Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Thoughts About Long's Book, " Making Of Bigfoot "

Recommended Posts

Guest Fister Crunchman

Long's book does not seem particularly valuable to me because of his polemical approach. But the tapes of his interviews ,or if not, the raw transcripts, might well be of real significance. If someone could sift through them with fresh eyes and ears and an unbiased mind they would no doubt yield much that Long was unwilling to see.

Any thoughts on how Long might be approached to step forward and share his interview data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Jerry Lee Merritt:

Page 100, first paragraph:

"Roger went crazy when he took the film. He didn't expect it to happen. He had found what he was actually looking for. I actually believe he was telling the truth"

And on Page 110

He (Merritt) didn't answer me (a previous question), but said, "And what they did, once he got that other film clip, which I think is real,. . . I knew Roger on his deathbed. Roger said it was real. So I-" (Merritt cut off by next question from Long)

Didn't Long claim that Roger invited Jerry to go to Bluff Creek Oct 20th, but he backed out last minute? Does anyone think Jerry could possibly have been in the dark re Roger's intentions? Long believes that Roger & Bob G went back to Bluff Creek to create the fake trackway and the PGF was already in the can. So why would Jerry have been invited to help fake the trackway? And why would he have initially agreed to go? Jerry would have likely been the 3rd person Roger "stiffed" from the proceeds, any of whom could have blown the whistle at any time. Jerry Merritt's role in the hoax remains unclear yet he continued to cover for Roger till the end. What seems clear, however, is that Merritt must have known the truth to be invited along. But if the Oct 20th trip to Bluff Creek was just to fake some tracks, why invite Merritt?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RayG

How much can we rely upon any book that speculates about the existence of bigfoot, whether yay or nay?

I have Long's book, and I'm unimpressed with a large portion of it. There are some nuggets in there, you just have to sift a lot of dirt to find them.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Funny, isn't it? I find it to be very entertaining that now members are starting to quote Greg Long's book!!! When one actually reads the book instead of partisan reviews, one starts finding that Long included a lot of people who have nice things to say about Patterson, and people who believed him, in a book that is, according to some, "character assassination" or "scorched earth?"

That is why I have lobbied for you all to read the book. It's not what many on amazon.com have tried to make it out to be. The style of the book is definitely a bit confusing and Long injects more of his own sensitivities than some might like. There are a lot of loose ends, some things that don't jibe, some people died, some people wouldn't tell what they knew. Welcome to bigfootery.

It's important to read, if you are interested in bigfoot, and I would suggest members not take anyone else's word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In defense of my characterization of Long's 'scorched earth' attempt at 'character assasination', I offer his own words, describing his own book, from his own website (my bolding):

"The Making of Bigfoot did more to question the unsubstantiated claims of the Bigfoot film promoters than any other Bigfoot book published before it. With its verifiable, fist-in-your-face expose of the vast lies, deceptions, plotting, and money-grubbing of Roger Patterson (the Yakima, Washington, cowboy con-man photographer),..."

Pretty easy to write about a man using words like that, when he has been dead and burried for 32 years.

But I will agree with Parnassus that everyone should make up their own mind, that is just a solid approach to include opposing viewpoints.

I would however recommend borrowing it from the library or your skeptical friends if you can.

You may never get back the hours you invest in reading this shoddy, arrogant, and ultimately failed 'expose', but there is no need to waste your hard-earned coin as well.

Edited by infoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Will Long's book be a subject of discussion 43 years after it was created?

I think not.

I suspect it will, simply because the "skeptics" of the day will cite it as "proof" of the PGF being hoaxed, no matter how many times the book is debunked, or Long's shoddy research, etc is pointed out.

BF "skeptics" are masters at the art of ignoring information that does not serve their purpose, as well as making the same claim over and over no matter how often dis-proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BF "skeptics" are masters at the art of ignoring information that does not serve their purpose, as well as making the same claim over and over no matter how often dis-proven.

That's funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

new review of Long's The Making of Bigfoot::

I won't quote the whole thing, just this:

Over the years, a lot of people put tremendous effort into analyzing the film - arm/body ratios, the stride, the fake tracks they made in association with it...

But FINALLY someone got around to simply interviewing the people around Roger Patterson at the time.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Bill-

Roger was a Rodeo showman, I believe he was part of the Rodeo at Corriganville.

You can read more about the Corriganville rodeo here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2sKkFbaVkRIC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=corriganville+rodeo&source=bl&ots=5qCQlRI9vH&sig=VP7He5pHJ-tIBCPMazpBMdk-BmQ&hl=en&ei=0-cHTafZOsys8AaA2-ySCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=corriganville%20rodeo&f=false

COWBOYS IN ACTION FILLED RODEO SHOW!

There is a group photo of the cowboys in there, does anyone see Roger Patterson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

How much can we rely upon any book that speculates about the existence of bigfoot, whether yay or nay?

Is that was Long's book does? My impression was that it was an expose' on the PG event and that it has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Is that was Long's book does? My impression was that it was an expose' on the PG event and that it has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Huntster, that's why you should read the book. You must have a lot of dark time this time of year, to catch up on your reading.

Putting aside Long's comments, it's a lot of interviews with people who knew Patterson one way or another. And no they haven't been debunked. And the documents say what they say. Oh, that review I linked to is from Alaska. Here's another quote:

The lesson in the book is really that all these "investigations" over the years never even bothered to ask basic questions of the people behind the film. If they had, the story of the impossible timeline on the films development would have immediately exposed the hoax. Roger didn't know the film labs for this special processing were not open on Saturdays, and how long it took to develop the film. He didn't even think through that the mail could not deliver the film across two states, develop it, and return it between a Friday night and a Sunday morning when he was showing it to the famous "bigfoot hunters" at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

The lesson in the book is really that all these "investigations" over the years never even bothered to ask basic questions of the people behind the film. If they had, the story of the impossible timeline on the films development would have immediately exposed the hoax. Roger didn't know the film labs for this special processing were not open on Saturdays, and how long it took to develop the film. He didn't even think through that the mail could not deliver the film across two states, develop it, and return it between a Friday night and a Sunday morning when he was showing it to the famous "bigfoot hunters" at that time.

Oh, that madcap, rascally Bob Patterson! He brilliantly concocts and crafts an epic suit destined to become a legend, never since duplicated, but then fails to comprehend some simple timeline details that "would immediately expose the hoax."

Oh, the enigma that is Bob Patterson (at least in the eyes of the scofftics, that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

"Roger didn't know the film labs for this special processing were not open on Saturdays, and how long it took to develop the film."

The falicy of this remark, from the review, is that Roger knew perfectly well what it took to get Kodachrome or Ektachrome film processed and copied, because he did both extensively in the years before and including 1967, as evidenced by his other documentary footage. He was definitely experienced in cameras, equipment, and processing procedures and timetables.

The reviewer is essentially just embracing Long's conclusions, apparently without any independent consideration or analysis.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 14 December 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

Is that was Long's book does? My impression was that it was an expose' on the PG event and that it has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Huntster, that's why you should read the book. You must have a lot of dark time this time of year, to catch up on your reading.

No, thanks. I use my precious reading time wisely. Right now I'm into Decision Points. I also spend lots of time pouring over ADFG harvest data for the previous season.

But I'll be down in your neck of the woods tonight. I'll even be in the San Fernando Valley. San Diego. Santa Barbara. Huntington Beach. Disneyland. Cucamonga. Maybe even Palm Springs.

And I'm not looking forward to it, either............

Putting aside Long's comments, it's a lot of interviews with people who knew Patterson one way or another. And no they haven't been debunked.

They certainly conflict with each other and with obvious facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I finally got Greg Long's book, "The Making of Bigfoot"

I had a chance to start reading through it today. It'll take awhile to get through it all, but I thought I'd kick this discussion off with two initial observations:

1. The forward talks about how "a costume that was worn for a film that was made to deliberately deceive people, while earning "millions" of dollars (the word "millions" was actually italicized in the book for emphasis)for its promoters during the past nearly forty years in what can only be called fraud "consumer fraud" (again, those words were italicize in the book)to be precise. The public was "sold" both a story and a product that were bogus, which is illegal, and the scam continues today!"

This was written by Kal Korff.

Isn't he the guy Kitakaze said ripped off Bob H and Morris in some filming of a documentary, taking the fees to be paid to Morris and Hieonimous? If so, I do have to wonder if a con man rip off artist is writing a book forward accusing another man of being a fraud. Not an auspicious beginning, I must say.

2. The first chapter, titled "October 20, 1967" is written like a Truman Capote novel, with literary embellishments of factual circumstances of two real men, one whom the author could not interview (being dead). As literature goes, its not bad. But what is a literary piece of fiction doing opening a book proported to be a factual investigation? The author is apparently trying to tell us that Roger can con people with fanciful stories, so why is the author showing us how capable he (Long) is, telling a fanciful story? Doesn't Long want to impress us with his purely factual investigative skills. It seems starting right off showing us how well he can embellish the facts isn't a wise step for establishing his own credibility as a factual reporter or investigator.

Anyways, that's as far as I've gotten, but I welcome any thoughts other might have on this book, and if I'm mis-interpreting the value of a rip-off guy writing the forward for a book, or the merit of an investigator starting off by showing us what a great fiction writer he is, please show me the error of my ways.

Bill

Yes!

I am so stoked you went out and finally got the book, Bill. I am sorry you had to buy it because I still have a copy for you that is a gift to you from Philip Morris. I was so busy with so many thing, kept forgetting, and I literally have yoinked the second copy for easy reference. Now both copies are riddled with book marks, though I never busted out the highlighter.

Some thoughts for you...

1) I wish you PM'ed me and told me you got the book. The first thing I would have done is told you to skip the first chapter entirely or save it for after. For your and my purposes it is less than nothing, it is simply noise. Long wrote that not for you or I, but as a writer he was taking his teacher's advice and seeking to draw in the average reader. He should have realized that if the book is about the truth and the inside story, the worst way to start it is with some hooey you made up for creative stimulation. That first chapter grates me and I will never read it again.

2) Kal Korff is scum! A thief, a liar, a fraud. One of Long's greatest mistakes was getting involved with him. He, Morris, and Heironimus all paid for the mistake Long made when Korff absconded back to the Czech Republic with the pay from NatGeo for their work on the Is It Real? Bigfoot episode. Morris was particulary screwed because of the time and effort he made at his own expense which was supposed to be reimbursed. Long was livid and wanted to sue, but Morris told him to let it go and the damage was done. He was out of the country and they should just drop it. Of course, Morris has more money than God and Long lives a far more modest life.

3) Every time you see Long refer to Patterson as "little man" just smile and think of Long's hatred for Patterson as transparent. Long is this towering huge, tall man, where Patterson was this wee little powerhouse. I will not break forum rules, but a strong element of Long's vilification of Patterson comes from his personal beliefs. What you need to do when reading the book is be the super sleuth. Long was an excellent sleuth, but he was no super sleuth. If you can be as clinical as ice and see the greater picture, while putting everything under a microscope, you will discover that Long dug very deep, but he just scratched the surface. He made significant errors and there are major threads and dots that he failed to connect, but if you are very, very astute and your memory is in top form, you will have some major eureka moments. You are as smart a man as I am, and certainly wiser and more experienced. I will not hand you those Eureka moments, but rather let you find them yourself. I'll give you just this: Long thought himself a savvy a cunning investigator - yet he himself was duped!

Have you ever read George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series? That is the kind of mindframe you need to be in. For all your admirable tinkering with numbers and lenses and sun dials, you are just starting on getting to the center of the PGF Tootsiepop. When you are done that book and have chewed on it, reread it, started connecting the dots for yourself, you and I will talk in private, preferably on Skype. If I know at that time that I can absoultely trust you to the point that you would sign an NDA, I will tell you about the end of the rainbow.

Now this is going to be an interesting thread. my apologies to you, Bill, and to Puff. I will get to the PGF On Trial, but this is about you getting to where I am now. You being intimately familiar with that book is going to make you all the adversary for me that you should be. You are a fine debate adversary now, but for me you are forever handicapped until you get the whole picture and do the proper homework. I applaud you for getting started. I ask you this - do yourself and the truth a favour...

Strive towards non-bias. I know you do and that you say it is important. If it really is important, please, please, please don't be so transparent in your desire to flush Long and everything he found. That is readily transparent when you do the following...

"This was written by Kal Korff.

Isn't he the guy Kitakaze said ripped off Bob H and Morris in some filming of a documentary, taking the fees to be paid to Morris and Hieonimous? If so, I do have to wonder if a con man rip off artist is writing a book forward accusing another man of being a fraud. Not an auspicious beginning, I must say."

How utterly, utterly clear what mindframe you are coming into this as. Yes. One thousand times yes. Korff does not deserve to be the scum under my boots. He is everything I despise and I have stronger scorn for him than even I do for the Georgia Boyz. He is lying slime and he has made a career of it. He doesn't care who he rolls over as long as it serves his own bonkers goals. Greg Long needed someone to help get the project off the ground and Korff swooped in like the bloodsucking vampire he is.

Long makes a two-dimensional villain of Patterson and the "little man" references get tired quick. But for all his hate and narrow perspective, Long really did find some serious, serious stuff. Major, major things we're talking about here and some of the biggest ones went right over his head. He was really smart but he also dropped the ball when it was most important. I did not drop the ball. I have picked it up and never put it down since. The difference is that I am smart enough to yap and yap about the strong reasons to consider a hoax, but about the proof I will never give any details on the Internet until the time is here to drop the hammer. You don't be a dolt and drop the hammer on an Internet forum where it will be lost in noise and time forever. You make it monumental. It needs to be at the center of a film and that is what I am doing.

If you really are bout the truth, Bill, you may find yourself in a couple of months fallen to the dark side and getting on board with me to the dismay and broiling of your fans. What do you want more? Fans or truth? Is wisdom stronger than vanity?

Here's a hint...

I am a young man. I am vain enough or smart enough, I don't know which yet, that being the whipping boy of a subculture is not that attractive to me. Truth is really important, but at the end of the day I have a son and a career to focus me. You and I are not Philip Morris and we do not have more money than God. We work within the limitations given us and we get whatever respect we have with our own two hands.

On the other hand, I am not so vain as to mindlessly seek attention. I could turn the entire world of Bigfootery on its ear with a single sentence, but I will not do that. I won't do it because the attention would blast me right in the foot and I would have screwed myself. So let Bigfooters think I am all words and words and word. That's fine. I'll write more words and words. When the hammer falls, I promise you, there will be a storm of words from every corner.

Here's my advice...

Drop any inner desire to flush the book. See it for what it really is - good or bad it was the most detailed effort to get to the truth. Yes, Long had his mind made up about what the truth was when he started out even though he claims otherwise, but in the end it doesn't matter. In this most important of all questions it is black and white: Patty is real or she is not and it is an illusion. As someone who was an illusionist, you need to think heavy on this, IMO. Your ego whether you care or not is deeply linked in a community of people to being the champion of Patty. Surely, mine is the opposite. Now think clearly, what is really more likely? Patty really was a Bigfoot, or a hoax was made and certain elements allowed it to remain until this day unresolved. It can be resolved Bill and it will. I am going to do that and you can be on the sidelines or you can be a part of it. There are things you could do for me and for ending the controversy that would be invaluable.

But can you fall to the dark side?...

darthsidious.jpg

My apologies for the ridiculous Star Wars dork humour and I already know your answer: If that is where the truth leads. We'll be talking about that much more, you and I. If there is a PGF believer who is a fellow SW dork, Admiral Ackbar should soon make an appearance. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...