Now the timeline for this is interesting but I have highlighted the dates so you may see a interesting pattern. Now this pattern seems to raise some interesting questions. I will let you read the original article in a book I read:
QUOTE
...During mid-January 1999, at Yakima, rumors began circulating that the
late Roger Patterson paid a Hollywood costume designer to make the suit and
paid a big "Yakima Indian" to wear it, and now the owner of the suit had
hired a local attorney to bring it out of the closet for the world to see.
Finally, late in January, mostly through reporter David Wasson of the Yakima
Herald-Republic, the story broke with the headline "Bigfoot Unzipped - Man
Claims It Was Him in a Suit."
...Zillah attorney Barry M. Woodard confirmed to Wasson that he was
representing a Yakima man who said he wore the elaborate ape suit in the
Patterson-Gimlin film, and that his client has passed a lie-detector test to
prove it.
Wasson would write, "Woodard described the man only as a
fifty-eight-year-old lifelong resident of the Yakima Valley who approached
him a few months ago after a network news program called questioning
authenticity of the 1967 film. The man wanted help negotiating a deal for
rights to his story, ... as well as to explore any legal issues he might
face as a result of his involvement in the hoax."
Attorney Woodard provided a statement from retired Yakima police officer Jim
McCormick, a certified polygraph examiner who administered a lie-detector
test on Woodard's client. Results of the seventy-five-minute examination
showed the man was telling the truth when asked about having worn the
Bigfoot suit in the 1967 film, McCormick wrote.
Why weren't they coming quickly forward with a name and details?
Money-reasons. Woodard's client supposedly wanted to sign a contract with
the tabloid Sun before releasing any further information. But late in
February, 1999, a planned news conference never happened. Reports began to
circulate that the fifty-eight-year-old, six-foot-tall man who now weighed
two hundred pounds would be the laughingstock of a news conference when
asked to demonstrate how thirty years earlier he was able to portray the
special gait of a fifteen-hundred pound,
six-foot-and-a-half-to-seven-foot-tall Bigfoot. A year later, then two, now
four, and no more news of this "exposé" has surfaced.
late Roger Patterson paid a Hollywood costume designer to make the suit and
paid a big "Yakima Indian" to wear it, and now the owner of the suit had
hired a local attorney to bring it out of the closet for the world to see.
Finally, late in January, mostly through reporter David Wasson of the Yakima
Herald-Republic, the story broke with the headline "Bigfoot Unzipped - Man
Claims It Was Him in a Suit."
...Zillah attorney Barry M. Woodard confirmed to Wasson that he was
representing a Yakima man who said he wore the elaborate ape suit in the
Patterson-Gimlin film, and that his client has passed a lie-detector test to
prove it.
Wasson would write, "Woodard described the man only as a
fifty-eight-year-old lifelong resident of the Yakima Valley who approached
him a few months ago after a network news program called questioning
authenticity of the 1967 film. The man wanted help negotiating a deal for
rights to his story, ... as well as to explore any legal issues he might
face as a result of his involvement in the hoax."
Attorney Woodard provided a statement from retired Yakima police officer Jim
McCormick, a certified polygraph examiner who administered a lie-detector
test on Woodard's client. Results of the seventy-five-minute examination
showed the man was telling the truth when asked about having worn the
Bigfoot suit in the 1967 film, McCormick wrote.
Why weren't they coming quickly forward with a name and details?
Money-reasons. Woodard's client supposedly wanted to sign a contract with
the tabloid Sun before releasing any further information. But late in
February, 1999, a planned news conference never happened. Reports began to
circulate that the fifty-eight-year-old, six-foot-tall man who now weighed
two hundred pounds would be the laughingstock of a news conference when
asked to demonstrate how thirty years earlier he was able to portray the
special gait of a fifteen-hundred pound,
six-foot-and-a-half-to-seven-foot-tall Bigfoot. A year later, then two, now
four, and no more news of this "exposé" has surfaced.
from Loren Coleman, Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America, Paraview Pocket Books, 2003
Now here are some dates from "Making of Bigfoot":
Greg Long attempted to interview BH on 12/5/1998 pg 145
Again on 12/19/1998, this was a face to face interview that did not pan out because BH told GL that he had to talk to his lawyer. pg 152
Again on 12/27/1998, via phone, but refered to his lawyer, Bob Woodard pg 154-155
- > Please note the dates then compare to the date of article January 1999 ....
Now something that GL does really say why but there is a three year span till the next time he talks to BH. That interview began with a phone call on January 11, 2001 (pg 333). He then was able to talk to GL after consulting his lawyer, did you notice the name.
So, here are some questions to think about:
1. Did BH see the end of the rainbow when GL called him?
2. Did GL realize the man that was going to admit he was in the suit was BH in 1999?
Now, tonight while going through some stuff then surfing the net I found a link to article from another website that shed some more light on this:
QUOTE
To finish off January, on the 30th, David Wasson of the Yakima Herald-Republic, XX, did an article on a man who has come forward to say he wore the suit in the Patterson film (number 64 Dahinden says). Zillah attorney Barry M. Woodard,XX , “confirmed he’s representing a Yakima man who says he wore the elaborate monkey suit in the Patterson-Gimlin film, and that his client has passed a lie detector test to prove it.” The unnamed man, 58, wanted some help in negotiating a deal for rights to his tale. Supposedly, Sun tabloid bought his story, and it should be published before you read this(not by 16th). They usually pay about $2,000 for a story like that, true or not. Maybe that explains why a hoaxer would dress up in a big breasted female animal costume, and later admit he was a cross-dresser. A retired Yakima police officer, Jim McCormick, did the lie-detector work. He is a certified polygraph examiner and did a 75 minute test on the unnamed man, and stated that he was telling thetruth. In a personal phone interview 1/29, Wasson said that question #43 of the test was, “Is it true you were in the Bigfoot suit when Patterson shot that film in 1967?” To which the answer was “yes.” Peter Byrne went to Yakima on 2/3 and had lunch with Wasson, and talked by phone to both Woodard and McCormick. Wasson said he’d been swamped with over 100 phone calls about thearticle...calls from England, Germany, and 12 calls from which name of who we shall not mention. He finally had to tell him not to call back again, to which name of who we shall not mention replies that he’ll sue them. Wasson gave him his editors number and hung up on him.
from: http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com...ticle.php?id=80
So, what does this mean? Depends on how you want to look at it. I leave up to you to decide if this is important. I see a strange timeline of two who are trying to claim some fame here. Each trying to be that one who can debunk a film that people are still arguing over. I think the focus needs to turn away from the examination of this film to point it just does not matter in the bigger picture.
If we are all looking for the proof and the truth about Bigfoot then let us get out there and find it. If you want to waste time arguing over a piece of film then so be it. You can believe that it is real or is a hoax. That is up to you. It is waste of time and energy to argue over smudge on the film or movement that does not look right because of the film. Take that energy and focus on solving the issue, proof of Bigfoot.
Everyone wants fame and fortune and yes that 15 minutes of fame. I think GL and BH have kicked into over time with theirs. But I am sorry to say, they will not be rewarded as they think.
Oh, something to think about, GL asked BH his age in 2001, 57.