Finding Bigfoot: Everything is a Sasquatch

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 28th, 2011

Quite a few Cryptomundians have voiced concerns that the cast of Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot jumping to conclusions regarding everything on the show being Sasquatch related.

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’.flame821

Everything is a bigfoot to Moneymaker. Even when the recreation is an exact match to Bobo…SeanS68

Wow, Amazing. It should been called All things that go bump in the night. Or Did you hear that? Or Everything is Bigfoot.docbashford

I suspect if MM lies down in a field and watches the sky, every passing cloud looks like a Bigfoot.painted8

I wanted to see them eliminate more factors before jumping on the Bigfoot bandwagon. This was one of those cases where I sit on the fence, but I wasn’t convinced to jump off of it into thinking it’s squatchy because they didn’t prove to me it wasn’t. They also seem to ignore poor Ranae’s comments too, and fail to follow them up in the show.

Which is the main problem with the series. They fail to prove it’s not a Squatch, rather they assume it is, and that the viewer already believes it is.Redrose999

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”.Kahil Nettleton

And these are just the comments from yesterday regarding this.

Matt Moneymaker addressed this very issue two weeks ago. Here is what he had to say:

I’ve seen many of the reactions to this show, and so many of them say they cannot take it seriously any more because the cast seems to think that “everything is a sasquatch”.

If I were merely a viewer of the show I would get that impression also.

Here’s the reality of it: The vast majority of what we examined in the field we dismissed as non-evidence. They don’t show those parts though.

Most of the sounds we explained as known animals, and most of what we observed we can explain as known things. We thought that stuff was pretty interesting, and obviously relevant … but apparently not everyone agreed … because those parts were not included.

Again, the vast majority of what we see, hear or find in the field that might be relevant … we explained, on camera, as not relevant … and we explain why it is not sasquatch evidence. Did they include those sequences? NO. Why? Because they thought the audience would find that boring and they would change the channel (the biggest fear of TV producers).

When we DID find, see or hear things that we thought were connected with sasquatches, we went into great detail explaining how and why we determined that. We spelled out or reasoning, and supported our assertions as best we could without actually including footnotes at the bottom of the screen.

Did they include all that reasoning in the show??



Same reason: They probably thought the audience would find that boring (God forbid).

Is that a wise approach for the long run??


Have we been telling them that since the very beginning??


Do they seem to be getting the message now?

I hope so.Matt Moneymaker

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.

20 Responses to “Finding Bigfoot: Everything is a Sasquatch”

  1. etheral responds:

    I have to agree with what MM says regarding this. I think people have a hard time understanding the fact that they don’t produce this show… a production company does it and they’re going to make it appear interesting to the viewer even if they throw scientific credibility out the window. The people posting on Cryptomundo are those interested in the field beyond the common person, so to them it needs to be scientific in nature.

    The average viewer watching this show isn’t an “armchair researcher” or even a field researcher. They’re sitting at home wanting to watch something interesting and that’s what Animal Planet is giving them. This show never promised to provide 100% accurate scientific research nor any guarantee of seeing a bigfoot. The title is “Finding Bigfoot” but that doesn’t mean they will… it’s simply a title to attract the masses.

    It’s unfortunate that there isn’t a truly scientific show on the subject of Bigfoot, but the audience for that sort of show is probably quite small which is why it doesn’t exist. My final thoughts on the show are if you don’t like the way they’re going about it or the show in general, the answer is simple… don’t watch it.

  2. Justin31p responds:

    “If I were merely a viewer of the show I would get that impression also.”

    Well Matt, that’s 99.9999999% of all the viewers of this show, so I’m afraid you are going to have to run with the assumption that everyone who views this show is going to come to that conclusion.

    Certainly creative editing isn’t doing you guys any good, I’ll grant you that and that you can’t control it. But the editors can’t put the words in your mouth (like the I invented woodknocking crack), most of the things people are reacting to is something either you (usually you), Bobo or Cliff says.

    The format of the show breaks down into three segments. 1. is the video of the episode and Bobo’s recreation of that video. Every single time you say its a squach even though your actual re-creation indicates it could have been a human, the most blatant being the thermal image of the guy taking an apple. Sure the editors are going to run with that, but the words came out of your mouth. 2. The show goes to eyewitness reports. Here again, one of you guys says that the eyewitness either did or did not see a squach. You don’t say maybe, possibly, or could have, you say they either did or did not based on your “expert” analysis. 3. Then we go to the woods for a few hours. Once again, you hear a sound and you say that’s a squach, not could be, possibly or maybe is a squach.

    The whole “squachy” culture that you have created over at BFRO may be fun to you guys, but to everyone else you come off as exactly what the doubters would think of a bigfoot hunter. That being someone who goes out into the woods and only hears and sees what they want to see. If you would take the exact opposite approach in terms of tone and debunking, you would gain a multitude of followers because you would come off as credible.

  3. Justin31p responds:

    The other thing that no one is considering here is the other side, that being Animal Planet. How did you sell this show to Animal Planet, was it with the same type of claims that you have repeatedly said on the show? Did you tell them that as the bigfoot “expert” you guys rotinely are able to diagnose an area of prime bigfoot habitat, go out into the woods at night, use your call blasting and get them to respond and close in on you? Frankly, it would be impossible for me to believe that you didn’t sell it to them that way. So look at it from their point of view, they do all this and the actual evidence that you guys get can’t even be detected by their mics. I’m not saying what they are doing is ethical, but it may very well be the case that the creative editing is only done to make the show look like what you told them it would be.

  4. loopstheloop responds:

    Meh. The programme is shoddy and unscientific to say the least, intentionally sensationalist and deceptive to say slightly more, and as low-brow as they come to boot. However, Moneymaker wishes to suggest all his careful reasoning and method has been edited out? Sneh.

    Those pesky producers and director have made him look a real charlatan. Damn their hides. That’s very mean of them. They clearly chopped all the segments where he said intelligent things, gave reasoned analysis and wasn’t acting badly like a primadonna in a dodgy Mexican daytime soap-opera. Still, he got his mug on the telly and made tonnes of easy money, so he’ll probably get over it. Fair play to him anyway.

  5. Ajwho444 responds:

    Well said Justin31P!

    If you want someone to take your cause seriously, you need to be as skeptical as the rest of the scientific community.

    Ranae appears to be getting bullied out of expressing her opinions…seems that any time she starts to question evidence, it’s shouted down til she jumps on board with Matt and the rest.

    Being open minded goes both ways.

  6. Roadie responds:

    I agree Justin31p. If Moneymaker didn’t offer the producers so many assertively affirmative statements regarding whatever phenomena he experiences, they wouldn’t have the footage to creatively edit out his allegedly more critical comments.

    Keep giving them sound bites like “There’s a Squatch in these woods!” and they’re going to run with them.

  7. Roadie responds:

    Plus, if you give a video editor or director “That’s definitely a Squatch”, or “There’s no way that can be anything other than a Squatch” and what do you think he’s going to do with it? On a show called “Finding Bigfoot”?

  8. loopstheloop responds:

    Ah come on folks, the phonetically-spelt lass, Ranae, is scripted to play the part of the cautious skeptic until she finally caves in and admits she’s been convinced by whatever piece of ambiguous ‘evidence’ that’s the topic of the ‘investigation’. She’s the ‘science fluffer’.

  9. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Well I think that the point is that on every episode Matt has come to the absolute conclusion that what he heard in the woods, saw in a very blurry photo or what he someone from the community say was a “squatch”. Rather than being at least partially critical, he just goes right to the same conclusion. Judging by that, it is easy to assume that Matt wants to believe that bigfoot is real so bad, that everything he sees and hears just has to be bigfoot. For instance… In one episode he heard a growl. A rational person wouldn’t automatically say it is a bigfoot, they would likely say it was a bear, because that is what it sounded like. Or with the deer carcass. He stated absolutely that it was a bigfoot kill because he knows for a fact that that is how bigfoot kills, by breaking the legs. As with ALL of his claims and “facts” he knows about bigfoot, he cannot back it up with any kind of proof.

    Its the difference between someone stating that it definitely is a bigfoot and someone stating that it could be a bigfoot. As with a lot of things in life, its not what you say, its how you say it.

  10. Redrose999 responds:

    Many folks posting about the Squatchy angle of the show are aware it’s a production flaw. The show is more marketable if it is a freak show about believers, than a show about the serious scientific research of an unknown animal. But I also feel there is another angle they’re trying for, Finding Bigfoot is a side show gaff. It’s about going into the tent, and pretending what you see is real. I think it’s a cruel joke on MM and crew, but it’s what’s selling the show in the first place. The “possibility” of seeing something keeps people tuning in, and the edits we see, and conversation of the “believers” in the cast is the hook to keep the viewer interested during the ep. Everyone watching knows they’ll find nothing, but pretend while watching that they will.

    To quote Bobo about the show “we were screwed.”

    Yes, yes indeed they were!

  11. gridbug responds:

    I call bullsquatch on Moneymaker’s half-assed explanation as to how with each episode he loses more and more credibility. Sensationalistic editing can only be accomplished when the editors have sensationalistic material to work with. You want the show to be taken seriously? Ditch Moneymaker and leave the rest. THEN watch the ratings go through the roof.

  12. CrytpobelieverinIdaho responds:


    Why don’t you take the money you get from your paid Bigfoot searches and all of the equipment and use all of your connections you say you have and do a private film and produce it and film it yourself and then sell it to the networks and you will have more creative control.

    It just seems that we the Pubic/watchers of your show are only giving little snip-its of the videos or pictures to draw us into watch it and then when we do, all we get is the green night vision of Bobo calling or you acting like an A$$ and believing that every sound is a squatch.

    I would also like you to not distrust people so much when they tell you of their sightings. Like the guys in Georgia who were back in the woods and had one standing over the top of them on ledge. You said that they were describing something not characteristically like a bigfoot, and that it was not a bigfoot or that they were lying. Some animals have deformities, and diseases happen that can make them appear different. I was hiking one time and came upon a mountain lion that was almost all black, never seen one before like that. Things happen in nature that can not be explained and sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

  13. flame821 responds:

    Rather than be a cynic, I will take this statement on face value. So here is a bit of advise.

    IF Finding Bigfoot has actually been renewed, (I’ve emailed Animal Planet for an official confirmation and network ranking) I sincerely hope that the contracts have been renegotiated to the point that the BFRO team has much more creative control and final say over the editing process. If you signed on again without doing these two things (at minimum) you will deserve any and all fall out you get.

    My personal feelings regarding MM aside, I hope he does realized how much of his reputation as a professional is at stake here. He is quickly falling into Biscardi territory and he is dragging the reputation of BFRO with him. Before this show aired I was more than happy to take the reports on BFRO at face value, assuming they had been vetted in a reasonable and skeptic matter, that only those that could be proven were entered into the data base (or at the very least, those which could be proven to be something else were excluded).

    After 3 episodes of this show I wouldn’t trust anything on the BFRO site as there only litmus seems to be ‘what does Matt think’ and ‘everything is a squatch unless the Pope himself has proof otherwise and hand delivers the evidence to me while wearing his funny hat’. (yes, I heard what he said about editing, but MOST people won’t read that, will they. They will simply point and laugh at the Scooby Gang – and yes, Renae is compared to Velma on numerous occasions). Basically all this show has done so far is make a mockery out of any good and decent work the BFRO may have done, everything in their data pool is now suspect. And that is a horrible thing.

    Cliff Barackman really has gone out of his way to do damage control on many of these episodes. BFRO may, as a professional organization, want to do the same. I don’t care if they use MM, Cliff, Ranae, Bobo or some other spokesperson from their group but they should host a weekly ‘Behind the Scenes’ or ‘What Really Happened’ series to spin some of this negativity to their benefit.

    Because sadly, right now the lot of them are looking like fools running around in the woods claiming everything they see, smell and hear is a Sasquatch and that isn’t fair to those members of the Bigfoot community that are truly trying to find evidence and fight the good fight.

  14. korollocke responds:

    Matt Moneymaker is quickly becoming the Micheal Moore of bigfoot reasearch lol!

  15. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @korollocke – Michael Moore didn’t deserve that…lol… Naw, but I would say Michael Moore can at least provide evidence for people to look at and judge for themselves rather than just words.

  16. Mausinn responds:

    I watched the first episode, was less than impressed, but gave it another chance. Watched half of the second one and promptly canceled my recording presets for the rest of the season. If the producers are thinking that showing actual investigative procedures and the process of eliminating what is obviously not Bigfoot related is going to make viewers tune out, they sure didn’t do any better with what they left in. Controversy over the cast aside, this is not a good example of what could be done with this subject and I will be amazed if it lasts longer than the initial run. Matt had better keep his camping gear dusted off, that’s where he should keep his focus. Kind of reminds me of the “expeditions”, they almost always find signs of the big guy. A friend once told me that he thought they would always find evidence, even if they went to a shopping mall.

  17. Zim1918 responds:

    I’ve been watching the episodes with the understanding that the only way Animal Planet is going to keep people watching is by sensationalizing it to some degree. That being said, MM’s response that it’s the editing that is the problem is disingenuous. All four of them play into it to varying degrees which is exactly what they should be doing to keep the hope of a second season alive. Let’s face it, anyone who thought this was going to really delve into the mystery of whether or not Bigfoots really exist is kidding themselves. Aside from the recreations in every episode, there’s no shred of scientific method exhibited. Sure they have all the fancy gadgets such as IR and night vision, but the way they approach their ‘research’ does not begin to approach the way standard biological surveys are conducted. It would take quite a bit of time and effort to conduct those types of surveys which I’m sure doesn’t work with the timing of the show. Maybe the money they’re making from the show can be put into follow-up studies in those areas where they are finding promising signs.

  18. j stewart responds:

    I don’t care how many times you say they didn’t put in what you said wasn’t a “squatch”. What matters is that MM states that things are undeniably Sasquatch when he has zero concrete evidence for comparison. No one does. If there was any definite proof, then Bigfoot wouldn’t be a cryptozoological animal, but a zoological one. MM just needs to stop saying things are without doubt a Squatch because that’s what we see and that’s what we judge by.

  19. littlebigfoot responds:

    As a screenwriter, the way productions edit shows is leans extensively to the tone and show the production wants.

    However, it sounds like the show felt what they were leaving out wasn’t important, not realizing that it’s potentially damaging the reputation of the cast. I’m not saying the cast wasn’t playing into it at somepoints and that’s expected for the show, but MM seems to be saying the producers are doing this too much.

    Personally, I’d like for the show to include MM and cast’s explanation of what they thought it was and why, especially if it wasn’t a bigfoot. That’s kind of why I started watching the show.

    I’m about to watch the encore of the season 2 premiere in a bout a half hour or less and I hope the show includes this as I know MM wants it in the show.

    The thing with the producers is they think they know what the viewers wants – WITHOUT checking with the viewers. So I see where MM is coming from. The problem is if Moneymaker doesn’t constantly get in the producers ear, or the producers feel its not a necessity to the show, he isn’t going to get his way. I hope the producers do listen to him though.

  20. littlebigfoot responds:

    The one question I have with all of these episodes of “Finding Bigfoot” is in today’s electronic world, there are rarely people without a cell phone (most likely with a camera and/or video) regardless of where they are located or what they are doing.

    The one thing you may not have it with you is camping, but pretty much every other instance you’d have your phone with you.

    And you don’t need cell phone/wi-fi service to take a photo or get video. If the bigfoot is that quick then it’s either really really fast or it’s paranormal.

    If I saw a bigfoot and it wasn’t chasing me, the first thing I’d do is get out my camera and snap a photo.

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.