Bigfoot Forums > No Lawsuit + Not Science

Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Film, Video, Photo & Audio Discussion > Patterson / Gimlin Film > 'The Making of Bigfoot' Book

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Greg Long

Apr 7 2004, 10:55 PM

To the "Discussion" Group:

I know of nobody who has filed a lawsuit against Bob Gimlin, as Bigfoot Forums has inaccurately reported. I think Bigfoot Forums should disabuse themselves of this rumor.

It is futile to measure Bob H's limbs and the Patterson film "Bigfoot" in an attempt to explain away Bob. Until the same camera Patterson used is applied, with same lens, same or similar film, same or similar processing, same or similar lighting conditions, with Bob H in Morris-modified suit, these naked eyeball "calculations" for a waste of time. NOT SCIENCE.

Thanks to those who have chosen to read my book and open their minds. The Making of Bigfoot was long overdue. I am proud that I wrote it.

Greg Long

tarran

Apr 7 2004, 11:01 PM

I disagree with you Greg, However, I am just going to patiently wait for the recreation on tv!! It will be very interesting to see Bob H. achieve the sheer bulk of the film subject without using any padding, only his clothes just like he stated he did in 67!! And that won't be the only thing that is gonna be interesting to see!!!
This recreation if you and your associates attempt it, will prove you are all wrong once and for all!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fishbone35

Apr 7 2004, 11:01 PM

Uh, here ya' go, Brainiac.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4735

BTW, you got that rebuttal written up yet?

bf2004

Apr 7 2004, 11:06 PM

Ok, Mr. Long, we have disabused ourselves of the rumor. I apologize on behalf of everyone here. I also apologize for insulting you and your camp in the past. I also think it is very rude of you to say that naked eyeball calculations are not scientific. I think your book and the half-truths and allegations are very unscientific, and the calculations are NOT a "waste of time". And yes, I am reading your book right now, and I find it to be full of hearsay, allegations and half-truths, but no evidence of real wrong-doing from Patterson. Until you and your camp come up with substantial proof of your allegations, we will continue to disbelieve you.

tarran

Apr 7 2004, 11:28 PM

OH GREG,
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?&act=ST&f=3&t=4722
14TH POST DOWN BY FISHBONE :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fishbone35

Apr 7 2004, 11:32 PM

Or, the quick and dirty.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=93702

Don't forget tarran, Greg tends to overlook things and not pay alot of attention to detail. He might miss it if he has to count.

And Greg, just in case you've forgotten, here's what you told Rense that you had the fortitude to rebutt:

QUOTE

These two articles are submitted for publication as either news or op-ed, on condition that they are both published together and as written,
with the exception that the last three or the last two paragraphs of the story 'by John Green' can be left out if preferred. If those terms are not acceptable then consider this submission just FYI.

Any additional news or comment is up to you, of course.

John Green, MS(J), Columbia '48

------------------------

By John Green

Almost thirty-seven years ago two young men from Yakima,
Washington, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, emerged from a remote
forest in the northwest corner of California with a brief 16-millimeter film
showing a hairy creature walking along a sand bar on its hind legs, and the
debate on whether their film shows an unknown animal or a man wearing a fur
suit has gone on ever since.

Now, thanks to a new book on the subject, that debate should be at an end. The answer has been in plain view all along, the creature on the film holding it, quite literally, in its arms. And that answer, ironically, is the opposite of the one in the book.

The creature can not be a man in a suit.

The writer of the book, of which only review copies are so far available, claims to have cracked the case by finding two key witnesses, the man who wore the suit, a Yakima acquaintance of Patterson and Gimlin named Bob Heironimus, and the man who sold a gorilla suit to Patterson and told him how to modify it, Philip Morris, a costume maker from Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Heironimus story is not new. It surfaced several years ago one of the many unsubstantiated claims to have been "the man in the suit" that crop up from time to time. Phillip Morris appears to be a real find, a man who actually was making gorilla costumes in 1967 and who says he remembers selling one to Roger Patterson.

One of the things that Morris is quoted as saying is that the way to make the arms in the suit look longer than human arms is to extend the gloves of the suit on sticks. Many people have noted that the arms of the creature in the film look unusually long, almost as long as its legs. Some, including myself in 1968, have published estimates of their length. No one went on to deal with the question of how human arms could be extended to match the extra length and what such an extension would look like.

There is no way to establish for certain if any of the dimensions estimated for the creature in the film are accurate, but what can be established with reasonably accuracy is the length of the creature's legs and arms in relation to one another. From that ratio, which anatomists call the "intermembral index", it is simple to calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make his arms long enough to fit the supposed suit. In my own case the answer turns out to be about 10 inches.

But in order for the arms to bend at the elbow, which they plainly do in the movie, all of that extra length has to be added to the lower arm. The result, in my case, is about 12 inches of arm above the elbow and 29 inches below it-almost as much of a monstrosity as Edward Scissorhands. The creature in the movie has normal-looking arms. It cannot be a man in a suit.

Many issues in the long debate about the movie remain unresolved-what the film speed was, whether a man could duplicate the creature's unusual bent-kneed walk, whether its behavior was normal for an animal, whether the tracks left on the sandbar could have been faked, and so on-but all of them turn out to have been irrelevant to the main issue.

My measurements of the film, made 36 years ago, gave the creature arms that were 30 inches from the shoulder to the wrist and legs that were 35 inches from the hip to the ground. My own measurements are about 24 inches from shoulder to wrist and 40 inches from hip to ground. Only the ratios of the measurements matter, the actual size of either the human or the creature makes no difference, and the ratios for creature and human are so much different that precise accuracy of the measurements is not significant either. The much ridiculed Patterson-Gimlin film does not show a man in a suit.

What about Roger Patterson buying a gorilla suit? Philip Morris does not claim to have records, only a memory, and neither Mrs. Patterson nor Bob Gimlin remember Roger having any such suit. But Roger was trying to make a Bigfoot documentary at that time and most such documentaries contain re-enactments by someone wearing a fur suit. If he did buy one it has little more significance than an apprentice carpenter buying a hammer.

And the descriptions of the suit by the two key witnesses are totally contradictory. Morris is quoted as having described his suit in precise detail, and how he made it. The suit had six separate pieces: a head a body (arms, torso and legs), two hands and two feet. A knitted cloth material served as a backing to thousands of synthetic nylon strands called dynel, which were driven by a powerful knitting machine with needles through the knitted cloth material and then pulled back through to the other side. It had a 36-inch zipper up the back.

Bob Heironimus is also quoted, saying that Patterson made the suit himself by skinning a dead horse and gluing fur from an old fur coat on the horsehide. It was in three parts, head, torso and legs that felt like bigger rubber boots and that went to his waist. He thought the feet were made of old house slippers. The suit weighted 20 or 25 pounds and he needed help to get in and out of it. It also smelled bad. "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse."
--------------------------------

"It has been obvious to even the casual viewer that the film subject possesses arms that are disproportionately long for its stature. John Green is a veteran researcher into the question of Sasquatch or Bigfoot. He was among the first to view the film captured by Patterson and Gimlin and has studied it intensely in the intervening years. His recognition of the significance of the unhumanly long arms of the film subject is point that has not previously been articulated in such a straightforward manner. It is such a fundamental observation that it is considered a breakthrough in assessing the validity of this extraordinary film. Anthropologists
typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM), which is the
ratio of combined arm and forearm skeletal length (humerus + radius) to
combined thigh and leg skeletal length (femur + tibia) x 100. The human IM
averages 72. The intermembral index is a significant measure of a primate's
locomotor adapatation. The forelimb-dominated movements of the chimp and
gorilla are reflected in their high IM indices of 106 and 117 respectively.
Identifying the positions of the joints on the film subject can only be
approximate and the limbs are frequently oriented obliquely to the plane of the film, rendering them foreshortened to varying degrees. However, in some
frames the limbs are nearly vertical, hence parallel to the filmplane, and
indicate an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes. In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary
estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-
a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an
elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the
appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible
on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out
the probability of hoaxing."

Jeff Meldrum Ph.D.
Associate professor of Anatomy & Anthropology
Idaho State University

Dr. Meldrum is an expert in primate anatomy and locomotion. He
recently coedited, From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human
Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. He became interested in the sasquatch
question eight years ago after witnessing 15-inch tracks in southeastern
Washington state. He has examined numerous footprints, including those
associated with the Patterson Gimlin film.

nightwing

Apr 7 2004, 11:32 PM

Something appears to have gotten under their skin.....

cochise

Apr 7 2004, 11:58 PM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 10:55 PM)

It is futile to measure Bob H's limbs and the Patterson film "Bigfoot" in an attempt to explain away Bob. Until the same camera Patterson used is applied, with same lens, same or similar film, same or similar processing, same or similar lighting conditions, with Bob H in Morris-modified suit, these naked eyeball "calculations" for a waste of time. NOT SCIENCE.

Mr. Long, please explain to me, a photographer of some skill who made a good living at it for over 13 years, how using the same kind of camera and film that Roger possessed, under similar conditions as were present in 1967, makes any difference in measuring RATIOS of the arm and leg lengths.

Do you have any inkling of how ridiculous you make yourself appear when you make comments such as this?

Sometimes, sir, I feel embarrassed for you -- and I say that in all sincerity.

SgtFang

Apr 8 2004, 12:11 AM

QUOTE(nightwing @ Apr 7 2004, 11:32 PM)

Something appears to have gotten under their skin.....

Hehe, maybe it was the realization that Bob Gimlin has dozens, if not hundreds of people who'd go to bat for him both legally and/or finacially, in a pinch.

-Sarge

littlefoot_seeking_bigfoot

Apr 8 2004, 12:18 AM

TO MR. LONG

I am well aware of your Ph.D in Crytozoology. Amazing... Your dissertation must have been upwards of 3 pages, Congrats.

HarryHenderson

Apr 8 2004, 12:31 AM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 09:55 PM)

Just taking a shot in the dark here, but it seems to ME that YOU personally, Greg Long, would have already DONE THIS, or had it done, just to do that last little eensy teeny tiny bit of 'confirmation' one would seemingly and NORMALLY need (and more importantly, WANT) in such matters of refutation. Have you in fact done this and just aren't saying? I also assume by your 'outright dismissal' of our own off-hand comparisons that the only people 'qualified' to do such surely wouldn't be members of this board and in fact must be ones of YOUR choosing only? As if OUR bias is prejudicial and yours not?!?!

Yes, you've 'trampled' on a piece of 'Bigfoot history' that we hold dear. And for whatever reasons only YOU know, I'm sure you find that 'perversely fulfilling'. The problem is you did it using 'methods' and 'conclusions' that insult even the common man's sense of intelligence and fair play. I'm sure it SEEMS that our biggest 'problem' with your book is "how dare he?", but it's not that simple. If you have been 'lurking around' and read the many many posts on this subject, you SHOULD have gathered that the underlying cause of our discontent isn't about you personally, which probably comes as a blow to your ego, but whatever. It's about the OBVIOUS (to us, not necessarily to all people) inconsistencies and outright 'leaps of faith' you expect the readers of your book to endure. "Roger Patterson had spent time in jail...blah blah blah...thus he's a hoaxer." Again, it's not that simple DESPITE how you've made it appear.

I doubt you have realized this YET, but using the P/G film footage as it is and all the film circumstances being the same, had Roger Patterson been some 'ultimate upstanding Joe citizen' with nary a blemish on his 'record', you'd have NO BOOK. The ONLY reason you have a book is because the main player happened to have a less than desireable credit score and reputation with SOME people. Oh and that he's DEAD. What would your 'proof' be IF he had been an 'above reproach' character? Bob H.'s statements? Ha! I'm guessing even YOU wouldn't have based a book on only THAT.

Controversy over books/films/articles that cast a dark shadow on the 'image' of 'well known figures' isn't anything new. The fact that there IS controversy doesn't prove anything either. I know they say that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe true, but only to a certain point in time. At that point you have to finally 'put up or shut up' and fullfill the promises that were made. Are you ready, willing and able to do that? I do hope you're not down at the bank cashing in all those 'royalties' just yet. The old Don Quixote 'refrain', "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" definitely holds true in this case. And we've yet to even sit down for dinner. Dessert comes later.

"Harry"

touchanymonkeys

Apr 8 2004, 12:33 AM

Mr. Long, I would just like to point out that rumors of lawsuits were not originally invented by members of this forum.
Please note these posts by Kal Korff:
From http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...t=0&#entry85296

QUOTE

...we want to have Gimlin under oath, get cross-examined, and yes, we are cooperating with the police for consumer fraud charges.
...Every time Gimlin says we are lying, that builds our libel and slander case.And so far with many papers reprinting his denial, it is one count per incident. So, if I were Gimlin, I would be very worried.

From http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=82347

QUOTE

After the book is out, the Washington State Attorney General will be contacted, and the charges and investigation may very well include those of Consumer Fraud.

From http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=84087

QUOTE

WE WANT MR. BOB GIMLIN UNDER OATH, CANNOT WAIT TO GET HIM UNDER OATH, AND MR. GIMLIN WILL PROBABLY BE FACING A LAWSUIIT FROM US ABOUT HIS DENIALS.

Please disabuse yourself of the idea that we are inventing these rumors, and address your concerns to Mr. Korff. We appreciate your clarification that no lawsuit has been filed.

While I'm in the mood for quoting people...
I direct you to these words from Greg Long which were the last we heard from you until today:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=20&#entry88646

QUOTE

I just told everyone here that I would be back to answer all the questions, and one of the members decided I was avoiding answering.
This is the problem. Some of you are not understanding or reading what I write here.
I said I will be back.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=20&#entry88639

QUOTE

I have NOT answered all the questions. But I will.
...
No, I am not trying to duck your questions. I will come back and address them all.

I was sorry that you did not fulfill these promises, as we still have many questions.

I do have one question I would like to ask you, since you have decided to visit us again, regarding specific comments you made. I quote one of your own posts again:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...t=0&#entry88606
(my italics)

QUOTE

2. Please explain how the observed flinger flexing was achieved at the end of an arm that likely was at least partially a prosthetic (based on it being much longer than a typical human's).

COMMENT FROM GL: If there is finger flexing, the effect is from a finger moving in the latext glove.

In addition, how was the arm contructed so that it was longer than a typical human's but still flexible at all the joints and was not "Edward Scissorhands-like" in proportion?

ANSWER: The arms of Bob Heironimus are 35 inches long (sleeve length) and he is, today, 6 feet 1/4 inches tall. He has long arms. Arms on gorilla suits or other costumes can be extended by using a stick with a glove on the end of the stick. Morris told Patterson how to extend the arms.

You seem to make contradicting statements here. My question is this: Did 'the suit' involve prosthetically-lengthened arms with an empty glove, or were Mr. Heironimus' hands in the gloves themselves?
You also say that Morris told Patterson how to extend the arms. Was Patterson responsible for the modifications to the suit, or was it Morris as you said in the beginning of this thread ("Morris-modified suit")?
For my part, you have inspired very little faith that you have any desire to answer our questions, but I hope you can find some time to do so.

Fishbone35

Apr 8 2004, 12:43 AM

QUOTE(Kal Korff)

...we want to have Gimlin under oath, get cross-examined, and yes, we are cooperating with the police for consumer fraud charges.
...Every time Gimlin says we are lying, that builds our libel and slander case.And so far with many papers reprinting his denial, it is one count per incident. So, if I were Gimlin, I would be very worried.

QUOTE(Greg Long)

9. "Which police department are you cooperating with in regard to the 'consumer fraud' case against Bob Gimlin (source Kal Korff)?"

Answer: I am cooperating with no one with regard to such a case.

FUN-NEE!

You guys can't even get your stories straight. Gee, I wonder if Kiviat is still grinning like an idiot now? Looks like that "buzz" all over Hollywood is dying.

Mike I

Apr 8 2004, 12:59 AM

QUOTE

I think Bigfoot Forums should disabuse themselves of this rumor.

disabuse is defined as, to free from error, fallacy, or misconception

hmmmmmm, Mr Long, funny how you use a word that does not describe your book.

QUOTE

Hmmm, You have said all along to PROVE YOU WRONG!

Well, Mr Long, enough is enough.

Science is what is going to PROVE YOU WRONG!

Your book is based on assumptions that you want others to believe. If you really were looking for the truth then you should of really dug deep for every piece of evidence to prove that you are right.

You keep using the line, "read the book", why should I? If I ask you a question concerning your book then you should be able to answer me with what you know from your own notes and research. Not a canned answer of "read the book."

I am very skeptical of your methods and reasoning concerning the Patterson / Gimlin film. You have stated that You have not reviewed the film? Then how can you say without a doubt that Bob H. is the "bigfoot" in the film? And that story has been changing since you announced your book.

QUOTE

It is futile to measure Bob H's limbs and the Patterson film "Bigfoot" in an attempt to explain away Bob.

Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index which basicly is defined as the length of the humerus and radius relative to the length of the femur and tibia. This what scienitist use to measure when comparing animals. Mr Long, that is science at work. If you would done your research you would known that.

QUOTE

eyeball "calculations"

- isn't that what you did? Visual study (i.e., my eyes). Video tape copy supplied by Larry Lund. Still pictures. - from: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=88631

Paul1968UK

Apr 8 2004, 03:04 AM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 8 2004, 04:55 AM)

Greg,

How can you say that when you didn't even examine the film properly in the first place ?

Watching it on a second or third generation video tape supplied by Larry Lund is not sufficient - your scientific background shoudl have taught you that.

That said, I look forward to a proper reconstruction - done in one take - not the three hours you spent photographing and filming Heironimous to get one shot that looks vaugley like a frame in the film.

Thank you by the way for confirming to us that Kal Korff LIED regarding you and he co-operating with the Police regarding a Consumer Fraud suit. It is nice to see that at least one half of this double-act has some integrity left.

Just to re-cap though - because you make a big deal about Patterson's honesty in your book.

Kal Korff lied about you and he 'Deposing' witnesses

Kal Korff lied about co-operating with the Police

Kal Korff lied about the reason for hoaxing the film being because he 'knew he was dying'

Kal Korff lied when he said that Heironimous would be put back into the 'original suit'.

Kal Korff lied about Bob Heironimous walking funny because he had been in a car accident - BH clearly said that Patterson showed him how he wanted the walk done.

Kal Korff or Bob Kiviat lied to Mrs. Patterson when getting permission to use the PGF for 'Worlds Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed' by sending a contract with the title of the show as 'Worlds Greatest'

Kal Korff and Bob Kiviat lied in their show when they said that Roger Patterson was on the payrol of ANE before the PGF was shot

Kal Korff and Bob Kiviat lied about Jerry Romney being in the suit

Kal Korff lied about being the President and CEO of 'Total Research' - 'Total Research Inc.' have never heard of him.

Kal Korff claims to have made a nuclear bomb at home - I'm pretty sure he would have been arrested for that.

I could go on, but I think you get the point !

Lets not forget YOUR threat of a lawsuit against this very board shall we ?

If we are talking about trustworthy people, you should be careful who you hang around with Mr. Long - your association with your Publicist Kal K Korff does nothing but harm your book.

I know you won't reply to this post because it is probably too difficult a subject for you to accept that your publicist and friend is a liar, but here goes..

Mr Long, are we to believe that Bob Heironimous, a man with some considerable experience of horses - who had enough horses to lend Bob Gimlin one, is so stupid that he wouldn't recognise horsehide when he saw it ?

A 'confession' from a man that stupid can't surely be regarded as accurate, can it ?

I would like to interview you sometime for my new book called 'The Making of Kal K. Korff' - I hope you don't mind if I tape record it - I'm a stickler for accuracy you see !

BTW - don't you think it would have been a nice gesture to pay for the meal you had with Vilma Radford yourself ? You spend the whole book berating Patterson for freeloading, and there you are, profiting from her interview, and letting this old, disabled woman pay to feed a 6'8" man before she climbs back into "her old, beat up Plymouth"

Nice one Greg !

Painthorse

Apr 8 2004, 03:18 AM

What a total load of horse puckies

StacyInMI

Apr 8 2004, 03:24 AM

QUOTE

BTW - don't you think it would have been a nice gesture to pay for the meal you had with Vilma Radford yourself ? You spend the whole book berating Patterson for freeloading, and there you are, profiting from her interview, and letting this old, disabled woman pay to feed a 6'8" man before she climbs back into "her old, beat up Plymouth"

Nice one Greg !

Niiiiiiiiiice..... :rolleyes:

Paul1968UK

Apr 8 2004, 03:27 AM

Greg Long,

Page 452 of your book, regarding the 2003 Unconvention.

For the record, Korff was not "Given "center stage" of the convention by Fortean Times, in part to announce that this book was being released'

I was there - Korff was supposed to be giving us a lecture regarding the supposed hoaxing, but instead decided to do little more than lie to us about the depositions, lie to us about the legal documents with hoaxing clause, and say little more than BUY THE BOOK. He did not offer us a Q&A session.

Fortean Times were very annoyed by this.

Please feel free to call the editor David Sutton to confirm this - pm or email me if you need his office phone number.

Loren Coleman gave his presentation much later in the confrence - long after Korff had finished embarrasing himself. The first thing Coleman said was that 'some people here will tell you its a hoax - I won't'.

Video tapes of Korff and Coleman's lectures are available if you would like to check these facts.

SgtFang

Apr 8 2004, 04:09 AM

QUOTE

Thank you by the way for confirming to us that Kal Korff LIED regarding you and he co-operating with the Police regarding a Consumer Fraud suit.

Bloated Windbag...

-Sarge

RogerKni

Apr 8 2004, 04:41 AM

GL stressed the need for an exact recreation of the film in order to make an accurate comparison. If so, that recreation should show not just a creature with a longer arm, which can easily be achieved with shoulder pads, which would add a couple of inches, plus an arm-extender which would add the seven more needed for a match. (I infer that this is what GL has in mind by "a Morris-modified suit," even though it wouldn't agree with BH's statement that he used no extenders.) But the recreation can't stop there--it must be complete. It must include a shot of BH bending his elbow sharply and revealing an equal-length forearm and upper arm, the way the Bigfoot did in the image I posted.

BTW, there's no evidence that only "eyeball calculations" were used by NightWing in estimating that the arm of Patty is proportionately 25% longer than BH's. It's very likely that he used a ruler. Or, if he didn't, that's no problem, since any of his audience can do so. In other words, NW wasn't trying to force his mere impressions on anyone, or use them as the basis for his case, which would have been unscientific. No--he was presenting the data, and letting it speak for itself, which is the scientific procedure. And what he's displaying can't be dismissed as just his personal "massaging" of the images with photo-trickery either. Green, Meldrum, and Glickman have examined the arm-length to leg-length ratios on Patty and found the same 25% greater arm-length ratio than in a typical human (like BH), and presumably they used calipers. (Glickman even counted pixels.) Anyone can do the same.

One can turn this sneer on its head and argue that it would be more damning if a critic could make the opposite charge and say that the effect NW had claimed was one that could be found only by "looking at the data with a microscope," and hence that it's too trivial to mean anything. The fact that Patty's disproportionate arm length is, on the contrary, so shockingly apparent that fractions of an inch needn't be quibbled over justifies NW's rough-and-ready evaluation. It's more than adequate for the task at hand.

bipto

Apr 8 2004, 06:07 AM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 11:55 PM)

I know of nobody who has filed a lawsuit against Bob Gimlin, as Bigfoot Forums has inaccurately reported. I think Bigfoot Forums should disabuse themselves of this rumor.

Just for the record, the BFF does not 'report' anything. This is a forum, not a news service. And in any event, the rumor has already been shot down, but thanks for stepping up to 'set us straight' and to also keep the beehive buzzing. Who's needs publicists, eh?

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 11:55 PM)

Please, show me on what page of your book you use 'science' to demonstrate that Bob H could be the guy in the 'suit'. I've looked for it and I'm not seeing it. Bottom line, Noghtwing did more anlaysis of the film subject and how it relates to your suit guy in two days then you did in however many years you worked on the book (hard to estimate that since you keep changing your story).

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 11:55 PM)

Thanks to those who have chosen to read my book and open their minds. The Making of Bigfoot was long overdue. I am proud that I wrote it.

First, you're a good one to be talking about open minds. Second, it obviously does not take much to make you proud.

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 11:55 PM)

Greg Long

No... Greg Long

Fishbone35

Apr 8 2004, 06:22 AM

QUOTE(Paul1968UK)

Kal Korff lied about you and he 'Deposing' witnesses

Kal Korff lied about co-operating with the Police

Kal Korff lied about the reason for hoaxing the film being because he 'knew he was dying'

Kal Korff lied when he said that Heironimous would be put back into the 'original suit'.

Kal Korff lied about Bob Heironimous walking funny because he had been in a car accident - BH clearly said that Patterson showed him how he wanted the walk done.

Kal Korff or Bob Kiviat lied to Mrs. Patterson when getting permission to use the PGF for 'Worlds Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed' by sending a contract with the title of the show as 'Worlds Greatest'

Kal Korff and Bob Kiviat lied in their show when they said that Roger Patterson was on the payrol of ANE before the PGF was shot

Kal Korff and Bob Kiviat lied about Jerry Romney being in the suit

Kal Korff lied about being the President and CEO of 'Total Research' - 'Total Research Inc.' have never heard of him.

Kal Korff claims to have made a nuclear bomb at home - I'm pretty sure he would have been arrested for that.

Great points, Paul!

You know, I was thinking last night about a book that was from Tennessee and of one of the "groupies" that was standing so tall beside said book's author and who got caught lying through his teeth on this very forum. Yep, I was thinking about David Mann, aka Thermal1. And while I was thinking about him, I began to reflect on the parallel between David Mann and Kal Korff. I thought about going through that particular thread where David busted himself and pulling quotes to illustrate that point. But in the end I decided that for those of you here that know the story, why bother and for those of you that don't, you might want to do some searching and then do some reading. David Mann lied, Mary Green stuck with him like glue and became guilty by association. Kal Korff lied, Greg Long stuck with him like glue and became guilty by association. Coincidence? Sure, but it just goes to show that shysters don't know many different tunes.

Judaculla

Apr 8 2004, 07:56 AM

Mr. Long,

Science is about testing hypotheses with reliable and valid measures using methods that can be replicated by others.

I submit that Nightwing's premise is solid. You may quibble about particulars, but the conclusion is the same. The dimensions of the subject of the Patterson film can be used to test whether any one person matches them.

I will quote two posts of mine:

QUOTE

If Bob H. says there were no sticks or extensions being used in the suit (despite Morris's claim that he instructed Patterson to do just that), and the finger flexion we see is supposedly caused by Bob H.'s fingers in the glove, then we need to get a tape measure on BH.

Forget the absolute measurements.... I want to know the ratios. Measure from wrist to shoulder on Bob H. Also measure from hip to knee or knee to ankle. Divide the arm measure by the leg measure and that will give you a ratio.

The reason to measure from the joints is that padding is irrelevant to where a joint flexes or rotates. Find the spot that the joint bends at or rotates around and you've found the end of the bone with no room for costume fluff.

Do the same for Patty. Since these are ratios, the absolute measure doesn't mean a thing. Patty could be 5' tall or 8' tall. As long as the scale is consistent, you're fine.

If they are close, then it's very likely that Patty is a human in a costume, probably Bob H.

If the ratios don't match whatever Bob H.'s ratios are, then it's not him. Game over.

QUOTE

The example is analogous to fingerprinting, either standard or DNA. With enough independently matching biometrics, a probability could be assigned for a match between Bob Heironimus and the subject of the Patterson film. What that probability would be depends on the measures used, as well as the central tendency and variance of those measures. “Possibility” just depends on where you want to draw the line for what is possible: 1 in a million, 1 in 100 million, etc. Those probabilities would be true regardless of any other observation in the Patterson film, including musculature and flexion.

But, the matter is moot. Given what we already know about the subject’s proportions, there wouldn’t be a match to Bob H. The film subject is very unlikely to be human at all.

What I would like to see is you and your colleagues invite BFRO to measure Bob Heironimus's various dimensions. You could hire whatever expert you like to be present to ensure that the measurements are valid. I assume that the reliability of a ruler and tape measure is not subject to environmental conditions.

Once that is accomplished, then do the same for the subject of the PGF. Invite BFRO to obtain measurements from the PGF that you and your colleagues could all agree are correct. Hire whatever experts you like to be present to ensure the measurements are valid. I suspect this is where the most disagreement might take place, because not obtaining a match would be devastating to your case. However, you have nothing to fear from the actual result given your degree of confidence that you have identified the man in the suit.

Refusing to use available tools to test hypotheses is anti-thetical to science and falls into the domain of blind faith, belief, and plain old gullibility. Suggesting that your hypothesis is untestable with any sort of objective data is… uncritical thinking.

Greg Long

Apr 8 2004, 08:07 AM

Good morning.

Fishbone35

Apr 8 2004, 08:23 AM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 8 2004, 09:07 AM)

Good morning.

Well, good mornin' right back atcha', cupcake!

Check it:

Amazon ranking for The Making of Bigfoot

March 26, 2004 @ 19,361

April 8, 2004 @ 19,456

Seems like a move in the wrong direction for such a "powerhouse" of a book, huh?

VernF

Apr 8 2004, 08:42 AM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 7 2004, 10:55 PM)

Roger Jud's comments. The suggestion that aspect comparisons require the "same camera Patterson used ... with same lens, same or similar film, same or similar processing, [and the] same or similar lighting conditions," is silly on its face. All that is required is two photos which display the relevant anatomical parts in a congruently oriented X-Y axis plane. Only an anatomical part partially oriented in the Z axis (such as an arm bent at the elbow with the forearm alone pointing toward the camera) would produce foreshortening which makes comparisons invalid. Nightwing's comparisons meet the necessary conditions and the comparisons are valid. There is room for a small margin of error in congruency, but the inconsistency between the two subjects is far too great to be accounted for by this margin of error. One can conclude to a reasonable certainty that Bob H. is not depicted in the Patterson film. Game over, at least for an objective observer.

-Vern

Paul1968UK

Apr 8 2004, 08:46 AM

QUOTE(Greg Long @ Apr 8 2004, 02:07 PM)

Good morning.

I'm glad that are popping in here every so often Mr. Long.

Please don't take any of my criticisms too personally - I think you have done very well to get your book published - I think your biggest problem quite frankly is your association with Kal Korff - it ruins any credibility you had.

If Kal Korff were here, I would tell him the very same thing (not that he would listen of course).

I think it is sad that you beleived what Korff told you about UnCon - I was there, so were hundreds of other people. Perhaps Korff morphed into one of his phoney ghost photos and attended an UnCon in a parallel universe where Loren Coleman agreed to act as his stooge ?

I often wonder of course about authors who get their own publicisit to write the forward for their books, and claim to have written the forward months before the book is even finished.

Have a good day.

Blackdog

Apr 8 2004, 08:55 AM

I get the feeling Mr. Long is using these forums as a sounding board for rebuttals to his book and to prepare for challenges to his theories. I’m sure he didn’t expect the yokels in the Bigfoot world to be so intelligent and perceptive. I can’t think of any other reason why he and his crew would come here.
They come here, throw out some inane comments, leave, come back, read the replies and leave without addressing one question. It’s obvious he and his supporters have no interest in answering any questions.
It could be he has none and is looking for someone here to do it for him.

Mike I

Apr 8 2004, 09:17 AM

Mr Long,

I have a prediction, in a few months your book is going to be a bad memory and fade into nothing. Someone else will come out with a book that will out do you.

To my fellow Members, this whole issue of this book is not the end of the world for the continuing research and study into this. I think it should actually make us look harder into resolving this. Instead of debating with Mr Long this book, We need to look at where we are now with the known facts. Instead focusing on this book turn that attention to prove Mr Long wrong by getting the evidence needed to prove that this animal does exist.

Mr Long and his book will fade in a few months. What is said here will be remember by some and forgotten by others. Mr Long has his right to his 15 minutes of fame. But soon those 15 minutes will be gone.

M P Ivan

RogerKni

Apr 8 2004, 09:18 AM

As I've mentioned before, I found it annoying that the author and publicist launched their book tour on March 1, well before the book was available in stores.

I found it doubly annoying that critics have been repeatedly told to "read the book," as though they were guilty of preferring to offer uninformed commentary.

I found it triply annoying to read in a long Q-and-A entry posted April 4 on the Rense site, probably in response to my complaints, that "The book was published March 1."

I've just called Prometheus and been told that the earliest they received any copies from the printer was March 16. I was unable to get the lady there to give me an official date of publication. However, when I called Prometheus on Dec. 30 (as I posted here) I was told that publication was scheduled for mid-March, which correctly anticipated actual events, so there should have been no mistake in GL's mind as to "publication" being scheduled for any earlier date. There would have been plenty of warning for GL to have scheduled his media campaign to begin in mid-March--or later, if Prometheus told him that the books would only dribble in from the printer.

I informed the lady that I had just visited my local bookstore, where I had been shown the computer screen giving the distribution of the book at the local warehouses of Ingram Books, the country's largest book distributor. She said that only a few warehouses, in the East, had copies yet. I also received an email from Amazon, in response to a complaint-email I sent them, saying that they had received only a few copies from the publisher, had shipped those out, and didn't know when they'd have more in stock. The lady at Prometheus replied that they had no control over what Prometheus and Amazon did, but that there had been copies available at a book-signing by the author in the Seattle area a few weeks ago. But that would have hardly been reflective of the broader picture--such a store would have received a special shipment.

When I asked whether they received books from the printer in a dribble (which sounds kind of unlikely--don't printers print in a batch?) she said with exasperation that she had no control over that either, but that they didn't always arrive in a batch. (I got the feeling she regarded me as a pain and wished I'd go away.)

Anyway, the "line" GL should have taken to his critics should not have been one that implies they hadn't taken the trouble to inform themselves of his case. I suspect he prefers to believe and imply that his critics can't handle the truth--and repeatedly saying "read the book" does convey that implication to bystanders like reporters who may be following this case. It suggests that his critics are willfully ignorant, especially since he has to keep repeating it for some reason.

I'll repeat what I've said earlier, and add to it. It takes "some nerve" to "cut corners" by jumping the gun of the book's publication date and then implicitly blame critics for not acquiring the book. It really takes brass to respond to criticism of this behavior by stating "the book was published March 1," when in fact virtually none had reached store shelves by April 1, and commentators who wanted copies at an earlier date had to scramble to buy used review copies, or beg the publisher for review copies.

This is a small thing--and I've heard that many authors are far from being moral paragons. But it is hard to take from an author who is such a stern proponent of proper behavior--by others.

Incidentally, here is the blurb from the Prometheus catalog on this book. I wonder what this blurb will look like in a year or two.
-----------

Bigfoot! Huge, hairy, foul smelling, this legendary apelike animal continues to captivate the public’s imagination. This fascination hinges on a single piece of motion-picture film shot in northern California in 1967. For thirty-five years, Bigfoot believers have been convinced that this sixty-second piece of film proves the physical reality of Bigfoot.

But now comes a book that demolishes that belief, that produces final proof that the film footage is a hoax.

The Making of Bigfoot tells the amazing story of Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington. A part-time rodeo rider, chronically unemployed and dying of cancer, Patterson propelled himself into short-lived fame and fortune by exploiting his obsession with the Bigfoot subject and leveraging his expertise in manipulating and conning people to pull off one of the world’s great hoaxes.

Living within two hours of Patterson’s hometown, for three years paranormal investigator and author Greg Long interviewed more than forty witnesses in Yakima who knew Patterson intimately. The voices of these witnesses, combined with facts unearthed from newspaper archives, books, and court documents, tell the real story of Roger Patterson.

Both tragic and comical, a unique slice of Americana, The Making of Bigfoot captures the testimony of a colorful cast of characters who bring to life a man and a time in the 1960s when Bigfoot strode into the American imagination, and the world embraced a myth.
Greg Long (Bellevue, WA) is a technical editor and writer for an environmental engineering company, and the author of Examining the Earthlight Theory: The Yakima UFO Microcosm, a study of UFO sightings on the Yakima Indian Reservation in south-central Washington state.
....
PAGES: 475 pp COMMENTS: Illustrations ISBN: 1-59102-139-1

liebling

Apr 8 2004, 10:10 AM

does anyone else get the feeling we're being baited for something?
g

RogerKni

Apr 8 2004, 10:12 AM

BTW, my proofreader's eye was struck by the "475 pp" above; shouldn't it be "425 pp"? (God I hope so.)

Afterthought: Perhaps Prometheus deliberately printed only a few copies, anticipating that Gimlin would confess and that they'd then have to print a revised edition. In that case they didn't want to get stuck with a lot of outdated, unsalable items. That would explain why the lady at Prometheus sounded flustered and irritated by my probing--she didn't want to reveal that little ploy.

Well, Gimlin hasn't folded in the face of their "bluff charge," so now they seem to be letting a few copies into the pipeline. But I guess they still have hopes of his doing so, since this limited-distribution pattern is (I suspect) very unusual. Normally copies should go out in one big wave, shouldn't they?

(Somebody give me a pat on the back--I think I've had a "sighting"! The only sort us armchairists can hope to have.)

tarran

Apr 8 2004, 10:28 AM

QUOTE

(Somebody give me a pat on the back--I think I've had a "sighting"! The only sort us armchairists can hope to have.)

One pat on the back, coming up!!

nightwing

Apr 8 2004, 10:39 AM

Pat on it's way Roger!

HarryHenderson

Apr 8 2004, 10:43 AM

QUOTE(RogerKni @ Apr 8 2004, 09:12 AM)

...(Somebody give me a pat on the back--I think I've had a "sighting"! The only sort us armchairists can hope to have.)

A 'sighting' huh?

"Pat pat". We love ya Roger.

I do have to credit you with something I hold in high regard as to my own personality. It seems you're the one person that pays even MORE attention to 'trivial factoids' about 'whatever' than I do...and I've been told way too many times - "Why don't you just shut yer yapper, you don't know that, how do you know that?"

Keep up the good work!

"Harry"

nightwing

Apr 8 2004, 10:47 AM

QUOTE(liebling @ Apr 8 2004, 12:10 PM)

does anyone else get the feeling we're being baited for something?
g

They have, I believe, been doing that since day one, Gael.
The thing is...I just want the truth, whatever it may be. So far, all physical, measurable indicators point towards their story being false(either a hoax by them, or ON them by Bob H.).
But..they need only provide a duplicate of the suit, made with and by 1960's material and technology, that fits Mr. H, and, has matching complete dimensions(size, I agree, is not an issue..) to the Patterson Subject(all of which must be verified by independent subject approved by both "sides"...I nominate the BFRO to stand in for our "side").
If they can do that, put him in a suit that duplicates all the features seen on the patterson subject, and do it with means and materials available and usable by R.P...then I will at least take a hard second(and third) look.
Untill then...I stand by my "eyeball" armchair research...

StacyInMI

Apr 8 2004, 12:55 PM

QUOTE(Blackdog @ Apr 8 2004, 10:55 AM)

I think you're absolutely right, BD. He's learning how to answer the questions he doesn't know the answers to by reading what's written here.

Fishbone35

Apr 8 2004, 01:09 PM

QUOTE(StacyInMI @ Apr 8 2004, 01:55 PM)

QUOTE(Blackdog @ Apr 8 2004, 10:55 AM)

I think you're absolutely right, BD. He's learning how to answer the questions he doesn't know the answers to by reading what's written here.

I'd have to say he appears to be an awfully slow learner.

wolftrax

Apr 8 2004, 01:19 PM

I loved reading how these guys have been lying for awhile, and wanted to add two more involved to the list. Bob H. and Morris. Either theiy're lying now or have been lying for the last 35 years. Let's pretend for a minute that this story is actually true. Morris and Bob H. both claim they knew the whole time they had participated in a hoax, therefore they participated in a lie, a con. Either that or they are lying now, and guess which way most people here are leaning? So you can understand our mistrust, Mr. Long, if you want any credibility, show the suit, and let us judge for ourselves. The one in the book is obviously not it.

bipto

Apr 8 2004, 01:22 PM

QUOTE(liebling @ Apr 8 2004, 11:10 AM)

does anyone else get the feeling we're being baited for something?
g

We're in the cage and they're poking a stick in. Why? Well, besides being fun pissing your opponents off, I seriously think they think it helps their sales to do it. I think they're wrong, but you never know. Based on the Amazon ranking, I think they're blockbuster ain't busting as many blocks as they had hoped...

JayleeD

Apr 8 2004, 02:03 PM

QUOTE(Roger)

BTW, my proofreader's eye was struck by the "475 pp" above; shouldn't it be "425 pp"?

I just can't believe that they could actually fit over 450 pages of bullshit between two covers.....messy, messy!

PAT...PAT Roger.

Fishbone35

Apr 8 2004, 02:24 PM

QUOTE(RogerKni @ Apr 8 2004, 11:12 AM)

(Somebody give me a pat on the back--I think I've had a "sighting"! The only sort us armchairists can hope to have.)

Roger, I'll see your pat and raise you fifty.

bf2004

Apr 8 2004, 02:24 PM

Pat, Pat, Roger.

RogerKni

Apr 8 2004, 02:27 PM

Ahhh!

Orygun

Apr 8 2004, 02:27 PM

I like RogerKni's assessment of the book situation but I'd go a little bit further into it.

This is my take on it. Author writes book. Gets Publisher to commit to printing book if Author (+Publicist, if they use one) can generate enough interest for said book.

Author (+Publicist) then embark on Publicity Tour, in this case in forums and radio show and anywhere else that might have viewer or participants that are interested in the subject of the book. Convince these people that all the answers to their questions are in the book, if "you just read the book."

Hopefully the people will listen to you and order the book, either a bookstore or via Amazon, despite the fact that the book is not available yet. Publisher will then see the orders and if they are sufficient, print the book, based on demand. Publishers will not just print a bunch of books hoping that the demand is there.

This process is very similar to many industries (I just happen to be in apparel) in which you forecast the sales (guess the demand), prebook the product (sell the product) and then produce the item. (fulfill the demand)

My best guess is that the publisher prints a pre-production run of the books, for reviewers and publicity use. (We call them salesmen samples) And this may account for the small availability of books now. Provided enough demand is generated the production run will be approved.

If someone has more experience in the publishing world, I'd like to know if I'm close. Greg?

Orygun

Apr 8 2004, 02:34 PM

QUOTE(bipto @ Apr 8 2004, 01:22 PM)

QUOTE(liebling @ Apr 8 2004, 11:10 AM)

does anyone else get the feeling we're being baited for something?
g

You're not being baited, you're being enticed to buy a book. The first tactic is to be nice, come here, answer some questions and hope that generates some demand.

Second tactic if playing nice doesn't work is to be mean, ("poke a stick"), do whatever it takes to get people to buy the book. Probably a sign of deperation, means the demand for the book isn't there. Perhaps the author over anticipated the subject matter or over anticipated their skills at creating a book that would be interesting to the audience.

I'm going to guess that before long the author is going to resort to the last tactic, begging. I hope Greg doesn't resort to that.

liebling

Apr 8 2004, 02:42 PM

QUOTE(Orygun @ Apr 8 2004, 02:34 PM)

QUOTE(bipto @ Apr 8 2004, 01:22 PM)

QUOTE(liebling @ Apr 8 2004, 11:10 AM)

does anyone else get the feeling we're being baited for something?
g

i dont know, i think there is more to it than just 'buy the book' because (imo) their actions here and in interviews have me NOT interested in buying the book. if i find one at a gargare sale for $3....MAYBE...i sure dont FEEL enticed to buy the book.

i think it's something more underhanded than book sales. i think they're trying to get us to say things they can use against us publicly in some way. or to their own advantage...

call me paranoid.....i simply dont trust them...they've shown time and again how untrustworthy they are. i'd put nothing past them.
gael

JayleeD

Apr 8 2004, 02:42 PM

QUOTE

I'm going to guess that before long the author is going to resort to the last tactic, begging. I hope Greg doesn't resort to that.

Nothing would surprise me anymore! :rolleyes:

Edit to say Gael, I agree with you...this is about more than 'buy the book', IMO.

Fishbone35

Apr 8 2004, 02:46 PM

Don't forget folks, even Greg himself stated that what he wants the book to generate is a television show (series if he and Kiviat are fortunate enough to slither their way into one). Greg knows he won't make squat off of his book but if he and his cronies can weasel their way into a television production, then there could possibly be some real money involved for them to play with (not to mention putting a substantial amount of it into their pockets).

RogerKni

Apr 8 2004, 02:47 PM

QUOTE(Orygun @ Apr 8 2004, 01:27 PM)

My best guess is that the publisher prints a pre-production run of the books, for reviewers and publicity use. (We call them salesmen samples) And this may account for the small availability of books now. Provided enough demand is generated the production run will be approved.

If someone has more experience in the publishing world, I'd like to know if I'm close. Greg?

What makes this ingenious idea unlikely is that in publishing there are (or used to be) immense "set-up costs," which make (or made) printing so-called short-run books economically unfeasible. The cost of producing 10,000 books isn't that much greater than producing 1000. Most of the expense comes in setting type and then clearing the decks for the press to roll. Letting it roll an extra hour costs little more. I've never heard of publishers producing a few dozen sample copies to "test the waters." (But it would be nice if it could be done.)

This is very unlike the situation in the garment trades, where set-up costs are low and samples can be created easily.

But the situation is changing. Xerox now produces electrostatic printers that can produce single-copy books at low cost, and that can accept electronic typescripts from the author, further reducing set-up costs. And in the garment industry, set-up costs are increasing, as automated processes increasingly replace hand labor.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.