I will be posting a full review of it when I am finished with it.

Make sure you indicate whether it was fluffy soft and whether it left you with a clean feeling or not.

Ok, I've read so far to Chapter 4 of the book, and it seems that in the "October 20, 1967" chapter, Long seems to love calling Roger Patterson a "little man" or "puny little man". He has "uncovered" some things about Patterson from people around Yakima, but nothing that so far has convinced me of the likelihood of a hoax. More to come.

If you have the time document the number of time he actually describes Roger in those terms.

Did Greg actually ever meet Patterson or is his impression of Roger based strictly on the people who knew him?

DId anyone on the Forum ever meet Patterson and care to give a characterization?

Yay,

I got am email from Amazon. Looks like the book finally shipped. I usualy like to keep my books in good condition, but with this one I think I'll be marking it all up as I take notes - just like a college text book.

Kimble

One other thing: there is a picture of Heironimus in the book walking, and it supposedly matches up with "Patty", but I took the dustjacket of the book off and put it side by side with the picture, and they are similar, but Heironimus's kness lock more than "Patty", so again, I am still not convinced. I showed the comparison to my mother, and even she said that they weren't similar.

there will never be a similar recreation. Again, assuming it was a man in suit, the fact that over 30 years have passed and that any re-creation will have addicts pouring over the footage frame by frame...well its simply impossible to recreate it perfectly. I'm still interested to know if Bob H.'s right foot is a bit of a "club foot".

And this is the same man that whined to Bip that people on this forum were calling him names. At least he can get online and defend himself.

He can, but he doesn't. Whassa' matta' Greg? You still have questions to answer. Oh, I forget, just buy the book right? :rolleyes:

Hey Bf2004, please let us know if sideshow bob says anything about what was used for padding or to achieve the bulky appearence and definition of the suit!!
So far, I have heard nothing about padding used for this supposed suit!! And if Sideshow Bob claims there was no padding used well then he would have to have been built better than Arnold Schwarzennegar, or Lou Ferrigno to have been in the supposed suit!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Thanks bud!!

I read an E-mail from John Green today refering to the picture of Sideshow Bob from the book!! Seems comparisons were made and good ole Bob falls way short!!
I must get John's Permission before I can post the letter, but as soon as I do I will post it!! And if someone else gets John's go ahead before I do, Please post the letter!!
Plus the fact that Greg and co. could have taken a dozen pictures till they got one
close enough to put in the book!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Will do, tarran.

Tarran...Bob H. says that he kept his clothes on during the filming and that accounts for the bulk! Bob H. comes off as a bit of clown in the book IMO

Well, if Bob H. said that, then he has really screwed up in his continuing lie!!
There is no way that mass could have been achieved by Bob H. just wearing his clothes underneath!! This also means, if and when these Assclowns do try to recreate the film, Sideshow Bob, should only be allowed to wear his clothes under the suit just like he claims he did in 1967!! Now we really got him!!

Sideshow Bob is a clown!! And I am now cristening Bob H. with another nickname!!
From this moment on, let it be known that Sideshow Bob, also known as One Eyed
Bob, is hereby given another nickname and shall also be known as,
BOBBY THE BOOB!!

second the motion for BOBBY THE BOOB!!

You guys are wearing me out!
OK! Here is the latest incarnation of Sideshow Bob!
Enter! From Yakima Washington ..at unknown weight....Bobby the Boob!!

It won't matter. If Greg Long and Bob HerveVillachaize get the money for a TV show featuring a reinactment, they will have won, so to speak. If they get their TV deal and their money, then they no longer have to prove anything with a reinactment. Whether they pull it off or not, they'll have been paid. That's all they care about.

JOHN GREEN'S LETTER,
The pictures in Greg Long's book contain clear proof that whatever the
Patterson film creature may be it is not Bob Heironimus in a suit and it is
not anyone in a Philip Morris gorilla costume.

The photo of Bob H imitating the creature's stride provides a good
opportunity to measure his arms and legs. The length of his arm from
shoulder to wrist compared to his leg from hip to ankle is plainly in the 65
to 70 percent range.

The same measurements for the creature, as determined by Vision Realm
through sophisticated computer study of the film, are in the 85 to 90
percent range.

There may be, quoting the NASI report, one human in 50 million with an arm
length like that of the film creature, but Bob H obviously is not one of
them.

As to the Morris costume, anyone can see it hasn't the slightest resemblance
to the film creature.

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, BC

On target!

I'm amazed Morris thinks the only difference between the suit in the photo in the book and Patty was that the fur was brushed down in the PG film. Why then didn't he supply a suit to GL (he must have at least one in inventory, or be able to obtain one back from one of his customers) so GL could then brush down the fur to provide a more convincing photo-image for his book?

Morris stated that the latex in his old suits would have become brittle by now, but it would still hold together well enough for someone to put on a suit and be photographed in it. So that can't be used an excuse for not doing so. It just wouldn't stand up to an actor moving around vigorously in it in a magic show--but that's not what's required. We just want to see what brushed-down fur would look like.

These guys in the animal-costume business seem to have rather large egos, plus an "it's ALL fake" attitude. Morris's glib assurance that his suit was used is possibly based on a belief that Patty couldn't possibly be real, and a secondary subconscious resentment of the idea that some other suit-maker's costume was used. Which would mean the other guy's costume was--ugly thought!--better than his. So perhaps, if he wants to prevent himself from being one-upped, he's claiming credit, despite the dissimilarity of his costume.

I'm reminded of John Chamber's attitude. He let people believe he did the PG suit primarily because he was certain it was a fake, and he therefore didn't want to let people get the idea that there was some OTHER (better) costume maker who did it--which is what he thought they'd think if he didn't give them the impression it was his.

Someone send a copy of Green's letter, along with several of the graphics that NightWing so capably made up last night, to Rense -- along with a demand that the pro-real position be given their second opportunity at bat (I believe Rense has already inferred, earlier, that he was going to give both parties a second round, and that has happened already for the Heironimus/Long/Korff camp).

If Rense has an ounce of true journalistic curiosity, and more importantly the capacity to look at evidence and make a realistic judgement, there is no way he can consider those sources and come to the conclusion that the Morris gorilla suit story (and consequently the entire claim of Heironimus and Long) can hold water.

If nothing else, it will prove whether or not Rense is, in fact, interested in presenting both sides with equal time. I'd love it if, given the chance, John Green would be a guest in the next program for the sane side.

If fact, I think the items mentioned should be included in a packet and sent to all cable and major networks to see if interest can be stimulated for a true, unbiased documentary exploring the two sides of this conflict.

I wouldn't help this losers book sales by buying a copy, as that is what he is after........ Book sales.

I highly doubt they even really care if anyone believes them or not, as long as they are interested enough to buy the book.

Don't buy the book, people!!

Re Cochise's post: Yes, yes, yes--but I'm a little shy (or "unsocial" anyway) and not media-savvy. I hope whoever does this uses the format I suggested in one of these threads an hour ago (my head is spinning from all the typing I've been doing). That's the one where I suggested including a picture of a bent-armed Patty alongside NW's annotated picture, and that a five-item list summarizing John Green's breakthrough analysis (and crediting him) be attached below it. (My words in that list can be used without crediting me--they're just a paraphrase of what Green wrote.)

More suggestions: This distribution would be dramatically enhanced if someone did Photoshop work and produced two more images:

1. Patty's arm extended straight down with BH's arm overlaid on it and treated with a filtered-through-gauze effect, as though we are "seeing" a cutaway view through an apesuit into the clothing of the person inside. The hand would be holding a 10" extension to fill up Patty's hand.

2. Patty's arm bent with BH's bent arm inside it, showing the elbow to be 10" too high on the arm, and the forearm to be nearly twice the length of the upper arm. (What Green called the Edward Scissorhands look.)

Those unforgetable images will win millions of converts to the Bigfoot Brigades. (And we couldn't have done it without BH!)

Note--it doesn't have to be BH's image that is used. Any 6-footer's image will do, or even a drawing. Likewise, a photo image of Patty doesn't have to be used. A drawing of a generic Bigfoot with the same proportions as Patty would be fine.

Big Head is right!!! The way Morris acted on the show last night, and with the way Rense praised him, I'm amazed Morris's head didn't swell up into a huge balloon
and float away!! :rolleyes:

Hey Mr. Morris, just wondering, if your Gorilla costumes are so realistic and your costume knowledge so fantastic, why weren't you asked to work on costumes for The Planet Of The Apes?? :rolleyes:
And why can I tell that your costumes are just that, A COSTUME!! :rolleyes:
Also, why did you wait almost 37 years to bring all this up Mr. Morris??
It seems to me SILLY PHILLY is just out to get some free publicity for his company!!
How convienient Silly Phil has no records or reciepts, or any other evidence to prove he ever sold a suit to Patterson!! Oh, but we will just take your word for it Phillip!! :rolleyes: No wonder Silly precedes your name!! :rolleyes:

Uh, tarran, I ain't too sure that Morris is reading this forum.

Well just in case Fish. :rolleyes:
Besides, I'm sure one of the other stooges will relay the "Nasty post" to him!!

I have a scanned image of Bob H super-imposed over Patty. I am wondering if posting it would violate copyright law???


Just noticed somebody else did it ....check it out! http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4721

Not in my opinion.

Speaking of copyright law violations, does anyone know if Greg and the funky bunch got permission to use the photo that appears on the cover of "the book"?

Good question Jaylee!! :rolleyes:

I'm sure Prometheus has a careful legal department that would have guaranteed that this was handled properly. (But where were their careful (ahem, skeptical) editors?)

From what I understand, that image has been seen so many times and used so often, it is considered to be in the public domain. The other frames are not, however.

Huh?

Jaylee, I think he meant "not".

Not not not. Fixed it...

See, THAT's the sort of typo (I've seen about six so far) that can trip people up, which is why I used to point them out (i.e., from helpfulness). No more--I'll just "Report the post" and hope a moderator will make the correction.

Report it and I'll fix it. Or, PM me and I'll fix it. I apologize for ever griping about your "nit-pickiness" in the past and you've proven yourself to be a valuable asset to this group. But you don't need me to tell you that.

BWHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I just love pickin on the 'boss'!





I agree Roger, nit-pick away.

Ahhh

GROUP HUG!!!

Oh no! Don't let Jimf see that!

John Green has reviewed "The Making of Bigfoot". The review is here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bigfoot/

Don't you need to be part of that group to read the review you're talking about?

Yeah you do, bip. I will probably type up the review either later tonight or tomorrow.

As promised, here is John Green's review of "The Making of Bigfoot"

"Prometheus Books sent a review copy of Greg Long's "The Making of Bigfoot" to my postal box. i hadn't asked for it and it was not addressed to me, but having taken the liberty of reading it, and even highlighting some of it, I guess I am obligated to review it.

"The author makes it clear that he began with two firm convictions, that the creature in Roger Patterson's film of Bigfoot had to be a man in a suit, and that if he could demonstrate that Roger Patterson was a bad person that would prove he had hoaxed the film.

"Burdened with those limitations he did a very thorough investigation, but the limitations were fatal. In the valley west of Yakima where Patterson lived he found a lot of people to tell him what he wanted to hear, even a man who had been claiming for years that he wore the suit in the film, but he didn't consider it necessary to familiarize himself with that other valley in California where the film was shot. As a result he was blind to the fact that Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to have driven there to act the part in the film, obviously had never been there either.

"Confusion over which towns are where in that part of California might be explained by the passing of over 30 years, but not "about four, maybe five miles" up the Bluff Creek Road from the highway. It would have been more than 20 miles of twisting dirt road, and not easy miles, well over an hour's drive, and not a forgettable one.

"Much of the book is a transcript of what people had to say about Roger Patterson, mostly, but by no means entirely, unfavorable things, and Long makes clear that he thought that would have been enough to disprove the film even if he had never interviewed the man who claimed to have worn the suit or the man who claimed to have made it.

"He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms too short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows.

"Long does have witnesses who say that Heironimus had a long history of claiming to have been the "man in the suit" and that they once saw such a suit in his car, but they make no connection to Patterson, there is only Heironimus' word on that.

"And Long has fitted blinders on himself so closely that he can see nothing wrong with his two key witnesses describing, with many specific details, two totally different suits-a three-piece suit made of raw horsehide and a six-piece suit made of cloth. Philip Morris' story was apparently a last-minute addition after the book was finished. It would have been to Long's credit that he chose to add material so damaging to the case he was trying to make, except that he apparently thought he was making the case stronger.

"Long obviously worked hard on his book and I learned some things from it, so perhaps I should feel sorry for him being so easily taken in. It is his own fault however. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself."

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, BC

What gets me is why he or Prometheus didn't have prominent Bigfoot skeptics check this book over and catch his mistakes? Prometheus, through its informal link to CSICOP & SI, could easily have called on them. Perhaps Prometheus is so contemptuous of believers and the Bigfoot-is-real concept that they thought that such checking was unnecessary.

Or if such scoftics DID review his book (which I think is more likely) and didn't catch the errors, that indicates their experts aren't all that knowledgeable. As Henry Bauer wrote (Science or Pseudoscience, p. 79), "Many debunkers are surprisingly uninformed about the nitty gritty of the anomalies they denigrate."

Greg Long's great judgmentalism and self-assurance (and his associated grandiosity, which I noted a few weeks ago) either comes out of the "same bag" as that of the scoftics, or is something bizarre (as RedWolf observed). He seems like a self-appointed prosecutor who formed a rigid "theory of the case" and couldn't be budged from it.

I've wanted to read Long's book to see what all the fuss is about and to establish my own opinion. I know many people have spoken against it, but this is America where I am free to spend my money where I want and to read what I want. Even after listening to Long on the Rense program and reading is posts on this forum, I've decided to read his book and see for myself.

It finally arrived Friday after having ordered it back in February.

I have yet to read more than two chapters, but my initial impression is one of disappointment. The first chapter, in which recounts the story how Patterson shot the footage, reads like fiction rather than investigative journalism and critical thinking; Long claims to be practicing both in his introduction. Instead of relating the facts or the sequence of events, as they are known, Long writes about Patterson's & Gimlin's thought processes, opinions and emotions. Again, it reads more like an historical fiction novel than investigative journalism. I have a B.A. in History and as one who is reading contantly, mostly non fiction and works of investigative political jounralism, and I can tell the good from the bad. But back to Long, he also refers to Patterson in derogatory terms (little man, puny man, small man) at every writing of his name. Just after reading the first chapter, Long comes across as having an axe to grind.

In the second chapter Long explains how he came across this hoax while doing some other investigations in the area. After speaking to two people and obtaining a "solid background on the Bigfot subject and Patterson" by reading up on them (his bibliography lists nine books as references and he seems to rely mostly on Green) he has decided that Patterson was a con man and how could he, Long, prove it. Later, speaking to Larry Lund and viewing the footage only seems to have cemented this hypothesis.

We shall see how the rest of the book progresses as I try to suppress a bias against his writing based on what I have read so far. Having read his posts here hasn't helped but I'll read the entire book.

Kimble

I've read about 140 pages of the book--the chapters at the end, where the meat of the case is found. (I'm less interested in the stuff about Patterson's character and pre-67 activities.) Here are some questions the author should have asked the witnesses who saw the suit in the car, and that it's puzzling that he didn't ask:

1. How closely did you examine it? Did you touch it, or lift it? (A couple of witnesses said they didn't touch it, but others, the ones at the bar, said it was out of the car, I think.)

2. Did it have breasts?

3. Did it have a great girth, like the PG subject, or did it have the normal dimensions of a gorilla suit?

4. What about the smell? Was it just around the head? Did it smell like an adhesive, or like old horsehide?

5. Were the hands and feet visible? Were they attached or separate, and if attached, were they riveted on or integral?

6. What did the material look or feel like--cloth or leather?

Why wasn't a costume borrowed from Morris and shown to witnesses so they could be asked:

1. Does its hair and fabric backing resemble what they saw? (Only a sample of Dynel cloth is needed!)

2. Do its hands and feet resemble the ones they recall? (Asked of the witnesses who saw those parts.) Only the hands and feet would be needed, so Morris shouldn't mind lending or donating them.

I've learned from the book that Morris is a millionaire--so you'd think he'd be glad to donate a suit for this purpose, and for a Long to do an amateur (videocam) re-creation.

Heck, maybe he'd like to finance a professional recreation! He should perhaps be challenged to do so, since he's so sure it's his suit.

Other questions that weren't asked (or for which the answer wasn't printed), and should now be asked. (Since his aunt put the headpiece over her head, she'd know the answers to these questions.):

A. What did the face look like? (I.e., did it resemble the PG subject or the mask on the Morris suit?)

B. Was there a false eye glued in the eye-socket, as BH claimed?

C. How hard was it to see out the eyeholes?