Making of bigfoot by greg long book review

Everybodys Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Sasaquatch A Review of The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long (2004) by Scott Mardis Though serious scholars in the field of Cryptozoology remain highly.Everybodys Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Sasaquatch A Review of The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long (2004) by Scott Mardis Though serious scholars in the field of Cryptozoology remain highly.

Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except

Me and My Sasaquatch: A Review of The

Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long (2004) by Scott Mardis

Though serious scholars in the field of Cryptozoology remain highly engaged in a somewhat insular field, they remain largely oblivious that the great majority of people

on the face of this planet don't know what it's about and could care less To those

who do care and haven't abandoned the

possibility that some of these hypothetical creatures could still be out there awaiting discovery, the 1967 Patterson/ Gimlin film

of a Sasquatch is one of the touchstones of the landscape Analyzed, poked and

prodded by advocates and skeptics alike for 5 decades now, it remains enigmatic

Those who believe the film is of a real

sasquatch argue that nobody has been

able to reproduce it using a man in a suit for half a century Those who believe it is a man in a suit argue that better evidence

has not materialized in the same half

century.

Greg Long's 2004 book, The Making of Bigfoot, was published through

Prometheus Books (the publishing arm of the Center For Inquiry) Allegedly meant to

be a fair and impartial investigation into the veracity and provenance of the integrity of the Patterson/ Gimlin film, the final result drew the predictable ire of the pro-

Sasquatch community but also the

unexpected criticism from some in the

skeptic community, as will be explained in due course Ultimately, there is a lot of “he said/she said” ambiguity, invoking similar controversies such as the Loch Ness toy submarine hoax claim and the alleged UFO crash at Roswell One's preconcieved ideas very much color which pieces of potential evidence are given the most weight Such

is human nature and why reliable,

incontrovertible evidence is so important in removing it from the equation.

Though the narrative of the book tells a

compelling story, the author's insistence

on inserting the tedious events of his daily routine (what he was eating at the time,

what his wife was doing) into the mix gets extremely annoying after awhile in the

space of a 465 page book and caused me

to put it down several times in frustration Surely, this did not ingratiate him with his target audience, much less those who were ready to lynch him for trying to make

hamburger out of a sacred cow.

Near the beginning, the author states

his intentions to mostly avoid analyzing the film on it's own merits alone but

concentrating on the character of who

Roger Patterson was and the

circumstances around the filming Fair

enough but I think this was a mistake The film itself has impressed even those who are highly skeptical of it's provenance In the book ABOMINABLE SCIENCE, probably the most scathing indictment of

cryptozoology credibility ever written, the authors state: “ As practical evidence for

an undiscovered ape, however, the

Patterson–Gimlin film is a dead end I am going to say something that will be

unpopular on both sides of the debate:

no one knows whether the film depicts a

real Sasquatch or a man in a gorilla suit.

Moreover, after decades of argument and analysis, there is no sign that the issue can

be resolved unless one of three things

emerges: a live or dead Sasquatch,

powerful new documentary or physical

evidence that exposes the film as a hoax

(such as the suit itself), or a confession

from co-witness Bob Gimlin.”

IF the film is a hoax ( and I am not

saying that is ), it is a very sophisticated

one that has thus far eluded any and all

attempts to replicate it with a man in a suit The various anatomical studies that argue for the authenticity of the film subject being

a non-human primate seem to be more

detailed than the counter studies making the inverse argument A lot of unknown

factors raise questions: the parameters of

the lens used, the filming speed Due to the limitations of the image resolution of the

original film, these issues may never be

resolved Ultimately, we are left with a very impressive piece of possible positive

evidence that awaits confirmation or

refutation that may never come.

Long's case has been put under scrutiny and has been criticized by some in

the skeptic community (ESkeptic, “Bigfoot

Big Con,” and Michael Dennett and Daniel Loxton, “Some reasons for Caution about

the Bigfoot Film Expose,”Skeptical Inquirer

(Jan–Feb 2005) The contradictory things said between Bob Heronymous and Phillip Morris about the construction of the suit

raise serious questions and Kal Korff, who worked with Greg Long on the book, had previously identified a man named Jerry

Romney as the alleged man in the suit Bob Heironymous does not seem to have gone public with his confession about being the man in the suit until confronted by Greg

Long, who more or less telegraphed the

idea to him on his front doorstep,

according to the book.

On the other hand, Long's series of interviews with people closely associated with Roger Patterson mostly paint a largely unsympathetic picture of a man who

manipulated and used people, possibly a bully and psychic vampire The man was looking his own demise in the face but that still does not excuse some of his behavior Bob Gimlin emerges mostly unscathed,

with the only substantial accusation of

being in on a hoax coming from Bob

Heironymous Many people are

interviewed, with many who speak ill of

Patterson nevertheless maintaining that he really believed in Sasquath and that they thought the film was authentic

Real questions do emerge about how quickly the film was developed and if the traditional timeline of events are accurate Also, there seems to be some evidence of Long trying to goad his interveiwees a little too far and some speculative filling in the

blanks on some points that may not be

justified Confusing accounts of another sasquatch film allegedly made by

Patterson in 1961 and Patterson's attempt

to purposely make a fiction film about

hunting for Bigfoot further muddy the

waters

Even if you loathe the allegations in this book, you should read it just to get the other side of the debate It never hurts to know all the arguments.