Bigfoot Story

1. MAN WITH BIGFOOT STORY - man with bigfoot story Foot Loving Teens Sexy teens in stockings and ... man with bigfoot story Veggie Pussy Insertion : Fruits and veges are ... www.man-with-bigfoot-story.seeherfeet.com Mama
2. The Making of Bigfoot- The Inside Story

   The Making of Bigfoot

   The Inside Story:
   • Book by Greg Long.
3. USATODAY.com - On Deadline: Archives - ... day, the story bounced around foreign media for a week (including "Bigfoot 'can boost eco-tourism'") before the AP ran its first ... blogs.usatoday.com Mama
4. WebmasterWorld News and Discussion for the Independent Web Professional - Welcome to [WebmasterWorld]Create? Guest from 62.13.25.219 register , login , site search, glossary, subscribe, help, library, conference, recent posts ... www.webmasterworld.com Mama
5. PersonalPageBrowser - Browsing User Pages - ** Under Construction ** www.netcomuk.co.uk Mama
6. Rapides Parish Bigfoot - Interest in the Bigfoot story has resulted in calls from interested ... A day after the story broke Whitstine is sticking to his story. "It ... www.texasbigfoot.com Mama
7. Tulelake Bigfoot story, the Modoc man - Bigfoot Encounters Many Smokes, National American Indian Magazine, Fall 1968 ... and Sasquatch, The Tulelake Story "My grandfather was ... www.bigfootencounters.com Mama
8. TheKansasCityChannel.com - Local News - Bigfoot Legend Creator Dies; Family ... - Lebrecque insists the Bigfoot story measures up. "From toe to heel, it's ... Bigfoot Legend Creator Dies; Family Calls Bigfoot A Hoax. Wallace's ... www.thekansascitychannel.com Mama
9. Bigfoot - Man or Myth ? - Bigfoot - was the Patterson footage genuine ? ... The Field Guide To Yeti, Bigfoot & Other Mystery Primates ... www.unexplained-mysteries.com Mama
10. cbs2.com - Expert: 'Mystery Beast' Story Has Legs - ... cbs2.com - Expert: 'Mystery Beast' Story Has Legs CBS 2 - KCAL ... cbs2.com Mama
11. Bigfoot! - The True Story of Apes in America

    Bigfoot!

    The True Story of Apes in America:
    • Book by Loren Coleman.
12. 250 Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti Links - http://bigfoot.org/story.htm Once Upon A Time...not so long ago. In ... http://bigfoot.org/links.htm Bigfoot Links The Bigfoot Recording -79.7k ... www.mysteries-megasite.com Mama
13. Boatanchor Pix - Boatanchor Pix "Boatanchor" is amateur radio slang for heavy old tube radio equipment. Originally derogatory, the term is now used affectionately. Seeing an ... oak.cats.ohiou.edu Mama
14. Bigfoot Goes to Hollywood - For more information on the John Chambers/Bigfoot story, see the ... Bigfoot hoax: The Burbank Bigfoot. This was a 7' 4" Bigfoot carcass ... www.parascope.com Mama
15. BBC NEWS | Americas | Police expert claims Bigfoot 'proof' - Police expert claims Bigfoot 'proof'. Much bigfoot evidence turns out ... The Bigfoot is considered to be a North American version of the yeti ... news.bbc.co.uk Mama
16. Howstuffworks "Supernatural Channel" - The index to over 400 fantastic 'How Stuff Works' articles! Computer Stuff Auto Stuff Electronics Stuff Science Stuff Home Stuff Stuffo Health Stuff ... science.howstuffworks.com Mama
17. Bigfoot Story Captured the Nation 19 Years Ago - While a lot of people have made money on the Bigfoot story — I have ... And he told us a story. Photographs were taken, a story written — I ... www.rfthomas.clara.net Mama
18. Don Markstein's Toonopedia: Glossary - Hypertext encyclopedia of comics and animation Glossary Of Specialized Words and Phrases Used in Don Markstein’s Toonopedia™ If this site is enjoyable or ... www.toonopedia.com Mama
19. The Wolfdogs Resource - Created to share legal, scientific, news and... - The Wolfdogs Resource was created to share legal, scientific, news stories and other types of information to wolfdog owners in general.The wolfdog, also know ... www.kc.net Mama
20. Stories Of Bigfoot (Book 17, Essential Sight Words Program)

    Stories Of Bigfoot (Book 17, Essential Sight Words Program)

    • Book by Nita Sundbye.
21. Wallace Hoax Behind Bigfoot? - ... Wallace Scam Ensnares Hollywood Producers BFRO's Quick FAQ on the 'Death of Bigfoot' Story More Commentary on the 'Death of Bigfoot' Story Samples of other Wallace Claims John Green on the 'Birth of ... www.bfro.net Mama
22. BFRO's Quick FAQ on the 12/02 'Death of Bigfoot' Story. - ... the 12/02 'Death of Bigfoot' story. Ironically, this bogus story didn't ... of Bigfoot' story on the researcher efforts into the bigfoot/sasquatch ... www.bfro.net Mama
23. Expert: 'Mystery beast' story has legs - Boston.com - ... Expert: 'Mystery beast' story has legs - Boston.com Today ... www.boston.com Mama
24. komo | Seattle Home - KOMO NEWS - more news - special reports - ken schram - herb weisbaum - buyer beware - does it work? - your money - investigations - sports - people ... www.komotv.com Mama
25. East Texas Bigfoot - Another famous southern bigfoot story is that of the "Honey Island ... "Bigfoot Ate My Volkswagen" and "I Had Bigfoot's Baby", but there are ... www.texasbigfoot.com Mama
26. NBC 4 - Irresistible Headlines - Bigfoot Legend Creator Dies; Family Calls ... - Print This Story. Bigfoot Legend Creator Dies; Family Calls Bigfoot A ... Lebrecque insists the Bigfoot story measures up. "From toe to heel, it's ... www.nbc4.tv Mama
27. Jeff Rense Program - 3-Time Peabody Award Nominee Talkers Magazine Top 100 Host Live Feed ........ Archives Free Rense Newsletter! Sign Up Now For Rense [NetRadio]Create? Live & Archives ... www.rense.com Mama
28. http://www.untoldthemovie.com/ - Visit the link for details. www.untoldthemovie.com Mama
29. Backyard Bigfoot- The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs, & the Sasquatch

    Backyard Bigfoot

    The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs, & the Sasquatch:

• Book by Lisa A. Shiel.

The Making of Bigfoot- The Inside Story

The Making of Bigfoot

The Inside Story:

"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]Create?, Mlada Fronta DNES, Czech Republic)

• Review:: 'Ignore the Rantings of the "True Believers" Below! 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."
• Review:: 'Bigfoot "The Making of A Legend" 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"
• Review:: 'Proves nothing 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.
• Review:: 'Interesting 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.
• Review:: 'A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong" 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]Create?. (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, fabric-like 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″-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 just 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 says four or five miles (p. 348), the map says 20.) D. BH plainly implied that Patterson didn't run forward with camera at the start, and that he observed (or heard tell of) Patterson shaking it instead (p. 337; see also p. 349.) (The initial phase of the film is a jumble of images, with the creature visible in only a few frames.) 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. (Patterson closed the distance from 120 feet to 80, it's been figured.) 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. 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]Create?, 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 September. 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 on Rudkin Rd., which BH would have driven down on the way to Ahtanum Rd. They have had to stop here first anyway, to feed and water their horses, and stable some of them. 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. If the hoax filming had occurred Oct. 19 (as BH now claims), the leave-it-in-your-mom's-trunk-for-us-to-pick-up scenario would be preposterous: The local newspaper printed Patterson's statement (made the next evening) that he planned to remain in the Bluff Creek area hoping for another sighting. It would have looked fishy if he had, after saying that, up-and-left without an unpredictable justification, such as the torrential rains that washed out his site's main egress. Therefore, given that he had to remain at least 3-4 days (and maybe a week), it would have been risky to leave the suit in BH's mom's car, where she would have been sure to eventually come upon it. And, after such a period, BH would have returned to his own lodgings, so Patterson would not have been able to ask for his assistance in opening the trunk. BH had not lent him a copy of the key to open it with, and he couldn't have counted on one being left in the ignition and the door being left unlocked. (Perhaps all this was belatedly realized, after initially setting an Oct. date (see F above), providing another reason for Long to prefer a Sept. date.) 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-which may have been the one day a farmer's fruit stand operated.) So how come BH, knowing all 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]Create?'s himself. That would have been cheaper, faster, and safer. (The only reason Patterson shipped the film to [DeAtley]Create? 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 he now says he wanted evidence to back up his claim he was involved in the filming. According to his latest (May 17) 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 known since childhood (p. 344). M. BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & [DeAtley]Create? 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 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 de