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 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 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 proSasquatch 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 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  ...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... 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... 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