Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

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

Recommended Posts

Guest Spazmo

IM, I applaud Bill's effort to do this same thing that I am trying to do so much that I we have discussed getting funding for Bill and including the effort in my film. I even went so far as to invite Bill to a collaboration and to accept Bill's invitation to try wearing a suit created by him myself. Bill also invited me to help advise the creation as I would for Morris. Skeptics told me it was a trap. I am fine with it and I think it would be interesting. Bill is not my enemy, he is my colleague in the PGF mystery investigation. You can think he is far above me and you are welcome to.

If I am not an open-minded skeptic, why would I work with Bill rather than against him? Do you realize some of the people I am dealing with have more money than God, so to speak, and are quite capable of funding Bill? Neither of us fear the truth, so I wonder how much of the bigger picture you have really exposed yourself to.

So am I arrogant and self-aggrandizing to go much farther than Internet discussion?

I promise you this - I have not one atom of fear in me about Patty being a real Bigfoot. If you don't know that by now, infoman, you need more info.

Let's prove this. I have already proposed various wagers and stated about the literal crow eating for my film. I like people showing their convictions. You feel Bill will be able to make the most definitive "pro real animal" determination.

Let's set it out.

How do we define the most definitive determination? Accepted by Bigfooters on the Internet? I have a better idea. Let's choose together one or more institutions of science. Let's not spin our wheels on the Internet. I like change where some people prefer a chat on the computer. You and me and Bill, let's agree upon some institutions to present his "most definitive determination" and see how the scientists feel about Bill's determination. Then we will see how you and Bill and me feel about that determination. Then we can use that as a lens for making a determination about something we know for real exists - people who are into Bigfoot. If infoman and Bill Munns poo poo a consensus determination by science that a body is needed to say for certain if the film shows a Bigfoot, what will that say do you think?

Something definitive about science, something definitive about people who are into Bigfoot, or something involving both? I like reality. The real world I live in doesn't accept dubious films from dubious sources as strong evidence for giant land mammals we somehow missed in our own back yards.

Should science lower its standards for Bigfoot? If so, why?

Hold the phone...

Didn't you say just a few days ago that your goal was not to "kill Bigfoot"? Remember that? You even claimed that you and I had "numerous conversations" about it. Does this ring a bell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It certainly sounds this way. Him, me, Bill and everyone else here.

And I believe this makes it "three".

Spaz, as one of the bosses of the house and your position as the FMT, I will show my respect by telling you this once. I will not bicker and I will not derail the thread. If you think I look down on Bill, then you simply don't know me. Ask Bill himself. Bill did not think I was looking down upon him when we put down our differences and made common cause.

1) I will not let my pride rule me. I am deeply interested in Bill getting into Long's book.

2) I will not disrespect Bill and the BFF by guttering his thread. I really want to know about his thoughts on what he reads and converse with him about it as an equal forum member.

3) I will not be baited by you or anyone else. I get the distinct impression that you are itching for conflict with me. I will not give it to you. I welcome you to criticize me, but any more comments that I feel target my personality and me personally I will ignore. I don't think you've broken the guidelines, but again with you I feel you are going against the spirit of the rules you helped write. Let's respect this forum better than that. Wanting to keep it clean is not looking down on you.

4) See where I have bolded your quote. Please don't create enmity or presume to speak for the entire BFF membership. Spazmo is the FMT of the BFF, he is not the dictator of opinion. Not everyone thinks I am looking down on Bill so please don't distort the truth by stating as fact that everybody feels the way you do. I do not have the power to hit the green on my own posts. Whoever hit the green on post #30 did not share your opinion.

Please don't make a fight when I am conversing with a colleague whom I respect and seek collaboration with.

You may think Bill superior to me when it comes to the PGF, but I invite you to call your local university for their opinion. If he proves the film is really of Bigfoot, I am all ears. In this thread I hope to discuss with Bill his reading of Long's book. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.

Fair enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mulder:

"

Bill, that's not fair, teasing us like that...I know you won't release the findings before they're properly backed up, but **** man!"

In fairness, let me clarify that "bizarre" reference. It is based on looking at the "big picture", the evidence of what indicates the PGf is real, and the evidence of Roger's life story and the Yakima people researched in connection with the PGF, and seeing two theoretically opposite proofs, and wondering how they can co-exist.

Applying logical deductive reasoning to that essential situation leads me to speculate (quietly and privately) what I think really happened. And it's that quiet private speculation that, if so, is bizarre.

I do want to talk to people in Yakima about my ideas, but in person, totally personal and off the record, and see what that may yield. But I can't seem to get the resources to go up there and take the meetings, as I wish to. So I just keep working on the material I have, while i wait for the opportunity to go north and have some quiet talks with people.

That's it. I may never have an ounce of proof for this "speculative concept, and it may never advance beyond wondering. I'll be most curious to see how Kit's efforts finalize, and see what new material he brings in, when he's ready.

Anyways, sorry if the occasional remark causes speculation about the wondering I do. Sometimes, I sort of inadvertantly "think out loud" in forum remarks.

Bill

Added:

Spazmo, I was meaning to ask, what's a FMT?

:)

Bill

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Hold the phone...

Didn't you say just a few days ago that your goal was not to "kill Bigfoot"? Remember that? You even claimed that you and I had "numerous conversations" about it. Does this ring a bell?

Spaz, I just said exactly that in post #42 five posts above this one you just made. If you feel that what I just wrote there somehow indicates that I really do want to "kill Bigfoot", I welcome you to start a thread on the subject. I want to talk about Bill reading Long, preferably with Bill the most, and I might out of respect for you make one post to explain how this...

I promise you this - I have not one atom of fear in me about Patty being a real Bigfoot

...and this...

The real world I live in doesn't accept dubious films from dubious sources as strong evidence for giant land mammals we somehow missed in our own back yards.

...are not actually evidence of a secret desire in my to kill the phenomenon of belief in Bigfoot.

I'm asking you as FMT, please stop trying to fight with me or pick up old arguments we agreed in good faith to put down. Time is a wheel. Are we going to disrespect the forum with a tiresome and uncool Paul V vs Darkwing type thing. Paul was a better man when he acknowledged his poor decision making their. I will not fight with you, Spaz.

I know what you think of me so let's agree to be respectful of each other and ease down. It's better for all of us, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Mulder:

"

Bill, that's not fair, teasing us like that...I know you won't release the findings before they're properly backed up, but **** man!"

In fairness, let me clarify that "bizarre" reference. It is based on looking at the "big picture", the evidence of what indicates the PGf is real, and the evidence of Roger's life story and the Yakima people researched in connection with the PGF, and seeing two theoretically opposite proofs, and wondering how they can co-exist.

Applying logical deductive reasoning to that essential situation leads me to speculate (quietly and privately) what I think really happened. And it's that quiet private speculation that, if so, is bizarre.

I do want to talk to people in Yakima about my ideas, but in person, totally personal and off the record, and see what that may yield. But I can't seem to get the resources to go up there and take the meetings, as I wish to. So I just keep working on the material I have, while i wait for the opportunity to go north and have some quiet talks with people.

That's it. I may never have an ounce of proof for this "speculative concept, and it may never advance beyond wondering. I'll be most curious to see how Kit's efforts finalize, and see what new material he brings in, when he's ready.

Anyways, sorry if the occasional remark causes speculation about the wondering I do. Sometimes, I sort of inadvertantly "think out loud" in forum remarks.

Bill

Added:

Spazmo, I was meaning to ask, what's a FMT?

:)

Bill

Bill, couple questions...

1) What chapter and page are you at now?

2) What plans have you made for legal repercussions should you find proof of the film being a hoax and show it to people on the Internet such as here at the BFF?

You've broken bread with Gimlin, you've been in Patricia's home. What would you do if you found yourself across the aisle from Patricia Patterson and Erik and Martin Dahinden?

You don't have to divulge it to me publicly, but I would ask that you at least confirm or deny having taken measures for that.

It is definitely something we should discuss by email, however.

BTW, FMT is for "Forum Management Team". It means Spaz is one of the three bosses of the BFF along with Jon Downes and Shadoangel. You did't ask me, but I know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Fishing Man

What do I need? What is the only thing Bigfooters will accept? The answer is simple and stated to me a million times over: The suit or a confession. I aim for no less than smack solid hammer dropping truth. It does exist. Is it the suit? A confession? Something else no one thought of? Some combination of all or part of those? I'll never tell until the time is right. I'm trying to make it sooner than later, but Bigfoot is not going to take over other priorities in my life like my son and my music.

So then you found the suit (minus the head) that was claimed to have been loaned to DeAtley's friend (as I recall) that the friend's son borrowed to scare someone in Canada - but then the Canadian border guards confiscated it? Was it sitting in claims all this time and you retrieved it? You wrote about this on the JREF board a while ago and I'll assume this is it. But you speak as if you know it exists but you aren't in possession of it, correct? ("I aim for no less than smack solid hammer dropping truth. It does exist").

Since you are both a father and a musician, I don't know why you would bother revealing the truth here when you have the opportunity to make some money for your family. If I had solid proof of a hoax (suit and confession) I would be contacting James Randi or someone with a lot of money and then count the bills as they roll in from pubic appearances, a book deal, a record deal and a feature film. I wouldn't bother with an unfunded documentary.

Or are you waiting to spoil a party, such as the recently announced conference to honor John Green in BC in April? http://www.bigfootsongs.com/

Edited by Old Fishing Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Also, if I had the truth of the PGF and sadly it is opposite of your current convictions, what would you do? Would you thank me?

Yup...I sure would! :)

Would you begrudge me all the effort and work I went to?

No...I wouldn't. I've already stated, on Jref...(in your 'Documentary' thread, I believe)...how I would respond to your proving the film to be a hoax.

My approach to the matter is very simple...this Film has been an 'unsolved mystery' for 43 years...(and counting)...and anyone who manages to be the first person to PROVE the Film to be one thing, or the other....deserves credit for that accomplishment. Even you. ;)

How would SweatyYeti handle having his bubble burst?

I'd be sad...and disappointed. But, also...happy, that the mystery has been solved, and the controversy/battle 'put to rest'.

But, in the event that the Film is a hoax...the mystery behind it isn't completely solved, until it's known who made the suit, how was it made, and who wore the suit. Because, if a suit...it's a ONE-of-a-kind suit...with 'Powers and Abilities Far Beyond those of Mortal Suits'...

'Super-suit'

I...and many other people...find Patty fascinating, because there has never been any video of a 'man-in-a-monkey-suit', seen with the degree of visibilty, and resolution that Patty has....that comes anywhere near as 'ambiguous', and 'realistic' as she is.

I analyze the film, and take an interest in other people's analysis of it, for ONE main reason...I want to KNOW what Patty is. Thinking that it's 'most likely' real, or 'most likely' a hoax doesn't 'cut it' for me.

That being said....I seriously doubt you have 'Proof' that the Film is a hoax. I think you're all 'hot air'. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Under normal circumstances Kit I would not bother with a reply but I am willing today so here you go.

I appreciate your positive feedback and offer some feedback myself.

Your writing style is condescending and self-aggrandizing whether you intend it or not. Part of effective communication is to consider how your audience will receive what it is you are trying to communicate - sometimes you cannot predict this in advance (sometimes you can) - in those cases where you cannot effectively predict it, it is then incumbent on the communicator to be open to signals from the audience, and to alter their strategy until the message gets through.

Sometimes in face-to-face situations those signals are non-verbal (folded arms, closed eyes, furrowed brows, pitchforks and torches) but here on the web the feedback is direct. Several people find your style abrasive and have tried to help you see and understand that. The problem is that we are all creatures of habit, and we invariably fall back on what we are comfortable with, especially in regard to communication styles.

You claim special knowledge, repeatedly; you offer no proof of said knowledge, repeatedly; and then you dismiss other points based on the self-identified special knowledge. You say you are not out to kill BF, repeatedly; but you have stated on numerous occasions that there is no BF (see above).

And yet, here you are, on a forum dedicated to the subject and populated in large part by proponents of BF being an actual entity, trying to convince people that you have special knowledge, that you say doesn't make you superior, but we would agree with you if we had the special knowledge only you have.

That is rhetorical malpractice and is likely the second leading cause for why you are making no headway with folks here who are of a different mindset or belief than you (second to a condescending and dismissive tone towards folks who do not share your belief).

You then project onto Bill what I perceive as your own realization that you are only going to convince the already convinced with-respect-to the PGF being a hoax. But you can then dismiss anyone who remains unconvinced by your argument, unproven as it may be, as being close-minded and simply unable to grasp the wisdom of your argument.

Whether or not that is how you intend to come across, for several people, myself included that is how it comes across. Take it for what it is, a straightforward critique - you claim you want to be straight, that is me being straight.

With respect to what I do on the subject, I will offer a little basic background about me, and then a bit about my interest in BF.

I am an Engineer by trade and avocation. I specialize in an area called Reliability, Maintainability and Logistics Support Engineering, which is a fancy way of saying figure out how often something works, then how it will break, and when it breaks, how to return it to service in the most time and cost effective manner. This relies heavily on probability and statistics, while also being able to synthesize from many sources, an understanding of how complex systems work, how systems fail, what the effects of the failure are on the specific item, and the systems above it, how critical each failure is, how the failure is determined, and lastly what to do about it. This requires a lot of logical and deductive reasoning along with good research skills.

With respect to BF and my current activities, I utilize my research skills, and my sense of logic and deductive reasoning to work on what I jokingly call my Grand Unified Bigfoot Theory. I offer bits and pieces of it as it progresses when I think it adds to a discussion, and I try to provide what I believe to be a rational and defensible flesh-and-blood animal position in contrast to the more Fortean views of BF, and the man-in-a-suit view of BF.

My initiation into BF was the In Search Of episode that featured the PGF, and Sasquatch, the Legend of Bigfoot. These two, plus Legend of Boggy Creek scared the crap out of me and my mother suggested I read up on Bigfoot to see if there was anything to be scared of. I read everything I could get on my hands on (this would be ~'78-79) and I found both the subject as well as the characters around it to be interesting.

After completing high school in Kansas I tried to volunteer for Peter Byrne's Bigfoot Research Project in the Dalles OR but was not able to work the details out. Then my interest turned to girls, and I focused on my love of flying which put me where I am today, happily married, with a beautiful daughter, a pilot's license, and a great career as an engineer.

In 2003 it all came back when my family and I discovered a short trackway made up of 3 prints outside Durango CO. We were on a closed spur of a Jeep trail near Hermosa Peak. The tracks were about 15"x7" and did not appear to me to be overlapping bear tracks (a determination later verified by a retired Dept. of the Interior Widlife Biologist based on video I took of the prints).

Since then, I dabble when time and interest level permit.

I believe BF exists. I believe it is an animal that appears roughly in the Homininae tree. I do not believe them to be a proto-human nor do I believe they are in Homo family. I do not believe that they are relic G. Blacki. I do not believe they levitate, dematerialize, or possess anything that would be considered by the average person to be supernatural abilities.

I believe in a flesh and blood animal, that obeys and comforms to known patterns of biology and behavior.

This belief is based on reviewing about 7,000 reports over the last 30 years, photos of many tracks and trackways, and my own track find.

The PGF has waxed and waned for me in terms of importance as well as likelhood it captured a real flesh-and-blood animal vs. a possible hoax over the past 30-35 years. I believe at this point that is probably represents a currently uncataloged flesh-and-blood animal.

That said, if it were proved conclusively to be a hoax tomorrow (Bob Gimlin pulls the suit out a horse trailer and fesses up for example), it only effects the PGF and the trace evidence related to it. That is one multi-witness report, a few track casts, and a film - out of more than 7,000 reports, hundreds of individual casts, and several potential films/photographs. It would cast a shadow on the work of researchers who have pointed to it as conclusive proof, insofar as showing they could have been hoaxed (which I have always accepted as not only possible but known given Ray Wallace, Ivan Marx, and Hansen and the Iceman specifically), but that does not invalidate all the other purported evidence.

In my professional life I have to look for patterns, sometimes patterns which are contained way down in the noise from a casual review. Based on experience, I am able to determine a likely outcome from a quick review of data, and in many, but not all cases, the ultimate determination will match my initial suspicion.

I am not a biologist, a hominologist, nor do I consider myself a fortean zoologist or even a cryptozooligist. I am just a guy who has had a long term interest in the subject, who had one strange find while out Jeeping one day at 11,000 feet, and who is convinced, based on a preponderence of the evidence, that there is real flesh-and-blood animal responsible for some of the body of evidence.

A quick review of Long's work (Making of Bigfoot - MOB) and his writing about himself on his website shows a very careless researcher, poor writer, and sloppy thinker, who is completely wrapped up in his own self-image, in my opinion. The fact that he touches on other Fortean subjects only goes to clearly show he has a self-image as a sort of professional skeptic, a scoftic Man of La Mancha tilting windmills great and small to protect the great unwashed masses from themselves.

Long has an abrasive and condescending style, claims he has the proof to blow the lid off of the PGF, but ultimately fails to put together a coherent story in his own work, and one that fails even moreso given the other conflicting 'hoax' theories. Critical review of the claims Bob H makes in Long's MOB show a man who has no idea how such a film could have been made, what a suit that has even a remote possibility of making the images captured on the PGF would have been made like (either professionally constructed by thge best in Hollywood or hacked together by a rodeo cowboy), and who physically is not a good match to film subject.

That said, I am not here to convert you or any other skeptic. I have no special knowledge beyond the trackway I found in 2003.

It is in evaluating my own experience that I came to a personal, gut-level understanding of the possibilities, and it has been, for me, life-changing in some ways. There are really only three explanations for that trackway. 1 - it was a bear that myself and a retired Wildlife Biologist misidentified, 2 - it was hoaxed, 3 it was made by a currently uncataloged animal.

That is it. Only three possibilites, and the same three possibilities apply to any and all reports, trackways, videos, films, blobsquatches, body imprints, dermal ridges, scat/spoor, hair samples, etc.

I acknowledge and accept that an indeterminate but statistically significant portion of the body of evidence (tracks, sightings, vocalizations, film/video/photos, scat/spoor, aboriginal history and art, etc.) can be explained as 1 or 2, but it will mean that an also statistically significant portion of the body of evidence is not explained by those two approaches.

As with Blue Book and UFOs, if only 5% remain unexplained by the first two, that still leaves several hundred reports, many hundreds of tracks and trackways, and maybe even a film or two where the third option, no matter how improbable, remains as the only remaining possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
No...I wouldn't. I've already stated, on Jref...(in your 'Documentary' thread, I believe)...how I would respond to your proving the film to be a hoax.

My approach to the matter is very simple...this Film has been an 'unsolved mystery' for 43 years...(and counting)...and anyone who manages to be the first person to PROVE the Film to be one thing, or the other....deserves credit for that accomplishment. Even you. ;)

I'd be sad...and disappointed. But, also...happy, that the mystery has been solved, and the controversy/battle 'put to rest'.

Cool. You and I have a unique opportunity here to communicate without scorn or hostility and I am going to keep that in mind. You have thoughts that I think should be addressed, rather than ignored.

But, in the event that the Film is a hoax...the mystery behind it isn't completely solved, until it's known who made the suit, how was it made, and who wore the suit. Because, if a suit...it's a ONE-of-a-kind suit...with 'Powers and Abilities Far Beyond those of Mortal Suits'...

'Super-suit'

I...and many other people...find Patty fascinating, because there has never been any video of a 'man-in-a-monkey-suit', seen with the degree of visibilty, and resolution that Patty has....that comes anywhere near as 'ambiguous', and 'realistic' as she is.

I analyze the film, and take an interest in other people's analysis of it, for ONE main reason...I want to KNOW what Patty is. Thinking that it's 'most likely' real, or 'most likely' a hoax doesn't 'cut it' for me.

That being said....I seriously doubt you have 'Proof' that the Film is a hoax. I think you're all 'hot air'. :)

OK, I understand. A few things.

1) Do you accept that for a great many people, Patty is not unique or realistic? For some people like me, 2001 apemen are more realistic and Patty having wider shoulders or more junk in the trunk does not help. I won't link the film here because it is non sequitur and we are disrespecting the forums and Bill's thread by derailing into the PGF's degree of realism. For you it is high, for me and many others is low. All those people aren't empirically wrong and you are right, right?

Also, if you think you can in a empirical and measured fashion demonstrate an objective realism with Patty, how has your success been so far in accomplishing that? Let's measure the success in terms of people who previously did not think Patty was realistic.

2) If you heard Gimlin saying that Heironimus was in the suit even though it flys against every graphic you've made attempting to show otherwise, would you accept it, or would you be inclined to think it wasn't true?

3) If you had a confession, or you had the suit, or you had evidence of the suit, or you had something else you knew qualified as undeniable proof of a PGF hoax, but you realized that you could be royally sued by Patricia Patterson and Erik and Marten Dahinden and they had indeed made such a threat, would you risk your home, your life savings, your family's financial well being and flop it out on the Internet? Would you risk everything and your loved ones around you?

4) Most importantly for this thread, why don't you have Long's book?

It's just fine for you to think whatever you like, Sweaty. What I know about the PGF will be sat upon by me until the time is right to bring it forward in a controlled fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bill wrote:

In fairness, let me clarify that "bizarre" reference. It is based on looking at the "big picture", the evidence of what indicates the PGf is real, and the evidence of Roger's life story and the Yakima people researched in connection with the PGF, and seeing two theoretically opposite proofs, and wondering how they can co-exist.

Applying logical deductive reasoning to that essential situation leads me to speculate (quietly and privately) what I think really happened. And it's that quiet private speculation that, if so, is bizarre.

Very intriguing, Bill. I hope to hear what this (possible) 'bizarre solution' is...someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My apologies for my attempt at War and Peace above, way longer than intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So then you found the suit (minus the head) that was claimed to have been loaned to DeAtley's friend (as I recall) that the friend's son borrowed to scare someone in Canada - but then the Canadian border guards confiscated it? Was it sitting in claims all this time and you retrieved it? You wrote about this on the JREF board a while ago and I'll assume this is it. But you speak as if you know it exists but you aren't in possession of it, correct? ("I aim for no less than smack solid hammer dropping truth. It does exist").

Your assumption would be wrong. You would be referring to the claims of one of the people who assist me offline. Can you guess who it is? I'll never tell. Their claims are their claims, nothing more. I don't claim to have found a suit at the Canadian border. You should be careful what you assume. I'm assuming you're Yams, but I could be wrong and if I was, I would be quite fine with that.

Since you are both a father and a musician, I don't know why you would bother revealing the truth here when you have the opportunity to make some money for your family. If I had solid proof of a hoax (suit and confession) I would be contacting James Randi or someone with a lot of money and then count the bills as they roll in from pubic appearances, a book deal, a record deal and a feature film. I wouldn't bother with an unfunded documentary.

Or are you waiting to spoil a party, such as the recently announced conference to honor John Green in BC in April? http://www.bigfootsongs.com/

Thanks for the suggestions about Randi. His organization has been very helpful to me and I owe them a lot. Since I am assuming you are Yams, I know that Yams doesn't consider money and fame to be priorities above music and friends. I am no different. Yams would also be the type of guy to come and post incognito and promote one of his Bigfootery figure worship parties. I won't spoil that for you. Maybe you can ask John however on this green Earth he could not figure out this was an obvious hoax from someone with a trickster sense of humour?

89614c841b1920c84.jpg

It's too bad BG and Patricia refuse to meet with Bob H.

Say, why doesn't Patricia and the Dahinden brothers sue Heironimus and Morris to high heaven? Phil and I have discussed just that in my interviews with him. I'll be uploading some video of that soon. The film project I do in my way and my time. Music is more important than Bigfoot or money right now, and that includes doing it the way I feel is right.

Know where I am coming from?

I enjoyed the Bob Saget show, BTW. Bobo really enjoyed that samurai sword. You guys looked like you were having a blast. The eating the dead overnight fish and the fart were funny. I actually think you guys showed your interest in a perfectly frank and honest way.

Enjoy your party. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

taking a shot at your questions:

"Bill, couple questions...

1) What chapter and page are you at now?

I'm in the Jerry Merritt chapter, and want to read it again without distractions because of all the "Roger had show business connections" and I want to appraise it from my own "show business connections" experience.

2) What plans have you made for legal repercussions should you find proof of the film being a hoax and show it to people on the Internet such as here at the BFF?

None. I can't imagine any reason why I should make such plans.I have permission to research the film and publish my analysis in my report, and no strings attached on what I conclude. If I find a hoax, I'll meticulously document how I determined such, and then simply tell it as I see it. Other people do often now ask me to analyze footage they provide, and while some are the usual unidentifiable blobsquatches, one recent thing I concluded was a hoax, and I told the person straight out I thought so. If I see a hoax, I call it as I see it.

You've broken bread with Gimlin, you've been in Patricia's home. What would you do if you found yourself across the aisle from Patricia Patterson and Erik and Martin Dahinden?

Across the aisle? I'm already married. :)

(I'm assuming you are actually implying across the aisle of a legal proceeding, and I have absolutely no expectation I will be in such a situation, so I don't plan for what I cannot envision happening. But, hypothetically, if somebody challenges me legally, I am confident that what I write and conclude will stand up in a court as reasonable and appropriate, and I will not lose.)

You don't have to divulge it to me publicly, but I would ask that you at least confirm or deny having taken measures for that."

Nope. Not even considered such, and your questions are the first thought I've ever given to these issues.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

My apologies for my attempt at War and Peace above, way longer than intended.

No worries, infoman. You are verbose, I am verbose. Notice this and your great big post have a hit on the green? Those two hits are from me. To my fellow forum members who hate it when we get long about something - being verbose and posting a lot has its rewards. i was the first person (Huntster was second) to reach the number of posts that allows you to hit the green more than once a day and upload more pictures. That is cool.

What I am saying to you infoman is that I respect you and I think you have interesting experience. Of course you will immediately understand when I say that sound engineers and engineers have much in common. All the problem solving skills you mention are ones I employ when dealing with finicky electrical equipment. My best friend and producer partnet is also a sound engineer and an electrician, and he teaches me a lot.

People who know me long and well in Bigfootery know that I once believed a found a Bigfoot track like you and Huntster do. I realize now that what I was looking at was more what i wanted it to be and not what it really was. I fully take to heart your advice about my writing style and about the person claiming special knowledge with no proof. I will not divulge the things I know and that is very trying for many people.

It puts me in a difficult position. Long made mistakes and so have I. My biggest mistake was ever revealing I knew anything at all. I screwed up there, but I try to speak about it as little as possible now. People naturally want to know, so I can't always ignore it.

You have some sound advice for me and I am going to take it. Here's what I want on this Wednesday evening: I want to communicate with Bill about his reading of Long. I hope he can catch some of the things that Long didn't. I chose to engage him in public when I saw this thread because i was excited about it. Clearly, my interest is too transparent and I have said to much regarding what I will not dicuss. That is my mistake. Also, if I sounded condescending to Bill, that was not my intention. Sometimes I feel we are being so hyperallergic and namby-pamby touchy-feely, but I see where the sensitivity comes from.

Here's what sounds best to me - I go quiet again and engage Bill by email. That seems far better to me. I want to bring Bill into my world more, but I also expect people around Gimlin and the PGF to try to get him to be a mole. I think I trust Bill's intentions, so if he starts putting the dots together by himself and with the occasional tip, I will collaborate with him much more. Bill is extremely intelligent and far more experienced than me, so I think this could very well happen. It seems obvious to me now that it needs to be in private.

OK, now for you infoman. I offer this advice for your efforts regarding the PGF. Use The skills you have at problem solving to get Bob Heironimus' phone number. I have it, but I'm sorry, I won't give out private information like that. Then see if you can get Gimlin's number or in communication with people close to him. Be mindful of his wife Judy, she's not down with all the Bigfoot stuff. Now try to get them in a room together where they agree to sit down, talk, and be recorded.

I say with all sincerity that I truly think that is your best course of action. If you do try that and have success, I will immediately know about it and you will have succeeded where I have thus far failed - Bob and Bob have not been recorded in a room together and have had few if any words since the horse show they both went to I first wrote about when I started interviewing BH. Good luck with your efforts and I'll see you around.

Thanks again for the positive feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit:

taking a shot at your questions:

"Bill, couple questions...

1) What chapter and page are you at now?

I'm in the Jerry Merritt chapter, and want to read it again without distractions because of all the "Roger had show business connections" and I want to appraise it from my own "show business connections" experience.

2) What plans have you made for legal repercussions should you find proof of the film being a hoax and show it to people on the Internet such as here at the BFF?

None. I can't imagine any reason why I should make such plans.I have permission to research the film and publish my analysis in my report, and no strings attached on what I conclude. If I find a hoax, I'll meticulously document how I determined such, and then simply tell it as I see it. Other people do often now ask me to analyze footage they provide, and while some are the usual unidentifiable blobsquatches, one recent thing I concluded was a hoax, and I told the person straight out I thought so. If I see a hoax, I call it as I see it.

You've broken bread with Gimlin, you've been in Patricia's home. What would you do if you found yourself across the aisle from Patricia Patterson and Erik and Martin Dahinden?

Across the aisle? I'm already married. :)

(I'm assuming you are actually implying across the aisle of a legal proceeding, and I have absolutely no expectation I will be in such a situation, so I don't plan for what I cannot envision happening. But, hypothetically, if somebody challenges me legally, I am confident that what I write and conclude will stand up in a court as reasonable and appropriate, and I will not lose.)

You don't have to divulge it to me publicly, but I would ask that you at least confirm or deny having taken measures for that."

Nope. Not even considered such, and your questions are the first thought I've ever given to these issues.

:)

Bill

Thanks for the answers, Bill. I will take this conversation to email when I have time. It might be sooner or later depending on my schedule. I know we are both quite busy. All the best.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...