Sci-Fi’s Mothman Non-Investigation

Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 26th, 2006

Sci Fi Investigates Mothman

On October 26, 2006, "Sci-fi Investigates" broadcast their "Mothman" episode. While it had a few moments that are pure entertainment and certainly funny, it had little or nothing to do with "investigating" Mothman or unexplained phenomena. The program was a forensic failure.

Eyewitnesses were interviewed, sites were visited, group discussions were recorded, and more eyewitnesses were interviewed. The archival footage was interesting, but the repeating images of the collapsed bridge and created Mothman-in-flight scenes were visibly boring after their third time through. Come on, did they run out of b-roll so quickly?

Sci Fi Investigates Mothman

Skepticism and Ridicule Are Not the Same Thing

The level of skepticism in this Mothman episode was neither scientific nor well-grounded. The "skeptic" point of view was represented mostly by Rob Mariano’s less-than-intellectual ridicule statements that were purely his personal opinions and feelings. They were baseless.

What may surprise people reading this is that I think the show was not skeptical enough. It was a failure because it portrayed the most egregious elements and mistakes of the Mothman melodrama as facts, as straw men, to then knock them down. By presenting sham arguments for the existence of Mothman, it was easy to see why the "investigators" as well as the audience would mow down Mothman.

The straw men appearing in this Mothman program were so obvious as to be outrageous. The program producers appear to have not done any homework, per se, on the "cases" they were examining. The usual eyewitnesses, of course, were rolled out, found, or volunteered to be interviewed. But as opposed to what was stated at the end of the program, no comparative analysis was apparently done of the first facts and accounts on the record from 1966. Details in stories did change, people have elaborated their sightings, and new specifics have drifted into the retellings. It was an easy matter to see how these stories have evolved, and this would have been a worthwhile exercise. The program claimed them did this. They did not.


Those eyes are featured on the cover of Mothman and Other Curious Encounters.

Eyes Did Not Glow Red

One of the most obvious mistakes made in this program and repeated over and over again, by eyewitnesses trying to play to the media and by television "investigators" like these, was the continuation of the myth about the "glowing red eyes" of Mothman.

As I mentioned routinely and often when I was on my publicity tour for Screen Gems in conjunction with the 2002 movie, the eyes did not "glow" but were reflected light. Of course, mentioning this detail makes the stories less exciting and more zoological, so people have not liked me to point this out. Needless to say, people haven’t enjoyed me noting that there is no "moth" involved in these big bird reports either, but that’s a story for another time. About those eyes…

For example, Mothman researcher and skeptic Robert Goerman has reinforced the non-glowing argument in his 2002 Anomalist essay, "Mothman’s Eyes." Goerman did what anyone looking into Mothman should do: he did what I did, he read the original reports. Here are some items he found that was said in 1966:

"…fiery-red eyes that glow when the lights hit it. There was no glowing about it until the lights hit it." —Linda Scarberry, 1966.

The young men said they saw the creature’s eyes, which glowed red, only when their lights shined on it. —Point Pleasant Register (Wednesday, November 16, 1966)

"The dog was sitting on the end of the porch, howling down toward the hay barn… I shined the (flash)light in that direction, and it picked up two red circles, or eyes, which looked like bicycle reflectors. I certainly know what animal eyes look like… these were much larger. It’s a good length of a football field to that hay barn… still those eyes showed up huge for that distance."—Newell Partridge

"It apparently is afraid of light." –Steve Mallette

Bioluminescence? Eyes glowing on their own? Obviously not, but would you know this from watching this 2006 Sci-Fi television program? No, because it was scarier to talk about "searching the TNT for glowing red eyes"! And boring to talk about the reality of animal eyeshine.

Some of the eyewitnesses have so changed their sighting reports over the years as to have disqualified themselves from being useful interview subjects any longer. Perhaps only a few in the Mothman research field and no producers in the reality television world want to hear this truth, but it is a fact. Since the 2002 movie screened and the resulting documentary film company visits to Point Pleasant, the newly retold old accounts have become so changed from the originals to be almost totally useless – except as fodder for nearly fictional sensational television programs.

More Skin, Less Sense

In "Scif-Fi Investigates" looking for evidence at the TNT area or diving into the murky Ohio River searching for evidence of the collapsed bridge were merely done for good documentary footage. What difference would it  have meant if a piece of a car that fell from the bridge in 1967 had been found? Why was this even discussed as "physical evidence" of Mothman? This was insulting to the audience and disrespectful to the victims and families of the bridge collapse. There was no logic to showing an entire scene of Boston Rob taking off his shirt, putting on a rubber suit, and diving into the river, other than for sensational visuals, pure and simple. It was not good television, however, and was even less so a good choice in "investigating."

Finally, Boston Rob’s final skeptic "revelation" was that locals had been undertaking putting into place a subtle plot for they wanted the Mothman stories as reality to make money. Well, yes, cryptotourism is now important to try to revitalize Point Pleasant, but Mr. Mariano, once again, did not do any homework to come up with this remarkably stupid insight.

Point Pleasant is no Loch Ness. Between 1966 and 2002, no tourists journeyed to this dying Ohio River village to visit the scene of the Mothman sightings. Point Pleasant, in spite of the renewed interest in Mothman since the Richard Gere-Laura Linney-Alan Bates-Will Patten-Mark Pellington movie came out in 2002 has not become an overnight mecca. The movie The Mothman Prophecies were not even filmed in Point Pleasant.

Mothman Prophecies

It is a fine theory – that the Mothman has been kept alive to make money – but it absolutely does not hold water. People, money, and community life drained out of Point Pleasant for the 36 years before the movie opened, and the locals found no worth in Mothman. This, of course, was another easy fact for the producer to check, but by Boston Rob saying it outloud at the conclusion of the program, people believed his point – that Mothman was perhaps even reported in 1996 and certainly "kept alive&
quot; to make money for the people of Point Pleasant. The overall reality is something else entirely. More people in Los Angleles and New York have become fiscally enriched by Mothman than anyone in Point Pleasant.

No Keelian Insights

Finally, all kinds of phenomena – Men in Black, UFOs, Silver Bridge collapse, Lowe Hotel haunting – were thrown into the pot. The impact and influence of John A. Keel’s investigations and his demonological philosophy, via his on-site interviews in 1966-1967, his 1967-1975 magazine writings, his 1975 book, the effect of the 2002 movie that was based on the book, and how he threw in random weirdness into the vortex were not mentioned, discussed, or analyzed. Indeed, even an analysis between the dates of the Mothman encounters and those of the UFO sightings would have shown a diversity in data distribution that did not necessarily overlap in the mythic fashion that is often recalled. The Keelian variable was left out of this "Sci-Fi Investigates" show, but then, of course, this wasn’t really about investigating the Mothman as much as using it to showcase the team and sell ads. Yes, the irony is it will be the Sci-Fi Channel that will end up making money off of Mothman, not Point Pleasant.

Yes, it was awful. But not because it was too skeptical. While ridicule was there, the program was not skeptical enough for it paraded forth stories it did not backcheck, did not compare with their original tellings, and instead created straw (Moth)men it could easily knock down. The "real" Mothman was forgotten in creating this program. A detailed critique of this television episode shows what needs to be done for an authetic investigative Mothman documentary.

If the program wanted to really find Mothman, they did not do a good job finding the true historic Mothman, which is where you have to start your real research and thus your search.

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.

40 Responses to “Sci-Fi’s Mothman Non-Investigation”

  1. Teri responds:

    My Dad told us Mothman stories when we were growing up and scared the bejusus out of us. I had forgotten all about Mothman until I saw a show on TV and Mothman was highlighted. My blood ran cold! We always thought my Dad had made the stories up, and seeing that Mothman was “real” and appeared in the public about the same time he started telling us stories was kind of chilling.

  2. busterggi responds:

    I haven’t seen it yet (the tape is waiting) but from the first two episodes this doesn’t surprise me.

    Mind you, I think Mothman is a combination of mis-id’d birds, spooked teenagers and folklore gone amok.

  3. satarina responds:

    I didn’t catch the show, because the whole premise of the series looks too over-hyped to me. Did they even mention Mr. Keel? Or refer in any way to his investigations? It seems to me that any investigation of Mothman should be handled tactfully (which it seems these people didn’t do), since I don’t see how you can discuss Mothman in Point Pleasant without discussing the tragedy of the bridge collapse. Nor do I see how anyone could consider any investigation of these events complete without citing Mr. Keel and his work. My opinions, of course, but personally I can’t even think of Mothman without thinking of Mr. Keel’s book, and all those who lost loved ones in the Silver Bridge tragedy.

  4. Mysteriousness responds:

    Loren, I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve given this show a chance with a couple episodes, but it is failing miserably. There is little investigation going on and the skepticism is a thinly veiled excuse to ridicule believers and witnesses.

    I also have to add that Bill Doleman’s “calls” during every episode are a complete joke. Mothman calls? Are you serious? I can’t even begin with where this doesn’t make sense.

    This show sucks.

  5. cutrer responds:

    Well, that’s another hour of my life I’ll never have back. This series is horrible, after what Autumn said last week, it seems they use a lot of false representation to get people on the show.

  6. brineblank responds:

    Absolutely pathetic show. Why you would try to hype ‘Boston Rob’ as sort of draw I have no idea. But, as has been implied, their “$15” payroll is still going to make them some cash, so they will ride that horse till it crashes and not be at a loss and not feel the least bad about it. And once again it will be the crypto community as a whole coming off looking like a bunch of baffoons. Good concept for a show but after the initial idea we’re left with a large pile of pooh.

  7. Ray Soliday responds:

    With all of them sitting around the fire drinking beer, (corona bottle, clear long neck and a can in the cup holder on the chair), it is all a lark for them. The whole show is a lark. Proof Positive was a much better attempt at investigation, both in proving and disproving.

  8. dre222 responds:

    I also watched the episode last night and couldn’t believe how badly the facts were distorted – especialy about Point Pleasant’s economy. I attended college about 45 minutes from Point Pleasant during ’98-’02 and we would frequently go there to purchase alcohol and biscuits.

    We never saw the Mothman statue, and didn’t see the Mothman museum until a few months after the movie opened. I believe the museum used to be a clothing store or something similar before the movie. When Rob claimed that the town had perpetuated the stories all this time to help support their economy, I was speechless. I had never heard of the Mothman or anything strange about Point Pleasant until after the movie came out and I was there about every other month for 2 years. I was happy to see that the residents were cashing in on the tourism the movie generated. The town was (and still is) economically depressed like much of that area of Appalachia. Like said above, the town did not make the huge profits from the film.

    The tourism and time may be affecting witnesses’ stories, but the SciFi show was just trying to make everyone look like backwards rural idiots anyway. My favorite part was when they tried to find the Mothman in the woods. Apparently they didn’t catch the part of their own commentary that specifically said, “After the bridge collapsed, the sightings stopped.” How were they going to track something that hasn’t been sighted in the area for 40 years? It would be interesting to see how many minutes of the show were actually devoted to just showing the flying Mothman prop.

  9. One Eyed Cat responds:

    Glad I’m missing the mess.

    If they really want a successful episode, LOCK a certain Mr. Mariano in that hotel a couple days and nights and film his reaction to every ‘bump in the night.’

    So much for investigations.

  10. cabochris responds:

    I just loved the Scientific debate at the end of the show. It reminded me of when I was in fourth grade!

  11. MrInspector responds:

    After Voltaire left Sci-Fi the programming went in the crapper. It doesn’t seem to do any good to complain about it either. The complaints fall on deaf ears. They seem to care more about raking in advertising dollars than producing quality television. This is one show that should either be re-vamped or scrapped.

  12. Ceroill responds:

    Just from the previews I knew it was going to be absurd, but I suppose I watched out of a sort of morbid curiosity. Just how bad would it be? I have been fascinated with Mothman for many years. As a child and young teen I read about it, the Jersey Devil, and other strange critters, and was hooked. Fascinating wonderful events, regardless if what the underlying truth might be.

    This show was a waste. I agree about the ‘Mothman Calls’. Ok, Bigfoot calls I can see. But, come on! Was that his idea, or the producers? How about the diving? Again I suspect that all these ‘cute’ bits are due to the producers demands for the lowest common denominator. This show is clearly making a mockery of real investigation and honest inquiry.

    “Proof Positive” at least made some efforts to check facts, and do a bit of actual investigating. But I guess it got low ratings, so the corporate office decided to come out with this sophomoric product. Hey, I just had an insight, maybe this is meant to be a kind of real life Scooby Doo! We have Rob in the part of Fred, the ‘skeptical’ frat boy. We have the female forensic expert as Velma, the brainy girl nobody listens to. The guy who makes bigfoot and mothman calls is Shaggy, which leaves the 4th member of the group as Scooby. Now they just need a brightly painted van to drive around in, and a catch phrase to bandy about, and they have it!

  13. Batgirl responds:

    What do people expect? These are shows on TV made simply for entertainment. Consider who controls the media and then maybe people will be smart enough to know that if there is a truth to the MOTHMAN mystery, no one’s really going to stand on a pulpit and tell the world. These are the sort of things they sweep under rugs and hope no one finds.

  14. Mysteriousness responds:

    Ceroill – awesome analogy with the Scooby Doo characters! It almost makes me think that they picked archetypal characters to recreate the cartoon.

    They’ll need a talking quadraped to round it out, though. Maybe a wisecracking thylacine?

  15. cutrer responds:

    I think so should get rid of the four “investigators” and replace them with someone like, say, Loren Coleman who would do a far better job.

  16. Ceroill responds:

    Mysteriousness, thanks. Analogy is far from perfect, of course. In the cartoon, Fred actually has investigative skills, instead of what we’ve seen of Rob. But I agree with cutrer. Loren should get his own show, let folk see how it’s really done!

  17. Sky King responds:

    Why anyone should have any positive expectations re: crypto-z shows on the SciFi Channel is a mystery to me.

    Gotta be SOMETHING better to do during that hour!

  18. dharkheart responds:

    When a member of an investigative team says he is too “interviewed out” to see anymore witnesses I think it’s time for a new team member.

    He thought the hotel where they were staying was creepy and spooky; I’m paraphrasing, I know but how does someone like that investigate hauntings, etc?

    That was the first time I had watched the show. I was fairly impressed with the female team member (I don’t know their names). I am fairly certain I won’t be watching the show again if that’s the way things will be addressed in future.

    There was another show I have seen in the past: a woman traveling in a large motorhome. I don’t recall the name of that show, either but at least the team members showed enthusiasm when doing an investigation.

  19. shovethenos responds:

    I agree with a lot of the critiques. What annoys me is that because of the superficial treatment they are going to run out of good phenomena to look into. I mean you could get 5+ episodes out of Bigfoot by just covering it in a little more depth – going over various modern sightings, historical sightings, media reports, the various theories from all sides, the footprint casts, the native american art, the native american accounts, etc.

    Ditto with Mothman – they could have gone over the various sightings in more detail, reviewed previous investigations, outlined the various theories (didn’t go into the “giant owl” theory at all), strung together the UFO/ET evidence, etc. They could have gotten two good episodes out of the Mothman phenomenon alone.

  20. gridbug responds:

    I channelled one-time psychic extraordinairre Criswell to verify the veracity of last night’s Mothman Investigation episode and was told in no uncertain terms that it was complete and utter garbage, should be avoided at all costs, and that in fact it could (and should) very well be the nail in the coffin of SciFi’s latest and worst attempt at competent paranormal investigation. Hence, I skipped the episode altogether and killed time playing ‘God Of War’ on PS2 whilst waiting for LOST.

    Thanks a million, Crizz! 😀

  21. steveg3474 responds:

    “Proof Positive”, you soon will have company in the ashbin of bad shows. I have to believe that there will be no 2nd season of Sci Fi Investigates. Whatever happened to “In Search Of” and “Unsolved Mysteries”? As I said before how can you do a Mothman show without John Keel. Maybe the cast and crew of this show need to hang out with the people from TAPS to see how a proper investigation is done.

  22. clman1 responds:

    Obviously this show is done very tongue in cheek, cashing in on the ever more obnoxious reality show format; I’m sure future shows will feature more needless shirtless shots of Boston Rob as well as the pretty blonde.

    As far as the Mothman goes, it seems to me that it is definitely something out of the Fortean Goblin universe. If one is to believe all of the witness stories and the connection with the collapse of the Silver bridge, Mothman would seem to have to be a supernatural or extraterrestrial entity and not a zoological cryptid lurking in the ruins of the abandoned ammunition factory.

  23. a_welch90 responds:

    I sure am glad I only wasted 40 minutes of my life watching that instead of a whole hour (fast forwards). That had to be the single worst cryptozoology show I’ve seen in quite a while. This series is getting worse with each show. Boston Rob is unbearable as the “skeptic”, as he clearly wants to be the centerpiece of the show. Sad it has to turn out this way for a show that I was looking forward to seeing.

  24. gerry bacon responds:

    Loren, your assessment is right on. This show sucks. Of course, I’m dumb enough to watch it!

    Does the girl, Debbie Dybrydny (sp) look familiar to anyone else? I’ve got this weird feeling she’s just an actress, that I’ve seen her before. And the archeologist seems to be a Tommy Chong wanna be. Are any of their credentials listed anywhere? Does anyone know? I’m thinking actors here, which would, of course, make this show an even larger farce than it already is.

  25. stillserchin responds:

    The Top 10 Reasons Not To Watch “Sci-Fi Investigates Mothman”:

    10. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.
    9. It insults our intelligence.
    8. These people don’t know what they’re doing.
    7. There are better things to watch on tv.
    6. What? No Indrid Coid?
    5. Most common side effect: BOREDOM!
    4. The special effects suck!
    3. Because everyone said so.
    2. Loren Coleman & John Keel aren’t in it.
    And the Number One Reason Not To Watch Sci-Fi Investigates Mothman:
    1. Boston Rob’s in it!!!

    Inspiration from “The Late Show With David Letterman.”

  26. Ceroill responds:

    Gerry, I went to the Sci Fi Channel’s site, and will paraphrase a little of what they say about them.

    Deborah Dobrydney is 24, and has been in the crime scene/forensics unit of a pd in Connecticut for about four years. She also has a degree in psychology.

    Richard Dolan is author of ‘UFO’s and the National Security State’, and writes for UFO Magazine. He has a couple of degrees in history and a certificate in political theory.

    Dr. Bill Doleman is an archaeologist. He was the primary investigator in the first archaeological dig at Roswell.

    For Rob Mariano, it talks about his presence on Survivor, the Amazing Race, and his wedding. In other words, no academic or professional credentials aside from mugging for the camera.

  27. investigator45 responds:

    Years ago, after watching the mothman movie, I took a detour during my travels and visited point pleasant. There isnt much to say about a sad depresed appalachian town.

    After reading about the scifi channel version, if I were the mothman, I would be upset too..

  28. joppa responds:

    I always wondered if the Mothman sightings were ever related to the Marshall football team plane crash in the early 70’s. Any connection?

  29. goerman responds:

    “For example, Mothman researcher and skeptic Robert Goerman has reinforced the non-glowing argument in his 2002 Anomalist essay, “Mothman’s Eyes.” Goerman did what anyone looking into Mothman should do: he did what I did, he read the original reports….”

    Hi Loren and all –

    Hope this finds you and yours well.

    For those of you who are interested, I also wrote an online Mothman article for the Animal X television show
    Series 03, Episode 5 – Winged Creatures

    Click on MOTHMAN: Witness Lament.
    My article will open in a new box.

    I agree with Loren on so many points…

    But one!


    My work speaks for itself.

    Loren and I sometimes “disagree” on the value of precious time and resources when it comes to investigative research and reporting of the unknown and unexplained. But I want what most of us here want: QUALITY EVIDENCE and HONEST, PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION.

    I also agree with many of the points made by my colleague, Rich Dolan. [Please see Rich Dolan’s comments by clicking here.]

    This TV show reminds me of the book, THREE MEN SEEKING MONSTERS.

    This premise has promise!


    They only fail when they quit trying.

    My fingers are crossed.

    Good luck, Rich!

    Yours in research,
    Robert A. Goerman

  30. Popzombie responds:

    What a waste. Just want to say that they could of casted better than Boston Rob if they used a small dog or a piece of wood. His opinions were actually about a 3rd grade level. The people who are running the show have no idea of what they are doing. Putting BR into a fur suit?, putting him into a river for a second so they could show his flabby white booty getting into a wet-suit for over a minute and a half. Hopefully they will cancelled this show soon, but knowing how the world goes it will be on the store shelves. What a joke.

  31. Loren Coleman responds:

    Please see Rich Dolan’s comments on this program by clicking here.

  32. Lisa62 responds:

    The level of this show just keeps getting worse. These people are immature and idiotic. These people make Scooby Doo and the gang look like geniuses, or Nobel Prize winners. Come on, when are we going to see a GOOD show that investigates incidents with respect? Just because something is odd or unusual doesn’t mean it should immediately be written off. And if I were the residents of Point Plesant, I’d make life VERY nasty for Boston Rob if he ever showed up in town again after his smarmy remarks about how the town used Mothman to make money. Obviously, Rob is riding his 15 minutes of fame right into the ground. Possibly the show runs on a tight budget, and he was the only “celebrity” name they could get. I don’t hold out much hope that this show will improve, between this and the awful farce of the Bigfoot show last week, it doens’t look like it will get much better.

  33. RickMoran responds:

    Thanks Loren, for saying all the things that I would have said, thus saving me an afternoon’s writing. as usual, sensational television missed the point. The only interesting thing in this program was the view of the TNT area today, which has overgrown over the years. Too bad the producers didn’t real the book before making the trip.

    Deborah Dobrydney is the only asset to the show, maybe she’d like to come do some real research with us!

    All the best,
    Rick Moran
    Association for the Study of Unexplained Phenomenon – Texas

  34. gerry bacon responds:

    Ceroill, thanks for the information. It’s much appreciated. I still can’t get over how familiar she looks though. She must have a doppleganger out there somewhere.

  35. Ceroill responds:

    Gerry, no problem. I just condensed and paraphrased, not wanting to give the full text of the entries there. Mr. Goerman, I would also like to thank you for your efforts in this field. By the way, could you educate us on the correct pronunciation of your family name?

  36. willymakit012000 responds:

    I dont comment very often but Sci Fi investigates is horrible i saw the mothman episode and the bigfoot episode these people are the most unprofessional people i have ever seen if any of you saw the bigfoot thing all of the screaming on the trail before the got to camp if i were autum williams i would have walked away and been done with the whole thing people that are involved in the study of cryptids already get a bad rap for being crazy and they really dont need a bunch of ya hoos poking fun at them ireally bothered me how they go about doing this stuff skepticism if good but down right trying trying to make a fool of some one that is seriously passionate about the work is rediculous and rude the anthropologist guy drives my more crazy than boston rob what is he the appointed crypto caller screaming and acting like an idiot

  37. springheeledjack responds:

    This sci-fi thing gave me hope for a serious look at crypto-stuff, but so far, I have been very unimpressed. It smacks of Animal Planet’s Animal X which drove me crazy.

    Theatrical shows going down the road to cryptozoology, while they get crypto stuff out there, do not give it any credibility when their skeptic is a reject from Survivor, their believer is completely convinced every time, the “scientist” does less objective looking than the believer, and the forensic takes everything at face value.

    The bigfoot episode about did me in, with them making noises for a joke. All the filming and supposed investigation and they devoted screen time to two of the team “pranking” the guides.

    Give me a break.

  38. Raptorial responds:

    Besides what others have said already, I must add my little say. Boston Rob is an idiot, and in all likelyhood Mothmen* exist. I personally hold on to the theory that they are some gigantic undiscovered owl species.

    *Mothman, Owlman, Black Bird of Chernobyl, etc.

  39. WVBIG_2006 responds:

    cutrer says: “Well, that’s another hour of my life I’ll never have back. This series is horrible, after what Autumn said last week, it seems they use a lot of false representation to get people on the show.” I agree 100% The bigfoot episode was the worst so far.

    Beef liver, bacon, & rabbit as bait? What’s that all about?? From the reports & documentaries I’ve watched, & read on other sites & received on my own site. I’d say better baits would be fish, berries, & acorns.

    Who is Autumn anyway. I googled her name & came up completely empty. Even I can be googled.

  40. Loren Coleman responds:

    “Who is Autumn anyway?”

    You must have not googled “Autumn Williams” very hard.

    Or just go look here on Cryptomundo.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.