Post
by admin » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:20 pm
I am posting the Cryptomundo Reader Responses for those wanting to read them to see what others have said elsewhere about this show.
Cryptomundo Reader Responses wrote:
38 Responses to “What Did You Think Of “Finding Bigfoot”?”
eyecitga responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:35 am
Well, well, well…………… not too shabby, if you ask me. Good to see some new evidence like the dashboard cam. The footprint sequence was also intriguing, as well. Thought the “acting” was a bit forced at times but for the most part, I feel as if this was a much better effort than ANY MonsterQuest episode. SInce the filming was only about an hour and a half drive from me, I feel compelled to get out and do some “squatching” my self!
Really, I was impressed and looking forward to new episodes, especially if we have more intriguing evidence to see. Meanwhile, back to the caddy video……………….. keeping fingers crossed!
sasquatch responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:41 am
I liked it. At times I wondered if there were set-ups going on tho’. For exampleThe footprints were pretty convenient, but then again if they frequent the same area…I’d be interested in “the skeptics” perceptions of these events. thermal image, howl etc. She didn’t seem REAL skeptical through most of it.
Also I wasn’t sure if the “leading questions” they asked the fisheman proved that he was lying or not. Not all descriptions of “squatch” faces are the same, but Matt M. made it seem like there is a known appearance-they all have black noses like dogs? Never heard that before…Anyway, the patrol car footage was very interesting and they did a good job re-creating it. Can’t wait for more episodes-hope next week is not a repeat of tonights.
green lantern responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:50 am
A SORRY ATTEMPT BY ANIMAL PLANET. MONEYMAKER IS A SELF PROCLAIMED EXPERT ON BIGFOOT. ACCORDING TO THIS SHOW, THEY (BIGFEET) WERE TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER THEY WERE SO NUMEROUS. THE IR FOOTAGE WAS A WEAK ATTEMPT AT RECREATING DESTINATION TRUTH. I DON’T MEAN ANY DISRESPECT TO JOSH GATES OR ANYONE FROM THEIR SHOW, BECAUSE DT IS QUITE ENTERTAINING. THIS WAS JUST MONEYMAKER’S TAKE ON HOW HE DISCOVERED BIGFOOT AND HIS HABITS. JUST ASK HIM. NO WAIT, HE’LL TELL YOU WITHOUT ASKING. I’M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT BIGFOOT IS JUST A BIG MONEY SCAM BECAUSE THERE DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE ANY SERIOUS PEOPLE REALLY TRYING TO PURSUE THE TOPIC.
Kahil responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:50 am
Kinda on the fence with it… Seems a little “made for TV”. I also wonder sometimes why no one can find a bigfoot… There are trackers out there who can find the most rare, most elusive animals on the planet….why aren’t they helping to find them? that’s what I would like to see on some of these crypto shows, especially the bigfoot ones.
I have high hopes for the show…just also hope it doesn’t seem too much like the blair witch of bigfoot.
williambryan responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 2:14 am
Very impressed with the quality of the work and evidence. Am not a fan of the Moneymaker guy. He seems a little too quick to believe whatever he sees/hears. He did dismiss the fishermans account but only because “He knows” what bigfoot looks like… I like the other members of the team and am looking forward to watching the rest of the series!
InTheGloaming responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 2:16 am
Well, overall it was pretty good. I see they are trying to do a take off of the “Destination Truth” format. I think it was interesting. Most of the team were very personable. Bobo and Cliff came across as the most charismatic and easiest to relate to. Ranae is the team skeptic and was pretty par for the course in that part but she is a good researcher though.
Matt Moneymaker was hard to take at times. He made some incredible claims as far as all of his “achievements” in the Bigfoot field, I think anyone who’s actually read accounts all the way back to Albert Ostman’s would see the glaring holes in his claims. He carried on about himself as though no one ever researched Bigfoot or ever went into the woods looking for them before he came along. He seemed to totally discount the work of John Green, Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne and Grover Krantz. If it wasn’t for them and their trailblazing works he certainly wouldn’t be where he is today.
Another thing that really struck me as wrong was how he treated John, the witness who was fly fishing when he saw a sasquatch. He didn’t seem to give him a chance to tell his account completely before he had to jump in and start leading him in circles. He was so busy trying to puff himself up in front of the camera, I feel he did that witness a real disservice. He did more to confuse him than allow him to tell his account in his own words.
And how in the heck does this guy know for a fact that ALL sasquatches have black skin on their noses? That is the most ludicrous statement I’ve ever heard come out of a bigfoot researcher’s mouth. Its statements like that that do more to discredit this field of research than help it.
MuskieSquatch responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 2:33 am
Better than most shows I’ve seen. I do have a problem with the show and almost all shows of this type on Bigfoot for that matter. How much time was spent in Georgia? 1 week, 2 weeks, a month? When they got their first response, did they go back the next night? When they recorded the thermal image, did they go back the next night? If we had more details, A day to day account of what they did might give a better understanding on what they are doing. It would be better than seeing and hearing the same thing repeated when they come back from commercials. It looks like they’re filling air space. It just seems that they’re getting some action, but they’re packed and going to the next site. I understand it’s a show but it seems that they leave too soon. One example is the cabin in Canada. All kinds of things going on the night before they leave. If it was me, I try to stay longer, leave the crew, get more supplies, trail cams, video cameras, come back and see what happens. It just seems it’s more about the show than it’s about Finding Bigfoot. All I know is that when fishing, you don’t pull up anchor and move to a new spot when the fish start biting.
jakekuhlman responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 2:59 am
OK, first off you find two foot prints of the right foot, why did you not look for the left foot print? Second you get a hit on the camera by Georgia one the volunteers why do you not immediately mark this spot and wait for daylight and go track this seven foot beast that would obviously leave some of the best tracks found yet? Why would you mislead a man who has seen it from a close distance and discredit him because it does not match your sketch? In law enforcement eyewitness accounts of something dramatic is sketchy at best and I could only imagine how scared out of your mind you would have to be if indeed you encountered this monster! On the up side, Bobo was cool, I like him.
Weezy responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:29 am
I thought it was entertaining, interesting, funny, one of the better bigfoot/crypto shows I’ve seen. I like the premise, they are ‘finding bigfoot’, it’s not going in with that same old ‘is bigfoot real or not’ approach, they act as if it’s real and they are trying to find it, and I like that a lot. There were moments that made me chuckle too, like when the guy that crossed the road as the test subject said it was sketchy, and when Cliff joked about practicing bigfoot calls in his shower and how his neighbors hate it. I thought they brought up some good evidence too and overall it was just a good program, I’m looking forward to the series, and again, how they are actively trying to FIND bigfoot, not just say if it’s real or not.
As for the Georgia road crossing footage, I think it’s legit. For it to be a hoax, the cops would have to be in on it, otherwise how would a random person in a suit know when to run across the road, it makes no sense. I think they came across a real sasquatch by pure luck and got that interesting footage.
RedLandsBigfoot responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 8:28 am
Moneymaker comes off as a Wackadoo—the rest of the crew are really kool!!
Xlowtek responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 8:43 am
Moneymaker seems a little P.T. Barnum to me that being said, the police dash board cam seem real enough but I would like to know “does it record all the time?” or “just when the officer turns it on?” there was no background on why the woman was riding with the officer or why he was recording.
It also seems strange when finding the footprints why trail cams weren’t put up along the trail since they knew they would be in the area that night and the fact that the single person Moneymaker called out by name “Georgia from Georgia” caught the thermal image with 6 minutes left in the show.
I would also think that telling someone “the fisherman” in this case that he is lying stright out would only keep people from reporting sightings in the future, thats bad karma right there.
Rob008 responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 10:23 am
All in all, I gotta say that “Finding Bigfoot” is a good show. You have to ask yourself, does the show educate the general audience and put cyptozoology in a good light? “Yes”. Does show portray Matt and his crew as a bunch of crazy people wasting their time, “No”. They showed a pretty compelling video taken from a police car. They went out to the spot and conducted a pretty good investigation. Could we, as fellow researchers do things differently? Possibly. I think I would have done it pretty much the same way by having somebody reenact the animal in question, running across the road. Matt and his crew stay positive and seem pretty excited, that is what makes a good show. The only down side I would say is when Matt stated that he has been investigating Bigfoot sightings for over twenty years. I can imagine people watching and thinking “Hmm, twenty years, you would he would had gotten positive proof that these animals exist by now”. Matt does remain committed and doesn’t care what other people think of him.
Spinach Village responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 11:28 am
First of all, I liked it. It did not seem as rushed as Destination Truth or Monster Quest. Still, maybe there could be some online follow-ups, and scenes that did not make the final cut?
A follow up on that FLIR image would be in order, like I think a poster before alluded to. They should have examined that spot the next morning. In fact, if you were going to use tracking dogs then that would be the time, but be careful!
I like others, was not comfortable with Matt Moneymaker leading the one witness like he did. It seemed like he was trying too hard to prove that he can be skeptical. That whole “leading” technique should be used in much better moderation, and more discretely!
Speaking of skeptics, the skeptic “Ranae” has an interesting personality. I found her to not be annoying for the sake of being annoying.
Dermal ridges in those tracks? I would like to see those cast examined by Jimmy Chilcutt and DR. Jeff Meldrum. Having those cast examined by others would bring more credibility to them.
There was a loud call in the forest that also should be analyzed by professionals.
I liked hearing the locals accounts.
I liked Bobo’s adjective: “squatchy.”
I used the advertisement banner on Cryptomundo as a reminder of when the show would be on. Thanks, very convenient!
Animal Planet officially has 3 decent shows (currently). Even though I really like the quiet tone River Monsters (compared to TV programing on other stations), but they run those episodes way too much. And, for some reason Mutual Omaha’s Wild Kingdom is only on about once a week.
What happened to Wild Russia, and “Monsters and Myths of Alaska” (or something like that)?
Anyhow, I’ll be tuned in to the next Finding Bigfoot, for sure!
JTDrenning responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I’m elated that the increased interest on the subject of Sasquatch has afforded it a show devoted entirely to the pursuit of proving its existence. Though, I sincerely wish it was under the direction of people much more capable than Moneymaker & his crew. I’ve heard numerous things concerning the dash cam footage that call its validity into question, something that Moneymaker should have at least touched on considering it was his main piece of evidence. Though there wasn’t enough footage of the footprints to sway me one direction or the other, I do find the luck exhibited in finding them considerably uncanny. All in all, I will continue to watch the show due to a lack of other options on the subject, but it will suffer greatly (in my opinion) due to Moneymaker being at the helm. There are many people out there that I feel would be a much better fit to be on this show, but they aren’t as interested in the PR aspect of the pursuit for Sasquatch, which is what undoubtedly what landed him the job.
whiteriverfisherman responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Did not waste my time watching it, I am sure it was the same kind of crap as destination truth. I do not consider Bigfoot research entertainment therefore watching a show like this aint gonna happen for me.
larrykat responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I thought it was OK entertainment. At least they “found” some stuff. I also could care less which BF investigator found whatever they found “first”.
Kahil responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 1:03 pm
That Moneymaker guy seems to just be about just that….money making… Just sayin… Far too often you heard him boasting about his achievements and how much of a bigfoot expert he is. First…no one is an expert on bigfoot…that’s like saying you are an expert on unicorns and dragons. You can’t be an expert on something that hasn’t been proven to exist…let alone something that hasn’t been scientifically studied. He seems pretty full of himself and delusional.
The witnesses were getting railroaded by him and his questions. The witnesses were stating what they saw, yet he was saying that they were wrong because he knows what a bigfoot looks like. All he’s an expert on is thinking he’s an expert on something.
The show needs to have skeptics and scientists along with them…professional trackers, etc. Not just a group of people who claim they know everything about it.
planettom responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 1:13 pm
when I heard that Moneymaker was involved, I was disappointed. He is just too full of himself and I can’t take him seriously. I agree with Green Lantern above, except for the upper case letters .
airforce47 responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Greetings,
I didn’t see the episode but will on rerun. As for Matt he should be respected for contributing to the research and evidence for the existence of the species. Personally I’m not going to get into the claiming credit for firsts.
We’ve found some of the current techniques don’t work in the Eastern Sierra research areas and have had to adopt new ones.
I’ve worked with Matt on a couple of encounter reports and dealt with the hoaxer Cliff Crook. It’s my belief Matt is a type A personality who gets things done and deserves credit for doing that. On the other hand Matt has had some very good people in the BF community leave the BFRO over disagreements with his methods and tactics.
However, those who left were immediately replaced by new folks who are equally capable. You can decide for yourself based on the existing evidence about Matt M. I will continue to cooperate with him and the BFRO where it’s mutually beneficial to both groups.
If I find a specimen living or deceased it goes right straight to Professor Meldrum. I need to write a blog entry about this and how to legally proceed as I have an email to this effect from legal counsel for the CA Dept of Wildlife.
My best to all and good luck hunting for evidence of old hairy.
korollocke responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
That was utter crap.
BUKWASBOO responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Well all in all, it was a good show.
After decades of Bad TV shows on the subject its better then all by leaps and bounds,
Yes it was very televisioney and MoneyMaker was MoneyMaker (sure to ruffle some feathers), and there’s only about 30min of real content for the hour.
But all in all, we finally have a show that treats the subject with a little respect, so I guess we should be happy for that.
ETxArtist responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Eh, another waste of time. A boasting team leader, ready to believe anything that might be considered secondary evidence; a “skeptic” who begins to believe halfway through the show; a footprint “specialist” who just happens to find the best prints of his life; and one man included solely to act as a stand-in BF. I could have written a better script (believe me, this was scripted). And I’m with the previous post, why not go back to the active sites? Bleh.
jimmer99 responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I almost turned it off, when I saw who was the “star” of the show! Our dear friend Matt Moneymaker….Matt Moneymaker is still a doofus. Last night he claims he was the first to determine that wood knocks and howls were a form of Bigfoot communication; then he claims his caravan with heat sensors was the first! And yet his “expert” field analyst, Cliff Barackman was astounded by the “best set of foot prints he’s ever seen”! Moneymaker is a “legend in his own mind”! Welcome to the world of the BFRO!
But I can’t fault Animal Planet, at least they are still trying to present evidence supporting the existence of Sasquatch. And the BFRO is the only “national” research organization. Will see how the other ADVENTURES WITH MATT will pan out!
werewuf responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Mr. Weezy:
The 2008 Georgia hoax had a peace officer involved. Matt Whitton was a sheriff’s deputy. The reasoning was that they thought they could cash in on Bigfoot expeditions like the kind the BFRO gives. Personally, Matt Moneymaker was way too self-serving for me. I do have say that I screamed in the woods to see if I could get a response back back in ‘74, but I was high on acid, so whatever. I don’t need to be acknowledged for it.
I am however open to real evidence and will view this series again until I get fed up or come to trust the show’s integrity. We shall see.
Ragnar responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I haven’t seen it yet (its on my DVR) but I’ll take a wild leap and say they didn’t find Bigfoot. But they do have some grainy video, footprints, and eyewtinesses.
Weezy responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:47 pm
werewuf, I’m not saying the cops couldn’t be in on it, just saying that IMO they would have to be to catch a guy in a costume running across the road so perfectly. There would have to have been some signal from them to him when to run across. or I guess if you want to get deep into overthinking it being a hoax, there could have been one guy watching out for a cop car up the road, who would then signal to his friend in a costume down the road. But then how would they know the car would have it’s camera on, how would they know the car wouldn’t run the guy over, just makes no sense.
As for the show, again I liked it. No show of this type I’ve seen isn’t out for mainly entertainment, but at least this one is about actively searching for bigfoot, not ‘is it real or isnt it’. The show is way better than Destination Truth, which is horrible and has that frog voiced, not funny but tries to be host, Josh Gates.
curiouskeptic responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 5:57 pm
It was an interesting show. I wondered why they chose North Georgia instead of the northwest part of the country? I believe the possibility of the existence of BIGFOOT is real. There’s too much evidence that points to them being out there. A body would prove it beyond any doubt. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hunter bring out a real trophy one day soon.
docbashford responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I would further like to add that the creature I have seen with my own eyes from 30 feet away did not have a black nose like a dog. So by asking leading questions and boldly slamming the fisherman’s witness account was just wrong. So are we to believe M.M has a sasquatch for a pet in his backyard? Finding Bigfoot would be a pretty good show if the arrogance of Mr.Moneymaker was not present! My opinion of course.
Adam14 responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Ok. I’m not sure here. Something is off, but I don’t know what.
Options
Option 1. The show is on the up and up. They genuinely came across the dash cam, connected with Squatches through wood knocking, call blasting, and thermal cam and even found footprints due to luck and some decent research strategies. Though Moneymaker is a bit arrogant and self promoting, he still does seem to know something about it and is smart enough to surround himself with those who seem to know something about the material. I particularly liked the footprint guy. The fact that the woman is at first a non-believer, I think is totally put on. Come on, what’s she on the show for if she’s not a believer? Don’t buy it. The lady is a believer, it’s put on for the show.
Option 2. The show is on the up and up but they themselves were hoaxed. They found things as they called them, but were put on by locals who had used gorillas suits in the night, dashing in front of a cop car, faked footprints which would have taken some expertise to fake, fooled other eyewitnesses or convinced them to lie, faked calls and wood knocking and were out in the woods at night to give off a thermal image and then moved off, evading pursuit from many people with cameras and thermal imaging equipment into heavily forested areas. Not impossible, but improbable.
Option 3. Animal Planet faked the entire thing, start to finish for ratings. The crew are actors, the footage faked or unsourced, the footprints were put there, the calls were recordings and the thermal imaging was a crew member out there for that purpose. This is a likely solution except I think that is a bit risky for legal reasons for a show to do. Won’t that data be examined? Think of the money lost if they were caught deliberately faking things. Who would watch their documentaries again?
Overall, I think that the show was good and given the options, of which I can’t think of others, I think that the mostly likely thing is actually a combination of the three.
I think it’s most likely that Animal Planet was selective in presented information, hoping to make the show look better than it is and more informative and conclusive than it really is, but did nothing wrong from a legal or moral standpoint. Just showing their show in the best light. Secondly, probably at least something of what happened was a hoax that the researchers fell for, or maybe one of them was independently a part of, and lastly, some of what they found is probably genuine.
Even if I’m right on this, any new evidence is helpful and I look forward to watching again. Maybe they will make some progress on all of this.
Keep up the good work and if you didn’t catch it, iTunes has it already.
TheForthcoming responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I think everyone has some good points including Rob008 and airforce47 about Matt Moneymaker. I am familiar with the BFRO and a fan of it. I believe that Matt is a good guy and honest that has a passion for Bigfoot research and is trying his best to help find Bigfoot and prove that these creatures exist.
Matt is a human being and like all of us he is not perfect.
Matt and others like Mr. Coleman have contributed a lot to the field of Bigfoot research along with Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Dr. Grover Krantz and many others.
With that being said, no, I did not watch the show but will someday.
I hope that more people visit the BFRO’s website as well as The Texas Bigfoot Research Org. which was featured in the excellent book Paranormal America written by 3 sociologists.
fuzzy responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Criminey! Some of you folks would complain if they hung you with a new rope! Have any of you nitpickers found a better way to combine developmental Field Research involving long, cold, wet, rainy, scary, exhausting and expensive nights in the pitch black woods and forests all over North America, with a way to learn tricks and techniques from thousands of enthusiastic, intelligent and eager participants on hundreds of weekend Expeditions into areas where your growing archives indicate there is activity, and MAKE A LIVING DOING IT???
Then why aren’t you doing it? Why aren’t YOU out there in the woods with thousands of dollars worth of Thermal and Gen 3 NightVision camcorders, digital audio recorders, state-of-the-art communications equipment, trail cameras, IR lights and camping gear, plus all the accessories you might need, in a rental vehicle, hundreds or thousands of miles from home, doin’ it??
Give Matt a break! Stick to commenting on the Show, not the personalities’ personal idiosyncrasies – what did you like about the information and evidence that was presented – what could you say about their approach to this mystery? What practical improvements do you think they could make to improve their success? What conclusions have you come to, based ONLY on this first episode in the forthcoming series, about the Show??
They had three of the top men in the field, plus a female novice, gathering information on one of the biggest (and most popular) mysteries in modern science, and I think they did a great job.
Pay attention – there’s gonna be a Quiz.
MoMosboy responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Didn’t see it, but will soon. I do find it interesting that so many shows have crypto themes now. Very mainstream, yet the general populace still seems to “pooh-pooh” the idea of cryptozoology. Is it because of the ‘Moneymakers’ in the field that generate these feelings? Will this show do more harm than good? Kind of a crypto burnout that will make it even harder to be accepted by valid scientist/biologists to study?
A lot of people bashing on Josh Gates. Seems like someone I’d like to have a beer with. I actually am quite envious of him.
Hambone responds:
May 31st, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I will make it short and sweet. It was actually pretty good. It is better than most shows that come on now. I thought Matt made good points on not believing the one report.
mcw2112 responds:
June 1st, 2011 at 1:14 am
I actually liked the show despite the fact that I figured that it would be just like the rest of them. I can’t really put a finger on it, but this “Ghost Adventurers” approach to the subject worked fairly well. I’m with some of the other commenters that given the thermal image that they got, they should have gone back – for at least a week. The footprints were pretty convincing stuff and the overall angle taken here was a good one. I’m actually looking forward to more episodes.
Unlike so many of these type shows of the past, they didn’t end the show with the same questions that they started with. They found some credible witnesses (not all), found some compelling evidence and let the viewer decide. I also liked the fact that they had a skeptic on board, as well.
chris213 responds:
June 1st, 2011 at 1:40 am
-Uninteresting and completely awful. Worse than many of the 70 docs that made me a bigfootophile in the first place
-Less scientific than Linus’s quest for the Great Pumpkin.
-I was excited about it. Very excited. I could not believe a legit programmer like Animal Planet let this air.
-I truly hope that bigfoot is alive and well but I doubt if Festus, Lurch and crew could find one if it was peeing on them from a tree above.
Fred123 responds:
June 1st, 2011 at 2:15 am
There certainly seem to be plenty of “experts” on bigfoot behavior out there, and even more bigfoot (bigfeet?), but still not much in the way of hard evidence. Almost every book that I’ve read concerning Sasquatch inevitably asks the question can there really be that many frauds, kooks and cases of mistaken identity out there, and it’s looking more and more like the answer is yes even if without including cases of mistaken identity. The theme of “dismissing the possibility without considering the evidence” is also pretty common in these books, but there are plenty of us out there who read the same books and reached the same conclusion that the rest of the skeptics have reached. I’d like to see the evidence of prehistoric relics swimming the waters off of Alaska as most of the rest of you would, but if I could find somebody taking bets on irrefutable (or even half credible) footage of that evidence showing up on the Discovery Channel next season, I’d bet a bundle against it.
loopstheloop responds:
June 1st, 2011 at 6:54 am
“His drive to become the great detective who cracked the case, has made him a bit irrational. So far he has bragged a lot about being the first to do various types of investigations … that he was not the first to do. It’s pretty amazing how much he claims to be a trail blazer along such well worn trails…”
-ironically Moneymaker’s comments on Paulides from December 2009. Classic.
Loren Coleman responds:
June 1st, 2011 at 9:44 am
Please note, the text above for this posting has been edited to include the link regarding the police investigation of the law enforcement dashcam video having been revealed as a teenage prank.
Updates every