Matt Moneymaker's close-up encounter with a sasquatch in eastern Ohio, transcribed for those who don't want to watch the video


For those of you with an iPad or an iPhone, here's the full dialogue of Matt Moneymaker talking with John Miller on CBS about his encounter with a Bigfoot "at close range" in 1994. The event took place in the woods of eastern Ohio.

Concerning the question of whether Moneymaker had mentioned this encounter before, he was interviewed in National Geographic News in October 2003. According to the article, Moneymaker said that the Bigfoot creature was standing about 15 feet away, growling at him:

Matt Moneymaker had been searching for Bigfoot for years. In the woods of eastern Ohio, he claims he finally came eye to eye with the elusive primate.

"It was 2 o'clock in the morning and the moon was a quarter full," recalled Moneymaker. "Suddenly, there he was, an eight-foot-tall creature, standing 15 feet away, growling at me. He wanted to let me know I was in the wrong place."

Moneymaker mentioned the same encounter in 2010 on a BFRO forum post:

I became pretty obsessive about the subject after that, but it was another eight years before I had a close encounter with a sasquatch. That happened in eastern Ohio. I was in Ohio attending law school during the week and talking to witnesses on the weekends. Not long after that encounter in 1994 I got online and made contact with several bigfooters whom I had corresponded with while I was still in LA. All the
Here's the most recent mention on the CBS 'Early Show', aired on January 7, 2012:
Matt Moneymaker, star of Animal Planet’s hit reality show, Finding Bigfoot, revealed on the CBS Early Show that he has been within 15 feet of an actual bigfoot.

The existence of bigfoot has been rumored for, at minimum, decades, but Moneymaker, president and founder of the Bigfoot Field Researcher Organization, claims he has seen one of the elusive creatures up-close. Moneymaker claims he saw the bigfoot at close range in 1994, saying that it actually approached the team. They were in eastern Ohio, he said, in an area much like Appalachian terrain. Unfortunately, there were no pictures taken, no video. “We went in there to figure out where we were going to set up a surveillance camera,” he explained. “The thing came up and approached us,” he said.

Moneymaker also said that, although they have not captured a bigfoot on camera on Finding Bigfoot, one came within about 50 feet of the crew and cast one night, even throwing rocks in its approach. “We’ll get them, no doubt,” he said confidently, referring to visuals of the animals on the show.

Moneymaker also cleared up a question that comes up often in the discussion of the creatures: It’s bigfoots, not bigfeet. “Bigfoots or sasquatches. Bigfeet would be what we have,” he joked.

With all of the technology available today, some wonder why no clear photo has been taken of the creatures if they exist, but Moneymaker said that it would be hard to take a clear photo or video of an animal that is typically running away from you. “You’re talking about an animal that will turn and run away. To get a clear picture of something, it has to hold still for awhile, out in the open, in daylight,” he said. “These things, if you’re close enough to see them in those conditions, they’ll see you. They’re usually never far from cover. They just don’t stand out in the open near a road in the day. So, if you spot one quickly, it will be running away probably too fast for you to even pull the camera out and point it.”

Is bigfoot man or animal? “Oh, animal,” Moneymaker said conclusively. “They’re a line of apes. They are not anything related to humans, in my opinion.”

Finding Bigfoot airs on Sunday night at 10 p.m. (ET) on Animal Planet.
Video below:

Comments

  1. "Concerning the question of whether Moneymaker had mentioned this encounter before"

    Shawn, that was not and is not the question.

    No one has questioned whether MM ever before claimed a "close encounter."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's a high to low breakdown of the space allotment in Matt Moneymaker's brain:

    30% Acquisition of snack foods
    25% Deception
    15% Encyclopedic knowledge of In & Out's secret menu
    15% Zoological misinformation
    10% Squatching
    5% Squatch

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Shawn for transcribing for the rural video disabled!
    As for his encounter, it must include a "sighting" to describe height right? Is that really an issue, sighting or encounter? We believe him right, because he is believable right? He is not known for stretching the truth or even telling whoppers is he?
    He defines a Bigfoot as "animal" and "ape." Both are vague terms that could be applied to humans. Is he really pushing some kind of Orang/Gigantipithicus type line? If so, he doesn't sound credible given the evidence I have seen. If he is referring to a line of great apes called Homo something,then he sounds a bit more reasonable. But, he must not be, because then his "animal" epitaph could also apply to him and I don't get the impression he is that introspective.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Is he really pushing some kind of Orang/Gigantipithicus type line? If so, he doesn't sound credible given the evidence I have seen. "

    Have you read Meldrum's book? Regardless of what Bigfoot really is it has the physical characteristics of an ape. If you haven't read Meldrum's book you definitely should. If you still disagree with it then that is fine as well. At this point anyone's opinion on what Bigfoot is, is just that an opinion. Credibility isn't a question when we are talking about opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I read a chapter in that book about a plaster cast of an impression a Bigfoot supposedly made when it laid down in soft mud to reach an apple further in the patch of mud, apparently the author theorized so it would not leave traces of tracks/ footprints. Just "smart but not that smart" right? Yeah, I read the book. I also read Krantz's. There was little Meldrum added really, the DNA chapter, not really supporting Orang either...so? Still waiting on DNA aren't we? And, well there are other books, Tribal Bigfoot comes to mind, or Raincoat Sasquatch, and a host of others.
    Moneymaker has not written a book has he/ Or even an article I can think of , beyond his initial reports for BFRO? In fact I haven't even seen a summary or any analysis of the BFRO data base...they just keep posting anecdotal reports and scheduling teaching for $ Bigfooting expeditions...so not sure what Moneymaker is about really. Opinions from a self proclaimed Bigfoot expert are validly observed through a BS or credible filter, in fact in this field it is required unless one enjoys being duped.

    ReplyDelete
  6. oops..reach an orange (not apple) what else is odd about that body cast choise, now that I am thinking about it - why was it included in the book at all? Such a strange way to stick one's neck out..with one unique impression, no other purported Sas impression to compare with, but lots of Elk lays to compare, and those experts opinions are not all included in that book. I don't think the body cast is generally accepted even in the BF community of researchers, depends on if you are talking to Derek Randles and Matt Moneymaker or others. I don't know that whole backside story..it is every bit as deep and questionable as most are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shawn, please acknowledge. this is the question.

    As far as I know, Matt never before claimed to himself have seen a bigfoot during this so-called close encounter or anywhere else.

    On this current tv appearance, he claimed to have seen a bigfoot in that 1994 Ohio encounter, and mentioned no other personal sighting, and that is because, after all this time of his leading involvement, and in a discussion of his tv show, he immediately knew it would have appeared to be very discrediting to say that he has never actually seen anything himself, so he said he saw one in a specific incident when he has never said that before.

    Some other people, for some reason, have a problem with that, but their insistently ignorant opinion is irrelevant.



    Does the truth matter?

    Matt needs to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. interesting question. and real, because I have been out in field and had close encounters, but I can not claim a close 'sighting" such that I could describe a face or much really. He calim is not very specific. Not many "researchers" claim visual encounters, those seem to be more by accident with general public, and a charging encounter even rarer. So yeah, now I want to hear a detailed account too!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is going to be my only reply to this anonymous posters insistent quest for this truth of the represented 1994 encounter. After hearing his 2 hour rant on a prior blog posting I started digging around. Interestingly to his credit, I located an article I will paste the URL to below. It is said to have been published by MM in 1995 and even references an article from another publication from 1995 so I have to think that it was written after 1994.

    http://www.bfro.net/avevid/mjm/deerkills.asp

    Deer Kills and Bigfoots
    by Matt Moneymaker. First published in 1995.

    Last paragraph of the article he says IF Bigfoots exist.... Why would he say if? If his group had seen one in 1994.. This does give the guy earlier some credibility for his argument. This article published in 1995

    ReplyDelete
  10. that is an interesting post too...I didn't read all the comments on the other article because they were so long and I wasn't following the argument, now I get it. The "insistent quest for truth" claim is MM did not have even a close encounter back in 1994? Ah, yes then that will surface if true, because a guy researching Sas and so public, even then, would write that report up I would think and let all the other BFers know. It would have been a badge of courage or something then, the absence of such, with a citation as you provide indicate he didn't?.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gotta love comments like this...

    "I don't think the body cast is generally accepted even in the BF community of researchers..."

    "I don't know that whole backside story..it is every bit as deep and questionable as most are. "

    Poster admits he has no knowledge of the Skookum cast yet makes comments to the fact that it or the people involve in it aren't credible.

    Perhaps the poster ought to read more than one chapter in Meldrum's book about the Skookum cast and how to changed the mind of several scientists and anthropologists.

    The ignorance of people in the BF community never ceases to amaze.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Would Matt Moneymaker lie about seeing a bigfoot?

    Yes, as he just did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Backside story" refers to the unpublished summaries and comments/blogs of other attendees and the review of some experts (non-BF) not included in the book. My knowledge of the cast comes from the Book, and unfortunately other BFers who do not agree with it's authenticity, or at least aren't willing to say this is conclusive evidence. It's an odd attempt at evidence really. As I recall, there were not tracks of BFs at the site and there were plenty of Elk tracks? I could be wrong, it's been a few years since I read it. As for changing the mid of minds of some? So? there are so many minds out there, I am still waiting on the DNA and something better than a questionable, or the least, unique, plaster cast of a large impression in the soil that appeared without any witness to it's origin. I think that is a defensible position. Maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Does Mr. Lawyer want to give testimony under oath?

    Would he like to sue?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course if I struggle with a plaster Skookum cast you can imagine Moneymakers "sighting" leaves me unpersuaded. In fact I am now thinking of your comment, "The ignorance of people in the BF community never ceases to amaze," in that many might swallow Moneymaker's recent claim of a a sighting in 1994!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mrs. Moneymaker, can Matty come out and play?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I totaly understand being able to post under anon,but dont pick a fight with someone who will tell you who they are and you hide behind anon.coward.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If and when it matters, you'll know my name, punk.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Count this as a lesson for the bigfoot community and any investigators out there- if Matt will lie, who wouldn't?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wikippedia has an entry on Moneymaker and someone posted on his Bio some time ago, "He is a lifelong ----." I won't repoeat the deragoatroy word, because it is obviously for creep appeal. But, I then checked the edit forum and history of the changes and whoever did that seems to have registered just to write that one sentence, as it is the only edit in the forum by that handle. Passionate people those Wikipedia editors I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have read about Matt's encounter several times in different forums and interviews, and in 1994 he had a visual encounter and that forever sent him on his life's journey. Do not be envious of him, whether you like him or not. Be sure of this. He has busted his ass in the pursuit of his life's dream, and no one can take that away. May we all be so lucky and fulfilled in our endeavors.

    Chuck in Ohio

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is likely the same guy who got kicked out of a BFRO expedition and is now spending his life ranting about Matt under an anonymous name.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shawn,I'm glad you've got ISP addresses. This person is eat up with hate and MM may need protection.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I hate how people can rant under anonymous. Grow a set don't talk trash under Anon I fn hate that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To: who ever wrote this:
    Deer Kills and Bigfoots
    by Matt Moneymaker. First published in 1995.

    Last paragraph of the article he says IF Bigfoots exist.... Why would he say if? If his group had seen one in 1994.. This does give the guy earlier some credibility for his argument. This article published in 1995
    Saturday, January 7, 2012 7:49:00 PM PST
    ----------------------------
    Moneymaker has no credibility; the proof is in the archived records. He HAD NO GROUP in 1994. THERE WAS NO BFRO WEBSITE in 1994. He was still in school in Akron Ohio, graduated and married in June 1996; moved back to California that summer. There was NO BFRO in 1994 and Matt had no sighting. How do I know that? There exists mIRC chat room dialogue archives to that effect. There exists a Sasquatch discussion list with records of what he said. There exists the old Scott McCaslin bigfoot chat room underground archives. There exists the old Franzoni IVBC bigfoot list archives. In Sept 1996 he uploaded the BFRR not the BFRO...that came much later. I have all his old emails as do others of that era. He fools nobody - but himself.
    Matt has no idea what Bigfoot is - he just parrots what Green and Meldrum say.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do know matt moneymaker has seen a bigfoot!He has flimed them.Bigfoot are real. And they are alive.They do kill Deer and eat them. They also eat nuts, seeds,fruits. They live off the the land. They go in to camp grounds.They come into camp grounds during the day time. And people do not understand or see or go THAT'S A BIGFOOT.They just think boy that guy is a little strange as they look, watch them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are only two ways to slice it, either Moneymaker (and the thousands of others who claimed to have seen a sasquatch) are all lying, or bigfoot is real.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Above Anon: Perhaps true, if Sasquatch is not real, then all are lying or misidentifying. But if Sasquatch is real, what then? One can't say all are truthful, because the reality isn't dependant on the pereceptions, some could be lying. So, it does matter if someone is being truthful or accurately recalling their experience, especially if Sasquatches are real.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Moneymaker had his sighting in 1994 before he started the BFRO. He started the BFRO partly because of the 1994 incident.

    Some anon clown detective here thinks the sighting couldn't have happened in 1994 because the BFRO wasn't created yet.

    Think about that timeline, clown detective.

    In 1994 there was no BFRO web site to publish the Deer Kills article to. The article talks about incidents around 1992, so maybe he wrote it between 92 and 94, but published it later, after the BFRO web site was created in 1995.

    Would he need to rewrite the Deer Kills article after having the encounter in 1994? The article doesn't sound too "iffy" about the existence of bigfoots to me. By that point he clearly moved from an "if" investigation to more of a "how" investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You're wrong.
    The BFRO website was NOT created in 1995. The BFRR was created. It was almost two years later that Matt changed it to the BFRO.

    You can look back in online Time Warp archives like the WayBack Machine and see that he had nothing uploaded in 1995. He couldn't code HTML and he couldn't code BASIC, which was required in those days to upload any semblance of those early day websites. We had to help him with it - I was there. Many others who were along side helping him are still around and laughing their heads off at you young upstarts who think Moneymaker has seen a bigfoot, what a gullible bunch this generation is.
    Moneymaker's got you naive clowns eating out of his hands. ha ha ha which is the greater fool, you or Moneymaker?
    Yes, Bigfoot is REAL - the stories surrounding bigfoot by such as Moneymaker are nothing but lies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well for you people that like to sit infront of the tv and read about bigfoot!Why not get out and go see for yourself.Before you call somebody a lair. You never will find one in your home if you are that lucky.Get out and take a walk in the woods. Now walking is putting one foot in front of the other.Standing and walking is hard for some I understand!

    ReplyDelete
  32. "He couldn't code HTML and he couldn't code BASIC, which was required in those days to upload any semblance of those early day websites. We had to help him with it - I was there."

    You were ? Great...

    What version of BASIC was used to build websites in 1995 ? Please do tell I would love to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. To anon at 10:28am:

    The discussion is not if Bigfoots are real, it is did MM actually see a Bigfoot in 1994. You mention his not rewriting an article written before his claimed sighting in 1994. This article refers to another article written in 1995 so how could this article been writ before 1994 and refer readers to another article from 1995? Questions on his 1994 sighting can't be dismissed when you read this article and you have to wonder why he never mentions his sighting from 1994. He gives a detailed breakdown of Ohio experiences, but never mentions his sighting. Suspect? Has to be.

    I have nothing against MM. I think he brings a lot of needed attention to Bigfoot

    ReplyDelete
  34. Matt has never been silent on his Ohio sighting and it is the first thing he talks about when he meets new people.

    I have heard the story many times and it has always been consistent. I do know MM did at the time acknowledge it may have been a bear- he believed it was a Sasquatch but did not have the knowledge yet to rule out a bear 100%. This was early in his research and as he began to have more experiences with bears and bigfoot he was able to say for sure it was indeed a Sasquatch.

    Hence the article- he believed it existed but acknowledged it could not- then spent almost the next 20 years gathering evidence to say it exists.

    I do believe they are going to get very good footage and know for a fact they have some good footage they got in the New Mexico investigation.

    They dont just drive in and walk in the woods. They have 2 groups of guides and while they are filming in one area the other guide and crew go and check other areas for signs. They always see them and get hand held footage. This is what decides which area will be used for the night investigation. They want footage on the equipment they bring because it will easier hold up to skepticism.

    Wait until you see the New Mexico footage dubbed "the surprise" They had finished some sound bites and Bobo just says "don't" his hand then points and they get a good few seconds of one taking off from an area where it was watching them.

    I am excited about this as we will be going back to the area for a followup and many of the well known names will also becoming for a 10 day investigation. The corresponding prints were 16 inches and they were visible for a quarter mile- it could have went in three directions from the area of filming and we think it misled us and doubled back. We were short a man that day and nobody would stay back alone in case it did double back. There was a tree cracked at 7 feet where the tracks ended.

    I have to say MM was on the ball because all through the initial filming he was saying to be quiet and on the look out as he could tell one was around. He was constantly watching the woods and saying for everyone to be on the lookout for movement. Afterwards he said that he did not see on squirrel, or any small game and few birds since they got there.

    He actually said it was like in Ohio as there was a period where it watched and decided what to do then took off. "It was like Ohio without the growl".

    They also got a thermal of what looks like two heads looking over a few fallen trees.

    Everyone will enjoy the followup because it will be "hosted" by Piers Morgan. He will look at the tape well in advance and already has many times and ask the questions he has. Matt will take him into the field and show him the evidence, try and answer his questions and hopefully get more. Renae will give the skeptical side and likely be aided by Dr. Sarmiento at the end Morgan will decide if their are Bigfoot in the area.

    Chris Hardwick will also be involved interviewing residents and then giving his opinion on if they are telling the truth.

    This will be great.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "This will be great," ROFL, same Anon voice as in other posts. Lord, get a job!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Matt moneymakers newest episode of finding bigfoot Canadian Bigfoot Eh? Whole episode he talked how some dude was uncredible but im sorry never met M.M. but i dont trust him at all. I mean according to his show every week they have all these accounters with either bigfoot yelling or knocking trees. I say B.S. M.M. is pulling stuff out his Azz! I like The other 3 people on show but hate M.M. acting like hes ultimate expert hes jerk!

    ReplyDelete
  37. If no ones ever found a big foot or had one in a zoo or somewhere to study it & learn how it acts & lives how can Matt Moneymaker say he knows what they do when & were there movements are characteristics & yells are. I love he says bigfoots are known to hit sticks to trees making loud noises & always travel at night there nocturnal creatures! If theres never been one to study how can you get on tv & tell people this is how & what they do when its a guess. I say they dig tunnels underground & travel that way! I think i should be taken just as series cause ive been studying them as long i have one as pet in my back yard. It told me he was dumbazz for telling everyone hes known for hittinv trees all the time for fun! My squatch said Bobo is his friend & Matt Moneymaker a jerk who makes azz of himself weekly!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why dont they spend a whole season in Ohio then, covering the area where MM had both encounters?

    instead of going from state to state, doing 2 night investigations, and then leaving. They'll never find anything this way.

    Moneymaker Matt, Do a whole season in Ohio and find bigfoot already. Your show is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi there, all is going sound here and ofcourse every one is sharing information,
    that's truly fine, keep up writing.

    Feel free to surf to my site ... windows registry cleaner

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story