Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Greg Long's Book Under The Microscope

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

I think if the things he wrote were false, he would have been sued.

 

Your assumption above is not accurate. There is a rule in civil law that says that it is not enough to just say someone said something untrue about you ... it has to also be shown that what was said had caused monetary damage to the effected parties. If Patricia Patterson could show that she was somehow been financially effected by the things said in Long's book, then she would have a cause of action.

I read Greg Long's book The Making of Bigfoot: the Inside Story a few years ago. Although I was glad to see some previously unpublished photos of Patterson and read about him as a man, I was completely unimpressed with Long's "analysis" of the film itself. (One glaring error is his statement on p.381 that "frame #323 shows Patty's LEFT foot. Wrong, Long!) If he was that careless about the film, then how could anyone have confidence in the accuracy and truthfulness of the rest of his book?

 

I referenced several key mistakes in Long's book ... not to mention some mistakes that Long may have purposely made to help support his agenda.

http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 I think even discussing Long gives him more credit than he is due. Not only do I have no interest in Long, but when a skeptic starts quoting or praising him, then that skeptic looses all credibility as well. I do not mind the skeptical point of view, I really don't care a whole lot what others believe, however, if you want to discuss it with me, at least come up with a reasonable rational argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Now I should note that when I said "it was libel" that wasn't a legal determination.  ;-)

 

But "there should be a lawsuit or P/G is fake" isn't exactly the tightest argument.  What is that on the film? is really the only question, and the tipoff that someone doesn't have the answer is a personal attack on the people involved.

 

This book was garbage, which seems an unkind thing to say except for the unkind and unfounded things it said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Why hasn't either BobG or Patricia(Patty)P ever sued BobH for his 'outrageous' claims?

 

Why does the principal financier (Al D) of the PGF not believe in bigfoot but can't explain why not?

 

Why did RP consult with Harvey Anderson on the making of bigfoot casts? Why would Harvey remember those conversations? How else would Harvey know that Rog was dying of cancer and trying to leave a little something for his family?

 

Why would Bob Gimlin deny the plywood incident?

 

Why do Roger and Bob have differing stories as to the length of their stay at Bluff Creek and as to how Roger fell off the horse?

 

Why didn't Gimlin stick around for the initial viewing of the film instead of going home tired? One would think the adrenaline rush of having been one of two people who first captured sasquatch on film would keep him going long beyond Sunday night's last call. By professional, scientific and unbiased opinion, Gimlin should have been at least a little bit as shaky and jacked up as Roger has concluded to be.

 

Why did Roger say he bent his stirrup when a horse fell on him? Gimlin seems to have recalled it as a very practised manoeuvre whereby 'ole Rog had become very adept at dismounting a bucking horse while grabbing the camera from his saddlebag.

 

The answers to this and more are in Long's book.

 

What you won't find is proof. That's just how it seems to go with bigfeetses.

 

Lots of evidence of possible huckstering going on though.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

Greg Long went about his research in a way that fit his agenda. And that was to paint "the little man" Roger in the worst light possible so that all would believe he hoaxed the film. The only problem is that the film tells its own story, and nothing Long or Heironimus say about Roger or Bob Gimlin can change what is on the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Nothing from MoBF registers as anything but pre-determined speculation and BS.  And, nothing from BH, GL or PM in regard to this ever passed the laugh test.  The fact that those 3 plus a terrible book and several really bad costumes/"PGf recreations" are the reigning champs of the PGf as a hoax community speaks volumes, imo.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Why hasn't either BobG or Patricia(Patty)P ever sued BobH for his 'outrageous' claims?

 

Probably the same reason Bob H never sued them over his claims- neither side could prove or disprove either story. There was also nothing to show for any damages.

 

 

Why does the principal financier (Al D) of the PGF not believe in bigfoot but can't explain why not?

 

If you're to believe Al's story then it was because he had zero interest in Roger's hobbies or Bigfoot. He financed Roger for multiple projects purely for financial and family matters and didn't care about the details.

 

 

Why did RP consult with Harvey Anderson on the making of bigfoot casts? Why would Harvey remember those conversations? How else would Harvey know that Rog was dying of cancer and trying to leave a little something for his family?

 

There is zero evidence that any of what Harvey claimed ever happened.

 

How did Harvey know about Roger dying from cancer? Because it was common knowledge by the time he was interviewed. Roger's story was well known in Yakima and had been in print for many years in books, magazines, and TV shows.

 

Harvey also claimed that Roger rented a gorilla suit from Hollywood, filmed the PGF in the early 60's, and that he was the one who processed it. If that doesn't sound like a guy completely making it up as he went along then I don't know what does. Not a single bit of what the guy said could be verified.

 

 

Why would Bob Gimlin deny the plywood incident?

 

I would guess because it was irrelevant to Long's research and none of his business.

 

 

Why do Roger and Bob have differing stories as to the length of their stay at Bluff Creek and as to how Roger fell off the horse?

 

They went on back to back outings from St Helen's to Bluff Creek. It would be pretty easy to confuse the timeframe.

 

 

Why didn't Gimlin stick around for the initial viewing of the film instead of going home tired? One would think the adrenaline rush of having been one of two people who first captured sasquatch on film would keep him going long beyond Sunday night's last call. By professional, scientific and unbiased opinion, Gimlin should have been at least a little bit as shaky and jacked up as Roger has concluded to be.

 

For one he never had the interest in Bigfoot like Roger did. He also was more concerned with his home life, which is why he didn't go on the road with the other guys.

 

 

Why did Roger say he bent his stirrup when a horse fell on him? Gimlin seems to have recalled it as a very practised manoeuvre whereby 'ole Rog had become very adept at dismounting a bucking horse while grabbing the camera from his saddlebag.

 

Al Hodgson said that Roger showed him the bent stirrup when they went into town, so was it really a fabricated incident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Nothing from MoBF registers as anything but pre-determined speculation and BS.  And, nothing from BH, GL or PM in regard to this ever passed the laugh test.  The fact that those 3 plus a terrible book and several really bad costumes/"PGf recreations" are the reigning champs of the PGf as a hoax community speaks volumes, imo.

Plussed.

 

And as it's been said:  all one has to do is read that intro to know that we're dignifying it by talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Hey everybody!!!--- Let's all read Bob Gimlin's tell all book about the sasquatch.

 

Why hasn't't ole G sued the "prevaricatin" BobH???

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Because no lawyer will take the case on contingency, so Bob Gimlin should be prepared to invest $50,000 or more in lawyer's fees to take a case to trial, and Bob Heironimous doesn't have enough money to make any award even a break-even proposition, after all the hassle of such a lawsuit.

 

Plus, if the opposing lawyer knows you are paying legal fees, he can do a bunch of junk discovery requests to churn billable hours for your lawyer, driving up your fees, until you just run out of money and quit, and he wins for the guy you sued, because you can't  keep funding the esculating cost of the suit.

 

The fact that a person doesn't sue someone else does not mean the person's grievince isn't valid. I've twice been in a situation where I felt I had a solid case to sue someone, but simply couldn't afford to do so paying the lawyer on a billable rate and the lawyer wouldn't take it on contingency.

 

So the "Way doesn't this person sue that person" question always reflects that the person in this forum who tries to pass it off as a legitimate argument doesn't know the reality of the law, and is just bluffing with a poorly thought out talking point.

 

Bill

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zenmonkey

You guys say that Bob H's claims are crazy and out there. If you think about it from a totally neutral view (i amit is very hard for even myself) Bob G's claims are just as crazy and far out if not crazier than Bob H's   just my 2 cents. dont burn me to death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Why hasn't't ole G sued the "prevaricatin" BobH???

This has been answered several times already and here it is again ........... There are rules pertaining to filing law suits for slander. For instance, one can call Gimlin a liar, but to get a judgment, Bob G. would have to show how the slander resulted in his being damaged financially. Seeing how Gimlin has no financial interest in the film .... then he couldn't possibly show any financial hardship as a result to anything Bob H has said.

 

I am constantly being amazed at the apparent lengths that someone will go to so to promote a conspiracy when it would take little effort to see if such a promotion is justifiable in the first place.

You guys say that Bob H's claims are crazy and out there. If you think about it from a totally neutral view (i amit is very hard for even myself) Bob G's claims are just as crazy and far out if not crazier than Bob H's   just my 2 cents. dont burn me to death

 

I have followed the position you speak of and each time it fell on its own weight. Please be more specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zenmonkey

 

Why hasn't't ole G sued the "prevaricatin" BobH???

This has been answered several times already and here it is again ........... There are rules pertaining to filing law suits for slander. For instance, one can call Gimlin a liar, but to get a judgment, Bob G. would have to show how the slander resulted in his being damaged financially. Seeing how Gimlin has no financial interest in the film .... then he couldn't possibly show any financial hardship as a result to anything Bob H has said.

 

I am constantly being amazed at the apparent lengths that someone will go to so to promote a conspiracy when it would take little effort to see if such a promotion is justifiable in the first place.

You guys say that Bob H's claims are crazy and out there. If you think about it from a totally neutral view (i amit is very hard for even myself) Bob G's claims are just as crazy and far out if not crazier than Bob H's   just my 2 cents. dont burn me to death

 

I have followed the position you speak of and each time it fell on its own weight. Please be more specific.

 

ya gues sim not being very specific sorry! I mean in general Bob H claims he was in the suit. bob G claims he recorded a bigfoot the first and last on film as of now that is. ive said before when I watch the film it looks amazing to me im not denying that. Its the back story to everything (even Bob H's) that throws me for a loop and gets me scratching my head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zenmonkey

Thanks for the read Bigfoothunter I didnt realize that was by Dahinden until the end. That is a very interesting read, I gotta say ya a lot of that is really fishy but their are quite a few inconsistencies  within PG and Bob G's side as well. It may seem as I am sticking up for Bob H. I'm not I just wanna hear everything all the facts but even then it wont prove anything but its all in good fun.


 


I gotta say "the new Morris" suit's face looks alot like patty if ya ask me I take it BigfootHunter you are a believer?  thanks    chad

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...