Finding Bigfoot: Ratings and Season 2

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 26th, 2011

There has been much talk on Cryptomundo regarding the ratings for Finding Bigfoot and the likelihood of a second season.

Matt Moneymaker addresses those issues here.

Posted by Matt Moneymaker on Friday, June 24th.

The ratings have been growing steadily, especially for the repeats. We’re now the number one show on Animal Planet.

I found out yesterday there will be a Season 2 and they want to get going with that immediately. As a matter of fact, we’ve leaving tomorrow to head up to Oregon to shoot another episode …

The series started off strong in the numbers and its getting more popular. You can be(t) it will go on for multiple seasons.Matt Moneymaker

Apparently the Q & A filming today will be used in a future episode airing in the second season.

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.

48 Responses to “Finding Bigfoot: Ratings and Season 2”

  1. RaceBannon responds:

    Way to go Matt! Maybe you and the gang can get more input on what comes out in the show next season.

  2. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Hrmmm… Well I will believe it when I see it. According to every source of ratings for television shows, this show is at the bottom with the lowest ratings.

    Guess we’ll all have to wait and see if they continue to fake or alter evidence and offer zero proof. As of right now, I see no official statement from Animal Planet. For now this claim can be chalked up to ego until is made official by Animal Planet.

  3. NWesterner responds:

    Congrats. I think this shows the continuing fascination the general public has for the bigfoot phenomenon.

  4. sasquatch responds:

    Great! It’s nice having something to look forward to on the tube.

  5. flame821 responds:

    Call me a cynic, but I would love to know where those numbers are coming from. I’m seeing Finding Bigfoot ranked 7th on Animal Planet (far behind Whale Wars and River Monsters). Zap2it and tvbythenumbers is showing them 2nd to last in their time slot. tvdotcom is showing them outside the top 5 on AP as well. tvguide is giving it a 3 out of 5.

    I’m stymied, I have no idea what numbers they are looking at if Finding Bigfoot is really the ‘number one show’ on Animal Planet.

    Shrugs- whatevs, unless the next season is blatant about enhancements and recreations, I won’t watch passed the third episode, just like this season.

    Oddly enough, Cryptomundo is always in the top of Google searches whenever I look for something regarding this series. Including some very nice comments and links on the Syfy forums that are discussing this series too. To be honest, we’ve been quite kind to this series judging by what other sites comments have turned into. o_0

  6. gridbug responds:

    Just because a show gets “ratings” doesn’t automatically qualify it as quality entertainment, e.g. Dancing With The Stars, Jersey Shore and Fox News.

    Okay, technically Fox News is twisted infotainment. But you get the idea.


  7. korollocke responds:

    I checked out the all the real ratings boards and this shows ratings are in the toilet. Checked with Animal Planet and they said they don’t have plans for another season at this time. Go figure.

  8. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @flame821 – I’m with ya there. I’ve done many searches using different search terms and I see the same thing all around. Most sites have it rated very very low. A lot of sites and blogs that have talked about it have nothing nice to say. And yes, Cryptomundo does show up a lot, but I think that is because the site is heavy on ads and we have been talking about and covering the show quite a bit…prolly more than any other site…lol

    Again, until I see something official from Animal Planet on their site or on TV, I’d say take this claim with a very small grain of salt and chalk it up to Matt’s ego. If Animal Planet gets higher ratings from reruns of other shows, then why would they retain the series? Basically these claims don’t mesh up with what we can see and find. Did the show have a decent start in the ratings? Yes, the show did well when it premiered due to it following a hit show and people were tuning in to see what it was about. But as anyone who can use the google machine will find, those ratings have plummeted, along with reviews. Why? Just watch the show…

  9. squatchwatcher responds:

    Haven’t been on this site for quite awhile for this very reason. It seems like there is a lot of jealousy going on with the Finding Bigfoot cast and programs. If you don’t like the series, DON”T WATCH IT! As for me, I enjoy the show for one simple reason, it gets me and my family talking about Bigfoot. My kids enjoy the show, especially Bobo (love that guy) and yeah, Matt does get annoying, but I figure the network is pressuring him to cause a little friction within the group to cause more “interesting” dialogue. So quit complaining, and either watch it or don’t. Anybody who knows anything about television, will tell you that if a network is going to do a series on a subject like bigfoot, it’s not going to take it serious. So enjoy it for what it is, entertainment. Don’t expect it to be the be all, end all answer to the sasquatch mystery. Peace out!

  10. kasper responds:

    OK, so you don’t like the show, cool!

    OK, so you think because it’s on TV, then everything must be faked, cool!

    Why people, such as a few on here, decide to waste time ranting about shows they dislike but are obviously watching, judging by the history of their comments, is something a therapist needs to answer for them.

    We get it already, you don’t like the show…..OK, CHANGE THE CHANNEL!

    A lot of us do like the show….A LOT!

    Someone mentioned EGO as the root of Matt’s comments, yet EGO seems to be the motivation of a few of you on here.

    Seriously, attacking certain individuals on a show you have nothing to do with, people you’ve never met, footage from days of filming compressed down to a 42 minute show that you have no insight on, some of you really need a remote control so you can change your channel and spare us these repeated comments.

    Again, we get it, you dislike poor ol’ Finding Bigfoot. It effects your Sunday nights just by being on air….okay!

    I enjoy the show, I’m interested in their techniques and body of work, I’m definitely not alone in liking the show, thanks to information compiled from tvbythenumbers, and for those who constantly need to remind us all how much a show we enjoy “sucks”, all I can say is not everything is for everyone. So if you dislike, change the channel.

    After all….it’s much easier on yourself than getting online and writing something ridiculous like this:

    “Guess we’ll all have to wait and see if they continue to fake or alter evidence and offer zero proof.”

  11. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Ego isn’t our motivation. Our motivation is the truth. We aren’t the ones trying to get a paycheck by taking people on expeditions to see something they won’t see. We aren’t the ones with a TV show. We aren’t the ones making bold claims without any proof. We aren’t the ones making personal attacks against critics.

    Why are we so critical of the show? Because they present NO proof to backup the very bold claims they present. When we heard that there was a new show coming about bigfoot, we were excited…but then we saw it. We hear them, mostly Matt, talking about bigfoot as though he has spent 25 years studying bigfoot like Jane Fossey studied gorillas…but that just isn’t the case. Matt’s motivation here doesn’t seem to be the scientific discovery of bigfoot…it seems to be more about self promotion and profiting.

    We have routinely been asked what we think of the show here. Is that not what we are doing? That’s exactly what we are doing. If all we did was praise the gospel of Moneymaker and said nothing but positive things about the show, then that wouldn’t be an honest review now would it.

    Next, we aren’t attacking individuals personally. We are attacking what they say and do. Its the first rule of debate…Attack what the opposing side says or does, but you don’t attack them personally. What’s the difference? Here’s an example. One person says something. The other person responds by stating that what the other person just said was childish. Notice that they said that what the other guy said was childish, not that the other person was childish. Make sense? We are being critical of the show…as in what the cast says and does on the show, what the production company does, and of what certain cast members say here on Cryptomundo. If any cryptozoologist can’t take and answer criticism professionally, then they need to find a new hobby because that comes with the territory.

    If a lot of people like the show, then why are the ratings for the show so low? Yes, some people obviously are fans of the show as you have pointed out, but it isn’t for scientific interest anymore…its just for pure entertainment as that is all it is. If this was more of a scientific show, then we would be seeing actual evidence. We would be seeing them being critical of what is presented to them rather than going straight to saying “that’s a squatch”.

    So are you telling us that you don’t mind or you prefer that they continue to fake evidence? That they edit things that have nothing to do with bigfoot to make you think it was bigfoot? That they continue to make bold claims without proof? Sorry, but most of us don’t want that at all. We want to see scientific investigations…not LARPing (live action role playing).

  12. MercuryCrest responds:

    Kasper and Squatchwatcher: I’m typically all about the, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it” type of reasoning. It makes perfect sense and if it weren’t for that, some of my favorite shows would have been cancelled before they even aired.

    However, I think we are well within our rights to question a show and point out things that don’t make sense. Free expression of ideas includes those that are contrary to your own.

    I dislike many of the things that I’ve seen done with this show. I see contradictory explanations given for why certain things were-or-were-not done. That not only makes me skeptical, it makes me a skeptical potential viewer. If you’re going to do a thing, do it right or not at all.

    The general public may well enjoy the show…good on them. I do not. You’ve expressed your opinion about the show, and we have a right to express ours.

  13. squatchwatcher responds:

    To people who are complaining way too much about Finding Bigfoot. I guess us simpletons are too stupid to realize what evidence was fabricated or not without your infinite wisdom of rationalization. This is the very reason why I don’t come on here very often anymore, to many P@#%ed off people ranting about some other persons “evidence” or program. I enjoy the show simply because it gets my family discussing sasquatch, nothing more nothing less. Do I believe everything they present on the program as gospel truth? No, I like to think of myself as intelligent enough to realize the fabrication and the truth. Do I hate everything about the program? No I enjoy it very much because:

    1. It involves my favorite cryptid: Bigfoot and

    2. It is WAAAYYY better than 90% of the crap that is on TV today.

    So just because a few of us enjoy the show doesn’t mean we are uneducated morons. You are the same type of people who complained about MonsterQuest not being “scientific” enough for your tastes, but as soon as they cancelled it, you whined about it!

  14. riverguy responds:


    #1 Show on Animal Planet


    SEASON 2 Confirmed.

  15. wolfatrest responds:

    Nicely put Kahil. Personally I tried watching one of the shows and made it through about 15 minutes before realizing that Destination Truth was more entertaining and presented just as much solid evidence. At least Josh leaves everything as a question, he doesn’t claim to have proved anything.

  16. praetorian responds:

    So far the show is more or less following the “MonsterQuest” format: suspenseful build-up, but little to show at the end. That’s entertaining enough to get me to tune-in regularly. If the show is going to stretch into multiple seasons, however, it’s going to have to come up with something more than vocalizations and eyewitness accounts. “MonsterQuest” could never really deliver the goods and watching it ultimately turned into a labor of love for me. “Finding Bigfoot” will go the same route if it ultimately can’t live up to its title.

    That being said, you never know what’s going on behind the scenes. I don’t know what the ratings for “Ghost Hunters” are, but I have heard that the two principal protagonists in that show got ten-year contracts out of SyFy. Future seasons of “Finding Bigfoot” may have already been negotiated.

  17. flame821 responds:

    Questioning a public statement that seems to not be born out by the facts at hand is NOT attacking a person. It is attacking, or in this case questioning where the facts that back up said statement are coming from.

    Just as you say ‘change the channel’ (btw I stopped watching after the 3rd episode which is why I don’t comment on those threads any more) the same applies for comments, you don’t like what someone has to say, don’t read it.

    I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with my opinion. I get really, really antsy when people try to silence my voice just because they don’t agree with me.

  18. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @praetorian – I can promise you with 99.9999+% assurance that this show did not negotiate for multiple seasons from the get go. No network that has a clue would do so. The way the game is played now is that networks will take your idea for a show and do some viewer polls and see what the interest is out there for a show like that. If that goes well, then they will at most green light it for a few episodes to see how the ratings go. In the case of Finding Bigfoot, the ratings for the first show were OK, due to it following the premier of their hit show Whale Wars, but subsequent shows have plummeted in ratings. A network isn’t going to renew a show when reruns of their other shows are getting better ratings. They are in the business of making money and they aren’t going to keep a show that simply isn’t. That’s why you see a lot of shows that seem to just disappear after less than a full season. With a lack of ratings and poor content, Matt and his team have no bargaining chips to bring to the table. His claim of high ratings and multiple seasons are just that, a claim with nothing to back it up….kinda like the claims he makes about bigfoot. So far, all of the major TV rating providers show that the show has tanked. So far, there has not been any official statement as to the validity of his claim of multiple seasons.

  19. bigyeti responds:

    I know the ratings business is hard to understand, but for the people saying that there will be no season 2, read the post again. Matt said they’re going back to Oregon to film. More episodes means a new season, regardless of what some site says the ratings are. Hopefully, Cliff will confirm this as well.

  20. Nny responds:

    Perhaps the claim is somewhat misrepresented…. highest rated NEW SHOW on AP?? That sounds like it could be right. Renewed for a 2nd season…. why not? There’s been worse shows renewed. Maybe the repeat episodes did find a nitch with the stoner/insomniac crowd. I woulda watched it back in the day sometime after midnight if I stumbled over it.

    That said, I…enjoy… the show. It’s terribly stupid at times and I hate how greatly debatable things are presented as facts. Ugh. But I still have watched it. I like the premise of ‘finding bigfoot.’ It makes ya think adventure. It would just be nice if it was a little more of a sciency (or even just less opinion-as-fact) adventure.

  21. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    lol… I’m starting to think that riverguy is Moneymaker. #1 show on Animal Planet??? Are you serious? Prove it, cuz there are no sources showing this. More importantly Animal Planet has not said that it is their number one show let alone that it has been signed on for another season.

    Again…prove it. So far the only one involved with the show who has stated as such is Matt…with nothing to back it up.

  22. Roadie responds:

    I think you have to keep in mind that typical cable network “seasons” are dramatically different from traditional broadcast TV seasons. Many “reality” cable shows will debut with seasons with as few as 6 episodes, rather than 12 to 15 episodes on a cable network like HBO or Showtime (The Sopranos, Deadwood, Weeds, etc.), or the traditional 22 to 24 episode season on the broadcast networks.

    With such a small commitment, green lighting a second season wouldn’t kill Animal Planet, especially with what is likely a rather low production cost per episode.

  23. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    And the shows that get as few as 6 episodes aren’t recurring, they get 6 episodes because they get cancelled. But you are right in that cable shows typically have 12 episodes and network ones typically have between 22 and 24 episodes (because they are half hour shows versus an hour).

    Nearly all of the rating sites are giving the show a 1 or a 2, so the claims of high ratings just aren’t backed up by reality. Animal Planet doesn’t tout the show as their highest rated show because it isn’t, I believe Whale Wars is right now. Reruns of their other shows are getting higher ratings than Finding Bigfoot. The claims of multiple seasons are also not backed up with any proof. There has been no press release from Animal Planet about a second season.

    So, I say take these claims by Matt with a grain of salt and a degree of skepticism until they are either substantiated or denounced by Animal Planet.

  24. flame821 responds:

    Its like I said in an earlier post I wouldn’t be surprised if Animal Planet does renew this. It is in their top 10 and I’m sure this is a very cheap show to produce. No sets, no wardrobe, I have no idea if the main actors are getting SAG wages or not so no input from me on that one….

    Like I said, IF it really did get renewed I will give the new season three chances to change my opinion. Truthfully all the production team would have to do is plainly mark when something is recreated or enhanced and that would satisfy 75% of my issues with this show. The other 25% is simple annoyance that ‘everything is a squatch’.

    To be honest, after hanging around some other forums and seeing it compared constantly to Scooby Doo, I could easily go from rolling my eyes to rolling with laughter if its done right. Either start adding some real science, or just go over the top and be done with it. (aka, go big or go home)

  25. daftshadow responds:

    These guys will never find bigfoot no matter how many seasons it goes. I just find this show assuming which keeps me watching although I believe 80% of the things they do and claim to be bigfoot evidence is BS. I bet sometimes when they do those howls at night in the forest, they’re freaking out other people who may be in the forest camping or whatever and these people then go and tell other people they heard bigfoot howls… lol.

  26. matt_moneymaker responds:

    Let me know if you need any further proof that Kahil is nothing but a fountain of deception and misinformation.

    Yes, Finding Bigfoot is the number one show on Animal Planet, and YES the series has been picked up for several more episodes.

  27. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Hahahaha… That’s funny… I have said nothing that others can’t look and find for themselves. That link you provided doesn’t help ya bud…. According the link you provided, your show only got a 0.5!!! If you, or anyone else for that matter, do a simple google search you will see the same thing….poor reviews and very low ratings. Number one show on animal planet? Nope, Whale Wars is…again anyone can easily find that. Reruns of other Animal Planet shows get much better ratings than Finding Bigfoot. Sorry, but with the ratings Finding Bigfoot has right now, y’all should be glad they may be letting you film more episodes. The show just doesn’t pass muster that standard network companies use to even consider multiple seasons.

    So now has changed the story once again… Sorry, Matt, there’s a big difference between stating that you will have multiple seasons to stating you will have multiple episodes….HUGE difference. Wow…lol… Oh, and just because you are filming more episodes, doesn’t necessarily mean that they will air. Just a fact of life for television shows. Take Law and Order: LA for an example. It was a spinoff of a long running, highly rated show. The show definitely got better ratings than your show and what happened? They cancelled it. Now they are just filling that time slot with out of order episodes they had already filmed. So get control of your ego and just go with it no matter which way it turns out for you.

    Here’s a link for ya Matt…IMDB

    Facts are facts….accept it. Why did the first show do Ok? Hrmmm… As many review sites have stated, it was due to the show following the premier of Whale Wars, Animal Planets number one show. How have the ratings done since? Downhill… Do viewers see actual evidence? Nope. We spend most of the show listening to Matt spout self proclaimed facts about bigfoot as though he is the Jane Fossey of “squatches”. Actual facts? That he can’t back up his claims and that he in fact does not know the intricate details about bigfoot that he claims to have knowledge of. You want viewers and critics to believe you? Then step up with proof, not just words.

    Oh, and the most important tidbit is that Animal Planet does not backup any of your claims. You’d think that since your show is on that network, the things you claim would be backed up. Networks like to brag about their top rated shows, and yeah….they aren’t.

    Again… multiple episodes do not equal multiple seasons… we call that backtracking.

  28. flame821 responds:

    Uhmmm I got an email asking me to post the ratings for Sunday between 10 and 11? These are from June 26. No date was specified so I picked the most recent info. Let me know if you wanted a different Sunday.

    Here they are and I hope the formatting holds up, so please forgive me if it looks a bit wonky.

    Sunday Night 10-11pm rankings Cable

    TNT FALLING SKIES 10:00 PM 4200 1.5
    USA In Plain Sight 10:00 PM 3603 1.0
    AEN GLADES, THE 10:00 PM 2532 0.8
    HIST Swamp People (repeat) 10:00 PM 2225 1.0
    BRVO REAL HSWIVES OF NJ 10:00 PM 2030 1.0
    ADSM Family Guy 10:30 PM 1891 0.8
    HGTV HO– USE HUNTERS INTL 10:30 PM 1650 0.5
    APL FINDING BIGFOOT 10:00 PM 1480 0.5
    HGTV HO– USE HUNTERS 10:00 PM 1462 0.5
    FOOD EXTREME CHEF 10:30 PM 1154 0.4

  29. flame821 responds:

    Okay I think I found the semantics that are causing the problem.

    The six-part series, FINDING BIGFOOT, which premiered this past Sunday at 10 PM, drew in 1.088M P2+ viewers and 1.12M P2+ viewers for its 11 PM encore. In addition, a Memorial Day sneak preview telecast delivered 1.387M P2+ viewers, making it the network’s most-watched late-night telecast ever.

    Apparently the preview telecast IS the most watched (aka highest rated) Animal Planet show in that networks history. Not the series itself, per se, but the sneak peek. After doing some sleuthing it seems Finding Bigfoot averages 1.2M per week and their numbers have been steady.

    As a comparison, River Monsters averages a 1.5 and Whale Wars averages 1.0 (apparently Whale Wars dips into 0.9 regularly)

    So with this in mind it would not surprise me at all if Animal Planet responds to my email with a positive confirmation that Finding Bigfoot has been renewed. As it does appear to be firmly in their top 10 programs (most lists I see rank it between 5 and 7).

    I hope this means that the cast was given a LOT more input into the editing process and also how the investigations themselves are handled so they stop coming across so badly.

  30. flame821 responds:

    Although this is from the same site so the most watched telecast for Finding Bigfoot doesn’t make sense unless the Network is cheating by adding up the tallies for ALL THREE SHOWINGS into one rating.

    Animal Planet’s “River Monsters” Catches 1.6 Million Viewers in Third Season Premiere

    April 10 Opener Was #1 Non-Fiction Program Among M18-49 in Timeslot

    (New York, New York, April 12, 2011) — Biologist and extreme angler Jeremy Wade returned for a new season of River Monsters Sunday night, snaring more than 1.6M P2+ viewers and 1.2 HH rating (up +9% vs. the season two average).

    The season opener entitled “The Mutilator,” where pacu in Papua New Guinea have reportedly attached to the private parts of local men, kicked off the third season delivering 836K P18-49, 766K P25-54 and 482K M18-49, helping Animal Planet rank among the top 10 ad-supported cable networks in the 10 PM hour. It was the network’s most-watched prime telecast since the season three finale of WHALE WARS last summer. In addition, W25-54 earned ratings above season two premiere levels (+17%, 0.7 vs. 0.6).

    So, make of this mess what you will. To me it sounds like people picking and choosing the numbers they want without any ground rules for the rest of us to evaluated them by.

    Whatevs….I’m bored of this and off to check out more on the DNA story.

  31. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    That is a problem… a lot of sites will give you one figures, while another gives you something completely different. For ratings I try to stick to the top sources. When I did search for ratings, I found that the majority of the sites saying good things about the show and reporting high numbers are bigfoot related sites. All others are full of really negative reviews and numbers. A lot of review sites don’t get their numbers from credible sources, rather it is just numbers based on what members of that site review it at. So the numbers can be all over the place.

    The most credible source is the Nielson Ratings. If you search for “Finding Bigfoot” and you come back with nothing…as in no results. And what source do most, if not all, networks use? Nielson reports.

    I think that the main issues are:

    Claims vs. facts… Matt and others make a lot of bold claims and tout details about bigfoot as though they are absolute facts…yet provide ZERO proof to back it up. It gets old show after show. It comes off as though you have a group of people paid to go out to the woods, act, and spout off “facts” about bigfoot. Ironically that is what we have.

    Everything is a “squatch”… Whether or not it is a result of creative editing by the production company or Matt and the team actually believes what they say, it seems as though every noise they hear in the woods is a bigfoot. No matter what “evidence” is presented and shown that it can easily be a result of another animal or human, Matt states that it is without a doubt a bigfoot.

    Faked/Edited “evidence”… Again, whether it is a result of the production company or actions by the team, a lot, if not most of the evidence shown on the show has been shown to be faked or edited to make viewers believe something that just isn’t true.

  32. matt_moneymaker responds:

    Unbelievable … Kahil Nettleton references a *poll* on the IMDB web site as “ratings” for a TV series … Again demonstrating both his deceitfulness and his total ignorance of the TV industry.

    A poll on the IMDB database is about as close to TV ratings as a poll taken among striking TV writers who are out of work because of unscripted shows like Finding Bigfoot. The typical members of the IMDB database (especially those who have the spare time to vote in polls) are young people who are newly involved or marginally involved in the entertainment industry. They are very very unrepresentative of the average households that TV ratings services actually monitor. ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about the TV industry would NEVER cite an IMDB poll as TV ratings !!

    Why am I the only one here calling him out on such obvious ridiculousness???

  33. Justin31p responds:


    If your show really is getting renewed from the network then I’m sure they sent you a letter or document indicating this. Why not scan it and download it here so no one will even debate it?

  34. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @Justin31p – He won’t because he can’t. Can’t post something he doesn’t have. He has backtracked and gone from boasting that there will be multiple seasons to stating that there will be multiple episodes.

    @Matt – And how is the link you posted any better? TVByTheNumbers is a user driven site, just like IMDB. The difference? IMDB has credibility in the entertainment industry. The most reputable source of ratings, Nielson, doesn’t even register your show on their radar. Quit dancing around the topic and just prove it already. You do realize that ratings are in fact viewer polls right? And you try to tear it down because young people like me overwhelmingly don’t like your show right? So the opinions of younger people don’t matter or bear any weight with you? Here’s a little tidbit of info for ya…younger people (35 years and younger) are the ones watching more TV. Therefore if you want your show to be a success, you have to appeal to ALL demographics, not just middle age white folks from middle America.

    That facts are Matt that you keep making bold claims about bigfoot and the show, yet you can’t back it up with facts. So you do what lawyers do and dance around the subject by trying to tear down others, discredit others and stray from the topic….avoiding answering the question at hand. Well bud, that just isn’t going to work with us, especially me. You are the one with the show. You are the one making bold claims. You sir are the one who bears the burden of proof in this discussion. Present your verifiable evidence to the jury and make your case…….we’re waiting….

  35. MercuryCrest responds:

    To Matt Moneymaker:

    I don’t really care about any of this controversy in the long run. I must, however, point out that so far I’ve seen you attack others’ credibility and that of their sources, without actually proving your own point. If you manage to do just that, you have a pretty good chance at silencing some of these critics.

    Your rants (mainly the ones I’ve seen in previous posts) are far from professional. These types of things harm your cause. Perhaps consider relaxing for a while, then come back and calmly debate each point, one for one, with facts and source citations. Debates really can be civil, but the burden of proof is on you. Do yourself a favor and one for Bigfoot (Yowie, Yeti, Orang-Pendek, etc.) researchers everywhere and CALMLY back up your points with data. Then no one will be able to question you; you might even make a few converts out of it. 🙂

    That being said, I won’t be one of them because of the way Animal Planet has been treating the “evidence”. They have lost all credibility with me.

  36. matt_moneymaker responds:

    Me saying “You can bet it will go on for multiple seasons” and then confirming that recently we’ve been renewed for several more episodes this year … is “backtracking”???

    Justin … When you have a series that gets renewed … the network doesn’t send you a letter about it … They don’t even send you an email about it. They tell your agent by phone. I’d love to see a letter from a network sent to a TV show cast member notifying him/her that more episodes have been ordered. I doubt that has ever been done.

    We’re not talking about an honest difference of opinion here. Nettleton knows very well that he is deceiving people. For example, the ratings that I noted were actual TV ratings (e.g. 1.4+ million households tuning in to Finding Bigfoot, based on results from real ratings services) , nothing like a web site user poll on IMDB (with less than 500 participants), and Kahil knows that very well.

  37. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @MercuryCrest – Well said! As for Animal Planet, the problem and credibility isn’t really with them, it is with the production company. They are the ones controlling the show. All Animal Planet has to do is have a show that talks about or features animals. Their goal is to have shows about animals and to make money…and they are doing just that. The problems going on with the show are all on the production company and the cast.

  38. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Ummm…yes Matt, multiple episodes to finish off a season does not equal multiple seasons. That is backtracking…wow…you really need a PR person.

    You posted a link from another site that is user generated results. Again, the Nielson ratings do not even register the show in it’s results. I am not deceiving anyone as anyone who can do a simple Google search will find the exact same info as I and others have shared here.

    There is a difference between having a top, premiering show at a rather late time slot on a network, and having the top show on a network. There is a difference between stating you will have multiple SEASONS and stating you will have multiple episodes.

    Stop backtracking and dancing around the matter at hand. Animal Planet isn’t boasting about your show as it’s top show…because it isn’t. Animal Planet hasn’t stated that there will be a second season. You are being very selective with the “proof” you are sharing. Yes, you had 1.4 million viewers, but as anyone searching the internet can find, a lot of those viewers are showing a negative response to the show with comments and ratings. IMDB is a very popular and credible source of TV and movie reviews and ratings as it covers a wide swath of demographics. As younger viewers are the primary tv watching demographic, the reviews and ratings poll there is accurate. The link you provided showed 1.4 million viewers, but the show got a 0.5 in ratings…hrmmm… last I checked a 0.5 isn’t a high number.

    Again, stop playing lawyer and stop dancing around the subject. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, that the show is getting very low reviews and ratings, all you are doing is trying to tear apart the opposing view and our credibility. Yet it isn’t our credibility that is in trial here bud. You have the show. You make the claims without proof. So where’s the beef? Or is all you can provide us with is you stating that you are right and the rest of us are wrong? Sorry, doesn’t work like that. Prove you that your show is the number one show on Animal Planet…and not just at a specific, late time slot among a specific, limited demographic. Prove your bold claims about bigfoot as in how they look, behave, sound, hunt, etc. You make a lot of statements as though they are a matter of fact, yet instead of backing it up with asked about it, you dance around it and try to attack critics’ credibility and personally to detract from the point at hand.

  39. Justin31p responds:


    One of the reasons I was hoping there was some kind of paperwork is because if they are renewing it this might be your chance to renegociate in some credibility into the editing. So they just call your agent and say its renewed and thats it, no signing of anything? I guess they had an automatic renewal clause in the orignal deal, and please tell me at least that was a contract?

  40. matt_moneymaker responds:

    @MercuryCrest Don’t be so naive.

    Every single issue about the show that Kahil keeps mentioning and listing in each of his new posts has ALREADY been addressed and answered and explained in previous posts. You haven’t read all of it, and Kahil is betting there are many others who haven’t seen where he has been smacked down on all his previous lies and accusations. As a troll trick, he repeats those questions as if they haven’t been completely answered already … Do you know what troll is, MercuryCrest ??

    Kahil trying to confuse naive people like you who haven’t been watching his scam unfold from the beginning. If you had been paying close enough attention then you would have already seen his game in action. He’s not trying to find the truth. He’s not trying to acknowledge the truths and explanations that have already been presented in various threads over the past few weeks. He’s just trying to posture with some kind of phony correctness … even when he gets smacked down with cold hard facts day after day. That what a troll does.

    Case in point (pay attention here, Mercury Crest): I DID prove EACH of my points. And the first with NUMBERS. If I provide (link to) a number of 1.4 million (viewers or households?) from a widely recognized industry ratings web site (TVbytheNumbers), and Kahil casts doubt on that source, and/or says it not as relevant as a *poll* on the IMDB web site … with less than 500 people participating in the poll … then I have PROVED MY POINT !!! I have proved my point that Kahil is clearly and obviously trying to deceive the readers of this forum. It couldn’t be more rationally obviously … without even having to reference sources or authorities beyond those linked directly to these posts. It’s totally-in-your-face obvious !!

    My other point was that the TV series has been renewed for several more episodes, two blocks of episodes, actually, which qualify as Season 2 and part of Season 3. You can call that whatever you want, but it supports my original assertion that 1) “You can bet that Finding Bigfoot will go on for several seasons” and later that 2) We have just been renewed for several more episodes. Kahil says those assertions contradict each other somehow. He says it’s “backtracking” and that I haven’t proven that it’s not “backtracking” … Do I need to further prove my point that he’s wrong. Ain’t it obvious to you, MercuryCrest, that he’s wrong based on the record??

    I really hope you don’t actually think I need to prove with some kind of documentation that the series has been renewed … I hope you’re not that naive, MercuryCrest … The thought of it makes me laugh. We’re talking about a TV series with lots of people involved — lots of other people who would know whether my statements are true. Do you actually think I’d be saying the series has been renewed if was NOT renewed? or if we really didn’t know that yet? You’re not that naive, are you, MercuryCrest??

    If I say the TV series has been renewed, and you have any doubt of that, then you can take it upon yourself to contact the other cast members to confirm it. I don’t need to prove something like that to a troll on a forum or to a naive reader who hasn’t been paying attention and hasn’t figured out the game of the troll who has succeeded in tripping him up.

  41. MercuryCrest responds:

    @Kahil – I hadn’t differentiated the production company from AP. I can understand the difference now. That’s good, as I’m rather fond of River Monsters.

    @ Moneymaker – Which real rating services are you citing? Perhaps you mentioned it in previous posts, and I missed it. If not, then I reiterate: citing sources like these can only help silence your critics.

  42. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Hrmm… And I thought there were rules here yet Matt is still allowed to come here and call names….interesting.

    Editor’s Note: Normally the above would be edited out of the comment. But as it is baseless here. I left it in.

    In Matt’s comment, he is talking about Kahil’s actions. He does not call Kahil a name.

    Every single issue about the show that Kahil keeps mentioning and listing in each of his new posts has ALREADY been addressed and answered and explained in previous posts. You haven’t read all of it, and Kahil is betting there are many others who haven’t seen where he has been smacked down on all his previous lies and accusations. As a troll trick, he repeats those questions as if they haven’t been completely answered already … Do you know what troll is, MercuryCrest ??

    Kahil trying to confuse naive people like you who haven’t been watching his scam unfold from the beginning. If you had been paying close enough attention then you would have already seen his game in action. He’s not trying to find the truth. He’s not trying to acknowledge the truths and explanations that have already been presented in various threads over the past few weeks. He’s just trying to posture with some kind of phony correctness … even when he gets smacked down with cold hard facts day after day. That what a troll does.
    Matt Moneymaker

    Craig Woolheater

    Look Matt, you still haven’t proved anything and you still are dancing around the subject. 1.4 million viewers isn’t much, especially when compared to any other hit show. Next, you cannot deny that nearly every source for ratings gives your show very low numbers. Anyone can see that TVByTheNumbers is a user generated site just like IMDB. But here we have you going to playground rules and stating that you are right and the rest of us are wrong. All ratings are polls, simple fact.

    What we have here folks is Matt playing lawyer and trying to discredit me when it isn’t my credibility in question. Matt simply cannot handle critics so he opts to attack them rather than answering his claims with facts. Look at the link he provided. Yes, 1.4 million viewers, but take a look at the ratings…go ahead, I’ll wait…..what were the ratings? 0.5! The number of people who watched the show means little if the most of them disliked it.

    So… If all Matt can bring to the game is name calling and personal attacks and no facts…then he’s already lost. Multiple episodes does not equal multiple seasons. A few more episode blocks does not equal multiple seasons being aired. Ask your manager. If he’s knows anything about the industry he will tell you that just because something is filmed, doesn’t mean it will be aired or renewed for more seasons. It doesn’t mean that the show would suddenly be canceled. And again, no one has seen anything from Animal Planet about the show that matches the claims you have made. So excuse us if we don’t just take your word for it.

    If you make a claim, you gotta back it up with cold, hard facts. You have yet to do so. Rule number one in show business bud…don’t make bold claims about your show without the facts.

  43. MercuryCrest responds:

    Moneymaker- You can ignore that last post (which addresses both you and Kahil) as the posts directly above it weren’t showing when I wrote it. In fact, they only just showed up several hours after they were apparently posted (server lag, Loren?)

    Editor’s Note: Once again, that last comment would normally be edited out. Once again, it was left in to make a point.

    Loren & I both administer the site. All comments require moderator approval. Sometimes we are both out of pocket and there may be a manual lag for comment approval.

    I was attempting to mediate the acrimony on here, which I see now as a pointless endeavor. But I will leave you with this: You have made some rather un-insightful assumptions about me. You seem to think that I am incapable of having read this entire controversy starting from day one. I’ve merely kept silent. I broke that silence in order to try to bring things back to a middle ground. I have failed in this.

    I will also say this: Your repeated use of my screen-name is a barely disguised tactic most often used to put someone on the defensive. I have my own critical thinking AND basic reasoning skills. It seems as though you think that anyone who comes to a conclusion different from your own, or who asks the most basic questions, isn’t capable of independent thought.

    I don’t give a damn about what Kahil thinks. I have refrained from forming a serious opinion on the off chance that you might show yourself to be a reasonable human being. I see that this is not the case. All I did was offer a way to settle the acrimony, and you resort to calling me naive…all because I came to independent conclusions about the way you are representing the show and yourself.

    You know almost nothing about me, yet you make blatantly false assumptions because…why? I’ve certainly never had anyone act quite so paranoid when I made basic suggestions or asked simple questions. This certainly looks suspicious. I wonder why you would go to the lengths you do in order to alienate a single person (rather, alienate several people, individually). I wonder why you feel the need to talk down to people who are happy to reach their own, independent, conclusions.

    Questions, questions….

  44. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Really Craig? Calling someone a troll isn’t calling them a name? Fits the definition.

  45. Craig Woolheater responds:

    Really Kahil. Matt asks MercuryCrest if he knows what a troll is after accusing you of a troll trick. He then says your actions are what a troll does.

    Just as when you accuse him of fabricating evidence, does that mean you are calling him a hoaxer?

    He did not say Kahil was a troll, he accused you of troll tricks.

    To me, that is the difference. It may just be a matter of semantics, but…

    There is a difference between calling someone out for their actions as opposed to calling them a name.

  46. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Well played Mr. Woolheater. 🙂

    Is Matt a hoaxer? I can neither confirm nor deny that. Have I seen him hoaxing anything with my own eyes? Of course not. Has Matt made claims of fact without any proof? Of course. Has Matt dismissed valid, alternate explanations of claims? Of course.

    Facts are facts and Matt has none to bring to the table…at least he has yet to do so. That is all we are asking for.

    Will the show get a second season? There’s always a chance of a network not having anything else ready to replace it. Does it have the ratings that network standards typically demand for continuation? No, it does not. If the source of all the troubles with the show stem from the production company, then that is an issue that Matt, BFRO and the rest of the cast need to firmly address. It is their credibility that is being affected by the production company’s actions. Those actions are what we see aired on TV. Those actions on TV and here are what we go on when providing opinions on the show. Rather than attacking viewers and readers, Matt needs to be civil and provide the truth in a calm, mature manner. Anyone else in a fringe science never would have made a name for themselves had they not been able to take and address criticism professionally.

  47. 76sagi responds:

    Hey Matt,
    You should head over to Felton (north of Santa Cruz) to the Bigfoot Discovery Center…. the owner/operator has a very interesting tooth that was found in the hills as well as many documented sightings. We just got back from there and were pretty impressed. Keep up the good work, yeah.. the show is not perfect… but I like it.

  48. matt_moneymaker responds:

    76sagi responds: July 1st, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Hey Matt,
    You should head over to Felton (north of Santa Cruz) to the Bigfoot Discovery Center…. the owner/operator has a very interesting tooth that was found in the hills as well as many documented sightings. We just got back from there and were pretty impressed. Keep up the good work, yeah.. the show is not perfect… but I like it.


    I think those photos are already in the pipeline to Jeff Meldrum. That’s our protocal for tooth finds. We hear about them every so often, and it’s always the same procedure: 1) Whoever has possession of the tooth must take several clear close-up photos of every side of the tooth with scale objects beside it like coins. 2) If the photos are very high-res then they need to be posted to a photo sharing web site. 3) The link needs to be emailed to Meldrum, and the link should be posted on every relevant discussion forum along with a request for input. That allows lots of people to forward the link around to even more people.

    If you follow that protocol for an unidentified tooth, you will solve the mystery faster and more cheaply and more transparently than any other way.

    When gathering opinions about an unidentified tooth, the more the merrier, because often it will be some non-bigfooter scientist who nails it with a comparative image.

    I’m not going to post Meldrum’s private address publicly here. Suffice it to say, I do believe that photos of the tooth you’re referring are already in Meldrum’s inbox, so there may be an answer soon. If Meldrum is stumped then he’ll keeping forwarding the link around until someone ID’s it.

    If it’s a bigfoot tooth, Meldrum will know it immediately. If he says it’s not a bigfoot tooth, then it’s not a bigfoot tooth. You can take his word for it.

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.