Rating: 
Summary: is this a review of a message board?
Review: First off, there will be LOTS of people who hang on to the belief that bigfoot exists that won't even listen if the suit actually turned up someday ("It's a fake," they'll say). Then, like many who have "reviewed" a book they never read here, they will condem it without reading it. Folks like this have almost a religion of bigfoot. But, serious palentologists will mostly say that anything's possible, but don't take Bigfoot serious. There's a reason for that.
Without the film, it's all just a hoax supported by people with strong imaginations seeing bears.
Now, that being said, I agree that the book makes some serious leaps of faith the other way. Yes, it's true that there's not a lot of proof, and I also concur that there have been more than one man to claim to have worn the "suit," and the suit has never turned up. If I'd made that film, I would have destroyed the suit, as Patterson made some SERIOUS coin from the film, which is something the Bigfoot faithful refuse to point out. It's their rosetta stone, their only tangible evidence that can be pointed to, something you just don't mess with:
"See that grainy, blurry film of something in the distance? THERE! There's your proff! It exists, the lystery is solved forever and always!"
And they won't allow anything to step in the way. This book is what those who never took bigfoot seriously have been waiting for.
As for me, I love a good hoax story, and I'm far more inclined to believe this book than I am the comical notion of some ape man living not far from my house. However, just as there's no good proof that the thing ever existed, this book fall short of providing the proof that this critter exists.
I wish it did exist, really I do.
You've all been duped, but I'm not sure if this book explains for certain how it was done...Still, it's fascinating to read. You either believe in this stuff or you don't. THAT ALONE will dictate if you like this book or not. And that's the saddest thing of all.
Rating:
Summary: what follows is the only impartial review you'll see here
Review: Yes, I know, I reviewed my own review rather than the book per se. But I did that for a critically important reason. There are two camps of people: those who believe in sasquatch and attendantly rate the book poorly, and those who disbelieve in sasquatch and attendantly rate the book highly. The fact is that, sasquatch or no sasquatch, the book is poorly written, poorly edited, hastily cobbled together, and irrelevant. Like most self-styled "skeptics," Long is accepting material as solid evidence AGAINST when he would hastily discard material of similar quality if it were evidence FOR. Ironically, the few reviewers who ascribe five stars to this doggerel base their "reviews" on their personal belief that there is no sasquatch--Long's putative "analysis" notwithstanding. He has constructed his entire case around the debunking of a single piece of evidence (skeptics' interpretation of the scientific method: if ONE report is a provable hoax, then ALL other reports must be nonsense). Even if he succeeded, that would leave mountains of evidence unaddressed. As it is, he failed, and he embarrassed himself, and he embarrassed all the other fools who "came forward" to "confess" that they built the suit that is now red horsehair, now gray flannel, now black bearskin.
Rating: 
Summary: A mean-spirited mess
Review: Quite simply, this is one of the worst books I've read in some time. No doubt Long would just assume another "bigfooter" can't let go of his cherished illusion that a huge bipedal primate is roaming the remote woods of the Northwest. Setting belief or disbelief aside, Long's writing is ham-handed, over-wrought courtroom melodrama, and bad detective fiction (a drinking game could be made from this book , using the phrase "I nudged the recorder closer"). He can't resist making himself a larger part of the story than he needs to be. He obsesses over Patterson's small size, and has to mention his own 6' 8" frame several times. He seems to think the reader is going to be fascinated with every move of his -- from tea drinking, to brownie eating and briefcase opening ("Thunk--thunk!").
It's mind-boggling to see such blatant double standards in print: any witness that isn't telling him what he wants to hear is "hiding something" if his or her 30 to 40 year old memory has lapses. Any stutter or stammer, pause or frown speaks volumes to him. Yet, when Heironimus can't remember a specific detail, why, it's "natural." After all, it's been over 34 years! Long is hard on all the old time, hard core "bigfooters" who didn't "follow up on" Patterson over 30 years ago. Fair enough, but there are several instances where his "critical thinking" is lacking -- from jumping to wild conclusions, asking leading questions, and even downright giving answers he wants to hear to the witness. And to get specific, Glen Koelling claims to have paid a bill of Patterson's -- which could only have been one he owed Bob Swanson. Swanson claims it was never paid. That would and should have been questioned, but Swanson's version apparently was too good to not leave alone.
Long never, ever challenges a scientist who is supportive of the Patterson film -- he spends all of his time digging up dirt on Patterson, but not once did he try calling Krantz or Meldrum. This is "critical thinking"?
All amateurish writing aside, the book is just plain mean-spirited. Long tries to come across as the great defender of truth, but it's hard to accept that with the tone set down in the pages -- self-righteous anger. And you really have to wonder where it is coming from. Seriously, how mad can you get when you had absolutely NO part in what happened over 30 years ago? He claims to be a UFO and "Northwest mysteries" researcher (um, sparkling credentials for a "skeptic"), yet seems to delight in trashing, talking down to and dismissing "the bigfooters". Sure, Patterson seems to have been a jerk. But after reading this book, it seems just as likely that he actually DID capture a Bigfoot on film than the contrived mess taking place between these pages. I want the truth too. I really do -- that's all that's important to me. But it's mighty hard to hear over the sound of grinding axes in this book.
Rating:
Summary: All flash, little substance
Review: This book, like so many others that attempt to debunk the Bigfoot legend, commits the same cardinal sin of reasearch that they claim Bigfoot believers commit: This book is all speculation, and offers zero proof to substantiate it's claims.
This book should not be considered a reliable source of information on the legend of the Bigfoot mystery.
For real investigative books, I highly recommend Loren Coleman's and John Green's books on Bigfoot.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible book.
Review: This book sucks. I don't know how else to put it. And not just because it's a book purporting to expose the Patterson/Gimlin film, but because Greg Long cannot write a good book. He's a hack writer and also a bad investigator. Certainly, he did go around Yakima and interview dozens of witnesses for the book in regards to Roger Patterson (who, by the way, he doesn't think much of, and wrote a 475-page character assassination to prove it), and certainly a good majority of those witnesses did say that Roger Patterson was a con artist, but Long failed to really paint Patterson as someone who could've faked the film. Besides, there's no proof that Patterson was a con artist or a thief or cheat; certainly he didn't always pay his bills on time, and certainly he didn't return his rented movie camera on time, but it doesn't make him a con artist or a thief or cheat. Long also interviewed several different Bigfoot researchers to get their take on Roger Patterson and the film, and of course they support the film, if not necessarily Patterson. Long should have made the film his focus, rather than Patterson himself, because anybody can spread lies about a person that cannot be substantiated, and Long seems to delight in the constant character assassination he is engaging in in this book. He seems most excited by two finds-the man who allegedly wore the suit in the film, Bob Heironimus, and the man who allegedly made the suit, costume maker Philip Morris. But, there is a problem-Heironimus says in the book that Roger Patterson skinned a red horse, sewed it together and glued an old fur coat to it, making a 3-piece suit; Morris alleges that he made a 6-piece Dynel suit for someone who allegedly called him claiming to be Roger Pattersonasking for a $435 gorilla suit. So that makes two different stories of an alleged suit, and more importantly, two contradictions. While the book was being released, Bob Heironimus appeared on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" backing up Morris' story, when he himself said in the book it was a red horsehide suit. Since the release of the book (which has been a terrible flop)Heironimus has contradicted himself twice more, once on KATU-2 out of Portland, Oregon, stating that the man who designed the suits for the movie "Planet of the Apes" designed the suit for the P/G film. That would have been John Chambers, however, not Philip Morris. Also, according to Bigfoot researcher John Green, there is a fourth story in which Heironimus' sister is said to have called Mrs. Patricia Patterson, Roger's widow, and asked her to go along with a story of a GREY horsehide suit having been worn in the film so they could all make money off it. To quote John Green, "This book is garbage," and it is. It took me a week and a half to finish it; the book is tedious, poorly written and agenda-driven. The agenda is that Greg Long hates Roger Patterson for some unknown reason. DO not buy this book unless you are desperate or curious. I do not recommend this book at all.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book.
Review: I live in washington state and since I was a kid I remember seeing the footage of "bigfoot" that patterson shot. Long's book goes into exhaustive detail about the man who shot the film. As the book states, never has anyone really looked into the details around the filming itself (dates, timeline of film processing, and so on.) Had someone done this work in the early 1970's this film would not have taken on the "cult" status that it attained. I am a reasonably open minded person, but the book does a good job of proving this film to be a hoax beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: agenda driven review
Review: There are many books written that are agenda driven, that appear too have a conclusion in mind, and build a book around it.This book is obviously one of them. I do not know the truth behind the bigfoot phenomenon. I do know however that the questionable past of a person does not patently make all they say untrue. I do not deny that perception is definately against them, and the burden of proof is much heavier on a person of questionable history. I have researched accounts of this incident, and find many sources have tried at great cost to recreate and debunk this film, and some claim to have succeded. The recreation by a large network with significant financial,and technical resources was however only able to produce a piece of film that was so obviously manufactured,no viewer would believe it legitimate if reported as such. It calls the writers obvious low opinion of the man into question. How could he have produced a film that is being debated 30 years later,when he couldn't hold down a job, but a broadcasting company could not match it.
I also wonder why sources that support the validity of the film were not fully explored. I feel when attacking someone it should be done with an even hand, and not appear as a crusade.
I will be the first to admit that people of questionable ethics generally deserve their reputation,but open minded readers should look into some of the other books on this much documented film,and subject before making up their mind.
Rating:
Summary: Wrong title
Review: I thought this book would be the story of the launching of bigfoot. Instead it was about one man named Patterson whom the author thought worthy of emcompassing him as the launcher of this phenomenon. I read three quarters of it and realized it wasn't going to address how this creature came to be or how the phenomenon was created. After all, "The Making of Bigfoot" suggested to me a whole nether story. I was not impressed with this author or his biased rambling style nor his misleading title. I would highly recommend "Meet the Sasquatch" by Hancock House. Now there is the real story along with the players as a group, photographs pertinent to the making of this phenomenon.
Long's book sadly disappoints, and there is no inside story.
Rating:
Summary: The Sad Truth About Patterson's Bigfoot Film
Review: I wish the Patterson clip of a Bigfoot in the woods was real. The world would be more interesting if another homonid species beside ourselves were still around. However, the amassed interviews with people who knew (and were often swindled by) Roger Patterson, plus interviewing the person who almost certainly wore the Bigfoot suit, plus the costume seller who probably sold him the suit, plus various inconsitencies between Patterson & Gimlin, make it vastly unlikely that the film is legit. For me, the clincher was the fact that Patterson's 1967 film is basically a reencactment of the William Roe's alleged sighting from 1955. An amazing number of details match between the film and that story: the nonchalant stroll through a clearing into the woods, the over-the-shoulder looks, the color of the hair, and the presence of breasts. Unless much better evidence of Bigfoot comes along, they will remain an unlikely, but just barely possible animal.
Rating: 
Summary: very convincing
Review: The author does an excellent job at interviewing all the witnesses of bigfoot. He is very careful to re-check anybody's story. The book is filled with so many details it can take a while to read. The only criticism I would have is I don't think he is a very interesting writer. When ever he starts to become reflective about his life or tries to make an analogy or metaphor, he isen't a very literary writer. But since his intention is to be an investigative journalist, his weaknesses as a writer dosen't matter as much. The investigative interviews are what make the book worth reading.
|
