:

    I know what you were talking about.
    The ‘irony’ is your comment about giving attention (negative or positive) that fuels more activity. The same people that desperately rush to the front of the line to reply to Moneymaker’s comments and try to shout him down, are the same ones that drive more and more activity. In my opinion, they don’t see they are puppets on his strings making them do exactly what MM wants them to do. Ironic (and cheap entertainment).

  12. Kahil responds:

    Ummm…yeah… That’s not how it works… The claim is that he has a picture from a while back that he hasn’t released. If he got this supposed picture while filming, then as long as he used his own equipment to take the picture, then no one other than Matt would have rights to it. Claims of intellectual property bear no weight in scientific discovery.

  13. Hapa responds:

    I agree with Moneymaker to a point. Based on the image in the picture it seems more like a person (and is more likely to be a person) rather than a bigfoot. Yes we have no way of knowing what a juvenile sasquatch looks like, but one could make some inferences based on the adults often seen. But I still don’t see this as evidence for squatch. It’s too blurry, too far away to make any definitive judgment.

    And even if it was clear (clearer than the Patterson/Gimlin footage) one could not really make a good definitive judgment (the Patterson/Gimlin film is extraordinary, but it has been the source of intense controversy rather than the ultimate proof the scientific community wants. And with modern Hollywood suits and computer wizardry, one can pull off some amazing hoaxes).

    There is a book called “Recasting Sasquatch”, where the author (something Quasar) makes the case for the Sasquatch being similar to De Loy’s ape, a giant monkey. The latter had no saggital crest and was lighter build than the usual bigfoot, fitting better with what we see on the film. But still I think that Moneymaker has just about driven the last nail into this net coffin.

    We must realize the truth: we will not prove sasquatch with infra-red cameras, camera traps, pictures and videos, or even hairs with DNA. We are facing a skeptical scientific community, a few (if not many) of whom are so resistant to the idea of sasquatch that they jump onto anyone claiming to have hoaxed extraordinary squatch proof and believe them without proper proof. The Bob Heironomus hoax-hoax is the best example, the equivalent of me saying that I hoaxed the Moon landing and having people believe me without asking to see my set props, or fudging the facts in order to support my “Eyewitness testimony” (which skeptics would disregard in any other circumstance).

    We can only prove Sasquatch by killing one, finding remains of one, or taking one from the Pacific northwest bush alive. Sad but true.

  14. Kahil responds:

    Well, the problem is that in some states, like California, Sasquatch is a protected species that cannot be shot. The point of the law is to not only protect a species, since even skeptics will say that if they do in fact exist, they are likely in very small numbers. Wouldn’t do much good to discover a species if in doing so you kill the last of its kind. And just as important, you don’t want someone killing another human just because they thought they were a sasquatch.

    So instead of hunting and killing one, how about using a tranquilizer? Take some hair samples, plenty of video and pictures, maybe even a subdermal tracking device. That would probably be the best way to go.

  15. SirKen63 responds:

    I agree if he has it and stories of seeing a bigfoot I would like to hear it or see it. I was asking instead of demanding he show me his proof if he has these photo or encounter.

    I may not agree with Matt on a lot of things. But I will hear or see what ever proof he might think he has or wants to share. I just hope he does it in a nice manner. Plus someone to say it’s not an older or younger Bigfoot because of the body shape, must have some eye witness encounters to make that judgement.

    Does not hurt to see what he bases it on.

  16. Redrose999 responds:


    Ah, I see. I think politics and string pulling is typical of any group dynamic. No different than any other place really.


    Thanks, I wasn’t aware how it worked with entertainment and documentary discoveries. My husband does non disclosures all the time and it is quite different with inventions and technology for a company. It is nice to know you can have some kind of control over these things.


    Indeed, I agree, a body will be the only way you can prove BF exists in the end. It is sad, but in the end, if BF does exist, it will help to save them as a species as well as shake up the world as we know it.

  17. j stewart responds:

    I think Matt is correct, this isn’t a Sasquatch. This has the look of either a hoax or just misidentification.

  18. Hapa responds:

    Hellow Kahil:

    I didn’t know it was protected in California, but i heard they were trying to get it protected or have made it protected in New York and Florida. Its a dumb idea: at the same time the skeptic asks for a body, the government says you cant obtain one! How can you do science with pitiful legislation?

    Yes, it would be bad to render extinct the Sasquatch with a kill, but if we don’t kill, they may well die out without us ever knowing if they existed. And how can you do conservation work without evidence of their existence?

    Killing someone in an ape suit: that’s a real danger, whether you use bullets or tranks made for creatures larger than man (you don’t want to get shot by a trank strong enough to take down a Grizzly or Cap Buffalo). And it would be scary to hunt down and fire on something tat big and strong. It would be to use tranks, if it was strong enough to take it down quickly (i.e. so it don’t run off and collapse where you cant find it). But still, the best way to find a new species is to kill a type specimen. Anyone who hunts them has to ask themselves: are the risks worth it? Can you handle the risks?

    Now tranquilizing one and taking pics, hair, vid, and putting in a subdermal tracking device: Not a bad idea. You would have to make sure the device is durable and have a lot of hair samples, but if scientists track the beast down using the tracking device, they might consider taking the brute alive to a lab and either dissect it or study it then send it to some Zoo (will definitely make discovery channel!). Zoo and Circus life can be rough for some if not most animals, and those in such establishments are often seen as martyrs in a sense: having people see such magnificent animals up close can make for good people pressure to support stronger conservation methods around the globe as well as at home. But being gawked at by puny humans, in a strange environment, away from its own kind, away from the morning Rocky mountain air, no longer free…this type of life has to be weighed with killing the animal in an environment it would want to die in, free, when we consider kill or trank. Still, one of the best ideas on how to prove squatch without killing one. Very good 🙂

    There is also another way to prove squatch: Fossils. One large non-man ape fossil would be startling enough, but if enough bones were found that showed a bipedal, giant ape…slam dunk.

  19. korollocke responds:

    Matt doesn’t have a pic of bigfoot from awhile back, he would have been rubbing it peoples face as soon as he took it. So hogwash on that claim.

    Matt has never seen, filmed/photographed, recorded sounds of or encountered a real bigfoot period. Nobody has, sad but true people.

  20. sasquatch responds:

    I’m not sure what it is…But, it’s posture and flat face say sasquatch and not human, but it could be someone who’s faking the posture anyway…I’m not as certain as Matt or most here.

  21. Kahil responds:

    @ Hapa – Regarding your comment about fossils… keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, fossils are actually a very rare thing. For fossils to occur, there has to be the right combination of conditions for it to even be possible. 99.99999+% of the time, bones fall victim to natural decay. So if bigfoot actually does exist, it is reasonable to see why no bones have been found, especially if there aren’t many left out there.

    Take the reasonable explanation for sasquatch from the known fossil record…Gigantopithecus. We only know of their existence from just a handful of fossil teeth found in China.

    So the fossil explanation/question doesn’t really hold much value.

  22. Nominay responds:

    Even FB/FB thinks it’s fake, although they are generous in calling it a “case of mistaken identity”.

  23. Redrose999 responds:


    I believe we only have four percent of the fossil record from what I understand. Most bones need to fall in water with silt to be preserved. North America is mostly temperate forest, and the conditions are not favorable for fossil formation.

  24. mandors responds:


    Has anyone analyzed the figure’s reappearance at around the 52 second mark? It’s no longer running but walking. It doesn’t look like the “compliant” gait thing, but I’m no expert. Also, it seems to be uniform in color.

  25. Kahil responds:

    @mandors – Its just yet another blurry video that shows no detail. Either they faked it or they just thought they saw something they thought was bigfoot but clearly wasn’t.

    They say the video was taken with an iPhone…well…iPhones do have decent cameras on them and the quality should have been better. That’s something that bothers me about all of the vids that come out anymore. We have all these great, high powered cameras and video recorders that take high quality images and videos….even our cell phones do. Yet all these people who claim to see one never take pictures or videos of it….and when they do, the quality is always poor.

    You’d think that the BFRO would set up and sponsor trail cams in these areas that they claim to know bigfoot exists. That’s how we discover and rediscover species all of the time. So why not set up long term trail cams? You would think that they or someone would have done so by now. Especially at places like what was in the last episode where a that family claims they get nightly visits.

    Just sayin….

  26. Hapa responds:

    Kahil and Redrose999:

    I should have expanded on the fossil question when i wrote that post. I meant to put down that not only are some ape fossils difficult to find (Only recently have we found chimp fossils, and Gorilla fossils I believe are still void. Orangutan fossils are known in Asia, and with Giganto we only have jawbones and teeth, not the rest of the body, and therefore we don’t know for sure whether it walked upright or on all fours). And yes the Pacific Northwest is not a good place to have fossils, but we do find some there (Giant Black bear, scimitar toothed cat, etc) and it might not be before long before a squatch fossil is found there soon. Jeff Meldrum said that squatch fossils could potentially be found in the Pacific Northwest despite its acidic soils.

    However, fossil evidence wont be counted as the smoking gun unless it includes lower body bones: As I’ve said already, Giganto is only known by jawbones and teeth. If you found Giganto remains in let’s say Alaska or Texas, it still wouldn’t convince the skeptics unless the fossils showed that it walked upright. I can imagine how they would say this…

    Skeptic: So whut? Just Becuzz U have Giganto fussils in Amurica do not meen u huve pruuf of Bigfuut, Na na NAAAAAAAAH!

    Almost like a baby’s cry…

    So not only do we need the fossils, we need the proper fossils. And even then, some might wiggle their way out of the evidence by saying that, though the legend of Bigfoot is based on a real animal, there is no evidence to show it is still around, and that it is possible therefore that the modern phenomena is made up of mis-identification, toking out in the 60s (weed/shrooms/LSD) and hoaxing. Still, a fossil of a bipedal primate, after confirmed as legit, should sway most scientists (save for those with an almost religious anti-paranormal, anti-Crypto-zoology agenda, like those at the skeptical Inquirer).

    One interesting thing about fossils: we have several fossil species of bipedal non-homo Sapien primates from Africa alone (Paranthropines, australopiths, “Homo Habilis”, etc) which in many ways resemble a small relative of Yeti, Squatch and other supposed giant hominids around the world. Also in Africa there are stories of small bipedal non-human apes covered in hair called Agogwe. Think about that…There is far more evidence for these “Littlefoots”, if you will, in terms of fossils, than any other wild undiscovered ape giants in the world…and yet Scientists would probably baulk at the idea of a surviving bipedal ape from that time.

    Other than a body or a live specimen, what would it take to satisfy the Scientific community? It makes you wonder if even a body would satisfy them??? After all, at first scientists dismissed the duck Billed Platypus specimen brought to the western world’s attention, thinking it was a hoax.

  27. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Nothing other than a specimen will satisfy the scientific community. A series of high quality pictures or video would help, but the only thing that wil answer the question if it’s existence is a deceased or living body to study. After all, we all know that even with high quality pictures and videos, those can be faked very well too.

  28. David-Australia responds:

    Hapa: “duck Billed Platypus”.

    Apologies for going off at a tangent. Dunno why people use this extended description as a name – it’s just “Platypus”, and if you’re lucky (and living in Australia) you can see them active during the day proper, so they are not strictly nocturnal. Good description on Wikipedia.

  29. Redrose999 responds:

    The problem with the scientific community is it loves its theories, and it’s filled with competition. It’s also filled with sacred cows and the fear of rocking said boats. I’ll use paleontology for example. There was a time where they knowingly kept the wrong head on a sauropod because it would be too controversial to change it. No one wanted to “dishonor” the memory of Edward Dinker Cope. It was finally changed almost 100 years later.

    In other words, I think the biggest problem is the human factor.

    Politics always plays a part in what a scientist should research, and if he goes up against an accepted theory he/she has an up hill climb to prove that it may not apply to everything. It takes science a long time to accept an animal exists, especially say, if it was thought extinct, rather than just adapted to a different environment or life style to avoid humans. I would personally like to see science think of adaptation before thinking of extinction, when populations of certain animals start to become more elusive. But it’s hardly practical is it? Money wise, it is easier and cheaper to think the animal is gone. This is why we commonly see species previously thought as extinct popping up ie: the Buffalo in Canada.

    Also, think about what they would need to do if they did prove say, we have big black cats in the Northeast, or hominids on the west coast? What would it do to the real estate or logging industries? Not only would it cost a great deal of money to prove these things exist, it would cost money to preserve them. The bureaucracy of science and the economy in general is often held hostage by who is willing to pay for it.

    I am sure there are other reasons, I’m no expert here. But a lot of it comes to money, and the fact that exploration today is about money. Scientists in general is no longer a “gentlemen’s” field like it was in the past. Scientists and naturalists can’t fund their own expeditions, and it’s no longer lucrative to fund expeditions unless there is money to be made with them. In the past, there was always the hope for some kind of financial benefit with the explorations (ie England’s geological survey’s interest in Arctic and Antarctic expeditions), today it’s safer to stick with what we know and can guarantee pay back.

  30. Hapa responds:


    Hello there. I don’t know what you mean by going off on a tangent. Maybe your post was heavily edited? I don’t see any other writings of yours in this discussion. Nevertheless, thank you for the heads up about the proper name of the Platypus. I’ve heard the “Duck Billed” moniker ever since I was a kid, but come to think of it, the name is redundant (there are no non-duck-billed Platypi).

    BTW: is it okay to shoot at Yowies in Australia, or Giant Lizards (Possible modern day Megalania/Great ripper lizards)?

  31. Redrose999 responds:

    @ Hapa

    Yes, I agree. But I also feel Kahil has a point, we need a specimen, live or dead, something that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that BF exists. Science needs repeatable testable conditions to prove things, and I honestly feel a specimen to study would provide that. The other stuff can’t be repeatable predictably and consistently.

  32. David-Australia responds:

    Reply to Hapa:

    My posting not edited – I just was trying to keep my word count down. What I simply meant as my “tangent” was discussing a Platypus, not a Sasquatch or the TV show – apologies if I confused.

    I know of no laws in Australia mentioning shooting at Yowies or giant lizards!

  33. loopstheloop responds:

    Ha ha ha…. yesterday’s headline ‘To Moneymaker EVERYTHING is a bigfoot’.

    Today’s breaking news: ‘Moneymaker dismisses video clip… declares NOT a bigfoot’.


Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.