PROTECT YOUR DNA WITH QUANTUM TECHNOLOGY
Orgo-Life the new way to the future Advertising by AdpathwayThere has been some push back on these parts of Long's theory. Like with the original, it becomes stories vs. stories with no real evidence. Although one could say the film is evidence.
Indeed. Long's work is actually little more than an ad hominem attack on Patterson without addressing the actual film at all, which makes it entirely circumstantial and it offers no actual proof of Long's most sensational claims.
External Quote:
It is the story, in the words of one key witness, of "a cheat, a liar, and a thief." Patterson was many things: an artist, woodworker, acrobat, rodeo-rider, filmmaker, author, and, above all, a con man. Long's portrait is that of a small-time, back roads scam artist with dreams of the big score... "Roger Patterson's character fails the smell test," writes Long. "Sum up all the information about Roger Patterson, and it comes down to two simple points. One, he had the ability to conceive of and create a Bigfoot suit, and two, he was a crook."[link]
That doesn't cut it in my view. The fact that Patterson was a scoundrel is relevant for context, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that he did find a real Sasquatch. It's nowhere near proof of fakery, which is how Long's book is portrayed. It's more like a biography of Roger Patterson, not an analysis of the film.
Morris offered no evidence apart from his own testimony to support his account, the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967.
It's even worse than that. Most of the people repeating this claim have never seen the actual suit in question. It's ridiculous. The latex and dynel gorilla suit that Morris was selling at the time can be seen in a lot of television programs of the day, and it's incredibly cheap looking by modern standards and bears no reasonable resemblance to the figure in the film. It would never pass for a real animal. Here is a photo of Morris standing next to the suit he says he sold Patterson. Anybody recognize this suit from Gilligan's Island?
Moreover, when Morris was asked to produce another suit like the one he sold Patterson, the result looked nothing like either the costume above or the figure in the film. You'll note the much longer hair on Morris's costume, which is required to hide the wrinkles and seams around the neck, wrists, and other flex points. The figure in the film has very short hair all over, and yet no seams are visible in these places. It also doesn't have the pendulous breasts or the sagittal crest seen in the film.
Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing different ape suits in many respects.
Again, it's worse than that. Heironymous changed his story multiple times.
External Quote:
Quotes from Bob Hieronimus, in 2001:
"Roger skinned out a dead red horse ... [The costume] stunk ... It weighed maybe twenty, twenty five pounds. It was a little bit heavy ... Horsehide would be heavy." "It was made of three parts. It had legs. It had a corset or middle piece between the neck and waist. And it had a head."[link]
After Morris made his claims to Long in 2004, Heironymous changed his story to match Morris's that it was a latex and dynel gorilla suit. Long let ALL of this go without so much as a question.
That's the problem. All he does is speculate.
I've always found the fact that Patterson was trying to make a Bigfoot film prior to the encounter a little suspicious. He had been shooting and working out a story line and using people like Heironimus 4-5 months before heading to NorCal.
It may seem suspicious to some, but it makes sense when viewed in the larger context. Patterson had been obsessed with the subject for years and had published a book the year before, and the film was going to be a follow-up to the book. It's a common misconception that they were just wandering around the woods when they stumbled across a Sasquatch. Patterson was investigating a series of sightings and footprints nearby and shooting some B-roll footage of the area for use in the film. It's worth pointing out that movies are shot at 24 frames per second and Patterson appears to have been filming that day at 16 or 18 fps, so that's something I've always wondered about. The first 2 minutes of the film is entirely this B-roll footage. Here is the complete film reel shot that day.
Critics claim that too much happened between the filming (at 1:15 at the earliest) and the filmmakers' arrival in Willow Creek (at 6:30 at the latest). Daegling wrote, "All of the problems with the timeline disappear if the film is shot a few days or hours beforehand. If that is the case, one has to wonder what other details of this story are wrong." The film's defenders retort that although the time window was tight, it was do-able.
I've never understood this argument. The timeline doesn't seem all that tight to me. Listen to Bob Gimlin describe the events and tell me if anything sounds amiss to you.
To my knowledge, the leader of the original film containing the date it was developed and possibly the lab that did it has never been shown. Why?
External Quote:
However, with Roger Patterson's death in January, 1972 (less than 5 years after the event), and the camera original at that time in the possession of a film production company, American National Enterprises (ANE) the family trauma of his passing took all attention away from the question of reclaiming the camera original film. The ANE maintained possession of the camera original. The subsequent bankruptcy of ANE caused the film to be inadvertently acquired by another party in a bankruptcy liquidation sale of the assets of ANE. The new owner placed the film with a film storage service in Los Angeles, but in 1980, researcher Rene Dahinden convinced the film storage staff that he had rights to the film and thus had authority to check it out for further examination. There is no record of the film being returned, and so it is classified as missing, whereabouts unknown, at this time. However, before the original was lost, many copies were made and a systematic analysis of these varied copies and the processes used allows us to determine the condition of the original.[link]
Dahinden was a cantankerous sort who didn't play well with others, especially other researchers like John Green. He died without anyone knowing the whereabouts of the film. His estate has been contacted but they haven't found it. Maybe it will turn up someday.
Ultimately, it's the lack of any hard to hoax evidence like scat, hair, skeletal remains or DNA vs something like a shaky film that can be hoaxed.
There are samples of hair and scat, but the problem with analysis is that without a type sample to compare it against, all anyone can say is that it doesn't match a known animal. That's not really helpful. People always say "just analyze the DNA," but it's not that simple. You still have the same problem.
External Quote:
"But what I found very interesting was that, yes, we have detected human DNA in these areas, but we're still seeing different primate DNA. There wasn't just one human primate, there are several different primates, some sort of primate relative that exists in the data. Pan troglodyte is a species of chimpanzee, which you would not see in the areas you're at. It's a real head scratcher. It's important to note that the higher the detection, the more confidence we can say that whatever organism, whatever taxonomy we're looking at was apparent in the area. And in this case, we're looking at the Pan genus, or the chimpanzee genus…. there's 3000 reads."[link]
What really needs to happen is to fully sequence the genome, but that's cost-prohibitive unless Elon Musk wants to take up a side project.
.png)
.jpg)
English (US) · 
French (CA) ·