Watch Matt Moneymaker smile gracefully on CBS with John Miller as he describes the Bigfoot population in North America
Catching Matt Moneymaker smiling is as rare as catching a glimpse of Bigfoot. Go ahead and do a Google Image search and you'll only find two or three good photos of him smiling. Then do a search on Cliff Barackman and you'll see nothing but smiles.
In the video below, Matt Moneymaker sits down with John Miller to talk about his research. According to Matt Moneymaker, the Bigfoot population is scattered and consists of 2,000 to 10,000 individuals.
Click here to watch the video on YouTube.
Update: OK. We were wrong. We found two good photos of Matt Moneymaker smiling.
 |
| Matt (left) |
 |
| Matt (right) |
Related:
I'm putting in my 2-cents worth, but I think that's not a smile, it's gas.
ReplyDeleteShawn, thought you might like this.. I am on an iPad this afternoon and tried to load the YouTube video from the link in your post above.. It wouldn't load which is not unusual when I am using this iPad.. I think it is a flash thing or something. Anyways, I see it is from CBS Early Show so I googled the phrase 'Matt Moneymaker CBS early' thinking it would return a link to CBS news or some other outlet to see this interview. Well, guess what?? Your blog post is already indexed by Google and is in the #1 position for that search phrase. That is amazing and says a lot for your Blog.. Never heard of getting indexed in basically minutes from posting. Anyone with Internet/web experience knows what this means. Outstanding!!
ReplyDeleteSorry about that Mike. I put in a special option in the link where it opens up a new window instead of taking you straight there from here.
ReplyDeleteI changed it to the default and you should be able to open it on your iPad now.
Thanks for the compliment Mike!
Someday I think he will have to eat his last words. So much of the old guard is sold on the ape theory, and I did not realize Matt was one of them. Name one ape that can walk as its primary mode of transport. No - this bigfoot is no ape, but much closer to the human line as most recent evidence seems to point towards. This is my opinion.
ReplyDeleteChuck in Ohio
Is Mr. Crewcut going hippie dirtbag?
ReplyDeleteWhen did Matt's claimed close encounter with a bigfoot in Ohio in 1994 turn into a sighting? Has he ever said that before?
ReplyDeleteAhhhhh Mr. Moneymaker what a great guy.....Love the smile, looks like he thought of a dirty joke lol. In all honestly the guy is annoying but at least he is bringing Squatches to the medias attention.
ReplyDeleteAlpha Dog, agreed. Language, bipedal (which we don't even know if Gigantopithecus was), humanlike feet/facial features. Uh-uh, no ape, and therefore no animal to shoot. Except with a camera.
ReplyDeleteAnybody... somebody... Has MM ever claimed his Ohio incident was a sighting?
ReplyDeleteIs he lying about it now?
Will anyone call him on this now?
It matters.
i think the youtube video may have been removed? i cant say for sure, im on an ipad too and i get 'could not load video' which is often the message that appears if a video has been removed
ReplyDeleteoh i see the problem now 'the content owner has not made the video avaialble on mobile'. :/
ReplyDeleteShawn,
ReplyDeleteI don't know,
somebody, anybody, tell me,
does the truth matter to "the bigfoot community"?
Anybody?
MM has said multiple times that the bigfoot in Ohio was standing in front of him growling. This information is easily found by a simple google. He also said this on an old Fox News interview. Another case of people manufacturing things to make him look bad.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I think no one is answering you cause we are not sure. If you think he is being untruthful or changing his story, call him out on it. Call Animal Planet... Ask him on his blog site.. Truth does matter, but sensationalism sells... He is a marketer now and will sell, sell, sell. As Autumn says so eloquently 'Que the Music'.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 4:27,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that MM has claimed a sighting before in this incident?
Yes or no?
Does the truth matter?
Yes or no?
BIGFOOT COMMUNITY,
ReplyDeleteDOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
YES OR NO?
"Another case of people manufacturing things to make him look bad."
ReplyDeleteWhat was "manufactured, you piece of s***?
ANONYMOUS 4:27,
ReplyDeleteDOES THE TRUTH MATTER TO YOU?
The MM hater is obviously drunk as he cant even formulate what his argument is.
ReplyDeleteMM has said I'm Ohio he saw the creature. In Ojai, CA (my stomping ground) he found prints and thats what got him started on Bigfoot quests.
ReplyDeleteMatt Moneymaker,
ReplyDeleteSince you have commented here before,
and since none of your groupies can honestly know or answer for you,
which is it;
did you lie on this tv show
or why have you never claimed this sighting before?
Interesting that some feel the need to attack me when I am only interested in the truth of the matter. Why is that?
ReplyDelete"bigfoots_broski,"
ReplyDeletePlease tell where you have seen MM previously claim a sighting in this Ohio incident. Please.
He makes reference to his Ohio encounter right here in this interview where he states it was 15 feet away from him growling. He has mentioned this exact Ohio encounter before.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaKMxsSkGGo#t=0m35s
And.. he also mentions it here in a 2010 thread on the BFRO forum.
ReplyDeletehttp://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=125336&date=08-16-2010&t=2166919-1
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.
Unknown,
ReplyDeleteAre you really this deliberately stupid?
Yes, he has always previously claimed that he had a close encounter with a bigfoot growling at him.
My point is that he has never before claimed he saw a bigfoot in this encounter or anywhere else.
Do you understand the difference?
Oh and look another article on National Geographic where he is quoted about the encounter as well ?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html
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."
Bigfoot Community,
ReplyDeleteDOES THE TRUTH MATTER? YES OR NO?
No I don't understand the difference. You claimed he never mentioned the encounter before which you are obviously wrong about.
ReplyDeleteSour grapes ?
MATT MONEYMAKER,
ReplyDeleteYOUR ANSWER PLEASE.
Do you have a brain?
ReplyDeleteI never said he hasn't mentioned the claimed before.
I said he never claimed a sighting before.
Now he claimed a sighting in an encounter that he never before claimed a sighting in.
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND?
I can understand you are nitpicking over the word "sighting" versus the term "close encounter" which is simply juvenile and stupid. When someone says that something was 15 feet away from them the term "sighting" is pretty much implied. Perhaps you should start an argument about MM's eyesight. Maybe you'll have better luck with that.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you lying about what I said to defend MM has said?
ReplyDeleteDoes the truth matter to you?
Are you in the BFRO and, if so, does that mean you feel compelled to argue on behalf of MM regardless of whatever the truth may be?
SEEING or NOT SEEING is "simply juvenile and stupid." Really?
ReplyDeleteNote how obviously drunk the above poster is. He can't even clearly establish what his point is.
ReplyDeleteDOES THE TRUTH MATTER TO YOU? YES OR NO?
ReplyDeleteAre you a "BFRO Investigator"? Yes or no?
ReplyDeleteSHARON! LOL! GAS? SHAME ON YOU!
ReplyDeleteWhen claiming to have witnessed a bigfoot, does it matter whether one has actually seen a bigfoot or not, or is that only juvenile, stupid and drunk?
ReplyDeleteBigfoot community... anyone else care to offer an opinion regarding this matter... on the public record.
Nope and I'm done with this absurd line of conversation. Maybe you would do better to claim that MM has such poor eyesight that he was unable to see something 15 feet in front of him. Good luck on your rants.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it assumed if someone says, . "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.", isnt it logical to think that this means he actually sees the Bigfoot.??? Keyword-- there he is... It's a quarter moon. Sounds like a sighting to me.. Whether he uses or had used the word sighting, I would assume it is a sighting..
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put too much stock in semantics. If you want to find something to disagree with him on, I m sure you can research him and find a lot of items to disagree on, but this seems plausible to me that he has represented this sighting previously.
You are done because the truth doers not matter to you.
ReplyDeleteMatt never before claimed this was a sighting.
Now he does.
Why would you lie for MM?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteDid he ever before claim a sighting?
Yes or no, Mike?
Can something be 15 feet away and unseen in the dark, Mike?
Yes or no, Mike?
Does the truth matter to you, Mike?
Yes or no, Mike?
@ Angry Drunk Guy
ReplyDeleteLet's see who has your back in this absurd argument.
Bueller ?? Bueller ? Anyone ??
Are you capable of truth and logic, or only attempted insult?
ReplyDeleteIf one were saying close encounter, a sighting would be assumed. I would not say I had a close encounter with a bear, had I not seen that it was a bear. I believe that is what the other anon above is referring to.
ReplyDeleteYou are doing a lot of assuming, and no answering of honest questions. Why is that? Does the truth matter to you?
ReplyDeleteStep up, MM.
ReplyDeleteYes, he claims this as a sighting:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 23, 2003
"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.
Thousands of Sightings
Sasquatch stories go back centuries. Tales of mythical giant apes lurk in the oral traditions of most Native American tribes, as well as in Europe and Asia. The Himalaya has its Abominable Snowman, or the Yeti. In Australia, Bigfoot is known as the Yowie Man.
Bigfoot advocates hypothesize that the primate is the offspring of an ape from Asia that wandered to North America during the Ice Age. They believe there are at least 2,000 ape men walking upright in North America's woods today.
An adult male is said to be at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) tall, weigh 800 pounds (360 kilograms), and have feet twice the size of a human's. The creatures are described as shy and nocturnal, and their diets consist mostly of berries and fruits.
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, who lives in Dana Point in southern California, is a lawyer who runs his own marketing agency. In his spare time, he leads the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, a network of more than 3,000 people who claim to have seen the Sasquatch.
He claims to have heard one in the dark. He never before claimed to have seen one. Do you understand?
ReplyDeleteAre you a "BFRO investigator"?
If he did not see it, how is he going to know it was 8 feet tall? By telling the height of what he saw he is proclaiming that he saw it reguardles of the fact if he uses the word sighting.
ReplyDeleteAre you a BFRO investigator?
ReplyDeleteHe didn't say he heard one , he says he came eye to eye at 15' with a quarter moon. This does give enough light to see 15'. He references its height at 8' as well. I am not a BFRO investigator. I have no affiliation or alliance to MM whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteHe saw growling?
ReplyDeleteDon't waste anymore time Mike this guy is obviously drunk and not very intelligent.
ReplyDeleteDid you notice that "eye to eye" was not MM's quote? Of course not. Does the truth matter to you?
ReplyDeleteAnswer please, MM.
More insults. Please show me anywhere where MM has EVER SAID "I saw." Please.
ReplyDeleteDoes the truth matter? Why don't the insulters answer?
ReplyDeleteTonight we have proven the exisistance of trolls. You don't need to keep feeding him mike.
ReplyDeleteYou know you are right about that, it wasn't his words. It was the article writer that said that. We all assume it was a sighting, but You may be onto something.. Why don't you try to tweet him. I assume he has a twitter account. I now Renae does.. I think it is a slim chance he will see this blog post and no one else knows for sure on here either it seems. I think his website or twitter are your best ets to get a response from him.
ReplyDeleteI would be really surprised if this poster tweeted Moneymaker about this. These types of trolls seek only to create bad press and have no real interest in finding out the truth.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if the guy steps up.
MM's twitter is..
http://twitter.com/#!/MattMoneymaker1
http://www.network54.com/Forum/28799/message/1007426285/Deer+Kills+%26amp%3B+Bigfoot
ReplyDeleteMatt's account years ago.
ZERO claim to ANY sighting.
Will Matt explain?
"Troll"? Why?
ReplyDeleteBecause THE TRUTH DOES MATTER TO ME?!
If it matters lets see you tweet Moneymaker instead of ranting on a blog.
ReplyDeleteStep up there drunky pants !
I don't tweet. You go right ahead and tweet.
ReplyDeleteMatt and I can discuss this here for everyone to see.
Do you think Matt will answer this?
I don't.
Perhaps you should take your argument to the latest blogpost on the subject.
ReplyDeleteMoneymaker said he SAW bigfoot, had an encounter on the CBS Morning Show ...yesterday. But he forgets that there exists logs of his 1990 remarks where he said he had yet to see or encounter a bigfoot. Many of us old timers know Matt never saw a bigfoot except in his mind. We have the old logs to prove it - his own words.
ReplyDeleteMoneymaker also claimed to be a practicing e-commerce attorney. Following that he claimed to be a corporate attorney. Following that he claimed to be a software engineer - and that at a time when he had to be coached to code Basic and HTML by other website owners of the '90's. Truth is, Matt never passed the State Bar of California and he never passed any State Bar of Ohio. You cannot practice law without being licensed by the state bar of whatever State you live in.
The only legit job he ever had was a temp position for a week at Kinkos. It's all a matter of public record - all you have to do it spend some time tracking that crap down online.
Only legit job was at Kinkos for a week? I took your advice and looked up info on him. He was one of the first Webmasters for Kinkos Corporation and he did that for two years before Kinkos was acquired by FedEx. Prior to that he was the Webmaster for the Naval Surface Warfare Center (Ventura). After Kinkos he was the Webmaster for Atlas Electronics. So you're saying those aren't legit jobs??
DeleteWhat I also found online were a lot of blatantly lying clowns who hate the fact that Moneymaker succeeded so well, so they make up bullshit about him and post it anywhere they can do so anonymously. Don't buy it.
Moneymaker said many times that he didn't want to practice law but he wanted the law degree, because so many of his family members have a law degree. That's why he got the law degree but didn't take the bar exam. He went into the Internet biz as soon as he graduated from law school, like many other people did in 1996.
DeleteMost law grads who dove into the Internet biz in 1996 are doing pretty well for themselves nowadays.
Anon 6:59 probably whiled away his time drinking beer and watching football games during those years when Moneymaker was getting into the Internet business and building the BFRO.
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/mjm/deerkills.asp
ReplyDeleteDeer 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
Wow drunky pants sure does hate MM. This is not about the truth it's about something else, probably very personal.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much personal BS here it frankly reeks, and it should be above all of us. Fine, so many of you do not like or down right hate Matt Moneymaker. That's OK. Most of us it seems have a strong opinion of Matt and most of it seems to be negative. Why is this. This man has spent the last 20 years on a quest that all of us are endeavored in to some degree and has benefited by doing so. Are we to begrudge him, or would it be better to stake out our own claim and try to further this inexact science that we so long to endeavor in. Matt Moneymaker is not any enemy and whatever one thinks of him, he is laying it on the line and has the resources to do it. Would it not be better to focus on our own personal goals in Bigfoot Science, and extrapolate on the synergy that a mighty group of researchers, whom mainstream science calls nuts, to bring to the world what is the truth? I ask you!
ReplyDeleteChuck in Ohio
Wow ... Drunky Pants (aka Detective Clown) has been around the scene for a while, all the way back into the 90's.
ReplyDeleteI think I know who Drunky Pants is, and I think he is angry now. Drunky Pants thinks HE should have gotten all the glory and success in bigfootery that Moneymaker got, but Drunky Pants wasn't going to get it ... because he was a Drunky Pants.
Drunky Pants may have convinced himself that Moneymaker is lying about what happened in the 90's, but Drunky Pants twists memories a lot ... because he is a Drunky Pants.
Moneymaker had his sighting/encounter in 1994 before he started the BFRO. He started the BFRO partly because of the 1994 sighting/encounter.
Drunky Pants thinks Moneymaker's sighting couldn't have happened in 1994 because the BFRO wasn't created yet. But did Moneymaker claim the BFRO had a sighting, or that he peronally had a sighting? Maybe Drunky Pants got mixed up about that.
In 1994 there was no BFRO web site to publish the Deer Kills article to. The article talks about incidents around 1992, so maybe Moneymaker 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.
By all means let us hear who this most angry of Bigfoot researchers is.
ReplyDeleteSeems like you'd wash your hair and maybe iron your shirt before going on a nationally broadcast morning show.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know how many times Moneymaker pissed his pants? Seems wheneve they 'hear' something Mat losses all control.
ReplyDeletePoker tourny must have been fake cause there is no way this guy could ever have a poker face
The users of social student loans for people with bad credit strategy that will assist your prospects achieve the success they desired and/or were subtly promised.
ReplyDeletemy web site; Student Loan