Matt Moneymaker

@huskerpowr You can start reading about it here: bfro.net/news/roundup/e…

@MattMoneymaker1 Matt, I have always been intrigued by the notion of Sasquatch aka Bigfoot and always enjoyed your TV program on Finding Bigfoot. How does one go about going to one of these "searching" expeditions?

I predict this will become a common feature of bigfoot conferences and festivals around the country in coming years. The first time we did something like this for a live audience was in Ohio in 2022. We will be doing it again on a larger scale in Washington State in September 2026. If you have a Starlink dish, and a good thermal camera, and you're interested in being involved, please let us know. If you are from @SpaceX then you are definitely invited, and we can absolutely guarantee that you will have a good time. youtu.be/qt9Hxngs9gc?si…

Bigfoot gives you a new reason to own a Starlink dish. The dishes are very cheap now, and you can drop your satellite service subscription plan down to $5 per month for months when you are not using it, or barely using it. The link below is to a long article on the BFRO web site. It is full of helpful information about the latest and greatest equipment for those who are interested in Bigfoot field research. Starlink opens some new opportunities. If you are a bit of a techy nerd then you will find this article pretty exciting. If you are very far away from being a techy nerd then it will likely confuse you. It is increasingly more common for attendees of BFRO expeditions to bring their own handheld thermal imagers. It also more common now for attendees to have Starlink dishes. The article explains how those two things can be used in conjuction to livestream to YouTube Live during a bigfoot expedition. Among other things, it will allow you to set up live surveillance around your own tent or camp kitchen. Thousands of people can tune in to listen to whatever sounds are happening around your tent or camp kitchen in the wee hours of the morning, when the approaches tend to occur. We figured out how to do this with no intention of trying to monetize it, but we found it that gets monetized passively without much extra effort, and without needing to have a huge following on YouTube. Take your time reading this article and thinking about it. As mentioned in the article, this is one of very few cool activities that is becoming less expensive rather than more expensive as time goes on. We are also inviting those who are equipping themselves in the ways described in this article to participate in a special event in Washington State in late September 2026. See the article for more details on that, and the short video about it. Here is the link to the article, which gives a detailed explanation for the other graphics attached to this post: bfro.net/REF/thermal_sc…

In recent interviews the director and producer claimed the newly discovered reel must have been developed in 1966 or early 1967 because their paid “experts” say the footage would not look as good as it does if it had been developed later than that time frame … which is verifiably untrue. It is not their biggest lie in recent interviews but it’s among their biggest lies. There are many.

@MattMoneymaker1 Matt, you're arguing against a claim nobody made. The question isn't whether 1966 Kodachrome stock held up in storage. It's that color Kodachrome development became chemically impossible in 2010 — the K-14 chemistry no longer exists. The footage is in color. --from AI

Fun Fact that will be very relevant to Bigfoot researchers. 1) Kodachrome 16mm film reels in the mid-1960’s had instructions saying the stored blank film reels should be refrigerated after 6 month from time of manufacture, but Kodakchrome film stock of the 1960’s was known to be remarkably robust. In a freezer (how much film was stored back then) it could sit on a shelf for 30 years and still look essentially the same when used and developed. At room temperature in a closet it would last several (~5) years. Thus Kodachrome 16mm film that was manufactured in 1966 but not used by a cameraman until 1971 would look just as good as film used within the first 6 months even with the least bit of care to preserve it in storage.

@Enlil420 It was a reenactment.

@MattMoneymaker1 Was there a guy in the film playing Bob Gimlin? If so, that would make this film a reenactment, not a rehearsal. If it’s a rehearsal, then Roger and Bob should both be playing their own characters. If someone else is portraying one or both of them, then it’s a reenactment.

@District97 @386_jeff @Tracks None of the sfx experts who blithely say it’s a man in a costume can replicate the costume, even with lots of money on the table.

@386_jeff @MattMoneymaker1 @Tracks There are other sfx experts (like Rick Baker, who's much more accomplished in this area than Munns) who say it's a guy in a suit.

Bullshit. Judy Gimlin gives quite a different story, and she’s not the liar. Yes, the meeting with Clint alone was scheduled with the Gimlin’s, not the whole crew he brought along. And when Director was asked later about going to Gimlin’s house by a reporter, director said, “Yeah, we tried but it didn’t work out.” Had they actually spoke with Gimlin at his house you can bet it would be in the documentary, but it is not. There is only the ambush at the conference.

@Kristian113 @SilentEchoSeven @MattMoneymaker1 @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio There was also no ambush of Bob gimlin at a convention or his house. The filmmakers scheduled the interview at his house and even spent two hours with him after the fact, shooting the bull.

Multiple outlets are reporting that a long lost reel from Roger Patterson showing a trial run of a bigfoot suit. If you're at South by Southwest check it out, its in a documentary called Capturing Bigfoot

@ChristisLord98 @mandatesrcrimes @ShadowF92968210 @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio @Kristian113 Learn how to spell your own name, you southern white trash pile.

@MattMoneymaker1 @mandatesrcrimes @ShadowF92968210 @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio @Kristian113 Lively hood*

You seem to have the “idea” wrong. No, it is not a “rehearsal” after the fact … It’s a tacky attempt to *replicate* the 1967 footage after the fact. Does that help you straighten out your confusion? Many people have tried to do that over the years, this was just the first attempt … after the fact, and likely for the purpose of making an expanded documentary after the fact using a costume recreation like so many programs did subsequent to 1967.

@MattMoneymaker1 Matt - the idea that Roger Patterson or Al DeAtley would do a "rehearsal" after the fact just doesn't make sense. I won't proclaim the PG film a hoax unless the so-called rehearsal film is verified as being what they say it is, but it makes sense.

The trickery of this new documentary was getting some unsuspecting people to believe this newly discovered film reel was “made” prior to 1967, before the Bluff Creek footage was obtained, rather than what it really is — footage of a goofy looking replica of the Patterson creature made subsequent to 1967. Their evidence is markings showing the film stock was manufactured in 1966. Those are Kodachrome manufacturing marks, not marks from the development process. But when the director was able to persuade some trusting people like Jeff Meldrum and Patricia Patterson of his timeline before showing them the reel, he could get stunned and emotional reactions from them. Whereas if they knew the reel might have been shot after 1967 … they would have rightfully said it is irrelevant. They would have seen it as a janky attempt to replicate the Patterson creature after the fact. But no …

@mandatesrcrimes @Kristian113 @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio Bullshit

@MattMoneymaker1 @Kristian113 @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio Joshua kitakazi posted on Facebook, that they can prove it is processed from 66. No details or source data given however. I have to assume it's in the movie with what was posted.

@Wesmancan As the full report states, there was no one else in the preserve when the couple was there. No cars in the parking lot. No one with weird feet walking around barefoot in the swamp.

@MattMoneymaker1 And humans can make knocks to. So there you are assuming. As always.

ATTN OHIO (Ashland area) >> Recent report of wood knocks and possible tracks in a swamp preserve one half mile from the location of the encounter behind the Warehouse Gym in 2021, on the eastern perimeter of town. This recent incident occurred on Sunday March 15, 2026 around 11am. The witnesses are a couple. The husband is a college professor. For more details and photos see bfro.net/GDB/show_repor…

Eric is saying it wasn’t two plus symbols, but he won’t say what the symbols were … So Eric is either WRONG or doesn’t remember exactly what the symbols were. All his says is you’ll have to watch the movie yourself (almost as if he can’t actually recall that key point, which might make him look like a gullible fool). But Eric does say (as does everyone else who is seen this documentary) that their timeline claim is based on these little Kodachrome symbols. If Eric can’t tell you what the symbols were, then we should default to what Bill Munns says: They were two plus symbols, which means the new footage could not have been recorded any earlier than 1968, which upends the whole bogus narrative of this deceptive, emotion driven documentary.

@mattbarberio @Kristian113 @MattMoneymaker1 @BestCryptids Eric palacios has confirmed that the plus plus was not mentioned in the movie. Those are not the codes used in the movie in regards to the footage. The footage was determined to be 1966

@mandatesrcrimes @mattbarberio @GregZeigler1 @Kristian113 @BestCryptids Are you married, Eric? Would any woman stick up for you after you die? Maybe you don’t understand how that could be.

@mattbarberio @GregZeigler1 @Kristian113 @MattMoneymaker1 @BestCryptids The claim is she has a financial interest in the film, I believe the director also mentioned having to pay $30,000 as always, to license the footage. Reserve your final word until you see what she has to say in the new movie

@mandatesrcrimes @mattbarberio @GregZeigler1 @Kristian113 @BestCryptids She also has an interest in defending the reputation of her deceased husband, especially from smears by her son who barely knew him. Why don’t you ever acknowledge that?

They told him the film was 100% “made” no later than 1966, but there’s two points in time when you’re talking about when a Kodak film reel was made: 1) when the blank film was made by Kodak, and 2) when it was actually used by a cameraman. It is apparently easy to bamboozle people about that.

@mandatesrcrimes @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio @MattMoneymaker1 Telling Meldrum it was fake before his viewing of course is gonna get a certain reaction. Did they tell him with 100% verification of the video it was shot before the PGF?

Do I need to keep correcting your out-of-context statements? Here’s the full term Meldrum used in the documentary: “It certainly *looks like* a dry run for the Patterson film” … if you’ve been led to believe by a scammer that the reel was shot before 1967. Meldrum was not able to confer with Munns about that issue before making that statement, but he would have more to say about it if he was still alive to sort out this bullshit documentary.

@ShadowF92968210 @GregZeigler1 @BestCryptids @mattbarberio @Kristian113 @MattMoneymaker1 I would agree that the description of meldrum's reaction to seeing the new footage in person, was certainly not Joy. The film is crediting Jeff with having used the term "dry run for the Patterson film"

This guy tries to persuade you that the motives for the people who are debunking this sleazy documentary are to protect their own from financial interests. Bullshit! There are many people who know Bob Gimlin very well. He is a very decent, truthful man … so we really, really don’t like to see him falsely smeared by an indecent, deceptive filmmaker who has a huge financial interest in making you think the 1967 Patterson footage was faked. Why doesn’t this guy want to acknowledge the documentary director’s financial interest?

@GregZeigler1 @mattbarberio @Kristian113 @MattMoneymaker1 @BestCryptids More follow-up from Eric. He has no time for so-called experts. youtu.be/Z1pJoBBe8v4?si…

@mandatesrcrimes @GregZeigler1 @mattbarberio @Kristian113 @BestCryptids Which suit did she see Roger burning? There were at least two of them.

@GregZeigler1 @mattbarberio @Kristian113 @MattMoneymaker1 @BestCryptids Correct hearsay is not admissible. Although Patricia Patterson saying she saw Roger burn the suit, wouldn't that be considered a direct witness?