Finding Bigfoot: “Bigfoot Hoedown” Tonight

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on January 27th, 2013

Bigfoot Hoedown
Premiering Sunday, January 27, 10PM e/p
Also airs:
Monday, January 28, 12AM e/p
Monday, January 28, 5AM e/p
Monday, January 28, 9PM e/p
Tuesday, January 29, 12AM e/p
Tuesday, January 29, 4AM e/p

The team travels to WV to investigate photographs from a young bigfooter that may depict a sasquatch in his own backyard. The team sets out to get their own photographic proof and deploys a baiting technique not for the faint of heart.

Be sure to come back after the episode airs to share your thoughts about it with the other Cryptomundians!

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.

27 Responses to “Finding Bigfoot: “Bigfoot Hoedown” Tonight”

  1. mcw2112 responds:

    I am totally clairvoyant! I can predict with startling accuracy what tonight’s episode will contain. Ready? First, the four of them riding in some SUV looking at some blobsquatch photos and discussing it. Then they will meet with the original owner of said photos and get the full story in around 2 minutes. They will spend one night out and after collecting neither convincing sights or sounds, they will have a ‘town meeting’, where dozens of witnesses will tell intriguing stories, but only 3 will be interviewed. Afterwards, they’ll look at a map and come up with some harebrained scheme to entice Bigfoot into their proximity. They will make some noises, (howls and such), and claim that they hear responses but the audience will only hear crappy sound effects and some percussion-sounding noises mixed with Yamaha keyboard sounds. They will end the night as usual with no evidence, but Moneymaker will proclaim -“Although we didn’t see or hear any Bigfoots, we can leave this area knowing that they are definitely here.” Roll credits…

  2. Goodfoot responds:

    OH, those quaint, colorful mountaineers and their hoedowns and banjos!!! What a load.

  3. sasquatch responds:

    The trail camera malfunctioned mysteriously, and the hair samples DNA was undecipherable.
    I AM SHOCKED! Why do we have this technology?
    A rented 1950’s-60’s 16 mm camera is BY FAR the best footage ever?
    And not electronic-something about bigfoots presence makes electronic devices mess up. Err, that’s one theory anyway…
    Or more likely; it’s a convenient excuse for incompetence.

  4. dconstrukt responds:

    interesting show…

    the couple that had the hair sample…. they never mentioned what happened with it… did they?

    the 2 sightings by the old sheriff and then the binoculars guy…. those were, IMO, legit. TOO much detail, they seemed credible…. the binocular guy… wow… must have been insane to see the face THAT close…

    i think with a computer geek crunching data… they could increase their odds dramatically, however we all know the show isn’t there for that… just for ratings.

  5. mandors responds:

    Dammit, mcw, I wanted to watch that show! You spoiler.

  6. WIFortean responds:

    LOL MCW2112. That is an excellent synopsis; sadly yes every single episode follows that exact same “formula”. You summed it up very well.

  7. BigfootLives1971 responds:

    I don’t know why I watch that show. The baiting of guts and the malfunctioning trail cam was enough to drive me up the wall, and bolster my belief that this show will get us no closer to “Finding Bigfoot.”

    Furthermore, stating emphatically that every witness definitely saw a squatch is enough to drive me nuts. “You’re in the club now.” Whatever.

  8. DWA responds:


    Thank you.

    It is thanks to people like you that I have never watched a minute of this show …and yet know pretty much everything worth knowing about it.

    My only explanation, other than ratings, for what is going on with this show is: ratings. Ratings, actually, are yet another possibility. OK, I haven’t exactly completely discounted ratings, so there’s another.

    Other than that:

    Their death rivalry with the TBRC appears so deeply ingrained that it has led to a policy of: whatever the TBRC does, we will do something different, particularly when what the TBRC does seems to be working.

  9. mcw2112 responds:

    As predictable and formulaic as this show is, sadly, it’s still the only thing going BF related…which is why I continue to torture myself and watch it.

    As I’ve stated here before, I would be much more impressed if they employed an actual big game tracker, or maybe a primate expert or perhaps even some common sense. I just watched Discovery Channels’ show about the filming of the elusive giant squid. It made me wish that Bigfooter’s would couple their abundant enthusiasm with as much real research and patience as the squid scientists. I don’t think Moneymaker and crew will ever collect any real evidence until they learn to stay in one place more than a few days and nights. If they KNOW where Sasquatches are, like they claim they do, why not do a multiple-part show and put in some real field time? You’d think that at least Renae would know that, with her experience as a field biologist.

    I also believe that they might actually stand a snowball’s chance in Hades if they used more people, LOTS more people, but instead of tramping around in the woods making noise all night, find a suitable location and put 10 or 15 (or more) people into deer stands with some infrared cameras. There is no scientifically sound basis for trying one silly scheme after another once and then abandoning it and moving on. And like BigfootLives1971 above, I do get tired of seeing a so-called ‘re-enactment’ and then proclaiming that, yep, you definitely saw a Bigfoot. Truth is, I don’t dislike the cast and the show is well put together, but having only one real scientist among them is starting to tell on them in bad way. Oh yeah, and the sound effects irritate me to no end…

  10. Goodfoot responds:

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, mcw2112, please stop TORTURING yourself!!!

    “ANY Bigfoot’s better than NO Bigfoot”; that’s JUST NOT TRUE! And FB PROVES IT, every week!!

  11. DWA responds:


    Yep, there’s the wheat-in-sea-of-chaff aspect to this show. For that I go: um, life is limiting my time available; so I’ll read the BFRO database instead (their serious side: these guys couldn’t be making that up. If only they knew what to do with it. And yeah: shame on you, Ranae).

    This could be a great show. Instead: these guys get to see lots of restaurants and pubs and scenery that we don’t…and produce lots of crap that we do.

  12. mrbf2007 responds:

    And they need to quit saying “Bigfoots!!!” It’s childish and grammatically incorrect. Even Cliff, a schoolteacher who should know better, says it. Heck, last night, even RANAE said it!!! I would have thought she would be the last one to use that term. That is a major pet peeve of mine, using the word “Bigfoots.”

  13. bobzilla responds:

    As far as Renae “knowing better”, if you watch the Finding Bigfoot versions with the pop up comments, (don’t remember what they are called…Further Evidence??) you’ll see Renae is the odd person out. It seems as if they hold her back as to what she really thinks. She is practically ridiculed for not “going along” with the rest.

    You have to tune Matt out when you watch the show. Just ignore him. He’d claim weather was caused by bigfoot. Cliff is good. Though, he leans towards Matt and Bobo more than Renae. Bobo (the EXPERT bigfoot caller) a lot like Matt, but more tolerable.

    Renae is actually the only one that might be called an “expert” in anything. The rest (in my opinion) aren’t any more qualified than the average crypto enthusiast.

    I’ll watch the show when they rerun them sometimes. And, I enjoy the versions with the pop up comments. But, as others have said, the show is predictable. Again, it’s not science, it’s entertainment.

    If you watch it with that in mind, it’s not too bad.

  14. Ajwho444 responds:

    Mr. Woolheater,

    I know you are well known and respected in the world of cryptozoology…you and Loren are the bar which others hold themselves to…I enjoy watching any special or documentary that includes either of you.

    I just can’t understand why you guys continually post things related to “Finding Bigfoot”. I realize the relevance and lack of other prime time shows that entertain or give credence to the topic of bigfoot or cryptozoology in general and this is just blog/site for fun mostly…however it comes off as though you and Loren give your approval of this show and its ridiculous methods.

    You guys are considered the voices if reason and healthy skepticism, but still having your beliefs in the subject of Bigfoot….yet by posting about this show and giving little summaries and asking “cryptomundians” to come back and share what they think makes it look like you think Matt Moneymaker and his merry band of misfits are pioneers in the field or should be watched in the first place…I would think you would intentionally not mention this show because of how bad it makes believers, witnesses, BF hunters and cryptozoologists look..

    Sorry, not trying to get on a soap box here…Just like to see this site keep its integrity…I’d rather no news on this site than to read anything about MM and this disgrace of a show….

  15. Goodfoot responds:

    mrbf2007: I am firm in my belief that the plural form of “Bigfoot” IS “Bigfoots”. You would REALLY prefer “Bigfeet”? Talk about sounding silly.

    The creature is referred to as “Bigfoot” (among other things). One word. There are no possibilities besides “Bigfoots” and “Bigfeet”. I stand for the former.

  16. mrbf2007 responds:

    No, I prefer “Bigfoot” as singular AND plural. Or we could say “Bigfoot creatures.” “Bigfoots” is grammatically incorrect.

  17. dconstrukt responds:

    maybe the cast of FB can ask one of the bigfoots they “KNOW” are in the area. 🙂

  18. Ploughboy responds:

    I don’t think the usage of “Bigfoots” is grammatically incorrect, just a little jarring to the ear. As a practical matter, language has to have some method of distinguishing a singular noun (in this case, a single animal) from the plural. If you use “Bigfoot” for both, you are only left with the context or the use of a modifier to distinguish singular from plural…not very efficient use of language. But, BigfootS is correct. You’re not pluralizing “foot”, after all. A Bigfoot already has two of those. Those with issues of this usage would be more correct in stating a single animal is a BigFEET. But, that horse left the barn 60 years ago. Doesn’t have quite the ring to it either, although I don’t think it transfers to referring to the BlackFOOT tribe.

    Consider how to pluralize an animal known as Bigtooth. Would “Bigteeth” tell you any new information….aside from painting a vision of monstrous dentition? No, it wouldn’t.

  19. DWA responds:

    I wasn’t going to enter this sweepstakes. OK, I was but decided against it…except to note that the TBRC may have settled on “wood ape(s)” for a reason.

  20. gridbug responds:

    I’ve been under the impression that “Bigfoot” is actually the plural form as well as the singular, in the same way that “Sasquatch” has the same dual use. That said, I’d definitely take Bigfeets (or anything else for that matter) over “squatch” any day of the week.

  21. Goodfoot responds:

    Ploughboy: Not sure what you were saying about the Blackfoot tribe. I HAVE seen the term “Blackfeet” applied. Maybe that’s what you meant. Excuse my equivocation.

  22. mcw2112 responds:

    I don’t know, multiple deer are deer…

  23. dconstrukt responds:

    i guess it would depend on the context no?

    like if you said “I think i saw bigfoot” that would mean one….”I think I saw a bigfoot” would imply there’s more than one…

    if you said “look at those bigfoot” would that be correct?

  24. William responds:

    I think the use of the word bigfoot to describe one or more than one makes the most sense. It is akin to the word deer, or sheep, or elk. You don’t say I saw several sheeps grazing in the meadow, or the same with deer or elk.

  25. mcw2112 responds:

    Bobzilla: I don’t know the apparent dubious background of Mr. Moneymaker, as many here seem to, so having said that, I find that Bobo is one that seems to believe that every sighting is authentic. as loveable as the big guy is, he doesn’t seem to have single molecule of healthy skepticism in his entire body. I have seen Matt disbelieve several eyewitness accounts thus far, and yet Cliff and Bobo seem to accept any story as valid. Maybe Moneymaker’s past leads many of you to be wary of him, but I don’t see that he’s any worse than the other members of the team.

  26. Goodfoot responds:

    mcw2112: MOVE OVER, Jeanne Dixon!!!

    Wait – that came out wrong; she’s dead. You wouldn’t want to lie next to her.

  27. Goodfoot responds:

    gridbug: I’m with you on “Bigfoot” being correct, regardless of number, but my belief is that “Sasquatches” is the correct plural form of the other name.

    But “Bigfeet” makes my skin crawl. Most Sasquatches already HAVE more than one foot.

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.