Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Matt Moneymaker Argues with "Girl" 140 Characters at a Time

Meet @HayleyStevens, a skeptic blogger

Matt and my nephew
Let me say from the outset, the few interactions I have had with Matt Moneymaker have been completely positive. My 12 yr old nephew is a big fan of his and Matt was very kind when I introduced them to each other. Matt had the utmost time and patience for the kinds of questions a kid would ask, all while during the filming of an episode.

And while I disagree with some BFRO's methodologies, I think Matt and BFRO have made some great contributions to the community.

With that said, there is a kind of comedy that can happen when tweeting back and fourth, tweet battles seem to force a reactive quality to the conversation on both sides, there is never quite enough characters to put any type of phrasing in context. I don't think either side comes out the winner on twitter.

This is most likely the case in the twitter conversation between skeptic Hayley Stevens and Matt Moneymaker. The whole conversation goes weird when Matt assumes Hayley is a "little girl," a realistic assumption, in our opinion, based on her twitter profile picture, that doesn't condone the tone of Matt's tweets, but I would not guess Hayley is, in fact, 27. Of course, that's us assuming an assumption was made based on the pic. 

Hayley has her side well documented on her blog, HayleyIsAGhost.com. Unfortunately her documentation of the the twitter conversation is one-sided showing Matt Moneymakers tweets out of context. Also unfortunately it seems that Matt Moneymaker has deleted his tweets. And beyond these two unfortunate events, there is a third unfortunate event, I have spent WAY too much time trying to piece the whole conversation together.

For what it is worth, here is the twitter conversation between Matt Moneymaker and Hayley Stevens that was shared and retweeted among the skeptic bloggers (as best as I could piece it together). Hopefully it does not look like I'm trying to pick a winner, I just wanted to give the conversation more context. If you think either side ended up with a constructive outcome let me know.

9:16:00 AM Matt Moneymaker
Often when ppl get hit by rocks thrown by squatches the rocks are thrown from a distance in total darkness. Ppl dont even see the squatches.

9:17:00 AM Hayley Stevens
 it [sic] that's true, how do you know they're there?

9:30:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
how do you know it is them that makes those noises? If you don't see them?

9:37:00 AM Matt Moneymaker
A dog is barking but u cannot see it. How do u know it is a dog? If u know what squatches sound like u know when they r near.

9:42:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
dogs are a documented species of animal. As far as I'm aware there's no documented and verified record of sasquatch.

10:04:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
and your answer didn't make sense

10:26:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
because the answer you provided didn't make sense.

?????? Matt Moneymaker
It didn't make sense to you because you are too young. Ask your parents. Seriously. They will explain things 2 u.

10:33:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I'm 25, I've been researching anomalous phenomena for a decade. I know about this than my parents. Try me.

10:41:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
it seems like a leap of logic to me, is what I was pointing out.

10:41:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I don't understanding how you know the sounds are sasquatch when previously nobody knows what they sound like.

????? Matt Moneymaker
So if I explain how I and others recognize their sounds then why bring up official classification? You missed the point.

10:54:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
in that case why not show me where they're documented? So I can understand your point?

????? Matt Moneymaker
Hayley, many elusive species made recognizable sounds before thety were officially documented. Sounds helped w/ the discovery.

10:55:00 AM Endless_Psych
You know what I don't think grownups generally do? Use youth as an excuse not to answer a question.

10:55:00 AM Endless_Psych
Indeed far from grown up some might actually call that childish

???? Matt Moneymaker
What children do is ignore when their question has been answerd repeatedly if they really just don’t comprehend

???? Matt Moneymaker
Hayley my point is that I usually speak with older people and the answer I gave would make sense to them just fine

10:57:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
How do you know that is a sasquatch making those noises?

11:00:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
Your answer doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so I asked you to clarify. That isn't me ignoring your answer.

11:04:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
and my point is that you can't identify an animal by sound if there's no pre-existing record of what it sounds like.

???? Matt Moneymaker
U can identify an animal by it's sound if you have heard them many times, regardless of pre-existing records. Ask an ecologist

11:08:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
The first time you heard a sasquatch you knew it was a sasquatch how?

???? Matt Moneymaker
I actually didn't know what I was hearing the very first time I heard them in the field, almost 30 years ago. Long story

???? Matt Moneymaker
Someday u can treat me to tea and scones and ask me whatever you like about squatches. A twitter box is too limited for that

11:20:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
at some point you decided you'd heard Sasquatch though. What evidence did you base that decision on?

11:20:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I'm writing up my thoughts, you can address them then, in your own time and perhaps without attacking me personally.

11:22:00 AM Matt Moneymaker
Hayley stevens Just don't make child-like assumptions about what exists and what doesn't exist. Others may know more than you do abt things.

12:37:00 PM  Hayley Stevens
 the only impressive thing here is your arrogance

12:23:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I suggest that says more about your logic than it does about your professionalism though.

12:25:00 AM  Hayley Stevens
I don't really have anything to say to you, if you can't answer the points I wrote out without being patronising then fine.


59 comments:

  1. The fact I 'look young' in my Twitter picture does not justify the assumption that I'm young so my points can be dismissed.

    The way you've written about makes it sound as though you're suggesting the blame for Matt being dismissive lays with me because of the way I look.

    The points I was making were good points whether I look twelve, twenty or thirty. The fact that he behaved well with your nephew is great - the reason he dismissed me though was because I was skeptical of what he had to say, he didn't have a good argument that he could argue his case with, and so he used my age and gender to dismiss me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, a better version of the conversation is documented here: http://storify.com/Hayleystevens/matt-moneymaker-and-the-sounds-of-silence

      Delete
    2. Maybe you missed the part where I directly say "that doesn't condone the tone of Matt's tweets"?

      Delete
    3. My thoughts exactly, leap of logic. You would know it's a dog because you've seen a dog bark before. I hate that show.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. What an ass that girl is trying to pick a fight

      Delete
    7. I can agree with Matt on one thing and that is experience. I think this could answer you're question Hayley

      A) "Bears don't throw rocks, Mountain Lions don't throw rocks, Wolves, Dogs, Moose and Deer can't throw rocks either. It would take hands to do that not paws or hooves.

      B) It could be a person, BUT why would someone waste their time in the middle of the night IN the forest throwing rocks at people...just doesn't make any sense knowing how dangerous it is being out in the forest at night putting his or herself at risk.

      C) Their are many reports of rocks being thrown at people who are out in the forest throughout America and Canada before they actually see the creature themselves. A lot of encounters have the same exact thing in them.

      D) Primates like Silverback Gorillas and Chimpanzees also are known for tossing objects like rocks, sticks and crashing through the jungle or forest tearing down large branches and trees for showing dominance, warning, and intimidation.

      E) Sasquatches are known to grunt like great apes (Due to many encounters from witnesses). Les Stroud (Survivorman) shares his experience in Alaska back in 2005 of what he described was "great ape" grunting at him extremely loud and then "crashing" through the forest while his camera was turned off to finish his grass bed.
      LINKS:
      1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcpRGtfx18M

      2.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQMgXWh3tSs
      Les Stroud and Joe Rogan discussing the "Alaska Incident"

      3.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEIcHvz3vzw

      F) There is something going on. I don't think hundreds to thousands of people in America and other places are making this up. The physical appearance mainly consist of Coned head (similar to an Gorilla) but with very human like facial features, very tall, muscular and hair covered.

      G.) There is a lot of evidence. Just do research, there are many encounters told by people. Try listening to a bunch of audio recordings and see if that helps.

      H.) Experience does have it's impact. If you would really want the truth, then the best thing is to actually get out there and try to have an encounter and find out for yourself.

      Delete
    8. This is pretty good too!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fegKQqmZEMY

      Delete
  2. Lot of logical fallacies displayed here from mat, suggesting that either he knows he has no credible reply, or he doesnt understand what a credible reply is. For example:

    - Ad Hominem = atacking the person not the argument
    - Ambiguous Assertion = sound must be bigfoot
    - Appeal To Anonymous Authority = "ask an eccologist"
    - Argument By Dismissal = "you are to young"
    - Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)= "U can identify an animal by it's sound if you have heard them many times"
    - Confusing Correlation And Causation = a rock thrown from the dark must be a from a bigfoot
    - Causal Reductionism = sounds in the forest that you have not heard before must be bigfoot
    - Argument By Selective Observation
    - Least Plausible Hypothesis = i dont know the sounds, must be bigfoot
    - Appeal To Complexity = if you dont agree, you dont understand what i have said
    - Excluded Middle = if unknown animal, must be bigfoot

    i could go on

    if Mat wants to credibly represent the community he needs to deal with tough questions in a more adult form

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny how most of these things don't even apply to what Matt said. But this is precisely what these people do. These are the typical people who brand themselves as skeptics. They merely play games. One of those games is to ask a bunch of questions, and then distort the answers given to them.

      For example: He thinks Hayley is a girl, because she represents herself that way in her photo. Matt thinks her questioning is childish also, but pointing out those things is "ad hominem". He doesn't want to play games with a child and he says so. That's "an attack" according to the self-proclaimed skeptics.

      More deceptions:

      "Ambiguous Assertion = sound must be bigfoot".

      The self-proclaimed skeptic twists what Matt said. Matt is referring to sounds from a bigfoot that are identifiable, just as dogs sounds are identifiable as dogs. Nothing ambiguous about that, unless you're a childish skeptic who wants to distort peoples' statements and play games.

      Appeal to Anonymous Authority = "ask an ecologist".

      If you're making a statement about how the Earth revolves around the Sun, and a Twitter box is too small of a place to prove that with scientific evidence, so say "ask an Astronomer" ... then a deceptive skeptic will call that a "logical fallacy". Nope, it's just a fair statement that would help lead an honest person to the truth a little bit faster. But these are not honest people who want to learn the truth.

      "Argument by Laziness = 'U can identify an animal by it's sound if you have heard them many times'

      Nothing lazy about that. It's a very obvious, very true statement. It conveys the concept of repeated experience and familiarity, which Hayley apparently didn't understand. No logical fallacy there. A reasonable person wouldn't expect Matt to lay out all sorts of scientific evidence in a Twitter message.

      No one (except those who have already concluded, by logical fallacy, that sasquatches do not exist) should be surprised that Matt Moneymaker has heard them many times. Many, many people have been with Matt in the field over the years and have heard sasquatches while standing next to him. Hayley would doubt that. She'd be wrong. It's not Matt's job to prove that to her. She can investigate that on her own to find out that it's true instead of asking him to prove every statement to her. Again, Hayley exhibits a child-like approach to learning things.

      "Confusing Correlation and Causation = a rock thrown from the dark must be from a bigfoot."

      This is a great example of the basic dishonesty of most amateur skeptics. Matt never said what is ascribed to him here. Matt said often sasquatches will throw rocks in the dark. Does that mean all rocks thrown in the dark were thrown by sasquatches? No. Does it mean that there's no other reason to believe a rock thrown in the dark is a bigfoot, beyond the thrown rock? No. What the skeptic claims he said is an intentional distortion of what he wrote and what he meant. They don't really want to learn. They prefer to play these types of games. It is indeed a child-like personality that does things like that. A child asks a bunch of questions without really caring about the answers. That combined with Hayley's picture made it perfectly reasonable to say "you are too young" to have a serious discussion with.

      BTW, how do we know she is 27 years old? She could easily be 14 years old. But if Matt would have asked her to prove her age, that would have been called an "ad hominem" attack. Frankly, I think he has every right to be skeptical about her age, and it's not inappropriate to ask her to prove her age, especially if she's going to distort a conversation with him, and claim she was "attacked" by him.

      Do you need any further reason to see why an adult man would want to avoid arguing with an underage girl?

      Delete
    2. You Said "sounds from a bigfoot that are identifiable." There are no such things as sounds from a bigfoot that are identifiable. There is no proof that bigfoot exists. There is no documentation of what a bigfoot soudns like. There are only unknown sounds that someone said "hey, that was a bigfoot." We have watched dogs as they barked millions of times. That's an identifiable sound.

      Delete
    3. When proving things you must prove what it is not. Sounds of known animals first. Then sounds of unidentified animals next. What ever is left however improbable must be the trut
      h. These sounds can be identified with biologist and or woodsmen. Or anyone with wildlife experience.

      Delete
  3. Oh, here's 'Hayley and the gang' again, back to 'multibully' people that have a different opinion than herself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bully?

      another logical falicy right there...

      statement of fact is hardly bullying, there is a clearly explained answer as to why Mat was more of a bully to people of differing opinions than anything else

      Delete
    2. I did not mention Matt's bullying. He is clearly ridiculous in his logic, ageist and hardly worth my time. However Hayley is far more intelligent, and far too rational to go about starting pointless arguments all over the internet. Regardless of fallacy, regardless of fact these are people's beliefs and being nasty and patronizing about them is hardly a true skeptical method. It's horrible and unsympathetic. He’s not harming anyone; he’s not taking people for a ride, so why should Hayley be allowed to treat him unfairly publically?

      Delete
    3. i was talking about your "multibullying" remark

      but alas you are nail on head

      arguing on the internet is never constructive especially when both stuggle to remain civil

      Delete
    4. He wasn't sitting in a cafe saying this to a friend and Hayley came up and started arguing with him. He posted this on Twitter, a public forum, with the assumed intent of having it read by the public. Hayley or anyone else is within their rights and some might say obligation to dispute ridiculous assertions such as this, in hopes of dissuading others from believing such nonsense.

      If Matt didn't want to engage her in defense of his claims, he could have ignored her. Instead he made personal attacks and followed up with more ridiculous claims and twisted logic. Of course he deleted his tweets. They made him look like a jerk.

      Delete

    5. Matt is a jerk, of course he is. He's defending his claims with insults, i'm not defending Matt in the slightest. But you CANNOT go around dismissing publically people’s beliefs, beliefs they have held all of their lives. It's not fair and it certainly isn't right. Sure question them, sure assert your opinion, assert fact if you like. But dismissing their claims as if he’s some sort of deluded, dumb individual is outright insulting and patronizing, and just as insulting as his ageism. Putting yourself on a pedestal and pointing down at people laughing is not the way to make a point, or share fact.

      Hayley is an intelligent human being. She's been through this situation countless times and she knows that the kind of method she uses insights anger and furious defense. Belief insights furious defense - so as an intelligent human being she should A: not fall into a pointless argument about a person’s closely held belief or B: argue with some decorum, be the bigger man (woman) and without whining about it all over her blog.

      Using her blog as a whipping post will never give her any sort of respect all, especially within the community of people that she’s whipping. If she’s trying to change people perception, or help inject reason and logic she’s going the wrong way about it.

      It’s tit for tat.

      And Amy, i find your words insulting. A persons beliefs and opinions are not 'rediculous assertions'. She has the right to challege him, but not be patronizing and rude at the same time.

      Delete
    6. scervantez81@yahoo.comSep 17, 2012, 10:20:00 PM

      If u cant get what matt is saying then get over it ,no need to try to back him in a corner with ur agressive police like questions .these are elusive animals and there sound and habbits are not yet documeted as fact, so every thing we belive is not yet proven to the main stream science and people like hayley .big foot researchers such as matt truely belive in there finding do to the amount of research they have put in ,and they have personly have had these strange acurances happen many time to where they can almost prove ther existance yet there are people like hayley whoe wana get into a debate about what is proven and not proven.if we were 100% that all are finding were correct then we would have no need to reaearch anymore! so chill out hayley give the man some credibility and stop trying to prove ur point by asking questions we have not ben able answer or give the answer u wana here ps stfu!

      Delete
    7. Learn how to type, please.

      Delete
  4. I don't agree here. Both were wrong. Her questioning was combative and seemed to invite or even illicite argument. His replies were protectionist and not informing. His opinion on BF is not of interest to Haley or us, simply an explanation for events he claims to witness or has knowledge of is good enough. I believe personally because of history. It has nothing to do with being convinced either way by others. Until they are proven to exist, every bit of evidence is " opinion" you'll never prove they don't exist as long as someone believes they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please demonstrate how my questions were combative? His opinion is of no interest to me, you're correct. However, when he is posting his opinion as fact - which is exactly what he is doing - anyone is entitled to question how he knows what he claims to know.

      My questions were not combative, just repeated because he refused to answer them.

      Delete
    2. You matched insult with agressive behavour. That is combative.

      Delete

    3. Hayley,

      By your own admission, you came to him with a conclusion already in mind. And you came to him with the intention of calling attention to yourself as a doubter. You even made a whole web page about your little victory there. You succeeded in getting Matt Moneymaker to talk to you, but you really don't care what he has to say.

      Do you think that adult mean aren't familiar with the games played by some young girls (like you). When seeking attention they will approach men politely at first, but then intentionally start trouble, and then scream and say they were mistreated and "attacked" by the big bad man when they are finally turned away and told to shove off. That's exactly what you did here, Hayley. That's a game that young girls play.

      When he didn't want to argue with a childish person, he said so. You were able to turn that into a minor scandal of sorts. Now you say you were mistreated because wasn't going to play your game for very long on Twitter.

      I don't feel sorry for you, and you probably won't be taken seriously by anyone else now. Who is going to answer questions from a young girl who plays those sorts of games.


      Delete
  5. Doesn't this guy charge money for taking people out on "bigfoot expeditions"? If so, his claims should be thoroughly questioned, for he is taking people "for a ride".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes he does, that his money making business. He has himself in one hand and your walled in the other. He know he is not going to track down a bigfoot

      Delete
    2. In which case, commenting on and questioning his claims is entirely fair and proper. The standard quotes that most skeptics know almost by heart apply here:
      1: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If Matt Moneymaker claims that he has heard and/or seen Bigfoot, but does not have verified evidence (blurry photos and ambiguous sound recordings don't really count as solid evidence here!) then all he has, with respect, is anecdote.
      2: "The plural of anecdote is not data." A hundred people could claim to have seen the creature, but without a good-quality image? No sample of hide, bone, or other remains with DNA to analyse? It's just a hundred anecdotes.
      3: "It's good to have an open mind, but it should not be so open that your brains fall out." This is where skepticism comes in, and why science requires evidence that can be put down as enabling the identification and classification of this suggested new species, as it might be.
      To be fair to Matt, organised tours looking for other examples of cryptozoology (the Loch Ness Monster, or Yetis, for example) are something of a tradition. But especially these days, where people are increasingly clued-up on what constitutes "evidence" and what is simply "anecdote", it is quite likely that there will be fairly robust challenges to statements such as Matt's, that he "knows" (without reference to other published information or evidence, but only against his own experience) what a Sasquatch sounds like. Now, most working scientists will be fairly familiar with "robust" challenges; they often point to genuine gaps in the research which the scientist will then work to fill, or it will indicate that the research actually points in a different direction, to a different conclusion. Such questions are recognised as part of the scientific process. They are not usually interpreted as being personal in nature; in science, such an "ad hominem" attack would cause eyebrows to be raised. Hayley's questions were not personal in this way; but Matt's responses, were.
      Again, to be fair to Matt, he may have been unfamiliar with the way scientists and skeptics can put questions, but he should note that they are directed to the evidence or lack thereof, and not to the character of the individual concerned. Hayley did however have a fair point, and so far, Matt has not answered it. He may think he has within his own terms of reference, but they are not the terms of reference science would recognise.
      However - good luck to the enthusiasts, and I would suggest the employment of devices designed to capture genuine evidence - camera traps for example, are very familiar to many who watch wildlife TV programmes; they are often used by zoologists when attempting to measure the size of the population of a given species within a given area.

      Delete
    3. Mark, I loved everything you said here. I could not have said it better myself. 100% agree.

      Delete


    4. So it's not enough of a reply for Matt to say he's heard Sasquatches before many times and knows what they sound like?

      What else is even possible to say, in the context of a Twitter post, that would be within "the terms of reference science would recognize" and would satisfy someone like Hayley -- someone who merely wants to ask more questions?

      Hayley asked Matt how he knows what sasquatches sound like. Matt answered that he's heard them before many times. That's an answer. That's not refusing to answer a question, as Hayley seems to suggest.

      Hayley then asked how he knows if what he heard was a sasquatch to begin with? Matt replied. He compared it to someone hearing a dog barking and knowing its a dog barking because that someone has heard dog barking many times before.

      Hayley then said how would he know what they sound like if "there are no records" of them. Matt then posted a link to a sound recording. That not only showed what they sound like, but also showed that there are indeed records of them. Sounds to me like he's answering her questions.

      Hayley then said his responses are not a valid comparison because dogs are documented species. She then repeatedly said Matt's replies don't make sense. Matt's replies make sense to me. His answers would probably make sense to Hayley's parents too. Hayley's parents could have also explained that it's difficult to explain things in a Twitter message.

      Her parents would have also explained that it is simply not right of her to claim that Matt "refused" to answer her questions and merely "attacked" her instead. If anything Matt insulted her for her approach and tactics. I think she deserved it.


      Delete
    5. Anonymous - No, Matt saying he knows what a Sasquatch sounds like, because he has heard them many times, is not enough. It's just anecdote. That was the point I was making.
      I'll try and draw an analogy.
      We know what an owl sounds like; we know when we have heard an owl. With reference to actual living examples of owls, and to documented and traceable recordings made of particular owl species linked to documented video recordings of owls, for example, we can identify the particular owl species, and the circumstances even, under which an owl might make that noise at that time.
      In other words, we have good, traceable, documented, corroboration.
      We have no, really no, authenticated examples of recordings of Sasquatch. If we did, to be honest, we would not be having this discussion! All we have is anecdotes, debatable audio recordings, blurry photographs, and "arguments from authority"; in this case, Matt himself.
      In science, such arguments do not count as evidence.
      In science, one does not "insult (anyone) for (their) approach and tactics". It's not scientific, it's not acceptable as part of scientific discussion. (This is deliberate: It stops scientific conferences and exchanges on, say, the review of papers for publication, descending into exchanges of abuse and insults!) We let the evidence speak for itself, and it is then challenged and judged on its own merits.
      Scientists asking questions of particular findings, therefore do not expect to be met with a line of questioning which suggests they should "ask their parents" about what they understand by "data" for example. If I were met with such a response, it would suggest to me that the person I was asking simply had no answer to my questions on his or her data or conclusions. Attacking the person, "ad hominem", has long been recognised as a sign that the argument is lost.
      Nobody deserves to be insulted simply for having the temerity to ask questions... Perhaps a better analogy here, would be the story of the emperor's new clothes?

      Delete
  6. People who have had up close encounters with these creatures don't believe--they know. Once you see the hair, the seven, eight, nine foot height, the wide, wide shoulders, the big feet, belief is not in the discussion. Knowing is. People doubted that man ever stepped on the moon. A few people know it happened. I accept that it happened. Skepticism is very healthy and let's hope it never fades on any unproven topic, such as this one. Ranae Holland calls herself skeptical and she is with Matt on these TV productions. Those productions are a lot different from the amazing activities people witness and endure in the woods when cameras are not present, or are not turned on. If you want to read hundreds of accounts of these encounters, go to BFRO.net and click on Blue Forum. It could keep you reading all night if you like that kind of thing. Al Thound

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think both were being silly as children with their comments.... Just MHO

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hayley asked logical questions and Matt dodges them with poor behavior, hubris and condescension.

    I have had a nearly exact, but shorter, discussion with Matt last December when I did the same thing by simply asking him "how do you know" these so called "facts" you post? http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/you_are_not_entitled_to_your_own_bigfoot_facts/ He told me, in a nutshell, that it was personal experience. Well, that does not count as fact since personal experience is a fairly useless way of convincing someone else since we were not there. If you have information that would help, then it needs to be shared. But, since we are assuming that Bigfoot here is a living creature, that information should be documented as it is for other living creatures. It isn't (not to the degree that will be convincing to most people).

    Yet, Matt goes on Twitter telling people Bigfoot likes watermelons, chases deer out of the wood, and likes when you whistle. But recently, he's gone into almost supernatural aspects of Bigfoot, saying it has the ability to stun people with some power. If you are going to make such a claim, I'm sorry, saying "cause I say so" is NOT an adequate response. He sounds ridiculous.

    Matt, the BFRO and the Finding Bigfoot crew have done a terrible job of presenting evidence. But, the discussion in skeptic circles have also pointed out that Bigfoot is his life, his investment. He will not readily give that up. However, we asked that he back up his claims or stop making such baseless statements. It is pathetic for anyone to blame skeptics for asking such simple a question as "how do you know?" We ALL should be asking... unless you just accept Bigfoot existence as a matter of faith.

    Incidentally, even though I only responded to Matt maybe 2 or 3 times over many months, he blocked both my twitter accounts and that of many who simply question his statements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incidentally, Sharon/I Doubt It warns others to keep it civil in the comments on her blog while herself screaming all-caps obscenities.

      Equally incidentally, Sharon is allowed to comment on the Bigfoot Field Researcher's blog, while the owner of that blog is banned from commenting on Sharon's blog.

      It is wrong to turn skepticism into a religion or a profession. It makes one unable to see or think clearly.

      Some of these people are like machines. At least Mr. Spock was reasonable. Professional skeptics are unreasonable. It is unreasonable to play word games and repeat endless talking points of "logical fallacy" and "deluded" and to continue in a circle no matter what evidence is supplied.

      These types of people will never leave a lasting mark, because they create nothing. They passionately insist on thinking only within the box. Creativity, lateral thinking, takes you outside the box. Who in his/her right mind would vociferously proclaim they are staying inside the box, and stubbornly insist on staying inside the box? This is very limited, a stunted, blunted way of thinking.

      Now with the the Journal Nature showing some agreement with Ketchum and Sykes, instead of acceptance of this news (and Nature is worshipped by professional skeptics), there is endless repetition of Zana being a modern human, and an attempt at dissembling and avoiding the topic and changing the subject. You'd think those who have worshipped Journal Nature would accept the news Nature is giving them.

      Well so what skeptics? If Zana was 6.5 feet tall or more, covered in "orangutan" hair, naked, yet living in the frozen wilds of the Caucuses, with divergent big toes, outrunning horses (more than double the speed of fastest "modern human"), your endless parrotting of "modern human DNA" does nothing, goes nowhere, makes no point, and defends your position not at all.

      No modern human can live barefoot in such an environment, nor outrun a horse, nor be covered in hair in that manner. Add the brow ridge and primitive traits, it matters not how many times you repeat "modern human," Zana did not appear to be, did not behave that way, and did things beyond the capability of a modern human.

      A horse can sprint at 45 mph. A modern human might crack 20 mph. Zana faster than 45 mph? What modern human? Where? More than twice the speed of the fastest modern human? Where? How?

      Professional skeptics need to be reasonable, like "normal" skeptics, and drop the kneejerk rejection of any and all presented to them.

      Delete
  9. This was my original point by saying the questioning was combative. I'm not taking up for Moneymaker here at all. I think he is opinionated and biased. You cannot project nor " super impose" your beliefs about this subject on anyone. It's the same as the differences between Christians and Non believers. If you want people to believe what your preaching show some true evidence. The world is seriously tired of blob squatchs, footprints and in identifiable hairs as being the "proof" for this animal. True, new species are being discovered everyday, but these are small and not an 500lb 7 ft man ape! All I'm saying here is don't take your frustrations out, Moneymaker, on skeptics, because we question your (uh oh, I'm about to say it!) beliefs!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reading through all this shows me a couple things. Moneymaker comes across as an arrogant know it all that resorts to childish arguments. Many theories he has developed he says as if they are fact. Some very well could be true, but until more proof is available, they are just theories. Hayley comes across as very naive. If something is not documented or classified in a scientific journal, it doesn't exist and any evidence or field research you have is inconclusive and invalid. Neither side wins this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I will take up for Matt. I was formerly a very hard core skeptic and vocal critic of Mr. MoneyMaker. However inow believe that almost everything that he says now, at least about Sasquatch behavior is true. I now commiserate with him in dealing with knuckleheads who dont know what he knows, however his personality lends itself toward coming across as arrongance when he speaks, what to him and those who actually know, are given facts. I am much more tactful and respectful with anyone about anything, as that is my personality. But if you were the only one who knew about something and everyone else was too unconcerned or dense or whatever and even berated you for your knowledge one would tend to be less than patient dealing with those not in the know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh. You make about as much sense as Matt. Do us all a favor, use grammar check prior to any future publications. (Or maybe some like to read about stuff like you have wrote (it would be, have written, if ya didn't catch that, and were not unconcerned or not relating it or cant care less.

      Delete
  12. Hayley comes across as possessing to much childlike arrogance to facilitate a proper interview, and Matt unfortunately, but understandably, didn't respond well to it. Critical Thinking and communication skills are necessary to be a competent skeptic, and Hayley needs to build those skills. Alienating your debate opponent is not a good way to make a point, valid or not, that they may give serious consideration to.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BEING A BIGFOOT RESEARCHER I FIND TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE IS A WASTE OF TIME. WHEN CONFRONTED BY NON BELIEVERS WHO SAY SHOW ME MY REPLY IS WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND OF ME PROOF OF MY HOBBY, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME IF I PROVE TO YOU ANYWAY/ I DONT TRY TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE. SCIENTISTS OR INFORMATION GATHERERS CAN GO OUT LIKE I HAVE AND FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES WHAT I KNOW. SCIENTIFIC WORDS ABOUT OUR SO CALLED PAST ANCESTORS ARE PUNCTUATED WITH IT IS THOUGHT WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY MAYBE ETC. FUNNY WHEN I WAS RESEARCHING THIS THIRTY YEARS AGO THE SO CALLED SCIENTISTS WOULDNT EVEN TALK TO ME. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THEYRE EVERYWHERE IN THE BIGFOOT FIELD LIKE LAWYERS CHASING AMBULANCES. I DONT APPROVE OF MATTS PROGRAM BUT HES TRYING AND SOME OF THE THINGS HE BRINGS OUT ARE VERY CORRECT. NO I DONT NEED TO PROVE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER IF YOU WANT TO KNOW GO OUT AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF INSTEAD OF GOING AFTER SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO FURTHER OUR KNOWLEDGE ON THIS MATTER.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THANK YOU!!!! someone beat me to it but thank you! amen!

      Delete
  14. Ok, I am a Flying Blue Dragon expert. I know what they sound like and where they live. The yellow ones are more scarce, but I have heard of many, many stories of people coming across the young ones.
    You know how stupid that sounds? I think while Hayley might have pushed a little, Matt is just as childish. When I called him out on the so called "Jacobs Creature" as a simple bear, he banned me from the Youtube account showing it. I won't go into the whole account, but in photoshop with enough playing around, it is simply a bear. He even measured it wrong, by looking at it backwards, but many people believe it is real.
    This guy makes a full living off of chasing "dragons". Only he knows, if he really thinks it exists. He might as well be Tom Biscardi and I wonder what he thinks of him. He would never sit down to a debate and answer questions without having a heart attack. I am a science guy. So, yes I'll go full out and say the 3000 sightings are lies or mistaken about what they saw.
    Science does not reconize "Bigfoot" as a living animal, that is simple. You cannot be an expert in something that does not exist anymore then I can be on Purple Dragons (or yellow ones). This is why america is really going down hill. Bigfoot, Honey Boo Boo, and Jersey shore. Three programs that have never seen the light of day in my house.
    Come back to me when you have a body which will be never...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joaquin Today, Now

    Discoveries of animals based on audio recording or behaviour has been a method used by scientists for years. Two new species of Owl were discovered in the Philippines based on their unique calls. Also dozens of new species of frogs were discovered stemming from the sounds they made. Underwater discoveries if new species have been made by listening to there calls and their impact on the marine life around them. So yes you can tell a new species based on sound and behavior.

    As far as Moneymakers credibility that's a personal decision. You have to keep in mind that he is a professional at what he does. He does get paid to speak, he does get paid to lead expeditions, and yes he has earned the right to assume a new species is influencing the area around him. As he is making a living from what he does, and many many people put financial trust in his research I think if he is unimpressed by Hayleys arguementive line of questioning...

    So if people don't pay money for your opinion don't get upset if your statements are brushed to the side.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Really really get over all this Matt did this she did that stuff. There are more important things to expend energy on. Yes it is possible that there is an ape like animal out there or it is something mis identified when I dump a .30-06 round through bigfoots forehead you can all come over and ill charge all of you fifty bucks to look at it. That's the only way to prove it is to kill one. Unfortunate but true.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Matt insults everyone's intelligence he has hear say evidence that supports nothing. His claims are all assumptions he can not come up with any thing to support one of his claims that the bigfoot exists. People ask him for solid proof and they get a total run around on the subject.
    Matt hurt's the bigfoot phenomena every time he opens his mouth. A psych diagnoses would be as follows. Borderline schizophrenia with a touch of addictive personality disorder.. There are things man has not discovered that are found daily that are 5000 times smaller than bigfoot..

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Matt ur an idiot. U think everyone should believe as u do. Which is the most absurd belief I have ever heard. U probably think ur mother is a bigfoot. Ur a moron. Ranae is the ONLY person who has it right. Ur friendship with Booboo (LOL) is based on ur unconscious need to be next to a bigfoot. He looks like one and is about as smart as one too. Good luck in search for Puff the Magic Dragon. I bet if u looked in Europe, u might find the Lochness Monster doing wood knocks with a unicorn riding The Little Mermaid in the City of Atlantis....

    ReplyDelete
  20. For better answers to these, and many common questions raised by skeptics, watch the A&E documentary on Bigfoot. Skeptic, believer, or just watching for fun,it's pretty interesting. It really analyzes the Patterson film, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This person is an obvious troll. We all know there's no definitive evidence for Bigfoot. Whatever this man has seen or experienced is speculation as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Finding Bigfoot and Moneymaker are both sad jokes lacking in scientific foundation and general sound logic. "No one has ever seen a unicorn. But based on my limited observations I know unicorns eat seeds, and deer and fish and . . .whatever happens to be in my location. As a result, this is a good food source and a good place for unicorns. I know they are here."

    ReplyDelete
  23. The only sad jokes on here are all of the closed minded individuals that have their minds made up already that there is no such thing as bigfoot or sasquatch. Apparently these individuals have been all over the planet, in every forest, diving under every body of water, been through every desert. Basically they know the planet better than the back of their hand. So I guess they are right, stop looking for it, it doesn't exist, nothing to see here folks, move along (sarcasm).

    ReplyDelete
  24. the girl is being aggressive and immature for no reason... she says she researches phenomena ////lol im surre she does for ten years so sshe would have to have been around 14.. ok well someone researching that long wouldnt have a mindset like her blank empty mid posted on twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I used to be in a pool league with a part-time professional wrestler. He introduced me to another up-and-comer one evening years ago in a Connecticut bar.
    Once we had all been drinking our fair share, they had a really good laugh while letting me in on one of their inside secrets.
    A "man beast" costume had been fabricated at one point to be used as a wrestling persona. It was abandoned prior to ever being used. (My guess is that it would have been too damned hot for anybody to wrestle in without dying of heat stroke.)
    The boys kept the costume around however, and it became sort of a hazing ritual to make one of the larger newbies dress in the costume wherever the show was being produced around the country. They would then be directed to find a semi-remote location nearby to stage a sighting of them in one way or another.
    They took me out to the other guy's car that evening, and showed me the costume in the trunk. This guy was approximately 6' 6", and was apparently the latest recruit to get stuck with the task of staging a sighting.
    That was back in the late 90's, and they had been going at it for quite a number of years already, and are possibly still at it to this day.
    The costume was a no-brainer to me as far as what it looked like.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The thing that annoys me with these kinds of shows are that they people act like the animal that there hunting is the only thing in the forest. Whenever a small sound is made there like oh it was a squatch leaving, uh no there's plenty of other nocturnal animals in the woods. It just pisses me off and Matt is so annoying I can't stand him

    ReplyDelete
  27. Matt is a joke, the show is entertaining to me due to the unintentional comedic value. My wife laughs at me for watching and we both can't believe that somebody is making a 25 year career at finding Bigfoot. Who is paying their salary?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Whats ridiculous is all this is still an arguement, its there or its not, so in turn look for it or ignore it but arguing is what makes this world suck, everyone is more concerned with their opinions and background to care that theyre not leaving themselves open minded to absorb facts and learn and grow

    ReplyDelete
  29. Look, it's a lot simpler than what everyone here is making it out to be. The BFRO and Moneymaker repeatedly claim they have collected some of the best evidence for the existence of bigfoot over the years. They go on to claim over 50 combined years of experience hunting bigfoots.

    The sheer number of bigfoots they have seen over the years has allowed them to observe such fascinating behavior like; the training of young bigfoots in a communal training ground, bigfoots will throw rocks to scare away humans but they take great care to not hurt the human and only scare it away. They even go as far to claim what type of music bigfoots generally prefer, but I'm skeptical of that claim. Getting back to the more realistic claims, the evidence they have for bigfoot spies is pretty good. They say that bigfoot communities will routinely post bigfoot lookouts to warn the rest of the bigfeet in the area when humans approach. Apparently this is another instance in where they will throw stones, but only when the bigfoot notices the human carrying a camera. When there is no camera present the bigfoot will knock on trees and scream loudly to scare away the humans as well as alert the rest of the bigfoots.

    Clearly one can see how it's been very difficult to capture one of these creatures on camera. Not only do they post lookouts, they train their young in camps and don't shoot to kill. As I've stated in my first sentence, it's very simple. Bigfoots don't want to be found, hell you'd have to capture one of their spies to get the best shot at finding one, let alone a while community! I for one say we put down this debate and let them live in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow ! You believe Haley to be intelligent ? Try intelligible antagonist. 27 years old with a 7 year old mental development

    ReplyDelete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too.

Please read our terms of use policy.