Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
34 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An obsession gone astray, April 10, 2004
Prometheus Books sent a review copy of Greg Long's "The Making of Bigfoot" to my postal box. I hadn't asked for it and it was not addressed to me, but having taken the liberty of reading it, and even highlighting some of it, I guess I am obligated to review it.The author makes it clear that he began with two firm convictions, that the creature in Roger Patterson's film of Bigfoot had to be a man in a suit, and that if he could demonstrate that Roger Patterson was a bad person that would prove he had hoaxed the film. Burdened with those limitations he did a very thorough investigation, but the limitations were fatal. In the valley west of Yakima where Patterson lived he found a lot of people to tell him what he wanted to hear, even a man who had been claiming for years that he wore the suit in the film, but he didn't consider it necessary to familiarize himself with that other valley in California where the film was shot. As a result he was blind to the fact that Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to have driven there to act the part in the film, obviously had never been there either. Confusion over which towns are where in that part of California might be explained by the passing of more than 30 years, but not "about four, maybe five miles" up the Bluff Creek Road from the highway. It would have been more than 20 miles of twisting dirt road, and not easy miles, well over an hour's drive, and not a forgettable one. Much of the book is a transcript of what people had to say about Roger Patterson, mostly, but by no means entirely, unfavorable things, and Long makes clear that he thought that would have been enough to disprove the film even if he had never interviewed the man who claimed to have worn the suit or the man who claimed to have made it. He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms to short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorillas costume not in the least like what the movie shows. . Long does have witnesses who say that Heironimus had a long history of claiming to have been the "man in the suit" and that they once saw such a suit in his car, but they make no connection to Patterson, there is only Heironimus' word on that. And Long has fitted blinders on himself so closely that he can see nothing wrong with his two key witnesses describing, with many specific details, two totally different suits--a three-piece suit made of raw horsehide and a six-piece suit made of cloth. Philip Morris' story was apparently a last-minute addition after the book was finished. It would have been to Long's credit that he chose to add material so damaging to the case he was trying to make, except that he apparently thought he was making the case stronger. Long obviously worked hard on his book and I learned some things from it, so perhaps I should feel sorry for him being so easily taken in. It is his own fault however. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who investigated the film in the beginning and those that have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself.
|
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not Enough Journalism Involved, April 28, 2004
I'm not really sure what to think about the Patterson film and as I am interested in this topic, I was hoping for an incisive, detailed look at the film and how it might have been made, hoax or otherwise. Unfortunately, this book is more the tale of a reporter piecing together anectdotal evidence about someone based on hearsay and opinion rather than an investigation into the making of the film.I was prepared to welcome an expose of a hoax (should it be a hoax), but from the very start the introduction to the book presents the case for a hoax on the basis of something like "we don't believe in this film because we think Roger Patterson might have been able to fake it." That's not meant to be (and isn't) a quote from the book, just my emphasis on what I think the attitude of this book is. And that would be fine, but why not set out to prove it with facts? Instead, I'd say this book does little more than offer an opinion. The central concept of this book revolves around the idea that Patterson faked the footage with a costume he either made or purchased and perhaps modified. The book presents interviews with the alleged costume maker (even picturing an ad selling the costume), the alleged costume wearer and a score of others who swear that they know that Patterson made or had a costume. Where is the costume and isn't the logical approach to show the reader something that really looks like something that Patterson showed us in the film? Seems like it should be fairly simple to do with all these people claiming inside knowledge of the hoax. (Some people Long interviewed don't even offer strong opinions, they just act suspicious, in Long's view!) Maybe the latter could have been done, but the fact that it wasn't done by Mr. Long is a little troubling given his strong assertion of a hoax. It just seems that Mr. Long is only willing to go so far, and no farther, to make his hoax claim. Mr. Long, if there is a hoax, let's expose it! If not, well let's leave it at that. Bob Mack, Indianapolis
|
|
|
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Very lacking in credibility, May 8, 2004
By A Customer
This book was a major letdown. It employs low standards of investigative journalism, especially in its willingness to accept without critical examination the claims of those saying what the author wants to hear. Not only do those claiming to have faked the Patterson footage lack physical supporting evidence, they can't even keep their stories straight. So they should be believed...why?A decade or so ago I studied the Patterson footage at length after taping a Discovery Channel program on the Bigfoot mystery. I was intrigued enough to play it through several times. One thing for sure: if the creature shown is really a man, it's a VERY large and heavy man, well beyond the dimensions of those now making these claims. What's interesting is the very fluid motion of the creature's strides and arm swings, which really do not look like a man laboring to imitate anything. With the plodding footsteps, you can see ripples (or waves) going up through the abdominal body fat/tissue. It's hard to imagine this with an ape suit. That doesn't mean that the film can't be a fake, but rather that it was done in an unusual way: covering the body with some kind of paste, and then applying fur or hair--so that the flexing of muscles and movement of tissue would be displayed. Since the claims made in this book are inconsistent with what I observed to be plainly shown on the film, I conclude that this is all as bogus as the author claims the film itself to be. The real question is whether in 1967 the man elaborately trashed in this book as a con man, deadbeat, loser, etc. could have pulled this off with the level of sophistication captured in the famous 16mm film. You have to wonder. One thing for sure, to appreciate this film, even as a hoax, you have to see it in motion--not just still frames. It's well known that the ape suit designer for "Planet of the Apes" told everyone on the set back in '68 that he also supplied the Bigfoot shown in the Patterson film. At least he has a consistent story and the proven ability to craft an ape outfit. Not that the Bigfoot here looks anything like what Kim Hunter wore in the movie. But if you want to believe such an account, believe his. Not the baloney spun in this book. My advice is to spend your money on a documetary program on this subject, and trust your own eyes and judge for yourself. Author Greg Long, in writing the most unobjective book ever written on this topic, says the Patterson film is nothing but an elaborate hoax designed to create a trip to the bank. Well, maybe. I'd agree that he's now an authority on that subject.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Roger Patterson
by Loren Coleman
DVD ~ Leonard Nimoy
by John Willison Green
See all Editorial Reviews
