Rating: 
Summary: Mixed emotions about this book
Review: After reading the vehemently critical reviews of Greg Long's book I wondered what to expect. Would it be an utter piece of trash as some reviewers claimed, or would it be a thorough investigation of a famous film? I found it to fall somewhere between the two. This book is not a hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism. It's the overly personal tale of a man whose curiosity about Roger Patterson grew into an obsession. The story follows his journey investigating the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film over a period of several years. During that time we learn about Greg's fondness for carbonated beverages and about the ease with which he is moved to tears. Personally, I would have preferred a more analytical approach to this folksy, rambling journey with Greg and Pat Long. I also did not appreciate the constant disparaging descriptions of what Greg obviously perceived to be physical, emotional or mental imperfections in his interviewees. However, Greg does present a very compelling case that Roger Patterson was ethically-challenged at best, and a consummate conman at worst. Greg presents the case that Patterson had the motivation, ability and total lack of moral integrity required to foist a bigfoot hoax. Greg did a very thorough job interviewing those connected with Roger Patterson, at least those who were willing to talk to him. Whether a person agrees or disagrees with Greg's conclusions, it's clear that he accomplished what no one else has done -- he gathered and compiled the statements of those in a position to know the principals in this story. Some things about Greg's investigation trouble me. It appears that he spent little, if any, time considering, let alone answering the arguments of the proponents of the film and their "experts". I would've liked to have seen clear and credible answers to the claims of the cryptozoologists. (Even if cryptozoology is not a credible science in itself. I checked, and there are no accredited universities anywhere in the world offering degrees in cryptozoology.) Apparently Greg either did not anticipate the criticisms of his book, or he didn't care about them. I think his reliance on anecdotal evidence is inadequate. The pictures Greg provided of Morris' costumes only add fuel to the outrage and ridicule by his critics. I don't understand why he didn't handle that issue more convincingly. Is this book worth reading? I think it is. Greg raises some issues which the proponents of the film have not been able to answer. He clearly paints a picture of Roger Patterson as a brilliant, talented conman and passionate bigfoot enthusiast who bragged that he would make a millin dollars off of bigfoot. Those who unquestioningly accept the veracity of the film consider Patterson's pattern of unethical behavior to be totally irrelevant. They feel that Greg has raised no questions worth consideration. In this regard they are as short-sighted as Greg's refusal to address their "evidence". Instead they rant, engage in name calling and outright character assasination. The book leaves me with one last question: Why has Patterson's "Indian Guide", Bob Gimlin, not yet sued either Bob Heronimus for slander or Greg Long for libel? (...)Gimlin's silence in this regard adds weight to the argument that Greg might actually have uncovered the truth. If Gimlin remains silent, then perhaps he does so primarily because Greg Long has stumbled onto the truth. Perhaps the book uncovers too many inconsistencies in Gimlin and Patterson's stories and Mr. Gimlin knows his charges of libel would not stand up in a court of law.
Rating: 
Summary: Utterly Awful!!!! A waste of good paper!!!
Review: This is the most horrible book I've ever seen written in my life, and I don't mean the worst Bigfoot book. I mean THE WORST book ever period! It is a shame that the publisher decided to waste their time and effort in printing this book of lies and slaps to faces. Nobody is ever going to get their money back on this book. You will be seeing this in the remainder bins very soon hopefully! $3.99 would still be too much for this junk.
Rating:
Summary: Trash
Review: This book has it all ! * Conflicting stories * A witness that claims to be the 'man in the suit', has tried desperately to profit from his 'confession', but doesn't know how he got to the film site * A suit maker whose suit doesn't match the description of the guy who is supposed to have worn it * An author who didn't even bother to visit the film site for himself or read some of the more important works properly, and who quite literally can't tell a left foot from a right foot ! * An author who berates Roger Patterson for freeloading, but is happy to make one elderly witness pay for a meal for this 6'8" author before she gets back into her 'old, beatup plymouth' Utter trash - don't insult yourself by reading this.
Rating: 
Summary: A must read for those interested in the subject
Review: Yes, it's too long. Yes, the author gets unneccesarily nasty at times. But, overall, a compelling circumstantial evidence case against the Patterson film being genuine.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute junk!!!
Review: Few things in life are as unpleasant as getting a tooth pulled. Doing taxes. Slaving away in a dead-end job. Reading "The Making of Bigfoot". Wait, what's that you say? Reading "The Making of Bigfoot" qualifies as an unpleasant experience? Yes, friends, it does. The whole book should be classified as "historical fiction". The first two chapters take extreme liberties by making suppositions about what Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin thought the day they filmed a Bigfoot, October 20, 1967. These first two chapters pretty much set the tone of the whole book. Long goes into his "investigation" (read character assassination) of Patterson with a zeal akin to rich televangelists who receive another check from someone they've just fleeced. He completely ignored anything good about Patterson, instead focusing on Patterson's habit of borrowing money and not paying it back, Patterson's arrest record and his "con artist" ways. It's clear that Long has hatred for Patterson, and complete disdain for Bigfoot hunters who support the PGF; he mocks the late Rene Dahinden's unique speech characteristics regularly throughout the book, and discounts John Green and Peter Byrne's assessments of the the PGf and regularly mocks them as well. Long interviews several witnesses, most of whom seem to have an axe to grind against Roger Patterson for one reason or another. He seems most excited by his find of Bob Heironimus, the man alleged to have worn the "suit", and also the man alleged to have made the "suit", Philip Morris. The two conflicting stories of how the suit was made and the fact that one party says it was in 3 parts, the other saying 6, doesn't seem to bother Long one bit. He puts both claims in the book and says that one account of the suit can be traced to a rumor put forth by Patterson. He arrogantly pronounces the PGF dead, and he the killer, by the end of the book, and the reader feels he/she has been through the literary equivalent of a tax audit. Do yourself a favor, don't buy this book unless you are really desperate or curious. Thumbs down to "The Making of Bigfoot".
Rating: 
Summary: Strong evidence for a hoax
Review: "I know the guy who made that Bigfoot film... I can even tell you who wore the suit!" This statement to author Greg Long began a long, long journey to uncover the truth about Roger Patterson and his famous Bluff Creek Bigfoot film. This book is at least 80% straight question-and-answer interviews, all on the record, with names, all of which Long says he has on tape. Long interviewed virtually EVERYONE connected to Roger Patterson (except Patterson's widow, who holds the copyright of the financially successful film, who said, "I've heard what you're doing" and hung up on him) -- the famed Bigfoot investigators John Green, Peter Byrne, Rene Dahinden; Patterson's brothers, friends, and business associates; unearthed court documents proving that Patterson was a con-artist; and finally tracked down the man who has claimed since the late sixties that he was the "man in the suit" -- Bob Heironimus, who knew Patterson and is still in touch with Gimlin. Gimlin describes Heironimus as "a friend" he's known for many years -- though he denies Heironimus' claims of a hoax. Long does not definitively prove his case -- there are discrepancies between Heironimus' description of the suit and those of Philip Morris, the millionaire costume designer who (very convincingly) claims he manufactered the suit and that Patterson cut out the costume's original mask and added his own custom-designed one. The discrepancies are cited by some as "proof" that the entire book is hogwash. First, their claims have nothing to do with the claims of the other interviewees, and second, just because Morris or Heironimus may be lying, that does NOT automatically mean they are BOTH lying. There are discrepancies in Patterson's and Gimlin's version of events as well. And if financial motivation is enough to discredit a person's story, then Roger "I'm gonna make a million bucks off Bigfoot" Patterson was the least credible of all. But even if both are lying, Long still presents incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that Patterson faked the footage, the most damning being: -- The timeline: There is almost no way Patterson could have shot the film on a Friday afternoon and gotten it developed by that Sunday evening when it was shown to Bigfoot investigators. Getting 16mm film developed was not as simple as dropping off camera film at the photomat. This would mean Patterson lied about WHEN the film was shot... Why? -- The camerashop owner in Yakima who swears Patterson in the early sixties asked him for advice on how to film a man in an ape suit so it would look realistic enough to fool people. An early attempt at hoaxing? -- Al DeAtley, Patterson's wealthy brother-in-law who financed the film (and was the one who had it developed, but strangely can't seem to remember where or how he managed to have it developed on a Saturday), admitted to Long he thought the film was a hoax. -- The shape of the feet in the film DO NOT MATCH the shape of the plaster casts Patterson claimed were from the creature. I highly recommend this book. Even if you disagree with Long's conclusions, it is foolish not to examine ALL the evidence, pro and con, regarding this legendary film.
Rating:
Summary: An obsession gone astray
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Man this guy is the worst author in american history
Review: I just finished reading Greg Longs book,The Making of Bigfoot,this book is a bunch of hear say and he said she said propoganda.
He has no proof that Bob H was in the suit,just his word,he DONT have the suit,and when you listen to there promo of the book,they claimed that the suit was made of horse hair,but the story soon changed to be a suit made by a man in North Carolina.
This book should be under FICTION,because there is no truth in this book.
Rating:
Summary: Great Human Interest Story
Review: What a great story ! There are obviously people who will refuse to face the facts - but even more they will miss the big picture of a great story about con men and hoaxes. The famous Bigfoot footage ranks right up there with Orson Welles' well-known "the aliens are landing" radio show". Kudos to Greg Long for his investigation into this fascinating story of a hoax and the people who perpetuated it.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating, controversial story
Review: I just finished reading Greg's fascinating book. As a result I have concluded that Roger Patterson was an extraordinarily lucky individual. Lucky Roger lived in the Yakima region at the time that Bigfoot began appearing and leaving tracks. He even lived on the same road where Bigfoot tracks were found! Sadly Roger died as a young man. Strangely, about the same time the Yakima Bigfoot apparently moved on. An amazing coincidence. There were no reported sightings, tracks or other evidence before or after Lucky Roger lived in the area. Bigfoot was sighted in Yakima the night before Patterson was scheduled to do a book signing in town at the Bon Marche. What a boon for him! Lucky Roger would put up promotional posters about Bigfoot and within two weeks there would be local sightings and purported Bigfoot activity. Again, what a wondrous coincidence! Roger Patterson, amateur Bigfoot hunter, set out to film a Bigfoot. He got a camera, traveled hundreds of miles to an area of reported prints, and was able to do what no one before or since has done - capture Bigfoot on film! And it was on his first try to film a Bigfoot! Wow, is that amazing or what? And his trip to California was after he told someone that he was going to make a million dollars on Bigfoot, and after he copyrighted the name Bigfoot. Unfortunately he was later arrested for having stolen the camera that he used to film Bigfoot. Lucky Roger was able to somehow get the film shot on Friday in Bluff Creek, shipped up to Yakima, and then shipped down to Palo Alto, California to be developed by Kodak, and then sent back up to Yakima, to be shown to his buddies on Sunday. The logistics of the shipping aside, that's another feat than no one else could have done because Kodak never open on weekends for ANYBODY. Anybody but Lucky Roger that is. Mere mortals would have had to lie about when it was shot. Lucky Roger must have really lived right for all these astonishing coincidences to come together for him.
Of course, there are a lot of other unlucky people in the Yakima area. Just about anybody who ever did business with Roger Patterson, or who loaned him money. Greg Long interviewed and taped about 40 people and tells their stories in his book. They all tell basically the same story: Roger Patterson was an ethhically challenged individual. But according to the fundamentalist zealots of the bigfoot "religion", Roger's character is totally irrelevant. They believe that Lucky Roger's widespread reputation in Yakima as a "shady" individual and a "con artist" should not influence how people view his story. They claim that the fact that Lucky Roger had the motive, means, and opportunity to perpetrate a hoax, should not cast any doubt on the authenticity of the film. But, for the true believers in the Patterson-Gimlin film, nothing in Greg Long's book will sway their ironclad belief. It would take seeing Bob Heironimus recreate the walk in a similar suit or Bob Gimlin confessing that he's been lying all these years (both are possible, only one is likely). I guess it's not so strange that the Bigfoot community has no problem with the amazing "luck" of Roger Patterson. Certain spokespersons for the bigfoot community tell us that the reason Bigfoot has not been caught is because he can teleport. Well, that would explain it! Some Bigfoot "experts" believe that no physical evidence such as bones or other remains has ever been found in recorded history is because Bigfoot is a supernatural being. And, one of the "experts" called upon to refute Greg Long's book contends that Bigfoot is the descended from the product of space aliens cohabiting with ancient Sumerians. Greg's book clearly enrages the Bigfoot true believers. A number of their leaders were heavily quoted in the book, some even quoted expressing doubts about the film. The impassioned and often vicious response decrying this book is the voice of those who dogmatically embrace the Patterson-Gimlin film, the Holy Grail of their insular little group. They rely on "experts" (such as "cryptozoologists", a made-up, unrecognized "science") to try bolster their fanatical devotion to this short piece of film, without ever seriously addressing any of the questions raised by Greg Long in this book. Pity.
| 
