Cryptomundo Terms of Use

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 3rd, 2011

The discussion of Animal Planet’s “Finding Bigfoot” has gotten out of hand.

We (Craig and Loren) would like to remind everyone of the terms of use (as fashioned primarily by Loren, with reflective research, when Cryptomundo first was founded by Craig) as stated here on the website.

Comments and Discussion Groups Terms of Use

In order to make our Comments and Discussion Groups interesting and informative for our users, the following guidelines must be adhered to by all users posting and/or viewing comments:

You agree not to post on the Cryptomundo Site or to email or otherwise make available any Content:

that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, profane, harassing, defamatory, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, or is harmful to minors in any way;

that is pornographic or depicts sexual conduct;

that harasses, degrades, intimidates or is hateful toward an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability;

that impersonates any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Cryptomundo employee, or falsely states or otherwise misrepresents your affiliation with a person or entity (this provision does not apply to messages that are lawful non-deceptive parodies of public figures);

that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person’s prior express written consent;

that is false, deceptive, or misleading;Cryptomundo

The comments appeared to serve a purpose, in the beginning, to illuminate strong feelings involved and raised by this program. But, from both sides, they have become less than useful to this discussion. The name calling will NOT be tolerated.

The discussion is about the SHOW (“Finding Bigfoot”), and not about what one thinks of the cast members’ personalities or what those involved in the show think of the personalities of those who might like or dislike the program, actually.

If you want to continue discussing the show, the evidence found or lack thereof, the production company’s editing and/or items you wish to question, that is fine.

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.

43 Responses to “Cryptomundo Terms of Use”

  1. TheForthcoming responds:

    Thank you Loren.

    I too am sick and tired of all the ad homs and logical fallacies that people continue to use in these discussions that are uncalled for.

  2. WolfGirl responds:

    Many thanks from me, too, Loren and Craig. Part of the reason I love this site is that discussion is kept much more civil than on many other cryptozoological sites and I was really surprised by how crude and disrespectful some people were in regards to Finding Bigfoot. It’s nice to be on a website that actually upholds its terms of service.

  3. rozum responds:

    Thank you for putting your foot down, Loren and Craig. We all need to stick to what’s important and that is proving bigfoot exist. Some day we will prove it to the world.

  4. Redrose999 responds:

    Thank you Craig, Loren,

    for the most part, Cryptomundo has always conducted itself in a mature way. For the most part, we are a diverse crowd, ranging from doctors, engineers, biologists, trackers, law enforcement, film makers, house wives, students, trackers, hunters, outdoors folks, to anything in between. We have creationists, evolutionists, geeks and sportsmen, lovers, dreamers, hunters, atheists, to religious folk, Skeptics, the curious, to true believers, yet some how we manage for the most part to chat respectfully and understand and respect each others ideas. Sometimes we are guilty of snark, and heated discussion. For the most part, I think this is a rare encounter. I’m not sure what sparked off the anger but I suspect it was to due with when your not familiar with a community or the community is not familiar with you (or is not partial to the individual due to previous in group politics) and how to approach it, you step on a few toes. Most folks were also defending each other as many own line families do. My two cents, but Loren is the expert, and I respect him greatly, as I do Craig. With that said, thank you for posting the rules, and thank you for putting your foot down.

  5. eyecitga responds:

    Really glad to see someone post this thread. Things got WAY out of hand. Not really sure why and don’t really care. I still like the show and hope things work out for the better for all concerned as it progresses. We are a very small but dedicated community and any ill repute amongst us only tears us apart. I do think we’re all looking for the same thing- answers and respect. Seems the latter term is going to be tougher than finding our beloved cryptid. Hope that’s not the case. Let’s keep searching!

  6. oldphilosopher responds:

    Thank you Craig & Loren. Timely asserted.

  7. praetorian responds:

    Where was this posting two days ago?

  8. Kahil responds:

    Well said.

  9. fuzzy responds:

    praetorian – Perhaps an abbreviated version should appear at the top of every page, with a link to the full Rules Post? The notoriety generated by such a widely and wildly advertised Show is sure to attract newbies who may be irritated by certain aspects of Squatchin’, Ogopogoin’, Nessin’ etc – and behave herein like some of the crude posters on other Sites.

  10. korollocke responds:

    When something is pushed as real when it is proven to be fake and staged and the outlandish claims still persist to pushed by an individual lacking any respect for the pursuit of knowledge and greater understanding what so ever and people are brow beat and called stupid for not buying the fraud at hand you are going get people upset and passionate about exposing and discrediting the hoaxers involved.

    It would have been a sad day if people hadn’t have lashed out over this.

  11. Dr Kaco responds:

    Everyone has an opinion, let’s hear it…but not everyone’s ill feelings for someone should be posted!

    [Edited by CM admin to meet the “Terms of Use.”]

  12. CDC responds:

    To be honest and truthful, what the posters did here is exactly what is required by science. Hard questions about the evidence were asked, and the “ANSWERS” are what generated the heated back and forth. To simply allow claims, comments, or evidence to go unchallenged is not scientific nor what any one really wants.

    We learned more about the show Finding Bigfoot here than anywhere else, and facts disclosed here may have never been exposed to the public without the heated back and forth demanding answers.

    If you look at the total number of posts it seems that it was “must read” dialog as opposed to the regular 7 to 10 replies on other topics, these threads went 30’s 40’s and 50’s replies and it DID lead to answers we may not have otherwise had.

    Lastly, rules are rules, and I understand that this is a private web site and not subject to the rules of free speech we have here in America. But what concerns me is when we have our posts edited and even rewritten by moderators on this site.

    I would rather you do not allow a post to be posted as written if it is offensive. If you edit, add, or delete, anything from an individual’s post, it no longer becomes that individual’s true opinion or feelings.

    I have visited this site off and on over the years, but this was the first time I felt strongly enough about a subject or person to actually post a comment.

    [Slightly edited re: admin editing, as per the Terms of Use.]

  13. Loren Coleman responds:

    I agree with CDC here, and I think you will see that the moderation and approval of messages and comments in the last week actually did result in more information coming out.

    I have a feeling for many people, with thinner skins, however, it became counter-productive to appear to be reinforcing the abusive name-calling versus supporting a debate or revealing of items added to the program.

    I think we all learned a lot about quite a few people who lost their cool via the comments, and those lessons learned will be useful in the future with regards to what those folks say, humm.

  14. Craig Woolheater responds:

    To be honest and truthful, what the posters did here is exactly what is required by science. Hard questions about the evidence were asked, and the “ANSWERS” are what generated the heated back and forth. To simply allow claims, comments, or evidence to go unchallenged is not scientific nor what any one really wants.

    We learned more about the show Finding Bigfoot here than anywhere else, and facts disclosed here may have never been exposed to the public without the heated back and forth demanding answers.CDC

    And I have no problem at all with the heated back and forth, when it is discussing the show, the evidence, etc.

    But when it degrades into back and forth name calling, then it has gone over the line and will not be tolerated.

    That is hardly scientific either.

  15. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    When a thread degenerates into chaos, I think it’s only those involved in the hurting that are the real casualties, as you tend to get back what you put out to others.

    It’s quite safe on the sidelines!

    However the beauty of a ‘thread’ is that it’s pretty much self contained and before long is ‘put to bed’ and consigned to history. Other topics are posted, we move on and get back onto a civilised even keel.

    Slights inflicted or inaccuracies, don’t need an angry reaction; a cool factual response like Loren gives (when required) is admirable; facts are the ultimate corrective, and that‘s been proven many times (facts prevail)!

    The issues within this multi-stranded thread became over simplified, a few bloggers responses were channelled into aggressive ’scapegoating’ towards one person, and we’ve seen an angry backlash from the recipient, who feels he has been maligned.

    An angry pen is best left in the draw until it cools down! …that’s the lesson. On the positive side; a fair few facts have materialised that weren’t there at the beginning!

    (Would it have been ethical to edit out the name calling through the moderation process? It may have lowered temperatures.)

    Finding Bigfoot? …I think for the future we have cause to be optimistic as I believe the ‘law of averages’ will definitely prevail; one day we’ll get footage on a par with the P.G. footage, or better! Lenses are everywhere and after a hundred or so (insert your own figure) inconclusive ’blobsquatches’ etc have appeared on the internet, a real gem will surface, it‘s inevitable!

    Through the law of averages, believers will ultimately be vindicated. (the biggest “told you so” in history with knobs on!)…..

  16. gridbug responds:

    It should also be noted that the far majority of insulting language and name calling came from one person in particular, while the majority of the cryptomundo regulars kept their replies civil (to a point) and refrained from the low-brow rebuttals of the poster in question. Good on you, cryptomundians. Glad to be among you.


  17. NWesterner responds:

    Gridbug makes an excellent point, and this should be kept in mind when examining the reactions in the comments. If someone is insulting people left and right, I don’t think its entirely unexpected that they may get some of the same back in return. Some of us will simply not let a bully try and run over people.

    That said, I appreciate this site greatly and it always has high standards and interesting comments, and Loren Coleman and his contributers have my up most respect.

  18. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    You’ve got options: You can fight ‘fire with fire’ or you can rise above it!

  19. evilangusyeti responds:

    I read this blog daily as I have been researching crypto related subjects since the late 60’s. My point of view on most of the Sasquatch/Yeti postings may be slightly different than the majority as that was not my main area of focus. I majored in Biology/Zoology in collage and I wanted to be the first (bad ego trip) to CONFIRM the existence of the Kraken to the world, but the Japanese guy beat me to it a few years ago (Congrats to him, with a little envy). So my Holy Grail has been found. I still come here because I just love to take in ALL the crypto data I can.

    Let me say I am very proud of the way MOST of this community stayed above the mudslinging but as a result of the profanity and name calling from a certain person I will choose not to watch this show. I recall reading somewhere that profanity and name calling are the first signs of a limited vocabulary.

    Loren, Craig; I enjoy this site more than any other on the web and it is mostly because of the people that make up your commentary pool. I was elated to see this section added as it makes this site “rise above” the other ones. Debate and discussion without viral belligerence is the salt of the earth. You guys do an OUTSTANDING job.

    And there is a way to disagree or refute a statement without the vehemence. This is why I just love to read DWA’s comments. DWA, you are the MAN!

    So I want to leave all you Bigfoot enthusiasts with one thought. When the kraken, or giant squid was finally caught on film without question I was forced to make a decision. What do I do next now that it has been authenticated?

    So, when the Sasquatch is proven, are you going to look back on what you have said and done as “Okay I did this the correct way and I can look at myself in the mirror” or will it be “WOW now I look like a total jerk”.

    I think most here will fall into the first section, but we all know a few that are destined to be in the second. Where will your actions and words make you wind up?

    Craig, Loren; You guys are the best. MM, DWA, Redpilljunkie, please keep up the good fight. Your input makes these blogs entertaining and fun.

  20. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Well! …I thought this particular thread was about reflection, and reconciliation amongst the good folk. An overview in neutral …that insults are nasty and will not be tolerated etc.

    ..and then NWesterner & Gridbug appear! Under a thin veil of cordiality and paying their dues, it’s apparent they are still playing the ’blame game’ and taking sides.

    It’s hardly reading between the lines; we know who they continue to vilify even on this thread!

    It’s a shame, …because if M.Moneymakers’s rebuttals had been without insults, they may have struck a cord with everyone as sincere without the bitter aftertaste.

    As for evilangusyeti’s comments what a toe-curlingly, sycophantic, patronising off topic mixture of diatribe & dribble! …this ‘crypto-angel’ (pass me my sunglasses) manages to do a spot of mud slinging himself into the bargain!!!!

    Please note that when I insult people I try to insult people within the rules!

    Thanks for listening!

  21. CDC responds:

    I went back and read all the posts and they really were not that bad.

    Most of you here must have gone to private school because most public school playgrounds are a lot tougher and words a lot stronger.

    Not saying we should act like children…but come on, how many “REAL” adults out there believe in Bigfoot to begin with?

  22. Redrose999 responds:

    It seems Cryptomundo was removed from the BFRO’s page as a BF blog. Correct me if I’ve missed something.

  23. j stewart responds:

    I think its a good thing to keep the heat at a minimum. I think most like myself attempted to stay within the bounds but it is very hard when every reply has your name then a blur of name calling and personal insults directly aimed at individuals. I agree we don’t need this. if i stepped out of bounds i offer my most humble apologies to mr moneymaker and the whole group here.

    That being said i don’t think you can critique any show without a critique on its host and crew. I think that is where we started and then the insults took things to places we should never have allowed ourselves to go. if one person in particulars comments had been edited to leave out the insults i do think it never would have gotten to the point it did.

    i have the greatest respect for the people on this site. i have been reading it for a long time but seldom commented. My passion for Cryptozoology and the honesty of the research is why i found myself unable not to comment on the show. once again i agree we need to be better and i am sorry if anything i said was wrong.

  24. WolfGirl responds:

    In response to CDC:

    While the name calling may not have been that bad it was the fact that it was indeed name calling and not some sort of reasonable argument that was the issue. Like j stewart, I have been reading this site for a long time (since at least the 8th grade, and I just finished my freshman year of college) but I don’t comment a lot. However I do know that commenters on this site are expected to uphold a certain level of respect and the site as a whole is meant to be more sophisticated than your average run-of-the-mill blog. The things said may not have been particularly hurtful but in this context they were out of line and below what is expected of this site.

    By the way, I may not be a ‘real’ adult by some standards (Mainly due to the way I dress. I suppose you could call me a punk, what with the red mohawk, facial piercings and combat boots I normally wear.) but I do believe that Bigfoot and some other cryptids exist and I will continue to believe until sufficient evidence against their existence is provided. And I did go to public school. That’s where I learned when it is appropriate to roll my sleeves up and go as low as my opponent and when it is appropriate to bite my tongue and keep my cool. 🙂

  25. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    It’s a wonderful life. …..Tee Hee!

  26. gridbug responds:


    The only “blame game” I partook in was calling out Monyemaker for acting like an a-hole and for deserving every bit of scorn and derision that he received as a result. And as far as “taking sides” goes, I’ll gladly cop to siding with a genteel, humble, proven scholar in the field (initials LC) and the crypto-community he’s built up and reinforced in this forum over any self-absorbed attention-starved blowhole any day of the week, and I’d do it proudly.

    Moneymaker didn’t get the lion’s share of ridicule in here because he was misled by the producers of his show, he got it for his horrendous attitude and his abusive self-defense in the wake of what were (and are) some very valid criticisms of his character that he himself invited. No one made up anything slanderous about him, he just couldn’t take the criticisms and handled it very poorly.

    None of us are here for that kind of nonsense, but I guarantee that when ignorance and negative ‘tudes rear their ugly heads in these forums, cooler heads will most definitely sound off. And most likely prevail.

    PS: If it’s true that Moneymaker deleted the cryptomundo link from the BFRO page, then that tells you everything you need to know about the guy. The search for sasquatch is bigger than one man’s ego, and the sooner he learns this the better off he’ll be and the further we’ll all get as a team.

  27. flame821 responds:

    I’m very glad I wasn’t involved in the original kerfluffle, however from the outside looking in it honestly wasn’t ‘that’ bad. I know it wasn’t the normal civility this site is noted for, however I am a firm believer in speaking your mind and many commentors felt very strongly about what had been done post-production and who may have been at fault.

    I do wish that there was a site or video that could be linked to which explained in some detail how much/little control the actual ‘talent’ of a show controls the content on the show. I think this might help people understand how things can be taken out of hand and out of context. And we have all heard tales of unscrupulous editing of video and audio tapes over the decades.

    As for the language and tone of the comments and responses….meh. I’m the worst person in the world to judge that sort of thing. I visit some rather free form websites who refuse to moderate comments (such as Pharygula and 4chan) on a regular basis so I have some pretty thick skin and you have to try pretty hard to shock me, much less offend me. But I do understand that many people take things to heart rather easily and since this site has a certain level of discourse that should be respected. After all, you wouldn’t use the same language in a juke joint as you would a church. But no matter what, I am certain that things will return to normal quickly, the readers on this site tend to be very level headed and good natured as a rule.

  28. CDC responds:

    Hey WolfGirl, liked your reply.

    Just wanted to say I guess when I said “adult” I was referring to “maturity” rather than age. There are some young men and women overseas right now that are far more mature then folks twice their age.

    I guess the circumstances dictate what is acceptable “adult” behavior.

    Example: If a 6 year old tries to stay up late on Christmas Eve hoping to see Santa Claus, that’s considered cute and age appropriate, however if a 40 year old sits out in the woods hoping to see Bigfoot, Man/bear/pig, or a Chupacabra, then that may seem like a little immature behavior and not age appropriate.

    Problem I have is guys like me know Santa’s not coming, but I would still put out the cookies, milk, for Santa, and carrots for the raindeer, so my kids believed when they were young…and I do keep an eye out for Bigfoot everytime I go into the woods. I guess I will always have that immature spirit no matter how old I get.

    As for the talk here, well, I had to laugh a little.

    I played sports through college and especially on the football field words fly back and forth without quarter. The back and forth between players and teams was about, mothers, girlfriends, manhood, sisters, grandmas, size, shape, color, economic status, etc, etc, etc, and that’s before the game even started.

    On a field as well as on a website, most folks know where the line is we shouldn’t cross. Here, the line is in writting, but you will always have the immature adults like me, run up to that line, and yes a few may even cross it. That’s why the mods here keep everyone on the right side of the line.

    I guess the way I look at it is, I never finished college, but isn’t “sophisticated” and “Cryptozoology” an oxymoron? I mean we all have to have a little bit of kid still inside us if we believe in monsters, right?

    I respect mohawks, and piercings, and tattoos, and crew cuts, and fashion, and dreams, and everything anyone wants to do. Self expression in style is a sort of freedom, our words too are how we express ourselves…please don’t try and limit self expression.

    When we all act, and talk, and think, the exact same way, then guess what…there is no Santa and there are no monsters…only mature adults. Kinda boring huh?


  29. WolfGirl responds:

    CDC –

    I understand what you’re saying about different maturity levels however I have to disagree about the whole maturity = not believing in monsters or cryptids or whatever you want to call them. While I do think the whole idea of hidden creatures is entertaining and searching for them can be fun I wouldn’t really think they existed if there wasn’t evidence. I would ‘believe’ in them much the same way I believe in the tooth fairy but that is more like enjoying the idea of such a thing rather than thinking it’s actually real.

    That being said I am all for keeping your inner child alive and self expression and staying immature for as long as possible. 😀

  30. WolfGirl responds:

    Also, @flame821 – very nice use of the word kerfluffle.

  31. CDC responds:

    WolfGirl, very well put, the inner child in me thanks you.

    Still, it is that inner child that comes here hoping to hear some unkown creepy crawler has just been discovered. It’s that inner child who wants to believe sooooo much. It’s that inner child that got mad at Matt Moneymaker for not being completely upfront about the evidence for the Bigfoot animal we all hope some day is found.

    But I hate to break it to you Wolfie, the adult in all of us knows it’s not there. There is way more evidence for Bigfoot not existing than there is for Bigfoot being real.

    The adult in all of us would not waste our time going in the woods to look for something that NO ONE has ever found…but the inner child in us still hangs on hoping that like Patterson/Gimlin we will find what we want so much to be there.

    It’s kinda like faith. The adult in us puts our faith in things like Heaven or Hell…trying to get into one and stay out of the other. There is little evidence for either, but we still have faith that they exist. The adult in us does not put any faith in the existence of Bigfoot, or UFO’s, or Lake Monsters, they leave those subjects to the hopes of our inner child.

    Some of us can control our inner child, others let our inner child lead the way. There are no footprints, DNA evidence, videos, audio, etc, of the tooth fairy, but sadly, Bigfoot doesn’t have much himself. There is a reason most men and women of science don’t study Bigfoot more.

    So next time you see a grown man sitting in the woods, in the dark, in the rain, looking for a monster named Bigfoot, that’s not a mature adult sitting there with faith, that’s his inner child sitting there “believing”.

    The evidence for Bigfoot would put all of us adults in Vegas for the weekend, that same evidence puts our inner child in the woods searching for Sasquatch.

    It’s an interesting place to be, knowing as an adult, yet hoping as a child.

    Bigfoot has never been found, and no one will ever find it because it does not exist…but let’s go looking for it anyway.

  32. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    CDC –

    I’m quite disheartened by CDC’s superficial take on cryptozoology

    Your opinion is sincerely your own but I think most people would want to side step your ‘blanket scepticism’

    You talk about immaturity of spirit when it comes to believing in ‘monsters’ your words place cryptozoology within the realm of the ‘ether’ or the ‘twilight zone‘

    In essence you’re saying crypto pursuits are childlike and fanciful akin to children believing in Santa Claus, …but hey! ….It’s great to keep the child alive in us all!

    No cryptozoologist chases fairytales; the ‘pursuits’ are undertaken with a pioneering spirit and an open mindedness in recognition of the fact that not all species of fauna and flora on Earth have been discovered yet, or catalogued by science. Every year hundreds of new fauna and flora species ARE discovered on this planet (and that is no exaggeration).

    Just one example: Here’s a link that will take you to a new species of monkey discovered last year in eastern Myanmar.

    Regarding bigfoot there is already a compelling body of scientific evidence that lends credence to it’s real flesh & blood existence! Here’s a link to a variety of Dr Jeff Meldrum lecture/interview clips. I hope you find them interesting.

    Captain Robert von Beringe and others who believed in the mountain gorillas existence prior to it’s discovery in 1902 weren’t dreamers; they were frontline pioneers with the courage of their convictions, and with hindsight their undertakings were proven to be more grounded in reality than their blinkered and overly sceptical contemporaries back home. The existence of the lowland gorilla despite being proven in 1847 was not easily accepted back home either!

    Until bigfoot/sasquatch is discovered officially, parallels of a sceptical attitude amongst ‘the many‘ remain as it was from all those years ago. Human nature harbours a natural scepticism, so the ’slings and arrows’ will continue to rain down for a while yet!

    As far as I’m aware the worlds rarest gorilla; the Cross river gorilla found in the mountains of Cameroon in Africa is extremely camera shy and has only ever been filmed twice (and the first time was extremely shaky!!!). They are very wary of humans AND KNOW HOW TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY!!!!

    “These gorillas are extremely wary of humans and are very difficult to photograph or film,” said Dr. Roger Fotso, Director of the WCS’s Cameroon Program. “Eventually we identified and staked out some of the gorillas favorite fig trees, which is where we finally achieved our goal.”

    I imagine that Bigfoot’s senses have also been honed over the milennia to allow them to maintain distance between themselves and humans too!!!

    Just thoughts really….

  33. Nominay responds:

    This is my first comment at this site and I wish that it wasn’t (on this issue).
    I’m uneasy about the intolerant guidelines for expression here, as set by Craig Woolheater, someone I admire. I personally don’t care at all about the personalities and egos, the back and forth, the social drama of it all … I’m just interested in Bigfoot. HOWEVER … I feel it is the right for others to take an interest in questioning others who are the face of the Bigfoot community at large, if that’s what they want. I frankly prefer not to say anything about Matt Moneymaker, because as I stated earlier, I want to avoid getting sucked into the personal arguments … but deservedly or not, he’s controversial, and it is impossible to separate the content of the Bigfoot show from the characters Animal Planet hopes its viewers find interesting and credible. I do think the name calling is a slippery slope that isn’t worth defending “douche, et al”, but short of that, I don’t see the strong case for curtailing subject matter that, like it or not, is relevant. Those who are leaders in the Bigfoot community cannot possibly hope to escape criticism if others deem their actions as sloppy or their behavior as undesirable. Another poster commented on the communication here getting boring if we are to just make sober academics of us all, and I agree.

  34. Craig Woolheater responds:


    The terms of use of the site don’t restrict discussing the characters on the show. They do restrict the name calling however.

    It is one thing to call someone an a-hole, and quite another to say that person is acting like one.

    Matt, Cliff, Bobo & Ranae, by appearing on the show, are now public personas.

    The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one’s public image or personality, as distinguished from the inner self.The Free Dictionary

  35. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:


    You’ve got it wrong on your first message Nominay; there are NO “intolerant guidelines for expression” either in use or being advocated on this website!

    I don’t think postings have ever been ‘struck off’ because they go off topic and no one has advocated curtailing subject matter, as was clearly stated by Loren & Craig, it’s just quite simply the type of insults that flew must fly no more!

    Insults don’t enlighten or inform anyone on anything!

    However despite the insults some interesting facts still came to light!

  36. Redrose999 responds:

    To all

    I suppose some people can not deal with blunt criticism, especially if their reputation and carrier are on line, but I have to agree once you become a public persona you need to deal with it, rather than resort to name calling in frustration. Some people are just blunt and for the most part, loud and hurtful when they defend themselves. I understand why Matt did what he did in light of the above, BUT I do not think it was right. Name calling is wrong and it only makes you look like an angry-defensive *insert bleep here*. I also feel we as a community understand how we do things, we get along despite how different we are. If you make an effort, or care too, you can get along rather well, Cryptomundians show this on a daily basis.

  37. flame821 responds:

    @ CDC

    I think some of the differences of opinions we have may be, quite simply, in how we look at things. I do not see bigfoot as a ‘monster’ not in any sense of the word. I do think that bigfoot is a colloquial name given to what is most likely a North American primate that has yet to be catalogued by modern science.

    The biggest problems we have with finding evidence for such a primate are:
    1] The huge amount of land that they are reported to frequent (use google earth, the Pacific NW forests alone covers a VAST area)
    2] Too many pranksters who like to troll researchers by leaving faked evidence or blobsquatch photos
    3] Public opinion. I know science and research should be immune to public opinion, but when you need to get funding, and people are mocking and criticizing your endeavors its hard to turn a blind eye and deaf ear. Things like docudramas and mockumentaries passing themselves off as serious research don’t help either.

    As other commentors have noted, the Highland gorilla was ‘known’ to people for years, but it took decades for a Western man to see and document one and even then it was quite a while before any definitive evidence could be produced.

    The old, why haven’t we come across a body is easily explained by anyone who has spent any amount of time in a healthy ecosystem. I live in the more populated NE area of the country and around here even a white tail deer road kill doesn’t last more than a few days. Scavengers, bacteria, weather.

    Right now the one thing we have going in our favor is that science cannot be used to prove a negative. (to prove BF does not exist, to prove G*d does not exist, etc) it can only be used to prove a positive supposition. (If _______ exists then it should effect its surroundings in __x____ manner) Science needs repeatable tests to prove theories, hard evidence to gain acceptance (like a body). So until we can come up with provable theories or a body science, for the most part, won’t come to our party. It is up to people who have a deep interest in these animals to do the grunt work and document properly. And remember, if it isn’t documented then as far as science is concerned, it didn’t really happen. It becomes nothing more than an anecdotal story.

  38. CDC responds:

    Hey Dermal and Flame,

    Your posts brought a smile to my face as I have used the same arguments you make since 1974, that’s when I started believing in Bigfoot. As a kid, my dad too me to Expo 74, the Spokane Worlds Fair, and flying in I saw SOOOOO much land and trees, I believed anything could be living down there.

    But alas, it’s been over 35 years now, and nope, still nothing.

    I was born and raised in Pasadena, Calif, and I spent a good part of my life in our local mountains. Although we have mountain lions up there, I have never seen one in the wild, I’ve seen tons of deer, and a couple of bears. The one thing I have seen in remote areas is…guys with guns. Hunting legal, and illegal, goes on all the time.

    That’s when it hit me. In California, we hunted the Grizzly Bear into extinction, that was 1000’s of bears over the years. During that same time till now there have literally been hundreds of thousands of hunters in the woods all over California…EVERYWHERE.

    For every legal hunter with tags, you have as many if not more illegal hunters with just guns.

    My point is that with over 100 years of hunting and hundreds of thousands of hunters here in California, NO ONE HAS EVER KILLED A BIGFOOT! A 7 foot tall animal over 500 pounds? Come on, put all your evidence against that and tell me who’s inner child is posting me.

    I know there are VAST areas even here in Calif where it is still possible for animals to hide, but I am honest, the footprints and sightings are not found in those vast areas, they are found in multiple areas…including areas where hunting takes place.

    The law of averages will tell you that in over 100 years, some knuckle head with a gun would have killed one by now. You both know that and accept that, yet you still believe.

    Every year science finds new species of reptiles, insects, fish, small primates, and so on. Yes that’s great, but that’s science…not Cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is looking for hidden or unknown animals like giant apes, sea serpents, dinosaurs, well…monsters.

    I’m not looking for science, bugs and monkeys and such, otherwise I’d only visit National Geographic and other science sites. I’m looking for MONSTERS, because all the science in the world is not as exciting as maybe finding one little old monster.

    But let’s be honest, healthy ecosystem, remote areas, Mountain Gorrillas, etc, etc, etc, none of that can change the simple fact that Bigfoot has been seen here in Calif before Columbus came to the new world. Animals have been hunted into extinction by humans for years and years. And the simple honest true fact is…NO ONE HAS EVER KILLED A BIGFOOT!

    The ONLY science based theory I have that keeps my hope alive is…migration.

    I came up with a theory that there is a corridor of mostly unpopulated land from Canada to Texas. If these 7 foot tall animals live and breed in Canada where there is still untouched wilderness, then it is possible they are sited migrating south to the US using this corridor.

    I came up with a map 15 years ago where I believed they traveled, but the adult in me never took me to that area. I have been to Banff, Edmonton, Alberta Canada, and yes you could hide 100’s of Bigfoot type animals in those areas…that’s honest and truthful.

    If the animal exists at all, it would be there, and if it is seen in the US, it would be just passing through. That’s my hope, inner child and all.

    Sorry guys, I hope it’s out there too, but I know it’s probably not here in Calif…and until science classifies it, I can still call it a monster…after that, I’ll call it whatever they say it is.

  39. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    CDC –
    Thanks for your clarification on your views. It’s obvious your heart is in the right place …even if it is the heart of your inner child!

    I would genuinely like to know your opinion on those sasquatch footprints that have complex and unique dermal ridges.

    Surely that’s proof enough (for now) that ‘something’ flesh & blood is roaming around out there?

  40. CDC responds:

    Ah yes, Jimmy Chilcutt’s “pattern flow” dermal ridges.

    Well, I’m sure you have read where that evidence is being dissmissed after Matt Crowley’s test casts. Even Dr Jeff meldrum conceded that it is no longer evidence.

    Crowley’s test show that the Chilcutt’s “pattern” is an artifact of the casting process.

    Although Jimmy Chilcutt admits the dermal ridges can be duplicated he still maintains the footprints are of a real animal.

    Me, I believed the dermal ridges were a key piece of evidence, but when they were duplicated, it made Bigfoot seem even less likely in my opinion.

    Believe it or not, I think our best hope for Bigfoot in North America, will be any discoveries overseas.

    I hold out hope for Orang Pendek as a new type of Orangutan. I see that as high as a 50/50 chance it exists.

    I also put the Asian Yeti/Wild Man at about 25% chance of existing and it is found to be a descendant of Gigantopithicus.

    If either one of these animals is found, then there is hope for other large unknown primate.

    Bigfoot did not evolve here in North America…it had to migrate from somewhere, and “if” we can find living descendants of Gigantopithicus in Asia, then it is possible they are elsewhere…but that’s a huge “if”.

    I understand you wanting for the pattern flow to be the rock solid proof we need…but it won’t be.

    Jimmy Chilcut never published a paper for peer review on his findings, so we know where science will stand on that one.

    DNA is the last hope for Bigfoot without a body. Dr Melba Ketchum was supposed to submit a paper for peer review months ago on her DNA findings. The fact that she has not has me worried on that front as well.

    Yes after 44 years, and the Patterson/Gimlin film, Bigfoot is on life support. It is up to believers to keep Bigfoot alive.

    Recreated evidence like we found in Finding Bigfoot only hurts the cause. If we want Bigfoot to survive, it will have to be through science.

  41. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Thanks for that CDC ….very interesting views!

  42. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Thanks CDC, I’m now up to date on matters concerning dermal ridges.
    They are proven to be ‘plaster cast’ dessication ridges not dermal ridges, and as such don’t constitute any sort of proof towards the existance of bigfoot.
    I feel my blogging name is so silly now. Is their anyway I can change it?
    Best wishes, Dermal Ridges are NOT proof.

  43. j stewart responds:

    @ CRAIG

    Where are these terms of use now? Matt Moneymaker is being allowed to do the same old name calling and nastiness as before with no editing. This is a clear VIOLATION of these terms of use. Yet no editing is being seen. So are the terms of use being waved for everyone or just Matt? I’m just a bit confused after reading his response in his replies to Kahil.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|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.