What Did You Think Of Finding Bigfoot: “Frozen Bigfoot”?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 26th, 2011

Finding Bigfoot: “Frozen Bigfoot”
Premiering Sunday, June 26, 10 PM E/P [also broadcast at 11 PM E/P]

According to the Animal Planet promo: “Famed bigfoot expert Matt Moneymaker and his team of bigfoot investigators journey into the mountains of southern Washington to explore a series of photos that depict what some believe is a bigfoot on a snowy peak.”

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.

48 Responses to “What Did You Think Of Finding Bigfoot: “Frozen Bigfoot”?”

  1. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Just starting here in the west coast…

    So far…not impressed… The images aren’t high quality at all and yet they are already claiming that they can see muscle definition.

    It looks like someone in winter gear to me. Some have said it has to be bigfoot because it is uniform in color. Well, it could be someone dressed all in black. Why? it was during winter so if someone was hiking up a snow covered mountain, then the smart thing to do would be to wear a dark colored outfit as the color black absorbs heat the best…it’s a good way to stay warm.

    Next, I again am hearing a lot of “matter of fact” claims about their behavior.

    Still waiting for them to present something that can’t easily be debunked.

  2. Justin31p responds:

    Way to go Matt, you got the coyotes going with your bigfoot howl. If you listen to the response, that of course you say is bigfoot, you can hear a second howler start up at the same pitch midway through the first howl. Nothing but coyotes.

  3. Roadie responds:

    Are there ANY nocturnal sounds in the woods that these guys DON’T think are “squatchy”? Now we have to add whistling and “voices”?

  4. mcw2112 responds:

    Okay, I’ve tried real hard to like this show as it’s the only thing ‘Bigfoot’ going, but this episode was a let down. After mapping possible sites on the GPS, and staking out the area at night, MM says that hears Bigfoot “talking” in the woods along with a few howls. So what do you do in this instance? Of course, you head back to the hotel so that you can talk to the locals tomorrow! WHAT?! This is the thing that bothers me about this show; claim that you hear/see/suspect a ‘Squatch’ in the area and then see how quickly you can get outta there! Also, when MM and Bobo heard the howls near the river and thought that there were closing in on the location, they didn’t think to use the thermal imaging!?

    I also thought that the photo reproduction was fairly close to the original and it only proved to me that it could have easily been a man in a snowsuit or a heavy jacket and backpack. There seems to be a lot of leaping to conclusions in the place of real scientific methodology and a willingness to accept most anything as evidence as long as it fits the needs of the show. I will continue to watch, but I hope the team will go a little deeper and spend the time needed to get something substantial. Take some real time and let the editors do their job! (BTW, I think I love Ranae!)

  5. Roadie responds:

    I’m having a hard time figuring out what ISN’T “Squatch” habitat.

    We have dense forest, but we also have clear areas (below power lines, grave yards). We have high ground (a snow covered ridge) and low ground (valleys and hollows). We have remote locations, and populated areas, and now we have people’s back yard decks, their cul-de-sacs, and along highways (both night time and day time).

  6. greatstart responds:

    I think this show is fun and entertaining. Frustrating as well. Why do they have to play background music when the audience is trying to hear the audio? (A scene with Bobo…)

  7. Kopite responds:

    Can’t see “muscle definition” but I also can’t see any sign of ‘heavy’ clothing, a backpack nor a walking pole. As I said elsewhere, what kind of ‘hiker’ out in place like that in such snowy conditions doesn’t have either heavy clothing, a backpack, a walking pole or even a bottle of water? I see none of the above on the figure, nor anything that even remotely could be any of the above. Whatever the figure is, it’s either travelling light (on top of a snowy mountain, which seems incredulous for anyone who hikes) or covered in uniformly dark hair. I don’t know which one.

  8. CrytpobelieverinIdaho responds:

    This show is just getting as bad as fact or faked and destination truth. It seems like they are trying to discredit other people of what they saw and experienced. MM is just an arrogant host who believes his own hype. I will never ever pay to go on an expedition with supposed EXPERTS when i can go camping for free and do my own research and get better results. To me research is pretty much common sense. You do not need a guy telling you that what you are doing is wrong in the way that you want to research.

    This show is horrible. And i will not watch another one after tonight.

  9. CDC responds:

    Matt Moneymaker,

    I must say, I didn’t see last week’s show, but this week’s I thought you did a few things right.

    The covered canoe on a quiet lake was a solid idea.

    The decoy duck with a thermal cam is also a solid idea.

    But bottom line is, you still came away with nothing.

    The stories from witnesses you and your team take as fact, when reality is, those stories are just hearsay.

    The howls are a joke, and calling every sound a “squatch” is just plain stupid.

    Solid ideas still do not produce solid evidence, then I have to ask, can you at least admit that maybe the animal just is not there?

    Matt I am going to tell you something that is very true. Your four man team plus camera men and producers, there must be 8 to 10 of you running around the woods…if you really want to find evidence, you need 10 times that number.

    You can muster volunteers at a moments notice. Organize small, quiet, teams, maybe 10 teams of 6 to 8 members and spread them out in a 10 mile radius of the area you want to search.

    That far apart, the noise from any one group would not scare all animals away. Have a base communication camp of 8 more members and search…if it is out there, you will find it.

    If you have a 10 mile circle of teams a mile apart, anything within that circle, you will find evidence of. That way you search a 10 mile area other than the linear few mile area you a currently searching show after show.

    If the animal exists, you will NEVER find it the way you are searching now. How do I know? Just look at what you have found in over 20 years of searching your way.

    I hate to say this Matt, but if I were you, I would have found Bigfoot by now…that is if it exists.

    I would find it, but you have not. Hmm, wanna bet me Matt?

  10. Redrose999 responds:

    Well, I’m still mulling around my thoughts. But I can say I noticed the editing was inconsistent. For example, they show Matt and Co. talking about the sounds in the woods, and how it’s Bigfoots roaming about, then when they reach a clearing, they are talking about not finding a camp site (leading me to believe they were looking for people). It was like they were trying to eliminate people, after they decided it was already a Bigfoot making the whistles and talking. That seemed a bit odd to me. Mostly editing.

    And my God, why does Matt stick out his bottem when he does his howls? I suspect he’s trying to do this projection thing with movement while he yells, but man, it looks likes he’s shaking his Bootie!

    I found the photograph stuff interesting, but was disappointed they didn’t mention the guy with the GPS and his claims. I would have liked to see how they could have explained it. The size thing and the lighting got me. The lighting makes the figure dark, and the size could easy make it human despite the fact that it is dark. I also think they ignored some of the more body fitting ski suits and such when they claimed that there were no clothing on the figure. 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 Ranea’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. Interesting tactic, but it will make the show nothing more than brain candy to me.

  11. RWRidley responds:

    First, Bobo needs to slap Moneymaker for the way he talked to him when he demanded that Bobo tell Cliff to “Abort! Abort!” If you’re reading these comments, MM, you seriously need to apologize to your friend Bobo.

    Second (I’m not a field researcher, so this is just an opinion based on someone who grew up in a deer hunting community), wouldn’t it be prudent to find a location that is “Squatchy” find a strategic location and put up a tree stand and wait quietly, maybe for several nights. Flushing Squatches out doesn’t really seem to work. Patience seems like a better mode of operation.

    Third, they totally dismissed Ranae’s dissension on the photograph. She was right. There isn’t anything to suggest that the image isn’t anything other than human based on their own recreation. They were applying spin to the evidence. MM kept on talking about the “blow up” of the picture. Did they show it? I didn’t see anything that was any different than what I’ve already seen and none of those add any clarification to the issue.

  12. bigfoots responds:

    they should stick to witness interviews…bring in a good sketch artist like what they did on the Hoopa Project…interview the person have the sketch drawn up, visit the site etc..
    Otherwise this show is doomed to fail..

  13. bigfoots responds:

    @ CDC
    Talk is cheap.. and so are some of your ideas and comments..
    just cause you haven’t had an experience doesn’t mean anything..

    to me the evidence for sas FAR out weighs the evidence of it not being real..
    anyone who says different just flat out has not done their homework..

    not to mention I have had my own personal encounter..
    so your smug comments are just that… smug comments..

  14. CrytpobelieverinIdaho responds:

    The main problems i see on the show are Matt and Bobo.

    Bobo comes off as trying to be some sort of survivalist and i love how when the editing is finished he comes off as a complete goof in the woods, one of the first episodes when he fell down the stairs, why did he start walking towards the image in the FLIR when it was coming towards him, he falls and then its gone, it looked like he did it on purpose to me.

    And then Matt, just tries to discredit everyone who’s experience with an unknown animal is not a step by step down the line way that he thinks all experiences should be. I know that with my experiences with bigfoot, he would think that it was not bigfoot, when they did not do the text book things he thinks they should do. He expects them to be constantly acting the same, when in real life, conditions change, animals act different all the time.

    I have trained guide dogs for the blind for years. Some pass, some do not. When they are in certain environments or situations, they either do what they were trained or do something totally unexpected. Same as a bigfoot.

    The BFRO and this animal planet show will never find one period with Matt and Bobo at the helm.

  15. painted8 responds:

    It’s amusing how closely Bobo is able to recreate the video/photographic evidence of Bigfoot, yet everyone but Ranae finds the original evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

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

  16. docbashford responds:

    Wow, Amazing. It should been called All things that go bump in the night. Or Did you hear that? Or Everything is Bigfoot. Come on. I will admit the goose cam was a good ideal and maybe the camo canoe -if the woman could keep her mouth shut. The coyote that answered them back was funny because that was what it was and the second one was just starting when they edited it out. Hey, it’s already known it’s edited in. I think the it’s here, so let’s leave now idea always works, lol. I also like the camera in the face bit instead of where the, uuummm bigfoot is, lol. I have people who call me with questions about this and some even come into my business, I always say “it’s not real.” It’s the kind of show that is for entertainment of the unknowing public.

    Looks like bigfoot is safe for another week, lol.

  17. Fred123 responds:

    This is pretty bad. It almost looks like the folks who cast “The Sasquatch Gang” picked this team of Bigfoot “experts”.

  18. Harrison responds:

    What is wrong with this show? Whenever the team hears a sasquatch, or sees something similar to a sasquatch on the thermal camera, they call it a night. If you were that dedicated to finding Bigfoot, you would stay the whole night, not 30 minutes. What happened to the end of the show when they saw 2 figures on the shoreline? They didn’t pursue it, they went to go to the “howl”.

    They just stopped after pursuing the “noise” and said, “there’s nothing we can do now, but there is a bigfoot out there. We’re calling it a night”.

  19. SeanS68 responds:

    Like I said last week about the show. Everything is a bigfoot to Moneymaker. Even when the recreation is an exact match to Bobo… The photos from last night to Green thermal.

    There is Zero credibility from Moneymaker anymore.

    What get’s me about the show is that they go to several places per episode instead of staying put in one spot and working it properly. If bigfoot (or like Matt likes to say “bigfoots”) is in the area they will come to you to see what is going on. I am quite sure that if Moneymaker and his crew set the show up like they do their expedition they would capture something on film. But then again if they actually capture a bigfoot on film their show would be over.

  20. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    I will say this show despite all of us ragging about it and the heavy bias by the investigators, I will say their reenactments go a long way in proving that the various videos (the rafting video & the heat signature video) and tonight’s photos are something other than Bigfoot. The rafting video from a couple of weeks ago for instance when you listen to the believers about the figure being one color you start to think, Hmmmmmm, maybe it is a creature. Then they put Bobo in there with multicolored clothing and he looks identical in the video when compared to the original. Same with the Heat Signature video, I was impressed with it knowing nothing about Heat Signatures but again, put Bobo in there with many layers of clothing and he comes out looking identical to the figure in the video.

    So this show is going a long way in disproving some of the perceived best evidence despite all of bias and editing.

    On another note I think the show should just stay put in Oregon and/or Washington which seems to be Ground Zero for all things Bigfoot and just do a well planned and methodical search over the course of the season. Let the personalities of the 4 investigators as well as the witness be the entertainment.

    I think that would be their best shot at proving something. They should also actually try staying out all night until sun up instead of calling it quits at 1am or earlier like they have been doing. Oh yeah STOP TALKING while searching. Do the narration over the footage later.

    Anyway that’s my 2 cents.

  21. Nny responds:

    Usual complaint: Opinion and speculation represented as fact.

    Bobo is awesome. Using him in the recreations is a lot of fun to watch. He’s got a great personality.

    Renae’s skepticism on the photos after the recreation seemed more ‘just cuz’ than the other times she’s disagreed with *everyone* else. Or maybe my personal opinion gets in the way, as it’s too hard for me to conclude on the pictures.

    The whole calling thing really, really bugs me.

    “Not sure what birds are in the area to rule it out.” — more awesomeness from Renae.

    “That’s how bigfoots communicate….” WE THINK. So frustrating.

    Squatch. Squatchy. America takes a collective laugh. If not all of America, at least Coast and Coast. But it’s cool, cuz BFRO feels pride in their squatchiness.

    What the heck is the deal with the ‘voices’? Squatchies talk now? For how long? If this was explained in an ‘after the episde breakdown’ that’s great. But it’s an obvious flaw of the show to have to look up things after and seperate fact from fake.

    Every townhall meeting they call…. the raising of the hands…. so dramatic… every time. It also reminds me of like, alien or UFO sightings/support group. It comes off as…. odd… to me.

    I love Cliff’s energy and excitement. But he sees what he wants to see, hears what he wants to hear and so he knows what he wants to know. I guess that could be said for all though.

    “Thanks for coming out here and confirming what we already thought” from one of the people to have an encounter with a squatchy. Said to the squatch hunters. I know it’s awesome for him to have it confirmed, it is awesome. But that’s the what? 20th person in the series they’ve done that with. If they were able to debunk more sasquatch sightings or claims, it would have a little more weight when they confirmed one. (The only two I can think of that were not believed were on previous episodes and they were the lady who said squatchie was running on the road next to her car…. and the other guy who said he saw a squatch up the hill from him, the one that Matt-on-camera was like IT REALLY STARTED SOUNDING FISHY AND I REALLY STARTED TO DOUBT HIS CREDIBILITY or whatever and then having to explain on the internet that he was referring to OTHER statements the witness had made…. leading the viewer to believe Matt disagreed with what was presented on the episode (which also would have been fine, it was the fact that Matt said it in a douchey kinda way, I believe, is what got people critical and upset at that moment. It wasn’t the disbelieving the guy, it was HOW he worded his disbelief to the camera.)

    “Narrowing down are target area” good luck with that. Some comment from somewhere around here had it right…. get 50 people together in teams of 5 -8 and spread em a mile apart…. that’ll find something, if there’s anything to find. Would make for a great documentary too, btw, even if nothing is found. It would be very intriguing to people.

    Duck and camo-canoe. AWESOME idea. Ranae nails the reasons why.


    Two hotspots on the shoreline. Was the footage shown night-vision-thermal? That was stupid.

    I got confused as to what the hotspots on the shoreline were to where they parked the canoe to where the howl-back was heard to it being somehow between the two groups. That whole bit was just confusing to me. I mighta missed something. Or it was just bad editing.

    Then the episode ends. WTH?

    “Kick it out”
    “That’s voices, man!”
    “Tell him to abort!”
    “Oh yeah because they bounce right off the lake” <– shows his smarties
    "The evidence is here. There are bigfoots in Washington." (and anywhere we go)
    Fav quotes from the man, the myth, Matt Moneymaker.

  22. Nny responds:

    Oh… forgot my conclusion.

    Probably one of my favorite episodes so far. The duck-canoe thing showed some creativity.

  23. Nny responds:


    Totally agree.

  24. CDC responds:

    @ Bigfoots

    Yeah maybe the truth hurts, but it is still the truth.

    I don’t believe you had a “personal encounter”, I don’t believe anyone has outside of “maybe” Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Why only those two? Because they brought back film that has not been disproven in over 40 years.

    Yeah you are right, “talk is cheap”. When I hear people claim “that is typical squatch behavior”, I think how cheap. When I hear some one claim they had a “personal encounter” that is the cheapest talk of all.

    Yeah, I know one thing that is not cheap, and that is the truth. The “evidence” you claim “far out weighs” is plain wrong. YOU HAVE NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CLAIM ANYTHING!

    Footprints, stories, and a 45 year old film? You better throw your scale away.

    Bottom line is this group of “Bigfoot researchers” floating around the woods like fairies, have not found a THING in over 40 years. Why? Maybe the animal does not exist, or maybe they don’t know how to find it.

    You believe all the fairy tales you want, not me, I want scientic proof of something before I believe, even your fairytale “Bigfoots” aka Matt.

  25. Cernovog responds:


    Most of us can probably agree that there is no definitive, indisputable proof of Bigfoot. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be discussing this on a cryptozoology website. The topic would be in the realm of zoology and we’d be discussing the DEC’s Bigfoot management plan or the IUCN’s threat rating for Bigfoot.

    However, I think there is enough evidence to warrant investigation. Do you at least agree on that?

    There have been plenty of animals for which science has had far less evidence that have been sought after by scientists and amateurs. The ivory-billed woodpecker comes to mind. (Which I, personally, think is ridiculous. There is far more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than there is for this bird.)

    Another example is the Greater Bamboo Lemur, thought to be extinct for more than 50 years before its rediscovery in the 1980s. The Golden Bamboo lemur was also discovered by the same scientist going on nothing but a single sighting.

    Bigfoot suffers from the stigma of tabloid sensationalism, hoaxers, and resistance to the long-held beliefs that humans are the only living hominids and that there are no primates in North America.

    Footprints are evidence. We have scientifically named species based solely on footprint evidence (admittedly, mostly dinosaurs).

    Sightings are evidence. It only took a single sighting by the right person to secure funding for an expedition to find the Golden Bamboo Lemur.

    Films are evidence, even blurry, poor-quality films. Bigfoot films are of far better quality than this blurry video of the ivory-billed woodpecker.

    Does all this evidence constitute proof? Perhaps not for you and not for the bulk of the scientific community, but I think the body of evidence is big enough to justify continued investigation.

  26. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    One moment, I hear bigfoot talking, yes it’s definitly bigfoot, he wants more ice for his hard tea.

  27. bigfoots responds:

    @ cdc

    you sir are a joke..do your homework or you come off looking like a loudmouth fool..

    good luck with your rantings…

  28. Opalman responds:

    “there must be 8 to 10 of you running around the woods…if you really want to find evidence, you need 10 times that number.”
    “Organize small, quiet, teams, maybe 10 teams of 6 to 8 members and spread them out in a 10 mile radius of the area you want to search.That far apart, the noise from any one group would not scare all animals away.”

    Not spent much time in the woods right? LOL

    I can see how someone might arrive at this line of thought and I am sure your intentions are good, BUT such a strategy is doomed at once to utter failure and would be a huge waste of energy and resources.
    An apex predator would never, ever remain in proximity to what would amount to an infantry unit entering its domain. Most documented sightings seem to take place in circumstances where the quarry is unthreatened or unaware of the observer, or when the creature is deliberately investigating the investigator. This applies to all wildlife as well as human beings put in a fugitive situation. (jungle warfare i.e. Viet Nam) This is why we use snipers in the neutralizing of deeply embedded (and non-urban), high profile targets and not entire units.

    In a previous post (Frozen bigfoot Photos) I outline a particular protocol for documenting of the sasquatch. I base this methodology on a lifetime of getting very close to various quarry.
    The sasquatch has remained ever elusive because of its obvious adaptation to its environment. These adaptations give it a tremendous advantage over humans. Most notably is eyesight. In all probability the sasquatch has a finely evolved tapetum lucidum. Some lemurs possess this same structure and have extraordinary night vision. Rhodopsin the compound responsible for night vision sensitivity works in concert with the eye’s rods, allowing the creature to see well in almost total darkness. Additionally I speculate that sasquatches have developed a vision acuity that is tuned well into the infrared and UV, far beyond human ranges (as is also the case in certain lemurs). Eyeshine the result of the tapetum lucidum; is well documented in the sasquatch, as is also the case in all other mammals possessing a tapetum lucidum. Any technology using infrared light sources such a all current generations of night vision devices / trailcams are totally counterproductive in our search. Even some passive thermal imagers have a infrared aiming device= no good.

    In my opinion the single greatest mistake made by those that go afield is that they are always moving way, way too fast. The only time animals (and especially large predators) move quickly is when they are chasing pray or escaping immanent danger. Moving quickly in the woods is a red flag to all wildlife; meaning that something’s wrong; thereafter they go into a mode of extreme caution and vigilance.

    Call blasting is ridiculous in my estimation, though a very accurately recorded small mammal distress call, (predator call) would probably work in certain circumstances. (keep the bear spray handy)

    The only hope we have in finding bigfoot is predicated on radically changing our approach. It is not too far fetched to speculate that sasquatch may be able to see electromagnetic anomalies, (electric fields), a byproduct of the highly developed eyesight system tuned both towards the IR as well as the UV. We now understand that all migrating creatures depend upon the sensing of the earth’s electromagnetic field in order to navigate to their destination.

    I maintain that the same methods for getting within bow shooting range of a wise old boar brown bear will work in getting pictures of sasquatch.

  29. CDC responds:

    @ Cernovog

    Is it possible that a Bigfoot type animal exists? Yes.

    I only have a problem when people claim the “DO” exist. Investigate, study, research, anything anyone wants to do I respect…just don’t claim the animal is there until you prove it.

    Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin are the only two people that can say they know the animal exists, because they brought bach proof to back up there claim. Patterson is long dead, but no one to this date has been able to call him a liar or his film a fake.

    All these other monkey chasers can look all they want, but when they start saying this is a “squatch” or that is a “squatch” I tell them prove it.

    As your buddy Matt Moneymaker…or I mean “Bigfoots” would say, “talk is cheap”.

  30. BAMA1863 responds:

    My first impression after seeing enlargments of the photos was how this creature reminded me a lot of the subject of Patterson’s film. Especially as it turned to walk away. The slumped broad shoulders, the wide head with no neck showing and long arms. Also the hunched forward look of the upper body. Even though this subject was further away I saw enough to make me believe the two creatures are very much alike. Did anyone else catch this? Just my 2 cents worth.

  31. bigfoots responds:

    @ cdc
    my encounter happened when I was about 13 and when i was getting ready to night fish for catfish. I didn’t believe in bigfoot at the time..
    so for you to tell me it didn’t happen because i didn’t have a camera is so utterly ridiculous is laughable..
    you discredit my encounter before you even heard about it..and you call that a scientific approach?
    couple that with your comments and supposed methods I can tell you know very little about the subject..

    You say you can find bigfoot before MM does so go put your money where your mouth is.
    Otherwise I could care less if you don’t believe, its abundantly obvious you have not done any research or real homework on the subject and are not scientific so there is no point of even debating with you..

    and btw.. I’m not MM.. don’t know him, not a member of the bfro or even really a fan of mm…

    I’d say you can put that conspiracy to rest..But I’m guessing you want a picture? lol

    good luck to you sir.

  32. CDC responds:


    Well, I have volunteered on a few search and rescue for lost hikers, and one lost aircraft in remote forest areas, and you are wrong, you put as many eyes and ears in the woods as you can.

    Reality is, with Bigfoot you are not only looking for the animal, but any trace of the animal. Any evidence you find is better then what you are seeing on this television show now.

    In search and rescue, if you find a shoe of remnants of a campfire, ANY EVIDENCE, anything to indicate the hiker came this way, then you target your search accordingly.

    If the animal “does” exist and “is” in the area you want to search, then large teams are the “ONLY” way you will find ANY EVIDENCE that’s simple.

    Apex predators like Tigers fear nothing.

    Look at how Tigers we hunted almost into extinction, not with 4 guys wandering in the woods, it was hundreds of natives pounding the bush and hunters on backs of elephants waiting for a Tiger to flee or attack.

    All this back and forth is based on the assumption that Bigfoot actually exists, well “IF” it does, then EVERY SINGLE METHOD so far has not been able to prove it.

    Guys like Moneymaker, Biscardi, and others are NEVER going to find it their way. This kid “Bigfoots” and others that have all these Bigfoot fantasies, are not living in the real world.

    If you doubt my idea Opalman, just call the California Search and Rescue and ask them if the wanted to find lost hikers would they send in a 4 man team, or as many as they could with helicopters.

    That is for hikers that want to be found, but if you use the example of Eric Rudolph, hundreds were used to search the woods for him, and he did not want to be found.

    You do not need to find the animal here Opalman, just “EVIDENCE” it was there. So far, all the current methods have brought back no evidence, so how can anyone defend that track record?

  33. flame821 responds:

    @ opalman

    2 questions for you

    1] if the sniper with a camera method was used, in your estimation, how much area could each ‘sniper’ cover on his own without alarming the local wildlife. (as in how many man per miles/metres squared)

    2] I notice you compared Bigfoot to Lemurs on several occasions. I find this intriguing. Do you think that Bigfoot is a proto-simian as opposed to an ape? I know Lemurs and Indri only really thrive in Madagascar but a large, bulky proto-simian could fit the picture as well.

  34. CDC responds:

    @ Bigfoots

    Look son, you can go on a hundred internet sites and find people who will swear to you that they were abducted by aliens from another planet.

    You can go to another hundred sites and find even more people who claim the have seen a ghost.

    Point is, you can argue with these people for days because you do not believe in ghosts or aliens, but these folks who believe it will NEVER back down.

    I don’t believe you saw a Bigfoot. I think you are either lying, were mistaken, or it is a fantasy of yours. I don’t discredit your encounter, I simply do not care about it.

    Just like the Alien Abductee, or the old lady haunted by a Ghost, no one cares about their stories WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!

    Go ahead and tell everyone your story, good for you, just don’t tell me cause I don’t care without evidence to support it.

    As for the bet that, “I could find Bigfoot before Matt Moneymaker”…I made that bet because Bigfoot does not exist. Matt is out in the woods and I am heading to In n’ Out Burger, and we both have the same chance of finding an animal that does not exist. Understand?

    There’s a great way to shut guys like me up once and for all, just back up your talk with rock solid proof. I will NEVER say a negative word about Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin. I believe they filmed a Bigfoot. I have seen their film, and I cannot explain it. So in my opinion, they did film a Bigfoot…maybe one of the last ever.

    So before you put yourself on the same level as Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin, you better come up with something better than a story from when you were 13.

    And before you call me a “joke”, look at what I am posting and what you are posting, and see who the “joke” is.

  35. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @bigfoots – If you did in fact have an encounter when you were a kid, then chalk it up to that…an encounter that you can’t prove, but you honestly believe what you thought you saw. You saw something at night, in the dark that you think may have been a bigfoot. Can you prove it or be sure of what you saw with 100% positivity? No, of course not. So just take it as an encounter. No need to get all angry about it and devolve to the level that Moneymaker has by calling others names.

    Let’s try and keep things civil here….we’re Cryptomundians…we’re better than that. 😉

  36. chris213 responds:

    “Frozen Bigfoot” is the last episode I will waste time watching.

    This show is worthless. Leonard Nimoy please beam Moneymaker somewhere without oxygen. At least he would SHUT UP!

    If he is the expert searching for bigfoot the dinosaurs will re-evolve before the big guy is found.

  37. bigfoots responds:

    @ cdc
    your logic is terrible at best..

    tell the judicial system that witness testimony is no good…

    what if you were assaulted or robbed and you told the police you saw who did it and they said “well we don’t believe you unless you have a picture”

    would you say ok?

    or would you expect them to take your word and conduct an investigation?

    does a murderer need to be video’d to be convicted?

    I stand behind all of my statements..
    you possess little knowledge on the subject, yet you act like a know it all..

    I say again.. the evidence for the creature far out weighs the evidence for no creature or of everything being a hoax…

    Its not my fault you can’t wrap your head around it..

    Good luck and take care…

  38. CDC responds:

    @ Bigfoots,

    The sad thing for you is I know more about Bigfoot and all the evidence for Bigfoot then you do now, or ever will.

    Yes, I have studied Bigfoot longer than you, and your little fish story changes nothing.

    I know every single piece of evidence…EVERY PIECE!

    Footprints? Dr Meldrum’s paper is impressive, but Dr Meldrum himself only admits footprints only supply enough evidence to support the argument that a Bigfoot type animal “MAY” exist, and Dr Meldrum NEVER claims that Bigfoot “DOES” exist based on footprint evidence.

    Dermal Ridges? Matt Crowley proved to Jimmy Chilcut that the pattern flows can be duplicated. Dermal ridges are not proof.

    Pictures and photos? Not one picture has EVER been shown to depict an actual Bigfoot animal. Show us just ONE.

    Films? Patterson/Gimlin still remains as the BEST EVIDENCE for Bigfoot. Freeman is close, but not impossible to duplicate. Patterson/Gimlin has never been duplicated, and that is fact.

    DNA evidence? I spoke with Dr Melba Ketchum myself, have you ever done that? I contacted her office in Texas after she did analysis on hair samples brought back from Bhutan form a Destination Truth episode. I posted her results first on another site TWO YEARS ago once it was made public by the SciFi channel. She stated as recently as last year that she was going to submit a paper for peer review on her findings on DNA extracted from samples sent to her lab. That paper could be the proof we all want…but where is it?

    Your eyewitness comparisons are a joke. Think a second buddy. Eyewitness statements work only when looking for a suspect or identifying a suspect…BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SUSPECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You and your story telling friends desribe Bigfoot after Bigfoot, but NEVER has a BIGFOOT been found!!!!!!!!!! You tell the Law that you were attacked by a Bigfoot, that you saw a Bigfoot kill some one, that you saw a Bigfoot rob a bank, then lets see them bring in some Bigfoot suspects….ain’t gonna happen huh?

    Truth is truth, and facts are facts! You are wrong!

    The evidence for a Bigfoot type animal no way comes near level of proof to make the claim that the animal does exist.

    The evidence that a Bigfoot type animal does not exist is greater and you know it. Lack of fossil evidence, lack of any bones period. Lack of furs or skins compared to the millions of pelts form bears, deers, cougars, buffalo, beaver, etc, etc, etc, through out history. the lack of DAN evidence from hairs, dropping etc. I could go on, but why bother.

    Yes “Bigfoots”, you have no idea who you are talking to. I am not just blowing hot air like you, I am seriously looking at the possibilty this animal exists. If more people took this effort seriously, we may find an answer either way. Instead you have clowns and circus acts like Biscardi and Moneymaker turning this into a side show.

    “Bigfoots”, if you want to learn I can teach you, but from where you are now, you have not a clue…try and wrap “YOUR” head around that.

  39. Opalman responds:

    @ CDC

    “Reality is, with Bigfoot you are not only looking for the animal, but any trace of the animal. “

    Not my intention at all—were I ever in a position to mount a real search! We already have skeins of anecdotal evidence and sign. Until someone gets serious about the mission and employs tried and true methodology all we will ever have is anecdotal evidence; which apparently is not enough. We need incontrovertible video backed by forensic “proof”. Short of killing a creature, which would be a major crime against nature and the universe as far as I am concerned, this is all we can probably get. The question of live capture is premature at this time. Suggest: my post on the other Frozen Bigfoot thread.

    “Apex predators like Tigers fear nothing”.

    This is not true. Natural selection has inbred the fight /flight response into all creatures, including Tigers. I will go so far as to acknowledge that tigers are relatively fearless; but so are 1200 lb brown bears which I have personally observed run like hell from an unexpected human confrontation.

    “If you doubt my idea Opalman, just call the California Search and Rescue and ask them if the wanted to find lost hikers would they send in a 4 man team, or as many as they could with helicopters. “

    I am a licensed pilot (no longer current as per revoked medical) and was certified as search and rescue pilot with the CAP. I’ve been on many SAR missions as has my son. I fail to understand the comparison though: with lost hikers the situation is that the rescuee is assisting his discovery in any way possible—Not trying to evade the searchers at all costs.

    “That is for hikers that want to be found, but if you use the example of Eric Rudolph, hundreds were used to search the woods for him, and he did not want to be found.”

    Thank you—my point exactly.

    “You do not need to find the animal here Opalman, just “EVIDENCE” it was there. So far, all the current methods have brought back no evidence, so how can anyone defend that track record? “

    I fail to understand that statement. Seems we have all the anecdotal evidence we need to warrant a proper and successful expedition. What we need now is PROOF of the sasquatches existence to once and forever end the controversy, that—we might move on to protecting the creature and its habitat.. Agreed; the proper protocols have not been employed in searching correctly. In opposition to this common sense goal I fear we have a situation where big money (timber industry) and science related dogma is indirectly conspiring to prevent that discovery. I would be interested in knowing how many dollars the various “bastions of higher learning” receive from timber and timber related industries.

  40. Opalman responds:


    1] if the sniper with a camera method was used, in your estimation, how much area could each ’sniper’ cover on his own without alarming the local wildlife. (as in how many man per miles/metres squared)

    My analogy may be being misunderstood regarding the sniper. Snipers are used because they are able to observe and act without being detected (as apposed to an infantry unit with a FOB etc.) As to how many etc., intelligence is relied upon to dictate those specifics and even then the sniper has to rewrite the game plan on short notice or no notice. My point is that the success in our case will depend on presenting a very, very soft footprint with the knowledge or belief that our subject already knows our approximate location. But because of the very light footprint the subject is far less intimidated and even perhaps curious regarding the party members whereabouts and activities. We can assume with confidence that the subject will not (can not) observe the party members continually, 24/7— but because the party represents a minor threat, will only keep intermittent “tabs” on the party. Any large group entering the woods either in groups or together as one team will send the quarry hightailing it to the next drainage, at least, if not further. (representing impossible logistics for the searchers) On a happier note there is always the “luck factor” of having a forward team exactly in the right place at the right time, this happens of course and it is the only thing that can be said for the “storm the woods” method.

    “I notice you compared Bigfoot to Lemurs on several occasions. I find this intriguing. Do you think that Bigfoot is a proto-simian as opposed to an ape? I know Lemurs and Indri only really thrive in Madagascar but a large, bulky proto-simian could fit the picture as well.”

    I believe, (WITHOUT SOUND SCIENTIFIC PROOF), That the sasquatch is an example of the evolutionary extension of the hominid (hominan) line. Most probable a result parallel evolution with the gigantopithecus line thereafter convergent as represented by sasquatch due to environmental (adaptive) specifics. This is but a hunch I entertain, I have no training in paleoanthropology or even biology. This is also why we must find and learn what we can about the sasquatch. (non destructively)
    Instances of nocturnal eyesight and its mechanisms would necessarily be universally similar throughout the species timeline and that adaptation would not necessarily represent evolutionary relatedness. I find it fascinating that the lemur line and the sasquatch share similar traits probably due to similar environmental specifics in their evolutionary development. Interestingly and anecdotally:

    Lemurs and sasquatches both possess remarkable night vision.
    Lemurs and sasquatches both possess divergent digits on their hands and feet, and most Lemurs have nails instead of claws.
    Lemur adaptations are in response to Madagascar’s highly seasonal environment as are sasquatches, (probably) in the case of the NW area of North America and southern Alaska.
    Lemurs are generally the most social of the strepsirrhine primates and communicate more with scents and vocalizations than with visual signals *. (vocalization of Lemurs sound remarkably like some of the recordings of supposed sasquatches…I’ve heard them in person (lemurs—not sasquatches)…hmmmm!)

    * Wikipedia

  41. CDC responds:


    Seems like you went the long way around to agree with everything I said.

    Search and Rescue.
    The Eric Rudolph /Lost Hiker comparison was to point out to you that ANY search requires as many searchers as can be put on the groud, from my original point that Matt Moneymaker will never find anything with a 4 man team.

    Finding a trace of Bigfoot.
    I would have you compare the search for Bigfoot to the search for Steve Fosset, one you may assisted with. Hundreds of searchers searched for a month and found NOTHING! Almost one year later a lone hiker found Fosset’s ID cards. Then a couple of months after that, they found bones later identified as Steve Fosset’s. When I say any trace, I mean trace evidence the animal exists and is in the area you are searching. You will never catch an animal unless you are looking for it in the right place.

    Anecdotal evidence? We have had anecdotal evidence for 50 years, what we need now is “scientific evidence”. One bone, one pelt, one skin, will put Bigfoot in the zoological record. We don’t need a body, just a bone.

    It is my opinion that wandering out in the woods howling at the moon is plain stupid. Listening to story after story from people off the street is a waste of time. And to use a 4 man team to cover hundreds of miles of remote forrest is about as stupid a method as ever dreamed of. Yet, that’s what we see every week on Finding Bigfoot

    Putting a sniper in the woods would mean the Bigfoot would have to come to you Opalman, if you put 200 snipers in those same woods, you have a better chance…but, you have to know the animal is in those woods, before you deploy.

    I think we are both pretty much on the same side here, just a friendy little discussion on the best way to find something science says has not been proven to exist.

  42. Opalman responds:

    @ CDC
    “I would have you compare the search for Bigfoot to the search for Steve Fosset,”

    Fosset was not moving after he dug into that hillside. He, aircraft, his wallet and other articles where found where he and they ceased movement. Bigfoot spends almost no time in one place, obviously. Whether one hiker found the crash site or 10 thousand SAR personnel, the circumstances did not change after the SAR mission was launched, (excepting weather).

    “You will never catch an animal unless you are looking for it in the right place.”


    “Anecdotal evidence? We have had anecdotal evidence for 50 years, what we need now is “scientific evidence”. One bone, one pelt, one skin, will put Bigfoot in the zoological record. We don’t need a body, just a bone.”

    Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily un-scientific evidence. Without anecdotal evidence, scientific or otherwise, few new species would be found. Anecdotal evidence is sometimes all you get and by acting on that evidence we often are led to increasingly larger pieces of the puzzle culminating with incontrovertible scientific proof. The likelihood of finding a carcass are almost ZERO, for several reasons. I would be surprised if verifiable DNA wasn’t also somehow discounted by pier reviewed scientist, let alone pelts and bone.

    “It is my opinion that wandering out in the woods howling at the moon is plain stupid. Listening to story after story from people off the street is a waste of time. And to use a 4 man team to cover hundreds of miles of remote forrest is about as stupid a method as ever dreamed of. Yet, that’s what we see every week on Finding Bigfoot.” [sic]

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Putting a sniper in the woods would mean the Bigfoot would have to come to you Opalman, if you put 200 snipers in those same woods, you have a better chance…

    No—the sniper acting on good intelligence is deployed in an area KNOWN to contain the subject party (always as far as I know). Any sort of large party would destroy any chance of success.

    “…but, you have to know the animal is in those woods, before you deploy.”

    As I said. (Are you, for whatever reason, deliberately contradicting yourself?)

  43. Opalman responds:

    @ CDC
    “The evidence that a Bigfoot type animal does not exist is greater and you know it. Lack of fossil evidence, lack of any bones period. Lack of furs or skins compared to the millions of pelts form bears, deers, cougars, buffalo, beaver, etc, etc, etc, through out history. the lack of DAN evidence from hairs, dropping etc. I could go on, but why bother.” [sic]

    “I know every single piece of evidence…EVERY PIECE!”

    “I spoke with Dr Melba Ketchum myself, have you ever done that?”

    Wow that is really impressive BUT unfortunately that is also totally meaningless.

    CDC Sir,
    May I give you a friendly piece of advice (here it is anyhow!)
    Your demeanor is that of an arrogant blowhard…and while I’m sure that you’re really a nice fellow who appreciates the sasquatch subject with honest curiosity—you should be cognizant of how you come across to people. If this discussion board teaches anything it may well be that self-important, grandiose people are not very well liked in the BF community. Why participate if you cant get along and play well with others who share your same interest? Claims made; that, “you know every piece of evidence”, are ridiculous or worse. Nobody enjoys complete knowledge on any topic. Why embarrass yourself.

    Again…who you had an opportunity to speak with at some time means nothing…zero…squat!

    If you were familiar with the laws of logic you would understand that it is impossible to prove a negative. Lack of evidence proves nothing. Goggle the topic of logic and try to understand that distinction before you make silly statements. Above all: be NICE to fellow bigfooters regardless of what you may believe about them or their opinions. Everybody is important.

  44. bigfoots responds:

    he just talks himself in circles..

    he hates people who “know” bigfoot exists
    but yet he goes on to say he “knows” it doesn’t exist..
    mind you that prior to that he said it could exist..lol

    I was going to go through and point out all his contradictions and pretzel logic but whats the point..

    everyone (almost everyone) knows its WAY harder to prove something does NOT exist than to prove it does exist..so really not sure what his point is anyway?
    Is that your point cdc? you gonna prove bigfoot does NOT exist?

    please do tell how you “know” it doesn’t exist?

    where is all this truth you keep talking about?

  45. CDC responds:

    @ Opalman

    I guess to be as simple a I can.

    1. Check bigfoot sighting database to find all sighting by forest service personel, rangers, etc.

    2. Determine a approx 50 mile search area from info gathered from said database.

    3. Send in teams of searchers, at least 10 teams of 8 to 10 searchers each, to cover all of that 50 mile forest area.

    4. Look for evidence of Bigfoot, including nesting areas, droppings, hair samples, tracks, and if animal is located then of course film, photos, even attempt to capture…not kill.

    5. If NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND in an area that you have selected due to solid verifiable reports by solid eyewitnesses, then move on to another area 50 miles beyond.

    6. If actual evedence is found, then set up a long term search team stationed in that area. This team can be smaller of up to 10 to 25 members to stay in that area gathering evidence until a animal is captured on film, or collected as specimen. Could be months.

    Steve Fosset
    Opalman, no one knew where Fosset had crashed. It was only after a hiker found his ID that they knew the exact area and pinpointed the search, even though a year later. I mean his the ID was the evidence needed to target a search, and with Bigfoot, you need some kind of solid evidence to target any search. Understand? The “hey look I saw Bigfoot” story is not enough.

    Find the scientific evidence, then target your search. Your method Opalman is random target area, and it is pointless.

    A)The Tibetan Blue bear was put in the zoololigical record from pelts and scalps. It is a subspieces of Brown Bear and almost impossible to film.

    B)The Snow Leopard was only filmed up close 4 years ago. They are so rare and live in such isolated areas, sightings are also very rare.

    C)No fossils have ever been found of Chimpanzees, the forest areas they live in has soil that is not conducive for fossils

    POINT IS, THESE ANIMAL ACTUALLY EXIST! If you are going to do a REAL search for a Bigfoot type animal, you have to believe the circumstances are just so, that with these other animals, Bigfoot are almost impossible to locate.

    Opalman, if you get the best evidence you can, and put “ONE” sniper in the woods, that one sniper will “ONLY” be able to monitor 100 square yards. Miles and miles of forest, and you want to look in only a few yards of it? How can you even suggest that is a feasible idea? Who are you Matt Moneymaker?

    I don’t want a marching band out looking for Bigfoot, just a large group spread out very far apart, making as little sound as possible. Simple. How can you continue to argue that?

    You have some PlayStaion3 “Call to Duty” idea where you can sit in the forest like a sniper and Bigfoot will walk right up to you. Opalman, there are hundreds of hunters sitting in blinds all over the US as we post here, and none of them have shot a Bigfoot. Your sniper idea has been tested and tried before…it just don’t work!

    My idea is feasible, and I am sure Matt Moneymaker has read this and next season on Finding Bigfoot he will use it.

    Just admit to me Opalman, my ideas are sound, and let’s end this now.

  46. CDC responds:


    Just read your last post as I posted my last post.

    Hmm, does the word hypocrite fit here?

    You say “be nice to fellow Bigfooters”, well sir, did you not read any other posts? You, Matt Moneymaker, and this fellow Bigfoots, all used negative “know it all” language when posting to me.

    Bigfoots called me a “joke” Moneymaker has called me worse on several posts, and now you some how think I need your advice on how to state my own opinion.

    No Opalman, read everything I have ever posted on this site. I never lied or mislead anyone with any statement, I never directly used any bad words towards anyone, and I think what bothers you is I am ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH, and the truth hurts you Bigfoot fantasy types.

    When others come here and say that was a, “squatch”, or I saw a “Bigfoot while fishing”, or this is typical “squatch behavior”, myself and others challenge these claims. That’s what makes a good site, not everyone agreeing that everything is a “squatch”.

    Since the internet began and long before, I have been reading on Bigfoot. I challenge you to produce ANY evidence I have not seen. You have no idea how much time and effort I have put in to this little hobby of mine, so please keep your opinions about me to yourself. I know for fact I have researched more than you and I don’t even know you.

    If you are some sort of expert on “discussion board” behavior, then that tells us more about you. Some of us leave the computer and see what is out there.

    I promise you Opalman, I have studied every person, and every piece of evidence on Bigfoot so far. That is a fact! Every opinion I have is based on that fact.

    You called me a “blow hard”, okay, then please do not reply to me anymore. I guess the truth is something you don’t want to hear Opalman, so you have fun with the other believers out there. I hope you all enjoy your little storytime 🙂

    Me, I’ll keep watching for real evidence lol

  47. mcw2112 responds:

    I checked the box to subscribe to follow-up comments, but I’m regretting that now. There seems to be a LOT of bickering and petty back-and-forth going on here and I was hoping against hope that this one web sanctuary would be free from what you experience everywhere else. Too much sniping, name-calling and “oh, yeah, says you” for my taste. Can’t we just state our opinions and move on? All of these pointless proclamations and all of the chest-pounding is futile and some of it even borders on childish. I’m all for civil debate, but this is ridiculous! Every time I check my in-box I have four new raspberries hurled at someone. Disagree if you honestly do, but can’t we practice a little more decorum when doing so? Just sayin’.

  48. CDC responds:

    @ Bigfoots

    Simple last word here.

    1. Do you know Bigfoot exists? No, you have no proof

    2. Do I know Bigfoot does not exist? Yes at this time Bigfoot has not been proven to exist by science.

    3. Is it possible a Bigfoot type animal does exist? Yes, it is possible.

    If you can’t understand this, then I can’t help you.

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.