Finding Bigfoot Giving “Para” a Bad Name. - By Aaron


Matt Moneymaker leads the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, which researches and collects evidence on the existence of Sasquatch, also known as Bigfoot. Paranormal researchers include many fields, spirits, cryptozoology, alien research, and much more. While some hold more bearing than most, crypto, and spirit research have gained the most notoriety over the years. There is more evidence to suggest that spirits do exist, and mythical creatures may actually still live among us in the shadows. However, Matt Moneymaker and his team are not turning the page forward in research, they are blatantly going backwards with their antics.

Paranormal researchers have spent decades in effort to be taken seriously. Until 40 years ago, there was almost no physical way to manually record a voice from the beyond. Today there is evidence to suggest that we are actually surrounded by the ghosts of loved ones. There will always be skeptics, which in conclusion will create better technology to get better evidence. Paranormal researchers understand that every bit of evidence they get will be scrutinized as fast as they can record, and analyze it. A person goes into this field understanding that fact right off the bat. Public scrutiny is the main reason why the researcher themselves often has to be the biggest skeptic of them all. If the evidence is to be taken seriously, all scenarios must be taken into consideration, and ruled out. The majority of what could be considered “evidence” is thrown out because a human can manually recreate it. The best evidence is that, which cannot be explained, after careful scrutiny.

Matt Moneymaker, and the BFRO, blindly believes every encounter they have in the woods is a Bigfoot. Without taking into consideration any other possibility, Moneymaker makes assumptions that it is a wild, unseen beast, which creates the experiences they have. Only one person on the television show team has a sense of reality, Ranae Holland. Ranae openly criticizes the evidence they come across and asks what else it could be, before judging that it is Bigfoot evidence. As a researcher trying to advance the science of something as skeptical as Bigfoot, this is the kind of attitude that is needed. Matt Moneymaker does not portray himself, or the team, in this manner. He puts all his faith into a few eyewitness accounts, and makes every bump in the night out to be a Sasquatch. For example, an episode of “Finding Bigfoot” that aired in February of 2012, depicted Matt and Ranae studying a so-called foot imprint in the creek bed. The questionable footprint was thinly depressed into the creek mud, and did not resemble anything but an arced outline, quite possibly someone’s boot heal print. Without question, Matt immediately came to the conclusion this depression in the mud was most definitely made by a Sasquatch. Ranae, in possibly disgust, disagreed whole-heartedly just on the fact there was nothing to suggest a Sasquatch made that print. Moneymaker makes a mockery of the paranormal field by throwing it under the bus every time he opens his mouth about the slightest bit of sketchy evidence. The one time I will come to Matts defense is in regards to “edited for time and content” discretion on the show’s producer’s part. Matt has claimed in a recent statement,

“Here’s the reality of it: The vast majority of what we examined in the field we dismissed as non-evidence. They don’t show those parts though.”

I will give him the benefit of the doubt that the producers of “Finding Bigfoot” are trying to keep the audiences attention span. However, allowing this to happen only damages the paranormal fields credibility. Even though they only air what they think is credible evidence, it’s obvious to the novice spectator that most of it is less than credible.

Lets take a look at a fairly credible paranormal investigative team. The Atlantic Paranormal Society has built its reputation on tossing out the majority of what they find. The majority of their evidence is either re-created, or can be proven beyond doubt it can potentially be re-created. If we keep that in mind, there is a cardinal rule of investigation to be followed, true evidence cannot be easily explained or re-created. What you are left with is evidence of paranormal activity. The outcome may just be that an answer cannot be found at this moment. Technology may conclude later that evidence, which was once thought of as paranormal, may actually not be evidence at all.

Moneymaker and his team need to take control of their own show. If they are truly more skeptical than how they are portrayed on the television show, they need to make that known. Moneymaker on the other hand needs to dial it down a notch, or eight, on what he considers physical evidence. A slight imprint in the mud does not constitute an automatic Bigfoot experience. True evidence as has been mentioned before cannot be re-created. Simply touching a heal into the ground next to the so-called imprint could prove the evidence could be re-created. Without further scrutiny though, Moneymaker does an injustice to investigators all across the world.

Bigfoot may very well be alive and well in the United States, and world alike. There may come a day when an actual creature can be attributed to the sightings that have happened for millennia. Until that time, as investigators, we cannot tarnish a field that has undergone as much scrutiny by allowing a simple television show only show the wild, off base claims of a vivid imagination. A knocking noise in the woods can be anything. A howling scream can also be anyone, or anything, not just a Bigfoot. Last but not least, where is the physical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Being confident is one thing, being arrogantly confidant is a completely different ball game. The BFRO needs to understand that a television show will come and go but reputations stick around forever. There has been nothing to suggest to the public audience, other than what is seen on TV, that the BFRO is anything but a team of individuals whom cry wolf constantly.



Help links news evidence how we work articles equipment team home Twitter