Book Description
America's favorite crypto-zoological hominid is hilariously recast as the modern-day everyman, struggling with eating disorders, casual cannibalism, pop culture, and philosophical quandaries ("Me once believe in good. Now, no. World go shit, just like Bigfoot screenwriting career").
Customer Reviews:
The Secret Life of Bigfoot Revealed!.......2007-07-21
Celebrity autobiography is a strange, unique genre unto its own. Maybe it's because most celebrities don't have a particular knack for writing, meaning that one of two things happen: they work with a ghostwriter who "cleans up" the language and makes the book sound nothing like the supposed author, or the celebrity writes it on their own and it's wonderfully incomprehensible, just like them. I think that's just one of the many reasons why Graham Roumieu's In Me Own Words: The Autobiography of Bigfoot is so utterly brilliant. You don't get much more of a dead-on parody than this.
Bigfoot's lived a long and troubled life, and at last he's ready to share the details. From his friendship with Koko the talking gorilla, to his time in Hollywood, to the tragic death of Denis, anything and everything is finally laid out in the open for all to see. Witness the rise and fall of an American icon. And, as an added bonus: poetry!
Roumieu writes In Me Own Words as a series of short essays by Bigfoot about his life, and it's hard to pick a favorite. Is it the tales of Bigfoot and Koko's friendship soon after Bigfoot's divorce where we learn about Koko's secret fetish? Or maybe it's Bigfoot talking about why he sold his condo and moved thanks to those evil squirrels and their slide whistles that they'd play all hours of the night. And then there's Denis... poor, poor Denis. Roumieu writes Bigfoot's voice as a beautiful combination of innocence and stupidity, and it's hard to not mentally generate a specific sound for the narration as the book moves on in strange and bizarre new directions. Each little anecdote is funny in its own right, but the combination of them all together makes In Me Own Words laugh-out-loud funny.
You can't talk about In Me Own Words without also mentioning Roumieu's gorgeous watercolor paintings. Roumieu paints Bigfoot as a hulking oaf, the perfect match to the character's writing. Each page is a combination of Bigfoot's hand-written scrawl and a matching illustration, from grinning squirrels to hamsters in toy cars. As strange as the writing in In Me Own Words gets, the illustrations are even more so. It's hard to not boggle at images of Bigfoot with his baseball cap and chains "chillin with [his] homies", or playing guitar in a rock band complete with long hair and flannel shirt. Roumieu's writing is near-perfect for In Me Own Words, but it's his art that completes the package into something truly unique.
In Me Own Words is one of those very rare books which is funny not once or twice, but every time you read it. Every time you pull the book out, you're going to start laughing, even stronger than before. It's just that good. Despite the holidays being two months away, if you're looking for that perfect gift for someone I know just what you need. Just buy two copies, because once you get a look at it you'll want to keep one for yourself.
big foot great.......2007-07-17
A sincere and honest look at Big Foot. The reader is left with a well rounded understanding of the Foot, not the usual tabloid hype. Text is enhanced by evocative drawings of Big Foot. Warning -this book is not for the humor challenged.
At Last...Me Soulmate!.......2007-06-21
Oh Bigfoot! You make me heart go pit-a-pat-pit-a-pat-pit-a-pat-pat-a-pat-pat-a-pat-pat-pat-pattaty-pat!
Where you be hiding? You so coy.
(Me shake finger at you.)
So brilliant with you words! So feisty (you naughty, naughty boy...that GOOD)! So sexy (big, stinky fella' do it for me every time)!
And you so sensitive (soul of poet you smash and eat with ketchup and side of horseradish)!
You be me private dancer any day.
Love!
Love!!!
Me say LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You call me? ;]
Worth Peeing-Your-Pants .......2007-05-11
If you like twisted humor and demented ranting, considered yourself apart of this new Bigfoot cult. Bigfoot writes and rambles about his everyday mishaps and experiences in life. Short like a childrens' book but not short on pee-your-pants laughter. This book might make a great coffee table book, something you'll wanna share with all your the little wierdos in your life. }(;D>
Read this out loud. I dare you........2007-05-02
My brother had both of the "Bigfoot" books out on his coffee table, and i picked this one up...'cause it didn't quite fit in with the usual art-books-on-the-coffee-table routine. He said, "Dude, open that to any page. Read it out loud." I got about two sentences out. Same thing on the next page, and the one after. Haven't laughed so hard since the "Shut Your %$# Face, Uncle @#$" song from the "South Park" movie. This book (and its partner, "Me Write Book") is that funny. Hell, the riff on Chewbacca is worth the cover price.
Book Description
Like many reclusive celebrities, Big Foot is misunderstood. In his touching memoir Me Write Book he wants to set the record straight, proving that although he's larger, hairier, and more foul-smelling than most of us, he's really not so different underneath.
Only the most coldhearted among us could look on without compassion as this hirsute Everyman struggles bravely with casual cannibalism, Pringles potato crisps, embarrassing moments with peach Schnapps, the desperate loneliness of personal ads, and philosophical quandaries.
Readers will never forget the plaintive voice from the wilderness that howls from every page of this searing, intimate account of a man-beast in the promised land.
Customer Reviews:
Bigfoot give me big distraction.......2007-07-31
Big long office summer day in cube broken up by big funny sexy memoir by Bigfoot. Bigfoot is big everything...Big Author, big cranky ego deck, big Syosset whore, big heart, big hand big penis. He make work day shorter in a longer way...more laughs, more fun, more work not done today big frick'n work job must be worked on more tomorrow because of this big Bigfoot distraction of words. I cried a lot..go to potty twice thinking of Big's big memoir...I can't go too much crazy thoughts because of this big memoir in my little head. Very Big and Good. Read it 5 times before you make big judgment.
Me read book. Me cant stop talk like Bigfoot.......2007-07-23
Me read book,Me have humor. Me read, me no talk normal now. People no read book think me no education..
one of the best memoirs I've ever read!.......2007-06-27
I found this book to be interesting, funny and, at times, riveting. A must-read!
Please no Tease!.......2007-06-17
Bigfoot Oh Bigfoot!
Why you no call?
Me wait and wait by phone...
OK. So you bigshot Bigfoot now.
Make appear on "Inside Actor Studio" with James Lipton.
Everybody love famous, handsome, artsy-fartsy Bigfoot.
Write brilliant, avant-garde children story. Make reader cry and sob and think about life.
Like that big deal.
Me give you heart and you smash!
You still stink like out-house (NOT compost...who you kid?)!
Real Bigfoot not need make posing.
Think about.
Not ever forget Baja.
Call me.
Best book ever written by the BIG guy!.......2007-03-25
Wow. There is something seriously wrong with you if you don't pee your pants laughing from cover to cover. Bigfoot's own story of his rise and fall from the public eye is a sad, heartwarming yet hilarious tale that parallels the lives of many of Hollywood's biggest losers (despite his inability to master-as he puts it- the "Tom Cruise creepy smile." A tale filled with booze and bimbos, you'll want to read it again and again and out loud to friends at parties- yes, it's that funny! The full color sketches enhance the comedy and illustrate the tribulations of everyone's favorite myth. The rare written introduction by Nessie is worth the price alone!
Book Description
Australia's most baffling zoological mystery! During the early colonial era, Australia's Aborigines often warned British settlers to beware of huge, ape-like creatures that lurked in the rugged mountains and deep forests of the island continent. Their people, they said, had been encountering the hairy horrors since time immemorial. They knew them by many names, including doolagarl, thoolagarl, jurrawarra and tjangara. Soon the colonists, too, began to experience hair-raising encounters with the hulking, foul-smelling creatures, which they referred to as "Australian apes", "yahoos" or "youries". Today, they are generally referred to as yowies. The list of modern-day eyewitnesses includes zoologists, rangers, surveyors and members of the elite Special Air Service Regiment. This book chronicles the yowie saga from the pre-colonial era to the present day. It contains over 300 carefully documented eyewitness reports and a vast amount of other data, much of which suggests that the damnably elusive creatures really do exist. The authors also critically examine the many theories that have been put forward to explain - or explain away - Australia's most baffling zoological mystery.
Customer Reviews:
The Yowie: In search of Australia's Bigfoot.......2007-08-06
Unfortunately my order including the above title never arrived and has apparently been lost in tansit
A necessary study of a forbidden subject.......2007-06-12
I was not disappointed after reading "The Yowie: In Search of Australia's Bigfoot, by Tony Healy and Paul Cropper. This book was more than informative and it contained more than meat and potatoes, not old rehashed stories and anecdotes. In it we find real witness, real people, reported unreal events and encounters. The compilation at the end of the book is akin to John Green's magnificent work and compilation of Bigfoot encounters worldwide or The Bord's Bigfoot encounter's database. Is a necessary book for the library of all Forteans, Cryptozoologist and also Ufologists. Even though I would like to have seen a more in depth study of the paranormal-UFO connection in relation to some Yowie encounters. But this book is still a must for the libraries of those that comprimise the 'lunatic fringe' (just joking) those of us involved with the myriad of forbidden subjects....
The ultimate yowie book.......2007-05-14
If you're into cryptozoology and looking for the definitive tome on Australia's "bigfoot", the "yowie", you should look no further than this magnificent book. It is an instant classic, and easily the most exhaustive and readable book on yowies ever written. The authors write in a very accessible, occasionally humorous style which is both engrossing and entertaining. This is no dry collection of dates and sightings, this is a full-blooded exploration of the yowie legend, told with sobriety and razor-sharp attention to detail. Some of the anecdotes are positively hair-raising! I doubt I'll ever go camping in the Blue Mountains, that's for sure. The place is Yowie Central. It's a shame that the mainstream media does not take yowies more seriously. Yowie witnesses are often treated as cranks, but not by messsrs Cropper and Healy. They recognize that many yowie eyewitnesses are often upstanding members of the community, in respectable jobs. Every anecdote is given intelligent analysis by these two devoted yowie experts. I have been an avid cryptozoologist for years and have read many classics of the genre, and for me, this book is up there with the works of the great Bernard Heuvelmans. Bravo, gentlemen. I look forward to the 2nd edition. Superb work.
Great book.......2007-04-02
This book reads easily, is well-constructed, and entertaining. I have read many books on cryptozoology and it seems that the authors didn't speculate on one point that I think is important. The authors point out that there are two general types of creature. A small one and a big one. But, the reports of larger Yowies indicate that there may be more than one type. Some are described as Bigfoot-like. Others are described as thin. Still others are described with larger heads for their bodies while others are described as having small heads like apes. I would like to see a further breakdown of types reported.
Yowie - what are they??.......2007-01-31
This is a very well written book about Australia's own version of the Bigfoot. Just like in North America this large unknown creature is often described as similar in appearance to the Sasquatch but more aggressive, and has been a part of Australian folklore and Aboriginal knowledge for centuries.
The creature whatever it is, remains elusive with no good quality photos or videos being available, such as the case with Sasquatch.
Added to the mystery is the shape of this creatures foot which seems to vary from 3, 4 or 5 toed. Having said this though, the subject is well covered and with many interesting and eye opening cases listed. It is hard to believe everybody who has seen this creature could be wrong or mistaken.
The authors have done the subject a great service by not getting involved in any outlandish theories, putting together a excellent reference source for the subject, whilst leaving any conclusions open.
For those people who aren't Australian with a poor idea of Australia's size, it is important to note that Australia is of similar size to the continental lower 48 United States with just over 20 million people. Australia is also located very close to Indonesia where ancient hominids 1 million years old have been found.
Australia is a huge country with many large, wild and totally unexplored areas of wilderness. So the possibility lies open for many new discovers, who knows a real life Yowie may just one day, be one of these discoveries.
Product Description
A chronological list of Bigfoot (Sasquatch) sightigs and encounters from 1818 to 2004 in North America. Representative stories of encounters are included with many drawings and photos. Includes bibliographical references and index.
Customer Reviews:
Worth the buy.......2007-09-06
I liked the book. It had quite a few encounters that I had not read about before. In the second part of the book you will find in brief outline the different sightings by date, but you can browse through it very quickly to find the sightings in your state. I recommend adding this to your library. The only thing that I didn't like about it is that it has included stories that link bigfoot to UFOs. I think they could have been left out.
Invaluable Resource.......2007-01-25
The Bigfoot Casebook (both the original and the updated version)is a great resource for anyone who studies the Bigfoot phenomena. Whether a field researcher, or of the more Fortean variety, the individual interested in Bigfoot needs this book. In fact, anyone who is interested in Bigfoot who is serious about research needs this book.
This book is also fun for the person who is curious about Bigfoot, even if not a researcher.
Whatever you fall on the scale of interest, the book is an excellent resource.
While the book is a useful research tool, it isn't pedantic, or difficult to read. The person who's curious about Bigfoot and enjoys reading about Bigfoot or Sasquatch will find this enjoyable.
Casebook doesn't delve deeply into any one particular Bigfoot case; that's not the purpose of the book. It's an excellent guide to specific dates, locations, etc. of Bigfoot activity/sightings.
One thing I personally appreciated was the inclusion of so-called "paranormal Bigfoot" events; those encounters involving UFOs, Bigfoot, and other anomalous phenomena.
Bigfoot Casebook gives a history of Bigfoot sightings, and presents a time line and context of sightings that any Bigfoot researcher, as well anyone with a more casual interest, will find usefull and enjoyable.
Casebook is very informative.......2007-01-16
This book is great for the person who would like to know more about bigfoot. It is broken down into sections where it describes certain aspects of what bigfoot is like, and why he is next to impossible to see. It almost gives you a feeling of what bigfoots thought process might be. It then gives a chronological description of encounters with bigfoot throughout recorded history. I would defintely recommend this book.
Bigfoot Casebook Updated: Sightings and Encounters from 1818 to 2004.......2007-01-08
I found the first addition back in the 80's at the public library and the copy was very tattered and worn. I loved it. I searched for years and finally found a used copy about 6yrs ago. I was very excited to see the updated version. Very good read. Lots of info on sightings. I was a bit disappionted that the updated didn't cover more sightings, but still a must for anyone with an intrest in Bigfoot.
Disappointed in this book but it does have information.......2006-11-29
I ordered this book because Amazon recommended it to go with Sasquatch: Legend meets Science by Jeff Meldrum. I almost wish I hadn't gotten the book because it isn't as good as I'd expected. I had in the past read some UFO/Bigfoot stories, you get a lot of that here too.
Just over half the book is a recounting of sightings/ encounters of creatures from all over the U.S. from 1818-2004. This includes not just the classic Bigfoot from Washington/Oregon but all sorts of creature sightings. I found it to be somewhat interesting reading but found that many of the cases were something like "June 1870 John Smith in Ohio saw a "hairy man" in the back forty last night" with a few other details. Most of the cases were very skimpy but some were detailed.
Some interesting pictures are included (including some bad photos of creatures, one dead) but these usually don't have anything to do with the text and are sometimes more interesting.
Section 2 of the book is a chronological listing, not updated past 1980, of cases. This is followed by a short bibliography, a magazine list and some online sources- this last could be the best part of the book.
Book Description
" The journalistic quest to identify the person who wore a 'Bigfoot Suit' in Roger Patterson's world-famous film has culminated in this highly informative and revealing investigation. Hopefully, now all the people who know the truth about Patterson's footage will come forward, and the scientific community will focus on other potential evidence when trying to determine whether the legendary creature is real or a popculture myth." -ROBERT C. KIVIAT (Network TV Executive Producer, WORLD'S GREATEST HOAXES: SECRETS FINALLY REVEALED and ALIEN AUTOPSY: FACT OR FICTION?)
"Greg Long's new book is long overdue in a time of outrageous urban legends. It is both refreshing and affirming to encounter a serious book that reveals an 'actual' conspiracy of deliberate lies. Furthermore, THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT is that rare combination of investigative journalism and storytelling; it is simply a very good read. I recommend it for its gripping internal narrative based mostly on the strange life of one man - yet it weighs in against the larger legends that still swirl around the mythic hairy giant who haunts the wilderness of our minds." - KENNETH C. WYLIE, Ph.D. (Author of BIGFOOT: A PERSONAL INQUIRY INTO A PHENOMENON)
"Greg Long has written a rare book: one that celebrates the true mysteries of our lives while remaining faithful to the importance of rigorous examination and critical thinking. Thos book is a must-read for those who seek to understand the anatomy of our burgeoning modern myths. It will stand as a cautionary tale for all of us. We are each responsible for the way our tales unfold. Like Roger Patterson and the film he created, we are joined at the chest to our stories. If one becomes corrupt, the other is sure to die also." -DAWN PRINCE-HUGHES, Ph.D. (Adjunct Professor of Anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham; Author of THE ARCHETYPE OF THE APE-MAN and GORILLAS AMONG US: A PRIMATE ETHNOGRAPHER'S BOOK OF DAYS)
"Regardless of your opinion about the subject of Bigfoot, this book cannot be ignored! This is a work that is truly universal and appeals automatically to everyone. This book is a real eye opener, and it is refreshing to see that the lost art of good old investigative journalism is finally back. This should set an example for courses on critical thinking and investigative journalism around the world. Long's persistence has paid off; the scientific community and the general public should be thankful, as well as the Bigfoot community." -MICHAELA KOCIS (Investigative Journalist, Broadcaster, ExpresRadio, Mlada Fronta DNES, Czech Republic)
Customer Reviews:
Ignore the Rantings of the "True Believers" Below!.......2006-07-14
The negative reviews of this book only demonstrate that P. T. Barnum underestimated the rate at which suckers are born.
There are a lot of things to quibble with in this book. Author Greg Long seems to confuse obsessive detail with thoroughness (I learned far, far more than I wanted to know about what Long was eating or drinking on a given day) and the book needed a cold-hearted editor to cut it down to size (it could've been 50% shorter without losing any "muscle"). And Kal Korff is his usual over-the-top, hyperbolic self in his egotistical, self-congratulatory preface, which can be summarized as "Roger Patterson fooled everybody but me, and maybe Greg Long! But we're bright lads!!'
But what Long does very well is take a chain saw to Patterson's hoax. Roger is exposed for what he always was----a liar, a cheat, and a con man. The frame-by-frame analysis of the Patterson film and its various inconsistencies is both on-target and brutal. Patterson's so-called "reliable witnesses," like the hapless Bob Gimlin, come across as greedy but not-too-astute rubes, which they probably are. And the so-called "Bigfoot experts," like Grover Krantz, are shown to be living proof that having a Ph.D. is no immunity against BSing yourself badly.
Of course, none of the impressive evidence assembled by Long will convince the slack-jawed legions who still think Patterson's film is authentic. Obvious questions----like why no one has ever found the body (or bones) of a Bigfoot, or why a better, more convincing Bigfoot film hasn't been captured by the millions of people now owning video cameras----will never occur to such simple folk. But, as Mark Twain once said, "Let us give thanks for the fools. For without them, the rest of us could not succeed."
Bigfoot "The Making of A Legend".......2006-07-01
Excellent investigative piece. Roger Patterson was a very questionable figure and Long exposes it. The entire hoax had been planned for years. In his case it's about the money. This book provides valuable insight into the mentality of the "Bigfoot" crowd. They are not interested in making thorough investigations, the lack of critical review of the film (must be matted hair instead of seeing the obvious seems in the suit), but are either self deluded or just making money. A special thanks to Bob Heironimus - "Thankyou for exposing your part in hoax"
Proves nothing.......2005-09-13
There is no proof in the pudding! After all the interviews, hypothesis, conjectures, name calling, accusations, character assasinations, the bottom line is: Two men (Hieronimous and Gimnlin) are telling two conflicting stories of one event. One of them is lying. I see nothing in this book that proves that Heironimous is telling the truth and Gimlin is lying. I see nothing in this book that makes me believe that Hieronimous is of better standing than Gimlin either.
Oh, wait a minute. Gimlin supposedly got arrested for stealing plywood and nails 40 years ago. What about Hieronimous? If he is telling the truth than he's been covering a lie for almost 40 years. Why is this guy more believable than Gimlin? Just because the author says so?
And as for the author judging Patterson as a criminal because he may have faked a film, I say 'so what even if he did.' PT. Barnum became a millionare by hoaxing the public his entire life. That's a lot more than Patterson ever got out of it. And if this is a hoax his hoax has withstood the test of time longer even than any of Barnum's hoaxes have. So if it is proven a hoax (and it hasn't been yet) Patterson should be considered a genius of a showman and illusionist, just as Barnum is. If it isn't a hoax, then he has captured what may be the most important scientific footage ever. Either way he deserves accolades.
And who did Patterson really hurt if he did fake this film? That's like saying Barnum hurt people by exhibiting the fiji mermaid as a real creature. Ridiculous. A lot of people seem to have been making money off of this film long after Patterson was dead (Including the author of this book). A shame Patterson isn't around to collect what's being spread around since he's the one who gave it to us... one way or the other.
Interesting.......2005-09-10
I found this a very interesting and informative glimpse into the events and people aurrounding the Patterson film. Well worth the read just for the interviews and varying personal insights into Patterson the man and the film footage.
That being said, I feel the author fell short of putting this controversy to rest. If anything he simply raised more questions with a lot of circumstantial evidence that is often contradicting. Most of those contradictions have been aptly covered in prior reviews here so no sense in rehashing them.
But one thing I found very irritating is the author's failure to press Bob H's statement to the effect "There may have been more than one suit." What did BH mean by that? How come the author didn't press him to clarify what he meant with that statement? Or did he press him but chose not to include BH's answer in the book because it would have weakened his case? That is just one of many things that raises more questions as opposed to answering them.
Personally, before I read this book, I was about 50/50 on the authenticity of the film. After reading it, I am still 50/50 on the authenticity. Not enough solid evidence to dismiss it as a hoax based on all this "he said, she said."
The last chapter on Phillip Morris, if anything, was strong cirumstantial evidence that the film may NOT have been a hoax. the suit Morris describes selling to Patterson is certainly not the suit that BH described wearing. I also found myself leaning toward feeling the film may indeed be genuine with Morris's opinion about a professional makeup man needing to be on site in order to glue the mask on to the man 'in the suit'. And Morris raised more questions with his puzzlement about the great detail in the face of the subject when Patterson wouldn't have known that it would someday be exposed to computer blowups and enhancement. This is a professional costume designer who was clearly very impressed by the detail in the face and at a loss, himself, as to how such detail was achieved.
Overall, I found much of the circumstantial evidence that pointed to a hoax to be equally off-set by circumstantial evidence that pointed to the authenticity of this film. An enjoyable and very interesting book but by no means the final word on this fascinating controversy.
A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong".......2005-06-20
Here is a list of the redeeming qualities of Long's book. It is Excellent in Parts:
There were non-controversial portions with new information on four topics:
* Patterson himself. (Chs. 5-8 & 12.)
* DeAtley. (Ch. 16.)
* Timeline of the film's development. (Ch. 17.)
* Ownership history of the film, and related legal hassles. (Ch. 19.)
I found from my interviews with some of the book's interviewees that Long's character sketches seemed accurate. The book, in its non-argumentative portions, was "a good read." (Though it would have benefited from a copy editor's attention in spots, especially the index.) Long's asides about the scenery and soft drinks are OK, according to the tenets of New Journalism. And his (implausible) theory that RP used Roe's sighting as a film-script at least demonstrated imagination.
Long also deserves some credit for non-sneakiness, such as his:
* Willingness to print much positive testimony on RP's character.
* Willingness to print Buffs' critiques of his attitudes, such as "Concentrate on the film!"
* Attempt to retrace and validate BH's route in CA. (Ch. 23.)
* Revelation of his snap judgments and bias - this subjectivity could be called laying his cards on the table
* Revelation (sometimes unconscious) of flaws in BH's case (e.g., about showing off a suit from his car trunk, etc.). Some authors would have hidden this.
* Being up-front about his acceptance of the Hansen & Wallace "confessions" (pp. 264 & 442), though that only brought criticism on his head.
There were four elements included I've always wished were generally employed:
* Chapter subheadings (used for Patterson's three brothers in Chapter 5), a technique I wish all authors would employ-and that style guides should encourage.
* A map of the Yakima area. (But there should also have been maps of the film site and of the towns in the vicinity of Willow Creek.)
* Photos of interviewees.
* Tape recording of interviews (well defended by Long on p. 56).
HOWEVER ....: Here are 26 Reasons Bob Heironimus (BH) Wasn't Queen Kong (the Bigfoot in the 1967 Patterson film).
A. BH's initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. BH described the suit he thought Patterson had made as having a zipperless upper torso part that BH donned like putting on a T-shirt (pp. 344-45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (BH's words, p. 349). Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped (p. 449). It had no torso part or top like Patterson's (supposed) top-and-trousers affair. This difference between them was one he couldn't possibly have mistaken or forgotten.
And there were other differences that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between heavy, supple, rubbery horsehide and the light, mesh-fabric-backed Dynel in Morris's. There might be an innocent explanation for BH's changing his story to accommodate Long's Morris-Suit theory--but it's hard to think of one.
B. BH implied he possessed a suit for only two days before Patterson reclaimed it. BH let that implication stand when he reviewed the manuscript.
But there is testimony (e.g., pp. 47-48, 232, 331 & 397) that indicates that he showed off a suit (not described in detail) from his trunk several times over the years (no dates given). (Long avoided confronting what this implied, and instead--I think as a distraction--fretted over the minor issue of when BH confessed to his buddies to being in the suit (pp. 366, 370-71 & 412).)
In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong, namely: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3 inches--p. 449); head not oversize; no helmet inside.
Further, BH indicated to others that he currently owned the suit used by Patterson at Bluff Creek. For instance, on p. 397, Bernard Hammermeister described being shown the suit in the trunk, and said that BH said to him that that's what he wore when he and P&G went down and did "our thing." No date was given (why didn't Long ask--or print the answer!?), but the familiar way he referred to the filming as "our thing" suggests that it had by then achieved enough fame to be referred to off-handedly like that. Certainly, if the suit had been displayed the Friday BH returned from Bluff Creek, his listeners wouldn't have known what he was referring to, since there had been no media coverage of the filming at that point. And BH stated in May 2005 on TV that "I didn't tell them what it was." when he displayed his suit on his return. I.e., he purposely did NOT indicate its role.
And on p. 398 there is another clue that the date was long after the filming. Hammermeister said that BH told him he did it, and he didn't want it spread around for awhile, although he had the suit and he showed him, because "there was still supposed to be payola" that he hadn't received. The word "still" pretty much rules out the possibility that he displayed the suit immediately after returning from Bluff Creek.
There might have been a way Long could have "explained" BH's possession of a second (yeah, right) suit. But BH's implicit attempt to conceal its existence from readers can't be explained away. It's very damaging to his credibility. The most likely explanation for such evasiveness is to conceal that he was a long-time car-trunk ape-suit show-off (i.e., he had perhaps been claiming to pals to have hoaxed pre-Patterson local-area Bigfoot sightings (p. 232)), and that his mom's car-trunk ape-suit sighting fell in that category.
C. BH's descriptions (pp. 366-67) of Bluff Creek's locale are incorrect, especially the distance he traveled up the last road, as J. Green noted. (BH said four or five miles (p. 348), the map says 20.)
D. BH plainly implied that Patterson didn't run forward with camera in hand at the start, and that he observed (or heard tell of) Patterson sitting on horseback and shaking it instead (p. 337; see also p. 349.) (The initial phase of the film is a jumble of images.) But analysis of the film (pp. 375-76) proves that Patterson did run forward, because the creature is larger (i.e., closer) in later frames.
E. BH stated in an interview, and indicated in the book (p. 349), that he walked across Bluff Creek, implying it was dry at the time. But John Green asked knowledgeable gov't. officials if Bluff Creek ever runs dry, and they said No. And even if it had, climbing its two-foot embankment would have been awkward in a suit. It wouldn't have been part of a hoax--especially if its filming was too jerky to make sense to viewers.
F. BH gave three details of Patterson's behavior during their Bluff Creek expedition that would have been reasonable if the shooting had occurred the day before the announcement of the filming to the press. These were (p. 350): lending BH the suit to take to Yakima, giving BH the film to mail to DeAtley, and saying he was going back to make tracks that night or the next day.
However, 23 & 70 pages later (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21), BH and Long claimed that the filming took place in September, perhaps in early Sept. But in September none of Patterson's three behaviors would make any sense. There would have been no need for concealment of the suit, nor for speedy delivery of the film, nor for premature track-creation (which could have degraded or been discovered in the interim), if no announcement to the press was imminent.
Despite his awareness of this fact, Long absurdly stated (p. 350) that they [P&G] didn't want to be caught with the costume, which is why they handed it over to BH for transport. He was apparently relying on readers not rereading the book and noticing the contradiction.
G. Another irrationality would have been for Patterson to remove the suit from its sack (p. 350) before giving it to BH to take back to Yakima. Why expose it to tumbling and dirtying, and possible visibility to bystanders when Patterson reclaimed it, or if BH's mom happened to open the trunk? (But BH needed this absurd detail, and one below (H), to enable "discovery" by his mom.)
H. Another irrationality is for Patterson to have told BH to leave the suit in his mom's car for him to retrieve when he returned BH's horse, for convenience's sake (p. 355). But it would have been more convenient and safer for Patterson not to have had to retrieve it at all, but for BH to have dropped it off at Gimlin's, whose house was right off the Interstate's exit (on Rudkin Rd.), which BH would have driven past on the way to his mom's and the Idle Hour bar. P&G had to stop there first anyway, to feed, water, and stable their horses.
Other possible drop-off locations were BH's own place then (on Hackett Rd., just a block off S. Wiley Rd. that led to the Idle Hour), or at Gimlin's parents' then (just a bit off Ahtanum Rd., on the way to and from the Idle Hour). Or in a storage locker at a bus or train terminal. If Patterson was so worried about some outsider seeing the suit that he let it out of his hands, surely he would have preferred such methods for their greater security.
Further, on p. 363, it was pointed out that one of BH's mom's routines was to place apple boxes in the trunk to hold the apples she frequently bought at a local fruit stand. (I suspect that she normally did this on a Saturday.) So how come BH, knowing that, failed to anticipate and protect against the possibility that she'd discover the suit, ruining everything? (I suspect he DID anticipate precisely that.)
I. It would have been irrational for Patterson to tell BH to mail the film, since BH was heading up to Yakima anyway and could drop it off at DeAtley's himself. That would have been cheaper, faster, and safer. (The only reason Patterson shipped the film to DeAtley was that he intended to remain in Bluff Creek hoping to catch another sight of the creature-a plan that was abandoned after heavy rains forced him to leave. That makes no sense in BH's scenario: since Patterson knew the creature was a phony, and since the filming was in Sept., he wouldn't have hung around longer than the day it took to make the tracks-certainly no one would credit him with sincerity for doing so. So there'd have been no reason for him to hand the film over to BH. BH apparently didn't think things through and realize this, and instead just figured that since Patterson shipped the film to Yakima, it would make sense for him to claim so too.)
J. What did BH do with the postal receipt? (Patterson would have required such a valuable package to be insured and shipped by registered mail.) A receipt would have included the date, the sending location, and the addressee-powerful stuff. He can't say he discarded it, since Patterson would have told him to keep it until he heard from Patterson the package had been received in good condition. And he wouldn't have discarded it after that point, since he now says he wanted evidence to back up his claim he was involved in the filming. According to his latest (May 17, 2005) story, he displayed the suit to acquaintances at a tavern upon his return for precisely this purpose. And he can't say he gave it to Patterson either, for one of three reasons:
* He implies he never encountered him again (p. 361). Or, if he actually did encounter Patterson:
* It would be implausible for him to have meekly coughed it up, since Patterson's request would have been the perfect opportunity to tell Patterson that he'd hand it over after he got paid. Or, if he lacked the nerve to say that (unlikely):
* He could easily claimed to have discarded it, or at least to have left it at home. (Whereupon he could have made a photo or photocopy before transferring it.)
K. P&G's making two trips to Bluff Creek is unlikely, since they lacked the time and money for such gallivanting. It's made unlikelier still by the bright-red foliage-colors in the PG film, which typically don't occur there until October in that intensity, and hence couldn't have been filmed in September, as Long claims (p. 421). Another objection to a September date, as pointed out by John Green, was BH's statement (p. 349), that it was October and they had hunters out there. Another objection is that Dahinden's analysis of the light and shadow patterns in the film indicated a late-October date.
L. BH never described writing or talking to Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have done if he had had a valid claim. He had lost three days off from work, 20 hours on the road, travel expenses, a scratch on his mom's car, etc. And he'd been disrespected. So he wouldn't have taken non-payment lying down. And he wasn't a business entity like the phone company who would have turned the matter over to a collection agency. In a realistic scenario, BH (backed if necessary by his three brothers) would have become his own collection agency. BH said on p. 351 that he tried to run into Roger and Bob a couple of times. But a letter to Patterson putting him on notice that'd he'd go to the press would have done the trick.
And BH never appealed to one of Patterson's four siblings, or his spouse, for assistance in reaching Patterson or in making him see reason and avoid the embarrassment to his family that would ensue from a hoax-exposure. This was an obvious point of leverage-and a postcard would have worked. Their addresses were in the phone book, and BH was well acquainted with Patterson's wife, Patty, whom he'd been friendly with since childhood (p. 344).
M. BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & DeAtley when they were raking in the dough and a threat of exposure would have had leverage to obtain far more than his $1000 debt. (As Igor Bourtsev has pointed out, it would have been absurd for Patterson to have put his whole gravy train and reputation at risk by not paying a relative pittance for BH's silence.)
N. BH unaccountably failed to complain bitterly about Patterson in private. Possibly he feared if he did so his friends would then urge him to see a lawyer, and he would lose credibility if he declined. A lawyer would have requested supporting evidence that should then have existed, like his name in the logbook of the motel he stayed at in Eureka (p. 350), or the location of the October 19 film site, or records indicating his absence from work. (All three days were weekdays, according to p. 347.)
O. BH told his friends that he didn't want to publicly make a stink about being stiffed because he hoped for eventual payment by Patterson (p. 398). If so, it would have been irrational for him to have acted as he did--i.e., by occasionally spilling the beans and/or showing off the suit. That violated his pledge of confidentiality and amounted to voiding his contract. Rational creditors adopt the opposite policy: they are polite but firm, and studiously avoid giving the debtor an excuse to take umbrage. And, given his past soft-spokenness about RP, BH's current indignation over others' making money (pp. 336, 340 & 370) is suspiciously peculiar.
And why did BH continue to pussyfoot even after Roger's death in 1972? Long stated, in a radio interview on the Rense show, that Bob H. held out hope that if he kept his promise to keep his mouth shut he would get paid. In a talk at the Mill Creek Library on Jan. 27, 2005, Long asserted, "Patricia Patterson continues to sell the rights to the movie ..., she's made hundreds of thousands over the years ...." But BH never contacted Pat Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have once he realized the film was still garnering TV royalties. It might be that he hesitated to confront Roger Patterson, an irrational hothead, but there should have been no inhibition about approaching an old acquaintance like Patty. Surely SHE'd have seen the wisdom of paying a little hush money to protect her revenue stream. Since BH said she observed him rehearsing in her husband's Bigfoot costume (p. 344), he knew she was aware that the film was a hoax and couldn't fob him off with a claim of being unwitting.
Long also stated in the Rense interview, that although BH never stated this, he was sure BH was concerned about legal ramifications. But there would have been no ramifications in merely contacting Patty, or in hiring a lawyer to do so, because that wouldn't have involved a public revelation. Telling his story to a lawyer wouldn't have voided his confidentiality agreement, because Patterson's non-payment had already voided it. (And there was no need to accuse DeAtley of being in on the hoax-his involvement could easily have been skirted.) Anyway, he had nothing to lose; a spontaneous payout was obviously a forlorn hope after 1975, say. And the possible legal ramifications of going public then would have been less than doing so today, because he'd have been able to back up his claim with records that have now been destroyed, like his work-attendance records and his signature in the logbook of the Eureka motel.
P. In Long's book (pp. 370-71) BH had denied telling his buddies at the Idle Hour about the suit. However, on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 8 pm EDT, he appeared on the PAX cable network show Lie Detector (the quote below is not from the book) and changed his story. He stated the following on TV:
Bob: "The next day I drove home, and uh, I went to the local watering hole where all us guys hung out. And ... uh, I lifted the trunk up and said, uh, take a look at this. I didn't tell them what it was ... I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like. Well, TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER, OUT CAME THE MOVIE, you know, on the television, the film. They said, ah ha! That's what you were doing, you know. They brought my horse back the next day, I think it was, and uh, they just took the suit out of the car, and that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit."
Interviewer: "Why did you show the suit to those guys?"
Bob: "Because I wanted them to know, you know, when they found out what it was that I wasn't lying ... that I really did do this."
It's suspicious when a claimant changes his story from one that makes him look innocent to one that admits of some guiltiness only when new evidence is brought forward. That's what's happened here. BH has now admitted he violated his confidentiality agreement, and has done so only because critics have harped on the many witnesses who'd observed BH displaying his suit. (Most notably, Michael Dennett's review in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Skeptical Inquirer.) The suspicion is that a claimant who was willing to fib to cover up a little guiltiness might still be doing so.
It's also suspicious that he seems to be preparing the ground to claim that he later purchased a second Bigfoot suit, with his on-TV words, "that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit." This is another revision he has made only when faced by new evidence (a witness to whom he showed an ape-suit in 1968); and it's another revision that reveals his initial version as a self-aggrandizing fib. (I.e., he claimed to Hammermeister (p. 397) that the suit he showed him was the real one used in the film.) Again, the suspicion arises that the claimant may be fibbing as much as he can get away with.
And it's suspicious that he said (on TV, not in the book) that the buddies to whom he'd shown the suit saw the film of Queen Kong on TV news: "TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER OUT CAME THE MOVIE." This contradicts the September-filming / October-announcement version he gave in the book (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21) and implies the hoax-filming occurred in October.
Q. It's suspicious that BH was evasive with Long (pp. 370-71) when originally pressed about visiting the Idle Hour upon his return and discussing or displaying the suit. BH avoided specifically denying or confirming going to the Idle Hour, or showing the suit off, although that would have been the natural way to answer to Long's probes. Instead, he was deliberately non-responsive (e.g., changing the subject to whether he drank beer there or was a drunkard), thereby leaving wiggle room to later recollect that he HAD done so. It was a carefully crafted (lawyerly?) response.
R. PF, BH's roommate from 1967 through 1970 (p. 370), told me in June 2004 that he'd heard nothing about any Bigfoot suit or film hoax. His being ignorant fitted in with BH's initial version, under which he disremembered displaying a suit and minimized his talking about it. But roommate PF's ignorance is implausible under BH's new I-confided-in-my-buddies-to-obtain-witnesses version. It's more likely that PF knew what really went on, but was answering me in accordance with the code of the Woosters: Don't Let Down a Pal.
S. It's suspicious that, given that BH said on TV he wanted proof "that I'd really done this":
* He apparently didn't give his buddies more than a guarded peek at a nondescript pile of fur in the back of his trunk. That could have been a Halloween-grade ape-suit (and probably was). If he'd really had the goods, he'd have showed off any the Patterson suit's half-dozen unique features. E.g., breasts, for a start, or a glass eye. And this despite saying that he was trying to get them to notice salient details: "I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like." (Statement on the TV show in 5/05.)
* He didn't take a photo of the suit. He could have bought or borrowed a camera easily, and it would have provided evidence ten times stronger than saying that three of his drinking buddies saw a pile of fur in the back of his trunk. Such a photo could have been sent to Patterson, or to his relatives or associates. The camera doesn't lie, whereas three drinking buddies might stretch a point for a pal. The power of a photo was well known to anyone who'd read a newspaper, or a paperback, or seen a movie.
* He didn't call the motel he'd stayed at and asked them to save the logbook-page he'd signed, and/or send him a photocopy.
T. BH took his lie detector test (pp. 210 & 356) under his own control, which meant he could have suppressed an unfavorable result. The consensus among experts is that such a non-threatening test-environment reduces the subject's anxiety, making it easier for him to pass. And his control may have meant that he knew the questions in advance, which also helps reduce stress.
U. Long stated, in a videotaped speech on March 27, 2004, that there was a strike in progress at BH's employer (the Boise Cascade plywood plant) when BH participated in the filming. Telling Long this might have seemed like a good idea to BH at the time, because it would have partially explained why he participated in Patterson's project without demanding a down payment, and why he failed to aggressively pursue collection of his debt: he was at loose ends and had nothing to lose by spending three weekdays in California. However, I have learned from a WCIW union official who was there at the time, HP, that there was no strike (except perhaps for a few one-day wildcat walkouts) at that facility in 1967-the most recent strike was in the summer of 1966. BH's false claim could not have been due merely to faulty recollection of a long-past event, because if he had lost money from absenting himself from work (he was paid by the hour), his indignation at that fact would have imprinted itself in his memory.
V. Long published only two details (pp. 363-65) of BH's relatives' suit-descriptions (a dark face and a stench), these being attributes that support BH's description of Patterson's suit. Long would surely have questioned them on all other features of the suit, and printed other supporting details they mentioned. (E.g., a helmet, a glass eye, shoulder pads, a zipper, rubber waders in the legs, latex chest-piece, breasts, etc.) The fact that he didn't is therefore significant. I.e., it suggests those details contradicted BH's tale. (This brings to mind the dog that failed to bark--& thereby spoke volumes.) I suspect the details they recalled match those of the suit GR saw. (These two relatives had hours of unfettered access to the suit while Heironimus slept, and one donned its head.) Incidentally, BH's mom described the suit as "black" (p. 363), at variance with Morris's emphatically non-black "brown" suit (p. 449).
W. In the Jan. 2005 National Geographic special on Bigfoot, BH didn't match Queen Kong's perambulatory style. BH's re-creation failed in two key features: his knee bent only to an angle of 70°, not to QK's 90°, and the sole of his foot was never vertical before its toes left the ground (Bill Miller has mentioned this first), again unlike QK's. (Cf. C. Murphy's book Meet the Sasquatch, p. 52, frames 72 & 310.) It's not easy to incorporate these effects while also walking with QK's compliant gait. If you try, all you'll achieve is a Silly Walk, not a QK re-creation. Your speed and smoothness will be noticeably reduced. But QK walks with the fluidity of a cat.
X. BH's body proportions don't match Queen Kong. E.g., his torso depth, thighs, and shoulder breadth are much slimmer, and yet BH claimed in an interview that no torso padding was used. More important, his torso and arms are proportionately significantly shorter than QK's, and his legs are longer. His intermembral index (ratio of arm length to leg length) is about .70 (human-like); QK's is about .85. And, as John Green has pointed out, no arm extenders were worn, because QK's sharp elbow-bend reveals that her forearm is not disproportionately long.
Y. Such extensive suit modifications would have been necessary to produce a torso, head, and limbs as thick and well-defined as Patty's that an expert tailor and lots of extra fur would have been required. So why bother to buy a suit in the first place?
Z. BH was not measured for a custom-fitted suit. And the Morris's gorilla suit, like all off-the-peg ape-suits, would fit a wearer loosely, even if it had been custom-tailored to the wearer. (E.g., in the movie Harry and the Hendersons, "Harry" has trouser-legs: a pair of uniformly tapering tubes.) Queen Kong, OTOH, has a well-defined body: a butt crack (in the last frames), bulging thunder thighs, mobile kneecap, shapely calf, visible tendons and hamstrings, shoulder blades, realistic biceps, quivering flesh, non-uniform hair color and length, etc., all features missing from Hollywood ape-films. (And the photo on p. 460 of the Morris suit looks like a fright-wig: a comical Abbot-and-Costello affair.)
Conclusion: To swallow Heironimus's story, one must WANT to believe it. Desperately. The rest of us are well justified in being unpersuaded, or even derisive. BH-believers should also reflect on the evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:
* Quotes by Patterson or Gimlin even hinting at a Bluff Creek hoax.
* An indication by DeAtley of a specific reason for suspecting a hoax. (His mere belief that Bigfoot can't exist, so it had to be a hoax is insufficient. Indeed, DeAtley's inability to back up that disbelief, despite his close acquaintance with P&G and the film's production, actually argues for the film's authenticity. Long argued that if DeAtley provided specific reasons he would be "risking his reputation" with such a confession (p. 188). But that's silly; he's "confessed" already. As far as the community is concerned, that's what's important-the details are trivial
* A photo (or non-BH testimony) of Patterson (or Gimlin or DeAtley) with a Patty-like suit.
* A zipper pull (or equivalent) in the film-not just seeing Martian canals in the form of ambiguous dark areas at the waist (pp. 378 & 383) and spine (pp. 451-52).
* Indications that the Bluff Creek footprints were mold-made.
Long has objected that his critics haven't disproven the witnesses' testimony about Patterson's character. He's established that Patterson was:
* An occasional moocher and outrageous deadbeat (a person who dishonors his debts), sometimes in a nasty way, as with Vilma Radford.
* A possible sometime-hoaxer of footprints and (maybe) sightings--if one believes Harvey Anderson implicitly, which I don't. (But, even on the evidence selected for inclusion by Long, he was also a sometimes-sincere seeker of prints (p. 120) and sightings. And, after 1967, he spent money searching for hominids in Thailand, and bid on the purported Bossburg Bigfoot body.)
* A would-be hoaxer of an ape-suit film in 1961 (again, according to Anderson). (But, after viewing that effort in private, he never went public with any ape-photo hoaxes, most likely from having come to realize how phony such a re-creation looks. That is a bitter experience that pooh-poohing debunkers lack--but will acquire when BH's costumed, in-motion recreation is broadcast.) (PS from 2007: Guess what, it has been withheld from even DVD distribution, presumably because it's embarrassingly bad, according to a neutral witness of the attempt from National Geographic.)
But again, there is evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:
* Testimony indicating that Roger was insincere in his belief in Bigfoot.
* Evidence that Patterson ever promoted a phony ape-suit photo or film as authentic.
* Evidence that Patterson promoted knowingly fraudulent products or projects for money--i.e., scams. Only people who do that are, strictly speaking, con-men. (Trying to sell Bigfoot to Yakima residents, whose attitudes on the big boy ranged from the dubious to the derisive, was an unpromising game-one a true con-man would have avoided. As Charles Mackay wrote back in the 1850s (out of copyright!), "The man who would cheat the people, must needs found his operations upon some prejudice or belief that already exists.")
* Evidence that Patterson's dishonesty was of the mortal-sin, proactive, meat-eating variety, rather than of the venial-sin, opportunistic, grass-eating type (e.g., one-time insurance fraud). Long inaccurately implied he was type-1 (a career criminal), calling him a con-man, etc.
In addition there is evidence (and there would be more in a book less partisan than Long's) that points to Patterson's sincerity and good traits. For sincerity, see pages 46, 49, 88-89, 91-94, 96, 116-18, 129, 131-32, 201, 205, 235, 255, 269-70, 272 & 397. For other good traits, see pages 72, 113, 116, 122, 128-29, 205-06, 228 & 270.
Finally, it's absurd to believe, as Long does, that it is enough to discredit Patterson to disprove the film. He indicated that Patterson and the film are so closely joined that to destroy Patterson's credibility and the film dies, and, that when it comes to the truthfulness of a fantastic story "all other things being equal," the credibility of the story-teller is crucial (p. 430).
But other things are not equal: there was another witness, of excellent character (Gimlin), who has resisted strong provocations by Patterson to expose him; and there is more than a story, there is evidence: the film and the tracks. So readers should not follow Long's specious reasoning. Proving that Patterson was--sometimes--a dodgy dude is not nearly enough, unless one really WANTS to believe Heironimus.
Product Description
A four-year story of ongoing encounters between the author, Sali Sheppard-Wolford and a group of Bigfoot that played in her yard and thunderously walked by her house in the dead of night.
Four years of encounters with a group of Bigfoot in Orting, Washington. Investigations of Bigfoot and other strange phenomena in the area. In addition to the Bigfoot encounters, Sheppard-Wolford describes her spirit journeys with the Indian guide, Dream Walker, and investigations of other strange phenomena near Orting, including an old UFO crash where the old newspapers reporting the crash have mysteriously disappeared and spirit lights that appeared on the ridge above the river.
Customer Reviews:
Valley of the Skookum.......2007-10-03
A very well written book. Although I dont follow the "UFO-BIgfoot" crowd, I very much enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in the big guy. As other reviewers have stated, I didnt want to put it down and want the story not to end. A very nice break from the repeated stories you find in most "Bigfoot" books. It will make a nice addition to my collection.
Thank Sal
GREAT!!.......2007-09-30
I bought this book after hearing Autumn Williams talk about it on her documentury. I loved it. Sent it home and my wife read it. She loved it. Then my grandmother read it. She loved it. Enough said!
A really good book.......2007-05-12
Once I started reading this book, I couldn't put it down, finishing it in two days!! It was quite well written, and done in a very simple, straightforward style that didn't attempt to hide or confuse the subject.
If this is truly representative of the kind of long-term contacts rural people have with Bigfoot and similar creatures, it represents a nearyly ignored aspect of research into this area of cryptozoology. More books like this are absolutely necessary to the discipline, as this is where the REAL action is going on.
Beautifully Written But Steps Into Dangerous Territory.......2007-05-11
Sali Sheppard-Wolford seems likeable enough, and her talent for writing is very obvious. A story that holds you spellbound, but events similar to those found in B. Ann Slate and Alan Berry's "Bigfoot" are called to mind. See my recent review of that book to better understand. Strange events even started to occur in my own home during the reading of this book, like footsteps in the middle of the night, and the television set turning on by its self at loud volume. Very dangerous ground to trod on. Read only with much prayer and faith in God. Proceed with caution.
Fascinating Story..........2007-04-27
Once I started to read this book, I was unable to put it down til the end. I liked this book very much.. Sali Sheppard-Wolford seems to be an open minded and open hearted person. This is most likely why she has experienced extraordinary events in her life that the majority of us never will. Incredible but also believable to me.
Average customer rating:
|
The Walla Walla Bigfoot
Vance Orchard
Manufacturer: Ox-Yoke Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding
 Zoology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
| Amphibians
| Anatomy
| Animal Behavior & Communication
| Animal Psychology
| General
| Genetics
| Ichthyology
| Invertebrates
| Mammals
| Ornithology
| Pathology & Parasitology
| Physiology
| Primatology
| Reptiles
| Research & Ethics
| Vertebrates
ASIN: B0006S43YU |
Book Description
The Historical Bigfoot covers sightings of Wild Men, Gorillas, Yahoos, and What-Is-It's, from the early 1800s to the 1940s. Before the term "Bigfoot" was coined to signify an unknown species of North American primate, sightings of towering bipedal apes were reported throughout the continent, but called a variety of names. This book compiles and sorts the most significant sightings, but also provides a look at hoaxes, misidentifications, and the influential perspective of newspaper editors as they dealt with reports of a strange hairy manlike ape.
Customer Reviews:
Stories From Past Centuries.......2006-11-04
Not just something of recent origin, Bigfoot and "Wild man" stories have been with us throughout our past history. What the author Chad Arment has done, is chronicled many past newspaper accounts, going back some 200 years, into what is now one of the best references to "The Historical Bigfoot." From small town papers throughout many of our states, to even articles taken from the New York Times, it seems hairy creature stories have long been an unsolved mystery that continues to leave us scratching our heads.
So many amusing tales to choose from, I found Missouri's "Blue Man of the Ozarks" one of the more intriguing. And of course with recent doubt over the credibility of British Columbia's well known 1884 "Jacko" capture, nothing of concrete critical evidence against that account has yet come to light. It remains one of my all-time favorite tales. Makes one want to search the archives of local newspapers for more hidden gems. And surely there are many just waiting to be re-discovered.
Stories of old.......2006-09-30
Chad Arment delves into the possible historical references of bigfoots. The author basically collected newspaper/magazine articles from the early 1800s up until roughly 1940, the time before the "big boom of bigfoot". This is before the general terms of bigfoot and sasquatch were used, so references are to wild man, apeman, gorilla, or 'nondescript'. He alphabetically covers areas through the U.S. and Canada and includes references to the sightings based on newspaper. It was an interesting book but does get rather monotonous. All in all, it's a good reference for pre-"bigfoot" name incidents but the incidents themselves fall anywhere within hoaxes, made-up news stories, actual sightings, local myths, boogeyman stories, and real hermits/runaways.
The amusing part of this whole collection is just how many newspapers would claim the creatures were escaped circus/carnival/zoo gorillas/orang-utangs/chimps/baboons. Man, zoo and circus security must have sucked because there were gorillas escaping all over the place. You quickly can tell this is an excuse the news used to try and explain the incidents, whether there were in reality any escaped gorillas or not. With the number of "escaped gorillas" from circuses, you'd think they wouldn't have any attractions left.
The second amusing explanation by the news was that these were often halfbreed children, escaped insane people (again very poor security for asylums), or lost hikers which all managed to instantly grow full body covering hair. Whew, if there were that many escaped crazy people, escaped gorillas, and feral hair-sprouting lost people, I'd be seriously concerned how the country ever developed. Not to mention the 100-man posses all over the countryside hunting down these gorillas and crazies but never managing to capture them.
Overall, it's not your traditional bigfoot book and that's good. It's a much better book on how far-fetched the newspapers got regarding "wildman" sightings. It should be in your bigfoot collection but it does get monotonous. Also the author only presents the articles, he doesn't offer any theories or explanations to the stories.
Book Description
For years, scientists and researchers have studied, speculated about, and searched for an enigmatic creature that is legendary in the annals of American folklore. Now, learn the truth about...
BIGFOOT!
In this fascinating and comprehensive look at the fact, fiction, and fable of the North American "Sasquatch," award-winning author Loren Coleman takes readers on a journey into America's biggest mystery -- could an unrecognized "ape" be living in our midst? Drawing on over forty years of investigations, interviews, and fieldwork on these incredible beasts, Coleman explores the modern debates about these powerful, ape-like creatures, why they have remained a mystery for so long, and what we can learn about ourselves from these animals, our nearest cousins!
From reports of Bigfoot's existence found in ancient Native American traditions, to the controversial Patterson-Gimlin film of a Bigfoot in the wild, to today's Internet sites that record the sightings almost as soon as they occur, Coleman uncovers the past, explains the present, and considers the future of one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in the natural world.
Customer Reviews:
You should own this book........2007-09-06
As with most books by Loren Coleman, this book is very much worth having. Once I got to reading it I had a hard time putting it down. It not only discusses bigfoot but North American Apes. I'm not a big book reviewer who can give an in depth review of what I have read but I can say that if you are into bigfoot and cryptozoology that you will not be disappointed.
Still Going In The 21st Century.......2007-04-17
Long one of the most respected researchers of Bigfoot, Mr. Coleman comes out with one of the best works of the early years of this century on the subject. Many hours of fascinating reading. I can't seem to get enough of this stuff. Though I can't say I agree with him and others recent doubts about the famous Yale, British Columbia capture of "Jacko" back in 1884. A story that always seemed to have a ring of truth to it.
And a big drive, way back, its gone...............2007-01-19
Loren Coleman knocks it out of park with this one. Great job Loren! If you are interested in the mystery of Bigfoot than this book is the one for you my friend...
Cryptozoology Must Have.......2006-11-10
An accessible, interesting read, this book belongs on the shelf of anyone interested in cryptozoology or natural mysteries. Coleman's prose is witty, and down-to-earth. His conclusions are fact-based and logical. The list of Bigfoot "hot spots" is worth the price of the book.
A good book by a man with a passion for the subject.......2006-06-24
Loren Coleman is a writer who believes what he writes, and has spent a life time in persuit of the the truth of bigfoot. I found the book to be well written and informative. It was not a white wash of the subject either. There was enough skeptical information presented in this book to make even hard core believers think hard before accepting rumors and stories as true. The book gave information on various bigfoot like creatures that don't fit the common bigfoot mold, without becoming disjointed. It's a very interesting subject that will never be fully settled until a bigfoot, alive of dead is found and studied
Product Description
In this book the author Danny Liska rode his motorcycle - a BMW R60 - from Alaska to Argentina. He was the first person to complete an overland route, riding over 95000 miles between the Arctic Circle and the tip of South America. For this feat, he's included in the Guinness Book of Motorcycle Facts and Feats as a champion rider along the Pan American Highway. This book has become an extremely hard-to-find classic! It is 755 pages of pure adventure like few have ever known! Nearly every page has a photo or illustration! This is one of the best travel books ever written -- and the best motorcycle travel book ever. This second edition hardcover book features more than 600 photographs and illustrations as well as the same extraordinary high quality printing on all of its pages to exactly match the first Edition released in 1989.
Books:
- Johnny Got His Gun
- Journey of an Art Quilter: Creative Strategies and Techniques
- Kamikaze Girls Novel, Volume 1
- Let's Face It: 90 Years of Living, Loving, and Learning
- Los ojos de mi princesa / The Eyes of My Princess
- Lotta Jansdotter's Simple Sewing: Patterns and How-To for 24 Fresh and Easy Projects
- Magnus, Robot Fighter 4000 A.D. Volume 2 (Magnus Robot Fighter (Graphic Novels))
- Manga! Manga!: The World of Japanese Comics
- Mark of the Lion : A Voice in the Wind, An Echo in the Darkness, As Sure As the Dawn (Vol 1-3)
- Marked Man
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- History: Fiction or Science
- His Little Princess: Treasured Letters from Your King
- Woman Destroyed
- Active Learning for Infants
- Bright Lights, Big City
- Convex Analysis
- Bird Songs
- He Only Takes the Best
- 1996 International Tax Summaries: A Guide for Planning and Decisions
- Involuntary Journey To Siberia
Me Write Book: It Bigfoot Memoir
A Really Super Book About Squirrels
Foop!
A Dirty Job: A Novel
Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
