Matt Moneymaker Confronts Critiques

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 1st, 2011

Matt Moneymaker has addressed issues and content raised in recent postings here tied to his new program, “Finding Bigfoot.”

Here they are, unedited.

First, Moneymaker responses to the story that the Georgia police dashcam video is due to a teen hoaxer in a gorilla suit (“Georgia Dash Cam Footage a Hoax?“):

The comments by Jarrard were not true, as we discovered while we were there. He wouldn’t take questions from us when we tried to nail down his story.

No one from the sheriff’s department went out to speak with any of the neighbors after the incident … We spoke with the neighbors though when we were shooting the episode. There was never any college students living in the area, and there was no photo of college kids with a gorilla costume. Jarrard story sounded unlikely from the beginning, and apparently it didn’t happen.

None of the other sheriffs had heard about this story that Jarrard told to a reporter. It seems he came up with the story to quel any fear that local people might have about a monster in the woods, and to prevent hunters from going to look for one.


There was no other show that aired the dashcam footage. Finding Bigfoot was the first program to air the footage. Lotsa false nonsense coming up on this site today, but anonymous people claiming things they kinda sorta recall but can’t quite put their finger on it.

Next, Moneymaker replies to the “wood knock” and “call blasting” claims of who did it first:

That’s pretty weak … a book published in 1993 about a famous indian story teller. It doesn’t count. I had already been talking about that behavior for a year or more on the Internet (and debating with all the people who were saying I was crazy to suggest that) while that book was being assembled. I had been saying that bigfoots use knocks to locate eachother prior to 92, but all you have is the claim by a famous “story teller” in a 1993 book … that he knew they did that long ago. It doesn’t count.

Bill Dranginis is notorious for not telling the truth, and he was kicked out of the BFRO almost 15 years ago for exactly that reason. If he says he recalls an article describing someone else doing call-blasting before I did it … then he needs to produce that article. I kinda doubt it exists. Dranginis would not hesitate to make up something like that. Also, there were no recordings of sasquatches available in the 1980’s that could be used for that purpose. I got the first fairly clean recording that could that be used for sound blasting, and I got it in 1993.

Let’s see Titmus’ writings saying he did wood knocks back and forth with a sasquatch in BC … not just someone’s “recollection” of him talking about that.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

39 Responses to “Matt Moneymaker Confronts Critiques”

  1. matt_moneymaker responds:

    BTW, I wouldn’t consider those bogus statements as “critiques” … They’re just plain old-fashioned false statements that need to be addressed.

  2. airforce47 responds:

    Hi Matt,

    Interesting picture of you for the post but I would have shot it differently.

    As I said previously I refuse to get sucked into the who did it first discussion. The fact is simply that call blasting does sometimes work along with knocking. However, in some areas and some circumstances it’s not effective.

    We’ve discovered in our area letting the scouts see us when we come in and a couple of whoops is all that’s needed. We don’t irritate them when we set up camp and they’ll come around after a while out of curiosity.

    We may have a few items go missing but they usually turn up later.

    The BFRO does a good job of investigating encounters and publishing reports, conducting research trips and sharing some data via the net and your blue forum.

    The Georgia dashcam video is most likely authentic but falls back into blob squatch because of the lack of detail. It joins a host of stuff like this and eventually somebody will get really good video or pics under ideal conditions.

    It won’t go far in getting more attention for the species but will be interesting.

    One of the best things you can do Matt for the community is set-up a 24 hour around the clock notification point for the finding of a live specimen or deceased remains. It should involve all of the scientists in the field and all the willing independent researchers who can be on-call and respond.

    We get the notice from someone and we respond. If the subject is genuine we execute our preplanned response to secure the specimen and make it available to scientists for study.

    This list should include at least Professor Coleman, Professor Meldrum, Dr Bindernagel, Professor Higgins, myself and any other good researcher who’s capable of looking at a live specimen or deceased remains and determining if it’s genuine.

    If you can’t follow the plan and avoid grandstanding then don’t join in the hunt.

    This is off topic but that doesn’t surprise me Matt as you naturally generate controversy when you publish. However, please stick around as you do contribute to the BF community and the mystery. My best,

  3. matt_moneymaker responds:

    To put the above in perspective:

    In 1992 I gave a presentation at the yearly ISC (International Society of Cryptozoology) Conference at Rutgers University in New Jersey. The presentation was partly about wood knocks and rock clacks, and how bigfoots use them to locate each other and/or alert each other to human intruders.

    By that point in time I had heard knocks myself in both California (1987) and Ohio (1992), and had asked many other witnesses about them. Many others had heard similar sounds in the same areas where they had their sightings, but no one had ever asked them about it …. By that point I had also used wood knocks myself to elicit replies, in eastern Ohio.

    No bigfoot researchers had ever heard anything like that before. Most who were present scoffed at the idea, just as they scoffed at the idea of bigfoots preying on deer. My wife was at the conference with me. I told her to remember those reactions, because those same hypocrites will someday claim those behaviors were known before then … long before they scoffed at those ideas when they first heard about them from me, in 1992, at Rutgers.

  4. Loren Coleman responds:

    Matt Moneymaker may forget but I attended the Rutgers conference as a Life Member and benefactor of the ISC.

    I was at the gathering he mentions for 1992. It was not well-attended by too many people who knew anything about Bigfoot/Sasquatch. It was mostly attended by people interested in cryptozoology in general, marginally intrigued by cryptozoology, a few professors, Forteans, and some students. I am not surprised that Matt would get the reaction he got, because, of course, he is little aware that his personality, not what he says, oftentimes, is what people are reacting to.

    Actually, I fault the post-production staff and editors of “Finding Bigfoot” for placing and framing Matt Moneymaker in less than comfortable or sometime confusing portrayals. The editing left some remarks and investigative techniques in the program that distracted from the show. I found the passionate pursuit of Bigfoot by Matt, Bobo, and Cliff quite encouraging for a reality show, and didn’t have any problem with the flow, objectives, and overall impact of the program. I too will be watching it again.

  5. matt_moneymaker responds:


    You may not recall how low key of a presentation it was. The questions afterward were not about my personality, Loren. Their questions were about how I can be so sure that bigfoots make knock sounds if I’ve never actually observed them doing it … and how can I be sure it isn’t deer doing it with their antlers … and whether I think this only happens in the midwest .. and why no one had heard about this before.

  6. Jeremy_Wells responds:


    Those seem like perfectly valid questions to me, as deer DO rattle their antlers in brush and against the antlers of other deer while in rut. Now it’s likely any recordings of these knocks would, of course, not sound anything like this. But for an audience who is, ostensibly, hearing this info for the first time, these seem like very natural questions to ask. As would the question about yourself or others observing the phenomenon firsthand. They aren’t accusatory or offensive questions, from where I stand, but the kind of thing that needs to be checked against to verify the veracity of a claim.

  7. TheForthcoming responds:

    Matt and Loren I think you guys are good guys and have contributed immensly to the field of Bigfoot research. I
    am now interested in getting a degree in Zoology someday
    thanks to you guys. Keep up the good work and I hope
    to see the BFRO merge with the TBRO someday (See
    the book Mysterious America) as well as maybe a book
    written and co-authored by the both of you on Bigfoot 😉

  8. Kahil responds:

    Matt… The main problem I have is your assertion that you are an expert on bigfoot. That’s an oxymoron. On your show, you would talk down about what witnesses said they saw and how they described their sighting. You would make claims that you “know” what a bigfoot looks like and they they were wrong in their descriptions. First, you are not an expert on bigfoot. No one is. Until it is proven to exist and is studied, no one will ever be an expert on the creature. You are nothing more than an enthusiast who has spent a lot of time trying to prove that bigfoot exists.

    As for the show… stop bragging about your accomplishments with your hobby. viewers want to see evidence, not someone self promoting. overall, the show seemed a little “made for TV”. In one outing, you found witnesses, footprints, heard calls and caught something on thermal. That’s a lot for one outing and came off as a little convenient. Other researchers can go months or years and only be lucky enough to get one of those.

    Next, things would seem more credible if you brought on accredited researchers, skeptics, primate experts, trackers, etc. People who aren’t just members of your lil group or fellow enthusiasts.

    All in all… I want to see a show that is based on finding and validating facts. Not one that comes off as self promoting or at times “convenient” with the evidence. You have it firmly set in your mind that bigfoot is real and that you are an expert on all things bigfoot. It comes off as though every potential piece of evidence that comes up, you take it as proof…rather than making a good faith effort to debunk it. Try to find alternative possible causes of what you find. If you rule out everything else and you are still left with a mystery, then take it as potential evidence. So…yeah….make the show more about finding bigfoot and less about you.

  9. Cristina responds:

    Why didn’t you state the size of the footprints found on the show??

    Did you take the footprints to Dr Jeff Meldrum for examination after the show was taped??

    Why did you send the Bigfoot helpers home after one of those helpers had a hit on her thermal cam? Seems the more eyes in the woods the better…unless that large thermal hit was actually a set up by you.

    Seems like a magicians trick where you set up the audience in the right place, then you have a big guy walk in the woods where he can be seen by thermal cam, then you send everyone home. Seems very Tom Biscardi like = hoax.

    You taped this show months ago, and you edited for broadcasting. You left out so much science info, you come off as just another BS artist.

    Where is the follow up info from the show? Where are the sound comparisons from the howl? Where is the footprint cast analysis? Where is th official statement from the Sheriffs Dept? ???????

    Smells like hoaxed show to most viewers.

    Matt Moneymaker = BFRO = Tom Biscardi = HOAX????

  10. ETxArtist responds:

    Matt, you messed up, buddy. After spending more than 15 years building a reputation in a field where credibility is everything, you sold yourself out for six hours of airtime on a cable station. The show was okay, but you made some comments that seemed a little arrogant, and you might have jumped to conclusions once or twice. Sure, the producers were responsible for the way you were portrayed, but the words came out of your mouth. The professional thing to do would be to make a general apology, suggest people tune in for the next five episodes before they make up their mind, and then be quiet. Don’t let your ego get in the way of your success. You’ve stepped into a field requiring a great amount of professionalism, and although your producers should have helped you in developing your persona as a reliable one, it is ultimately up to you. Good luck, man.

  11. matt_moneymaker responds:

    ExtArtist: Hah! You think I owe an apology to someone? To you??? Yes, I AM an expert on bigfoots. And yes, EVERYTHING I’ve said about what I was the first to do is absolutely 100% truth — truth that you just can’t handle apparently.

    Jeremy_Wells: Good man. Perfectly valid points. I was unclear in that post. Those were the right questions to ask. Nothing inappropriate about them … but the questions showed that no one had ever heard anything like it before, and there was increasing condescension in the tone of the questions as it became clear among them that these were entirely new propositions, and seemed quite far fetched to them. Nobody said they had heard that before. That was my point.

    A week or so after the conference there was an article in a local New Jersey paper about the conference. It mentioned the knocking thing and made fun of it … “Bigfoot likes to make knock sounds with a stick. You’ll know it’s really Bigfoot if you knock three times, and he knocks back three times.”

    I’m not saying it was wrong to question what I said back then, but it’s kinda offensive now to deny that I was the only one saying at the time, and taking the heat for it. Took the heat for deer kills too for a long time, until more people started finding them.

  12. Loren Coleman responds:

    For the latest update in determining the earliest use of wood knocking used to attempt to communicate with Sasquatch, please click and read “Wood Knocking Dates From At Least 1974.”

  13. eyecitga responds:

    Don’t know much about Mr. Moneymaker but I do like your strong feelings about your “craft”. I’ve watched many documentaries and read quite a few books and articles about Bigfoot over the years and Matt seems to be quite confident in his studies and research about the creatures. With that said, I’m about to describe my only encounter with this cryptid back in 1993.

    I was teaching a camp held on an Indian(Lumi, I think) reservation in Bellingham, Wash. It was a great venue, situated on a beautiful lake with vast amount of forestry. Anyway, I had a bit of time to myself, so I decided to go fishing about a half mlle away from the camp base. After about an hour of fishing, I began to hear some knocking in the area of trees behind me. I can’t say for sure how far away the knocks were but it seemed off in the distance. I guess I should set the area better. Behind me was the typical natural canopy of trees that you find in the Pacific Northwest. I stand 6’4″ and the canopy or bottom of the trees probably started about two feet above my head. The landscape gradually rose up a considerable grade, with extremely large rocks, easily big enough for anything to hide behind, scattered amongst the terrain behind me.

    Anyway, I continued fishing for about another 10 minutes, when I hear the knocking again, this time much closer. I stopped fishing and turned to look up the hillside and listen. Suddenly I hear this crashing sound coming down the hillside far up in the canopy, only to find large rocks the size of soccer balls start coming my way. I remember at least 4-5 rocks coming down in my direction before I got the hell out of the area. I left all my fishing tackle-rod, reel, tackle box, everything and ran all the way back to the camp. Never went back to get it, either. When I got back to the camp site, I saw some of the workers in the mess hall(inside) that saw the sweat and general concern on my face and they asked me what was wrong. I explained what had just happened. They proceeded to tell me about the many encounters of Sasquatch by camp visitors and tribal members alike. I asked if I had been the brunt of huge joke but there were no smirks or strange reactions. They all thought I was being told to get the hell out of there and that’s exactly what I did.

    I’ve never spoken or written anything about this incident until now. I’m sweating just recalling it to you folks. I’m a believer and have been for a while now. I know this was long but it all started with the knocking of wood that day.

    So Matt, keep doing what you’re doing. I don’t have any issues with it. Just continue to be persistent and we’ll have our evidence soon. Thanks for listening.

  14. Ragnar responds:

    Mr Moneymaker reminds me of guys I knew in the military who were always ready to tell how they were the first one on the ground in Kuwait or wherever. Even when confronted by guys who really were in the units that were first they would still claim it. Such approval-seeking behavior is really sad. And completely unnecessary.

  15. fuzzy responds:

    Y’know, since most Finding Bigfoot Viewers may be, like Ranae, novices unfamiliar with Squatch info, I would have been happier to see a short discussion about opposable thumbs being needed to pound trees with anything large enough to be heard at a distance…

    I find that most folks don’t have a clue about howls and screams and knocks and clacks and prints and casts and flying bowling balls, but if they’re watching this kind of show, they need help understanding what’s goin’ on, whenever these kinds of events first occur.

    More science, I guess…

  16. j stewart responds:

    I had a problem with the statement made about the comparison of bigfoot to Bobo. How does anyone know the length of a bigfoots leg compared to a man. Mr Moneymaker is no more or no less an expert than anyone else. No body has ever been found to study. No family group has been observed in the wild to gain information on. No fossil record and no historical data has been found to decode and to study. The truth is all bigfoot research is educated guessing. We try to use the Information we gather to form the best hypothesis we can. But to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that bigfoot has a leg of a certain length or a torso of a certain length is plain silly.

  17. Kahil responds:

    Wow…Matt is still claiming to be an expert on bigfoot. That is just a good sign that someone is full of themselves. You cannot be an expert on something that hasn’t been proven to exist let alone scientifically studied. He is just an enthusiast/crypto researcher. Neither of which can or will be considered something you can be called an expert on.

    Oh, and Matt and the show has lost all credibility after the truth comes out that the show added the wood knocks and screams….probably everything else… sad…so sad… So yes Matt, you owe everyone an apology.

  18. ETxArtist responds:

    Well, you don’t need to apologize to me personally, but you might think about doing a little damage control. Don’t let your ego get in the way of the big picture, my friend. I’m just trying to give you some professional advice on how to handle the public spotlight. Seriously, you need a professional PR person to help guide your public speaking in a positive direction.

  19. Weezy responds:

    Wow, it’s a shame so much of this show was faked, and it’s a shame how Moneymaker has responded here. He comes off as a pompous jerk, being incredibly defensive, calling people names like ‘nitwit’ and ‘dumb redneck’, very classy. This is the internet, people ask questions, people share their opinions. To get all pissed off at anonymous people on the internet, you’d’ think a researcher and TV personality would have more sense than that, more patience than that, be above that. And all the ‘I did this first, I did that first’ stuff is just sad, who cares really, guy just seems to be out for fame.

  20. larrykat responds:

    As one who skirts the edges of the bigfoot phenomenon, I would say Matt, don’t let the b@stards get you down. I have never seen you on a show before, never read any book by you (if you have one), I have only read your name and basically seen negative comments about you on this site as well as others. But after watching the show, I wonder if these commenters viewed the same one I did; I did not detect the arrogance they describe so vividly. You came off fine, as well or better than most of these reality show principals. I thought the show was entertaining and you can rest assured, 99.9% of the show’s viewers are NOT self-professed “experts” like all these commenters- they are simply TV viewers who will learn more about bigfoot, and will likely feel the way do about it… just keep doing what you’re doing.

  21. airforce47 responds:


    This is one of the rare times I find myself defending the Chief of the BFRO. There are some incredibly silly statements in some of these posts. I can tell that some of you have not done much of any field work at all or you wouldn’t post like this.

    Matt is correct about the knocking, the screams, rock clacking, throwing of forest debris and rocks, thrashing about in the underbrush and trees, footprints and other evidence.

    My fellow researchers and I know because we’ve encountered it at one time or another. See

    eyecitga should be glad he decided to leave the lake when he did. The species can get really serious when they want to and he should read our post of “Encounter in the Desolation Wilderness”. The specimen in his encounter was beginning to raise the bar of its intimidation of him.

    Matt is a type A personality and as such he will do as he pleases within the letter of the law. Social niceties are not necessarily needed or accepted. You may not like it and be unwilling to accept it, but that’s the way it is. If you don’t like it then have nothing to do with the BFRO because somebody else will replace you.

    If Matt wishes to blow his horn, let him. Some people may put him down for it, but that’s his right and theirs. He gets things done and may or may not be the first to find solid Bigfoot evidence.

    As for being an expert in Bigfoot he’s as much of one as may exist. You are dealing with an unknown and while some behaviors may repeat themselves you cannot draw firm conclusions about the subject unless you can directly relate it to other known facts.

    BTW, Matt Moneymaker would have made a good officer in the US military and I am an expert on that after 23 1/2 years on active duty with several awards and citations.

    Obviously he has a family, is happily married so he can’t be that bad as the way some posters attempt to paint him here.

    Television is a media medium and as such programs prepared for airing must have certain things in them. People do bend evidence for the media but I’ve seldom seen anyone attempt to present evidence as factual when it is not. Matt is included here and I would really be upset with him if he presented evidence as factual when it was not. Authors including Loren are given certain freedoms in writing and do use them. Why should the same not be extended to media medium programs?

    We can leave the hoaxing to the likes of Crook and Biscardi.

    At times some evidence which is found may in the long run turn out to be not factual. This is inherent in any unknown and must be accepted as a risk of the field.

    This is really the kind of posting the BF Community gets criticized for and this is my last post on this subject. As I said before anytime Matt or the BFRO asks for our help they’ll get it so long as it’s mutually beneficial and in this business it usually is.

    You can pick on Matt all you want but in the future I’ll have a deaf ear. I have better things to do.

  22. j stewart responds:

    Seems to me and most everyone else on this site that Matt was the one doing the picking on or bullying. Mr Moneymaker continually called people names and cursed at them. he invited a select few to even kiss his ass. No one else used foul language when talking to him or about him. We exercised our right to give our educated opinion on mr Moneymaker and his show. At every turn Mr Moneymaker chose to use grammer school tactics andcall people names at every turn instead of engaging in civil conversation. Most here are not just laypersons. We have a group composed of scientists and like me animal and outdoor experts. Most of us attempted to give an honest forthright critique of the show but were attacked on a personal level by Mr Moneymaker. Thank you for your service to this nation But dont get mad at us for shooting back when he clearly fired the first shot….

  23. adpotts responds:

    I’m going to be blunt.

    The show is like that the Ghost Adventures of cryptid shows on TV. A bunch of perceived tough guys acting like they are really cool, and coming across as a bunch of jack asses. Especially having someone named “Bobo” . If you want to have any credibility in your research on this show, avoid, at all cost, coming across as a mere novelty. As those in the paranormal world rail people who over-hype unaccepted ‘orbs’, so are you with the cryptid world. This show is nothing more than a blazen attempt at notoriety.

  24. ithilien responds:

    wow, seeing moneymaker go off the deep end is just, or actually more, entertaining than the show. his posts have that nice erik beckjordy quality that i have missed.
    reality t.v. requires something to show it’s viewers, or else they don’t come back. so ‘evidence’ will be faked and/or ‘enhanced.’ it MUST be. it’s entirely likely the prints/thermal were hoaxed too.
    since double m is such a stickler for others to verify their experiences through corroboration, perhaps he can definitely state for the record that no production staff were over the next hill call blasting into his shot. they must have unfortunately failed to blast loudly enough, and the audio was missed. how else could they have had the “same sound” to insert into the shot?
    and please MM don’t call me gomer, i’m too fragile!

  25. Nemesis responds:

    I was so interested in the show Finding Bigfoot until I got some information about it. I heard that the camera guys added in the bigfoot scream. If this is true this isn’t right and it shouldn’t be on TV.

  26. Craig Woolheater responds:

    Before commenting, read this post and decide if you should proceed. Violations of the terms of use will not be approved.

  27. CDC responds:

    Wow airforce47, very disappointing to read your post.

    Then I went to your web site and I can understand why you took the wrong position that you did.

    First, Matt Moneymaker isn’t a “type A” personality. He may be the alpha male in a room with you, but he would not intimidate anyone else. Not many “type A” personalities need to be defended by retired Air Force service man.

    Second, The posters here on Cryptomundo did not go to BFRO website or contact Matt Moneymaker personally to insult him…HE CAME HERE and HE BROUGHT THE ATTITUDE WITH HIM! If he can’t take legitimate questions then he should [exit].

    Third, you talk about expert this and researcher that, well, guess what airforce47, as of this posting, BIGFOOT DOES NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO SCIENCE! All the claims of knocks, and howls, and tracks, and on, and on, mean absolutely NOTHING unless Bigfoot is proven real by science.

    Fourth, I went to your recommended Sierra Sasquatch site and are you kidding me???? Your evidence page has Patterson/Gimlin, Freeman, some wild claim about a french frozen body, a report from a make up artist, and a few videos from Dr Jeff Meldrum…THAT’S IT!!!!!! For all the claims you make in support of Moneymaker, you produce so very little evidence to even support the idea Bigfoot exists!

    Lastly, sad but true, what I did see on your website that is very disturbing is…you are considering taking “PAID ESCORTED CAMPING TRIPS ON WHERE AND HOW TO LOOK FOR BIGFOOT”!!!!! I see the potential for scams now, not only on your site, but the BFRO, and every other Bigfoot site.

    You are not taking money from people to go out in the rain forest of the Congo to look for Mountain Gorillas that you know are there…you will be taking money from people to look for an animal science says is NOT THERE AND DOES NOT EXIST! How can you or Moneymaker even consider doing that??????????

    To have innocent people pay their own expenses to get to the woods, then pay you to take them out in the woods, is beyond crazy. The fact that Matt Moneymaker has been doing this for years may be the reason for his arrogant attitude believing how gullible people are paying for something they will never find.

    It’s now clear why you side with him, and frankly it’s insulting to see such blatant arrogance.

    Airforce47, why don’t you wait till Bigfoot is proven real by science before charging folks to go look for it. Seems like the honest thing to do…not like the BFRO and Matt Moneymaker.

  28. CDC responds:

    Loren Coleman and Craig Woolheater, thank you!

    As stated above, this thread and reading Matt Moneymaker break down, is far more intertaining than the Finding Bigfoot show.

    All we need is Dr Drew or Dr Phill, and Matt will be on his way to recovery.

  29. Shroyer responds:

    Most of these posts do not deserve to be even responded to, they are so full of malice. They were made with anger and very little thought. Apparently no one has read what Cliff or Matt had to say regarding this series. They had very little actual control over what was shared publicly and that had to have been incredibly frustrating. I like how so many of you can sit there and make judgment regarding accomplishments, etc when it is obvious that most of you have contributed nothing to the study of Bigfoot. Matt Moneymaker and his team has contributed greatly through research, website, expeditions, etc. And as far as someone’s characteristics, everyone has a different personality, and as people, we need to learn to deal with all kinds. What makes any of us any better that we should say that someone has sold out? What would you do, in the same situation? I can guarantee you, it would not have been done half as well as done by the BFRO.

  30. Dr Kaco responds:

    This is indeed a VERY interesting board string here we have going.
    I’ve known of Matt Moneymaker since I first saw his field work on TV on Fox station’s show ‘SIGHTINGS’, extensive Ohio research in those episodes. I also used to belong to the BFRO message but was kicked out due to actually advising members of their board to research different animal calls so that not to mistakenly tag a ‘squatch sound’ with a ‘native animal sound’. That’s a whole other story but had to get that out. Matt had nothing to do with me getting kicked out. He has explained and answered my questions in the past via emails without being biased or ridiculing me of the what I asked. I don’t understand the harsh response to this TV show and of Matt’s comments? Dr. Meldrum spews all kind of ‘theories’ no matter how outlandish and no one here seems to give him any problems? What is the deal man?! ;p

  31. CDC responds:

    Wow, Dr Kaco and Shroyer, I don’t know where to begin.

    I watched the show Finding Bigfoot on Monday here in So Calif. On that show I saw some VERY compelling “evidence” for the existence of a Bigfoot type creature.

    I realized that episode was taped months ago, so on Tues I looked for follow up information of the compelling “evidence” that was shown on Finding Bigfoot.

    I tried every site on the inter net I could think of, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, Nat Geo, BFRO, Bigfoot Encounters,, here, Cliff’s site, etc, etc, etc. To my surprise, I could find NO more info on the evidence presented on the show Finding Bigfoot.

    1 Wood knocks in reply to a human call were heard by all viewers of the show which is very compelling evidence to a possible Bigfoot in the area. We later found out that the actual wood knocks were not picked up by audio and the knocks we heard as viewers were actually made by a TV producer.

    2 Large tracks or footprints were found on a trail by Cliff and all viewers saw this which again is strong compelling evidence. We later found out that the footprints were actually found by the same producer who recreated the wood knocks, and he directed Cliff where he could find footprints for the camera. The size of the footprints were not mentioned on the show or here by Matt Moneymaker. It took Cliff to finally come forward and give the size after being asked many times.

    3 We see a Bigfoot helper ride in a caravan through the woods and have a hit on her thermal camera of something large. All the viewers of the show see this, and it is once again strong compelling evidence. We again later learn that the video of the helper having the thermal hit was recreated, and possibly the thermal hit all the viewers see on the show may be false.

    4 We hear from Reane Holland on the show that all the helpers were sent home and the 4 person team stayed to look for whatever made that thermal image, and all the viewers watching at that point hear another loud strong howl in the woods. That would be great compelling evidence to have audio analysis done but alas, we find out here on Cryptomundo that the howl we all heard was again a TV producer not a animal in the woods. Recreated evidence again.

    If you want science or intertainment, that’s your choice. I watched for science and I learned that this show is NOT SCIENCE BASED.

    For you two to post “what is the deal man”, or “I guarantee you, it would not have been done half as well as done by the BFRO”, leads me to believe that you two are not sincere about finding the truth if a Bigfoot animal exists, but more like the TV producers of the show Finding Bigfoot…don’t care about the evidence or science.

    You and everyone should be thankful to the posters here, they got to the truth on this subject.

    I don’t care how much control Matt Moneymaker has of this show, I still expect the honest truth from him about the evidence he finds. If we as viewers saw recreated evidence on that show, MATT MONEYMAKER SHOULD HAVE COME FORWARD AND TOLD HIS VIEWERS!

    That’s the truth and you know it.

  32. Redrose999 responds:

    Keep in mind there are other threads that started this discussion. Things built over time, this wasn’t the beginning of the “interesting” responses, but the tail end.

  33. Redrose999 responds:

    Let me correct that, colorful responses. And it occurred at the same time as an above thread. Don’t mean to nit pick, but in context of the situation, things didn’t start out this colorful. It was just debating and criticism. Some of the criticism could be defined as harsh, but folks here tend to be rather blunt to each other without out taking it personally.

  34. JTDrenning responds:

    For someone to call themselves an ‘expert’ on an animal of any type, they first have to be incredibly familiar with all facets of the said animal’s daily life. This can’t be achieved via theories that one may establish, as if there is any element of the animal’s behavior patterns that are unknown (no matter how trivial), then the title of ‘expert’ is out of the question. This would obviously have to be accomplished by viewing the animal in it’s own environment for long periods of time…..sometime’s an expanse of years is required for even the most cooperative animals.

    Now, I ask, how can someone be an expert on Sasquatch when none of the above can even remotely be attempted, let alone satisfactorily executed on a level that would allow one to study it? This is hardly possible considering it hasn’t even been proven to exist. Existence must be proven first, afterwards come the opportunities to study & earn the moniker of ‘expert’.

  35. jerrywayne responds:

    A small issue: is the plural of Bigfoot— Bigfoots?

    Also, the shortened “squatch” is unfortunate, IMHO.

  36. Dr Kaco responds:

    @CDC- I appreciate your retort. Like I’ve said before, we all have opinions, let’s hear them. 😉

  37. Vetpath2009 responds:

    My biggest criticism of Mr. Moneymaker is his lack of scientific approach. As a veterinary pathologist I am reminded of the episode of Finding Bigfoot where there was a deer carcass with a supposed spiral fracture. Moneymaker immediately jumps to the conclusion that the deer was killed by a sasquatch. Spiral fractures are quite common in carcasses found in the wild. Some of the most common carcass lesions where broken bones are concerned are spiral fractures in wild bovidae, particularly in WTD found in hilly or mountainous areas. Their biomechanics and design makes it quite easy for them to plant their feet wrong and twist, resulting in spiral fractures. I have personally necropsied numerous deer found on people’s property where there were spiral fractures.

    Wild boar are also a common cause as they will scavenge carcasses and bite and twist the limbs creating post mortem spiral fractures. Bears will also cause this as they gnaw and twist, but in all cases of these types there are multiple fractures. In skeletal remains, one of the things that must be looked for to establish primate type predation is the presence of teeth marks as the primate will consume the muscle tissue and leave teeth marks on the bones.

    Still, many deer die from leg trauma unrelated to predation. At a game preserve it is not uncommon during the rut to have broken legs and resulting deaths without predation. Aggressive males in combat may chase other lesser males and in the resulting sprint to get away from the winner or dominant male. In the chase there are occasions where the loosing deer missteps and breaks his leg, I have seen this several times in game preserves and safari parks. This is likely to occur in the wild as well. There are simply too many mundane explanations for this one example to leap to the conclusion that it was a sasquatch kill.

    To call a skeleton a kill by any creature without proper forensic investigation is foolishness at best and malpractice at worst.

    In my opinion Mr. Moneymaker has crossed from science to a form of religion. He is conclusion selective and entertains nothing that contradicts his “faith” in everything being a sasquatch.

    A true scientist does not care if the null hypothesis or alternate hypothesis should be accepted; he only cares that he finds which one should be accepted. Mr. Moneymaker has left the very philosophy of science behind and pursues his quest in the same manner as a person on some holy quest. He approaches everything from a standpoint of belief, not science. His investigations are emotional, not logical.

    I think that Finding Bigfoot would be better off getting an open minded scientist to head their show rather than someone that approaches things in the manner of a religious zealot with no room for anyone with a more plausible explanation.

  38. Vetpath2009 responds:

    Correcting a typo

    Aggressive males in combat may chase other lesser males and in the resulting sprint to get away from the winner or dominant male.

    I meant to add: , and injure themselves.

  39. spyyder976 responds:

    He didn’t invent the idea that bigfoot creatures use tree knocks or other calls or screams to communicate, nor is he the person who found it out. We who live in the southeastern US where there are many bigfoot sightings, stories, recordings, prints, and auditory evidence have known this for decades, if not centuries. We also call them swamp apes, skunk apes, and wompus cats here, as they often do live in swamps or near our rivers, and also in the mountainous and hilly areas filled with tall pine and other trees, which are riddled with cave systems. This is prime bigfoot living quarters, and we don’t think they exist-we KNOW they do!

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.