Improving Bigfoot And Moneymaker Summary

Critique:Disproving Bigfoot and Moneymaker

Bigfoot is a primate like creature whose known throughout North America and existence is debated on throughout generations. the popular TV show, “Finding Bigfoot” harnesses American curiosity about Bigfoot and claims to be seeking out bigfoot and claims the existence of Bigfoot is definite. Moneymaker ,the primary producer of the show and owner of the website BFRO, claims that he can absolutely prove bigfoot is real. Moneymaker uses a surplus of falsified evidence, overstated information ,and understated facts. As well as ignores basic knowledge and loads his followers, readers, and watchers with fallacies. Moneymaker has a mistaken belief of Bigfoot based on unsound arguments.

Moneymake is a self

proclaimed expert in Bigfoot matters. However, he has a bachelor of Arts in English literature, specializes in Copyright law but never took the Bar exam, and pursed internet programing after graduating. While Moneymakers educational background looks nice these aren’t the credentials of a cryptozoologist, person who studies hidden animals, a degree in biology, zoology or any related field is preferred he happens to lack a degree in any of these listed fields. Therefore, Moneymaker isn’t an expert, he is simply someone who believes in Bigfoot.
Moneymaker refers to Roes sightings constantly ,However In Abominable-Bigfoot science origins of the Yeti, Nessie and other famous Cryptids Daniel Loxton Donald R. Prothero, argue that William Roe's sighting of Bigfoot-, the tale that created the modern ape-like version of the creature, lacks credibility. No researcher ever visited Roe or investigated the sighting, no witnesses could corroborate Roe's account and Roe's story told two years after the event. Loxton and Prothero point out that Roe claimed to see an ape-like creature with human like habits and white teeth in the woods; however no researcher actually spoke to Roe and his supposed letter is never produced. The lack of a face to face encounter with Roe and a letter that has never been seen debunks Roes encounter with Bigfoot. Loxton and Prothero further discredit Roe's story by highlighting the extended time Roe waited before telling the story. The delay is significant because- after a certain amount of time evidence can be wiped away; two years is an enormous amount of time to change a story. Lastly, Loxton and Prothero simply state that what someone says isn’t enough to conclude the existence of Bigfoot. While some cultures take individuals at their word what someone says isn’t enough because people can lie and falsify stories. Even if Roe's story is true, tangible evidence is necessary to prove that Bigfoot exists. Loxton and Prothero clearly discredit Roe's tale of Bigfoot by logically breaking down the circumstances of the story. The story was told two years after the occurrence, was never visited, and no researcher spoke to Roe, and there’s no records. The is no legitimate evidence to suggest that Roes sighting of Bigfoot occurred. Therefore Moneymakers use of Roe's account is inappropriate due to lack of valid evidence of his account.
Moneymaker also refers to, the 1960s research of Dr.

Grover Krantz of Washington State University, who moneymaker believes provides evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. Dr.Krantz’s research is not enough to prove Bigfoot's existence. In “The evidence for bigfoot” on the animal planet website Moneymaker explains, that “the mystery behind the sightings of sasquatches.. took a new dimension in the 1960s when Dr.Grover Krantz of Washington State University began examining casts and photos of footprints from various parts of Washington” (pg 2). Moneymaker claims that the casts looked at by Dr.Krantz are enough to prove Bigfoot's existence. First, while Dr.Krantz research was pivotal in further understanding Bigfoot, However most of the casts fabricated have been proven to be hoaxes. As Loxton and Prothero highlight in Abominable Science, “Bigfoot researchers knew not only that Wallace was a prankster and that the tracks cast by crew were found on Wallace's work site could easily be fabricated, the casts examined by Dr.Krantz could also be fabricated as well. Another issue with Dr,Krantz’s research is the lack of funding provided to elaborately research the primate.Dr,Krantz’s extended interest in Big-foot caused lots of criticism from the scientific community, leading to grant and promotion cuts. Dr.Krantz couldn’t have had materials needed to provide valuable research, which is especially apparent since he used photos of casts and footprints and never went to them or had them sent

to him.
Another issue is the faulty evidence provided in “the evidence for bigfoot” and “bigfoot debunk” that is used to suggest that the scientific community has accepted bigfoot as true. Both Moneymaker in “ the evidence for bigfoot” and Joe Nickell in “Tracking the Man-Beasts” argue that since no scientists or experts have debunked the Patterson footage then it must be true. In the article “bigfoot debunk” Nickell states, “No scientists or qualified experts have ever debunked the Patterson footage ...saying a conclusion cannot be made”. while moneymaker says "The footage has been repeatedly analyzed by scientists over the last 40 years. It has never been proven to be a hoax”. Moneymaker suggest that no conclusion being made is evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. However, a conclusion not being made can’t be taken as solid evidence. No conclusion being made is simply , no conclusion.
Not only has Moneymaker overstated the importance of the patterson-Gimlin footage, he has also misrepresented Native American mythology in his quest to prove that bigfoot is real.

According to Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero in Abominable Science etc , “It is inappropriate to link all Native tales of ogres or wild men to Bigfoot, but it is true that Bigfoot mythology has its roots in specific Native stories” (33). Moneymaker includes Native American tales of bigfoot-like creatures, however, there are many variations of tellings based on tribe. Moneymaker fails to mention the contrast of native tellings based on tribe. Aa well as ignores that Native American Tales aren’t accepted as fact due to the variations of tellings and lack of physical proof. Moneymaker cherry picks what information he is willing to share with the public and only includes things that will support his claims-, a clear example of confirmation bias in research ,as well as as takes unaccepted information and portrays it as

evidence.
In another article Moneymaker attempts to prove Bigfoot is real by comparing bigfoot to giganto. A giganto is a giant primate similar to bigfoot whose remains have been found. Moneymaker claims that because very few remains of giganto have been found it is reasonable for no remains of Bigfoot to be found however, after the first discovered tooth of Giganto more than one-thousand three hundred teeth have been tracked down. Moneymaker either failed to look for more information on Gigantos or simply ignored found information for the sake of proving his argument which is substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position since there is actual tangible evidence of giganto. However, there is no tangible proof of bigfoot. Lack of evidence is just , a lack of evidence therefore Moneymaker’s argument is invalid.
Moneymaker also attacks mainstream science because it doesn’t support his point of view. He claims that “No research group has ever made an attempt to look for Bigfoot bones in North America, so no one should be surprised that Bigfoot remains have never been identified in North America,” a weak attempt to explain his lack of evidence by shifting the burden onto the scientific community. However, you don’t look for something that has no evidence and does not provide reason to search, Moneymaker’s claim is a clear example of Hostile media effect, a cognitive bias that people with strong biases toward an issue perceive mainstream media coverage as biased against their opinions . Moneymaker also, ignores that those who have searched for bigfoot remains and bones have come empty and haven’t found valid evidence.
In conclusion, Moneymaker extreme Claims of Bigfoot's existence are Flimsily put together theories combined in order to make sense. Moneymaker lacks a degree in zoology or any related fields, Claims no conclusion being made is more than that, argues that no evidence should be considered evidence, attacks mainstream science for not accepting his theory as true, overstates evidence that proofs his claims, ignores proven information, and cherrypicks information, simply to support his claim and convince others that his ideas are true. Moneymaker lacks valid evidence to support Bigfoot's existence.