Aggressive males in combat may chase other lesser males and in the resulting sprint to get away from the winner or dominant male.

I meant to add: , and injure themselves.

Wild boar are also a common cause as they will scavenge carcasses and bite and twist the limbs creating post mortem spiral fractures. Bears will also cause this as they gnaw and twist, but in all cases of these types there are multiple fractures. In skeletal remains, one of the things that must be looked for to establish primate type predation is the presence of teeth marks as the primate will consume the muscle tissue and leave teeth marks on the bones.

Still, many deer die from leg trauma unrelated to predation. At a game preserve it is not uncommon during the rut to have broken legs and resulting deaths without predation. Aggressive males in combat may chase other lesser males and in the resulting sprint to get away from the winner or dominant male. In the chase there are occasions where the loosing deer missteps and breaks his leg, I have seen this several times in game preserves and safari parks. This is likely to occur in the wild as well. There are simply too many mundane explanations for this one example to leap to the conclusion that it was a sasquatch kill.

To call a skeleton a kill by any creature without proper forensic investigation is foolishness at best and malpractice at worst.

In my opinion Mr. Moneymaker has crossed from science to a form of religion. He is conclusion selective and entertains nothing that contradicts his “faith” in everything being a sasquatch.

A true scientist does not care if the null hypothesis or alternate hypothesis should be accepted; he only cares that he finds which one should be accepted. Mr. Moneymaker has left the very philosophy of science behind and pursues his quest in the same manner as a person on some holy quest. He approaches everything from a standpoint of belief, not science. His investigations are emotional, not logical.

I think that Finding Bigfoot would be better off getting an open minded scientist to head their show rather than someone that approaches things in the manner of a religious zealot with no room for anyone with a more plausible explanation.

Also, the shortened “squatch” is unfortunate, IMHO.

Now, I ask, how can someone be an expert on Sasquatch when none of the above can even remotely be attempted, let alone satisfactorily executed on a level that would allow one to study it? This is hardly possible considering it hasn’t even been proven to exist. Existence must be proven first, afterwards come the opportunities to study & earn the moniker of ‘expert’.

I watched the show Finding Bigfoot on Monday here in So Calif. On that show I saw some VERY compelling “evidence” for the existence of a Bigfoot type creature.

I realized that episode was taped months ago, so on Tues I looked for follow up information of the compelling “evidence” that was shown on Finding Bigfoot.

I tried every site on the inter net I could think of, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, Nat Geo, BFRO, Bigfoot Encounters, Cryptozoology.com, here, Cliff’s site, etc, etc, etc. To my surprise, I could find NO more info on the evidence presented on the show Finding Bigfoot.

1 Wood knocks in reply to a human call were heard by all viewers of the show which is very compelling evidence to a possible Bigfoot in the area. We later found out that the actual wood knocks were not picked up by audio and the knocks we heard as viewers were actually made by a TV producer.

2 Large tracks or footprints were found on a trail by Cliff and all viewers saw this which again is strong compelling evidence. We later found out that the footprints were actually found by the same producer who recreated the wood knocks, and he directed Cliff where he could find footprints for the camera. The size of the footprints were not mentioned on the show or here by Matt Moneymaker. It took Cliff to finally come forward and give the size after being asked many times.

3 We see a Bigfoot helper ride in a caravan through the woods and have a hit on her thermal camera of something large. All the viewers of the show see this, and it is once again strong compelling evidence. We again later learn that the video of the helper having the thermal hit was recreated, and possibly the thermal hit all the viewers see on the show may be false.

4 We hear from Reane Holland on the show that all the helpers were sent home and the 4 person team stayed to look for whatever made that thermal image, and all the viewers watching at that point hear another loud strong howl in the woods. That would be great compelling evidence to have audio analysis done but alas, we find out here on Cryptomundo that the howl we all heard was again a TV producer not a animal in the woods. Recreated evidence again.

If you want science or intertainment, that’s your choice. I watched for science and I learned that this show is NOT SCIENCE BASED.

For you two to post “what is the deal man”, or “I guarantee you, it would not have been done half as well as done by the BFRO”, leads me to believe that you two are not sincere about finding the truth if a Bigfoot animal exists, but more like the TV producers of the show Finding Bigfoot…don’t care about the evidence or science.

You and everyone should be thankful to the posters here, they got to the truth on this subject.

I don’t care how much control Matt Moneymaker has of this show, I still expect the honest truth from him about the evidence he finds. If we as viewers saw recreated evidence on that show, MATT MONEYMAKER SHOULD HAVE COME FORWARD AND TOLD HIS VIEWERS!

That’s the truth and you know it.