“I’m still bemused by the gap between the strong tone of the critiques of Long and the substance of those critiques. Very little of the criticism has seemed to concern substantive errors in his work. And, for a book built almost entirely on eyewitness testimony, I have yet to hear a strong case that anyone was seriously misquoted or misrepresented. (Quite the opposite: when I pressed this point with one of Long’s fiercest opponents, he conceded that the testimony Long collects is probably all accurate.)”

I acknowledged the accuracy of Long’s quotes to you. And I’m Long’s most through-going and persistent critic. But it’s an equivocation to therefore call me a “fierce” opponent, because that implies that I have taken a “strong tone.” On the contrary, my tone and language have been temperate. For a sample, see my Amazon review at: A Tale of Two Suits.

My target has been Heironimus, not Long.

“It would no doubt please Bill Munns if I got his name right.”

It does.

“Sorry, Mr. Munns. ”

Apology graciously accepted.

It would no doubt please Bill Munns if I got his name right.

Sorry, Mr. Munns.

And of course, like everything else, I’ve said it before.

DON’T ARGUE PATTY – OR ANYTHING ELSE – WITH US HERE! Bill Munn is yet ANOTHER expert – in a distinctly relevant field – who lends impressive credentials, and rock-hard technical chops, to the validity of the Patterson-Gimlin film. ARGUE WITH THEM. That’s what real skeptics (like me) REALLY would pay to see.

Only one thing sways me. Or even makes me care.

EVIDENCE. It is why I am here. And not on a “skeptic” site.

And the proponents seem to want me in their camp MUCH more than the antis do on this one. The antis? I cannot call them skeptics for this one, very basic, most basic of all reasons. They come across as credulous and naive. They swallow – whole – anything that fits their thesis. And refuse to even look at anything that doesn’t.

The proponents have no choice but to do their homework.

And this skeptic says: oh, but have they ever. They are winning the battle of hearts and minds the only way you can here: EVIDENCE. Face it. That’s why Patty has new life, and the debate rages as it never has.

I await the technical refutations for which the so-called skeptics are long overdue.

Has it ever occurred to them that the hoaxers get off on hoaxing them too?

for my two-cents: i found the book compelling reading, but agree that it was far too long with too many accounts of what Mr. Long ate for dinner (the bit wherein he talks about his wife making tacos stands out for some reason, but the donut pages Loren cites are lodged in my memory as well!) all of which would have been better left on his kitchen table amidst the crumbs, not in the book itself.

it’s odd: but the book uses food as a metaphor throughout, albeit probably unwittingly by the author. he even uses it to characterize Patterson, whose eating habits he recounts again and again, often with disdain.

as for another example, there’s the “Vilma Radford” section of the book that begins on page 295 wherein Long details the lousy Chinese food he and his wife are forced to endure (Long’s characterization, not mine) that Mrs. Radford has invited them to share (which Mrs. Radford characterizes as good; Long implies she lacks critical judgement in this regard with a heavy hand as writer).

Long spends as much time pointing out the Egg Foo Yung dish is not palatable to his standards nor his wife’s but that Mrs. Radford finds it delicious and satisfactory. given Long cites Mrs. Radford’s testimony re: Patterson being a “con man” (her words) as gospel, one wonders: why pick on her by pointing out the restaurant she chooses serves such hideous food? doesn’t it discount her credibility that she believes the food decent but (perhaps) more credible diners find it so awful? if she believes Patterson as unreliable, in short, why point out her own tastes and inclinations are suspect?

it seems ridiculous to point this out, but i was struck by the inherent contradictions in such statements Mr. Long routinely makes throughout the book. he builds much gravitas through use of minutiea as an investigatory reporting technique, such as recounting what interviewed folks ate, drank, smoke, etc., but never seems to realize these details are at odds with the interviewed’s ability to come across as unreliable, self-contradictory, et al.

there’s also a really sleazy (at times) undercurrent wherein he resorts as Loren’s article points out to ad hominem styled observations. a good example is again his accounting of Mrs. Radford: he paints her as frankly hideous, right down to subtly ridiculing her attire, manner of presentation, doddering (implied) senility, etc.

not exactly prone to making one believe the person’s account, if you catch my drift. it’s like the D.A. putting on a witness for the prosecution but then having that witness come across as somewhat unreliable.

this is often the case with the folks he ‘captures’ in his book.

he characterizes them as being “manipulative” or “self serving” or “guarded” or… and all the while, he writes with complete oblivion about how he urges his wife to take photos of the participants “before they change their minds” about being photographed!

it’s as if he’s aware that at any moment they’ll realize his agenda — to exploit them for his book — and wants his wife to get the photographic goods before they boot him out of their homes, their lives, etc., all of which he’s been given enormous access to and priviledged position within re: his “expose.”

i particularly disliked the manner in which he sketched his portrait of Loren as well, acting as if characterizing Mr. Coleman as stunned by the admission “proof” would be forthcoming the P/G film was “a fake” made Loren suddenly discombobulated, etc. knowing Loren’s work and his skepticism in this forum via his postings, as well as through his generous emails, i admit a bias but also believe Long was simply attempting to pre-silence any criticism he must have known would be forthcoming by including the most prominent LIKELY ones in his first edition.

to this end, he failed miserably, imho.

it’s worth noting that Mr. Long’s “shocking revelation” to Loren was never followed up upon; Long never claims as such in his flawed book, per se, but rather implies that any such proof would be in Mr. Long’s not inexpensive book itself. such proof was never later delivered to Mr. Coleman. in other words — j’accuse! but not “with the smoking gun.” no wonder Loren was (rightfully) suspect when presented with such a bold declaration! anyone reasonable would be!

so for all these reasons — valid imho — Long’s book is suspect in terms of personal ambition for writing it. he’s rather like the kid who wants to debunk Santa Claus because he didn’t get what he wanted all those years ago, in that he claims his rationalization is to know “the truth” over “the magic” of his belief system and fascination with Bigfoot.

that’s NOT to say Bigfoot is “magical” and doesn’t exist. rather, that Long felt a compulsion to “slay the dragons” of his own personal subconscious and chose Bigfoot as his sacred cow/cryptid. or, if you prefer, make a fast buck at the expense of others who do believe, either in the possibility or reality, of Bigfoot.

all the above said, i ALSO believe there is much damning evidence in the book that is not generally acknowledged. there are tons of supporting interviews, which –though granted they are generally ONLY eyewitness in nature and not verifiable save for faltering memories — do “add up” against Roger Patterson on many levels.

none of us would survive such a hatchet job, or we’d be a religious figure, not humans. so i’m not here to bury Ceaser, but praise him. all of his shortcomings considered and chronicled ad naseum, i personally found the portrait of Mr. Patterson that emerged came across as Patterson being a charismatic, self-styled eccentric that so many lovingly and genuinely remember him as being.

in this regard, whatever his personal ambitions, Long did a very good job of creating an image — and let’s not forget that it’s only ONE image achieved through literary means, however badly the employed stylistics! — of the man at the heart of the mysterious 16mm P/G footage.

it’s NOT ultimately Bob Gimlin or Bob Heironimus nor even Bigfoot itself who are the real centers of this murky, labyrinthian “expose” but Patterson as a man. full of faults but blessed with talents beyond the average — including a true artistic gift at creating detailed sketches of animals and an amazing ability to carve woodworks with his hands far, FAR above the norm — Patterson comes across as a “down home genius” of sorts. a “primitive artist,” if you will, though this is meant as a compliment by myself and not some snide insult.

in short, he faced long odds against himself but achieved much despite them, not the least of which was his own poor health. he was, as countless folks who knew him intimately concur, an artistic genius.

that word is frequently utilized by all who knew him, even those who admit he conned them into investing in dubious Bigfoot schemes that never paid off. this is NOT PROOF he faked the P/G film in and of itself; rather, it merely points out that, for better or worse, the man who took the footage that fateful day DID possess the ability to have hoaxed the film despite so many denials and published reports to the contrary that he was “merely” a “simple cowboy” who “got lucky” that day.

Patterson was anything but simple. he was, in fact, a complex, highly-driven man who was intent on capturing footage of Bigfoot at all costs, including the documented and numerous lapses of moral and legal ethics such as defrauding investors, failing to share profits on ventures, stealing monies from fans who joined his Bigfoot research society, et al.

again, for those of you who believe i am merely trying to “ape” Mr. Long’s brutally effective “dirty laundry” airing, reread my post. i am NOT. i again believe Patterson emerges as a sympathetic figure DESPITE Mr. Long’s attempts to the contrary.

but Long does a good job in providing the evidence — court documents, served summons, beyond real ability to doubt, in other words — that whatever happened that day in California between himself and Mr. Gimlin, Patterson had ample — some would say beyond ample — resources, motivation and artistic talent to have pulled off the hoax of a century (if indeed that is what the P/G film is; i remain skeptical to both sides of the argument, as both have much validity and much inherent fault lines neither side all too often address in a respectfully mutual tone).

it’s a worthwhile book in the Bigfoot reader’s library IF for no other reason than it presents the anti-Patterson arguments, long-winded but ultimately well-presented and well-documented. so while the literary style is disappointing, the basic interviews, collections of documents (the majority of which are never dismissed or challenged as anything less than authentic by most critics of Long’s book, with the noted exceptions such as Long’s SPECULATION as to where the suit may have been manufactured/purchased from prior to Patterson modifying it, IF he did), and whatnot are credible, even if Mr. Long’s motivations are not.

okay, so there’s two cents turned into fifty dollars in length! i guess Mr. Long’s style rubbed off on me, but again, as a person between the two positions expressed above — that is, those who dismiss the book because of its admitted bias and many flaws in terms of execution of style and overly long presentation — and those who seem convinced by the book 100% (i am not) Patterson definitively hoaxed the footage, i thought it might be worthwhile to hear how the smaller minority inbetween belief and disbelief equally viewed the tome.

of course, it’s just one fool’s opinion!

Daniel, that’s disingenuous. It was so slanderous (actually I think that’s called libel) that I put it down on that alone. As I said, editorials don’t move me. It wasn’t restrained, at all, the nature of Bigfoot discussions notwithstanding. If you have a case, you can make it on the facts, as sasquatch proponents have clearly shown.

“….as we simply consider a hoax not possble, with the stipulated participants and procedures, at least.”

That’s my whole quote. You didn’t include enough of it. Not only does nothing we know about P&G indicate they did it; everything we know about them says they did not. It’s simply too thin a reed (as Munn clearly shows) for anyone to hang a hat on. Besides which, to hang Pattyfake on Patterson because of everything else known about him is like concluding that Nixon was an agent in the pay of the Russians and Chinese on the strength of Watergate. It doesn’t wash. Patterson was serious about the sasquatch, as everything known about him clearly shows. He was no Ray Wallace.

Arguments like Long’s would be laughed out of court if proponents made their equivalents. (And of course have been. Bigfoot as Orbmeister/Shapeshifter is a precisely equivalent proponent argument to Long’s; they’re equally silly.) Skeptics have been skating for far too long on the vanishingly small (as Munn clearly demonstrates, no cart ahead of no horse here) likelihood of Pattyfake. Our Favorite Scoftic comes on here frequently to say, this is all you can do? after forty years? He mistakes the tasks at hand (as, I must say, you do in your review of Long’s book).

Proponents have succeeded; the sasquatch is on the verge of discovery, and discussed now as it has never been before. Remember; the proponents CAN’T “prove” it; that is reserved solely for science, our Arbiter of the Real. Science has failed, by overstepping its bounds to pronounce as silly something about which it is totally ignorant.

It’s the skeptics who have failed, as well. They’ve had 40 years to pin down a suit hoax, something that should take less than a tenth that long. (Human nature, as I have said here before, says that the gold mine in Pattyfake would be ADMITTING it, and then opening your pockets for the avalanche of money. As Munn shows, everyone in Hollywood would want you.) The burden of proof is on the skeptics, and on them alone, to investigate suit hoaxes. The proponents know that the preponderance of the evidence – indeed all of it – says, this is no hoax. (Evidence that hoaxes have happened has no bearing on the question, something skeptics – and unfortunately, proponents too – continually fail to understand. The hoaxes known to have happened are like two high-school students doing a white-tailed deer fake, they’re that bad.) Where proponents are focusing, – and where they should – is on the animal, and not on the animals allegedly faking the animal. RSR! The anecdotal evidence can be (and I know, I have read it, and no one can comment on it who has not) only one of three things: badly addled minds; outright lies…or what they say they are seeing.

And as to “serious researchers of Bigfoot are unquestionably better off for Long’s contribution,” not true at all. They – and science – are being crippled by stuff like this. Once again: serious Bigfoot researchers know how unlikely this was to be hoaxed. (The film is way, way more than clear enough – another shibboleth that needs killing quick.) They see the discussion as what it is – a red herring.

Which is why most of them wouldn’t be unhappy if Patty just went away; and which is why, most unfortunately, they are right.

I think many would disagree with you on the tone.

I don’t have any strong opinion about the tone of Long’s book, except to note that it’s (I’m sorry to say) quite restrained by the standards of Bigfoot discussions.

It’s also that most of us think his testimony irrelevant, and even gravely damaging to science, as we simply consider a hoax not possible…

Cart before the horse, isn’t that? Always better to compile the data first and reach the conclusions afterward.

I have to say that this very common attitude toward the testimony collected by Long strikes me as deeply ironic. After all, don’t sasquatch proponents frequently berate skeptics and scientists for discounting eyewitness testimony a priori, based on what we “consider…not possible”?