- Statement Regarding "Hearsay Evidence:
-
- Critics of The Making of Bigfoot have stated that the
book is based upon "hearsay." The definition of hearsay is: "evidence
based on what someone has told the witness and not of direct knowledge."
The major assertions contained in The Making of Bigfoot are NOT BASED ON
HEARSAY, but on recorded statements made by first-person witnesses.
-
-
- BIGFOOT "SUIT"
-
- 1. "Will there be a re-creation of the suit?"
-
- Answer: Yes, there will be a recreation of the "Bigfoot"
(gorilla) suit. Every attempt will be made to use the exact same materials
used by Philip Morris in 1967. However, nearly forty years have passed,
and it might not be possible to find the exact materials. Therefore, materials
that most closely mimic the original materials will be used. Philip Morris
will be involved in the recreation.
-
- 2. "My question Mr. Long is this, When this recreation
takes place will there be neutral, professional FX, makeup and costume
designers present to verify everything involved, FX, makeup and costume
wise, is only technology that was available up until the year 1967??"
-
- Answer: I should certainly think so. Direct your question
to Bob Kiviat, please.
-
- 3. "Why didn't Greg Long and his associates recreate
the suit and film Bob Heironimus walking in it?"
-
- Answer: Greg Long did not have the financial resources
to do this. After Long watched Bob Heironimus walk like Patterson's Bigfoot,
he made the decision to move ahead with his book project and to hope that
after the book was published, an interested TV producer could invest the
resources to accomplish the recreation. Hopefully, Robert Kiviat of Kiviat
Productions, Inc., will produce the recreation.
-
- 4. "Where is the 'suit?'"
- Answer: I do not know.
-
- 5. "Why do you think you don't need the 'suit' to
provide proof that Roger Patterson hoaxed the film?"
-
- Answer: My book contains the confession of Bob Heironimus,
who states that he wore a costume to play the "Bigfoot" in Patterson's
film. Heironimus has passed a lie detector exam, and four other people,
in addition to Heironimus, have gone on record stating they saw the suit.
Philip Morris has repeatedly stated that he sold a gorilla suit to Roger
Patterson in August 1967, two months before the film was shot. Philip Morris
identified the suit when it appeared (with Bob Heironimus inside it) on
a news program in Charlotte, North Carolina.
- Studying blowups of selected frames from Patterson's
film, Morris has identified the suit in Patterson's film as the suit he
sold to Patterson. Some features of the suit in Patterson's film differ
from those in Morris's suit, such as the face mask and the "raised"
crotch and the shoulders, but Morris insists that the suit in the film
is his suit. Based upon his knowledge of gorilla suits, which he made by
hand for at least 15 years, Morris and his wife Amy immediately identified
the suit as their gorilla suit the moment they saw it on TV in October
1967.
- Additionally, Bob Heironimus has stated that he provided
a prosthetic eye, the so-called "glass eye" described in The
Making of Bigfoot, to Roger Patterson to insert and attach to the right
eyehole in the face mask of the suit. The prosthetic eye can be observed
in blowups of the head of the Bigfoot.
-
- Murders are often proved without a body, and murder weapons
are not always required to find a defendant guilty. In cases that lack
material evidence, the defendant's statements, the murder victim's statements
before death, the statements of witnesses who observed the actions of the
defendant or the words of the victim can suffice, along with proof of motive,
means, and opportunity. Defendants have been found guilty "beyond
a reasonable doubt" in such "non-material" cases. Such is
the situation with The Making of Bigfoot.
-
- 6. "Why do the two 'bigfoot'" look so very
different? (the Patty film creature and the obvious fake in the cage)?"
-
- Answer: Roger Patterson brushed down the hair on Morris's
suit, and replaced the gorilla mask with a Bigfoot mask. Other modifications
were made.
-
- 7. "Why are there two conflicting stories about
the supposed suit? Why do you and Mr. Korff and others claim that Philip
Morris made a 3-piece gorilla suit for Patterson, when Mr. Heironimus says
that Patterson skinned a red horse and sewed it together making a 6-piece
suit?"
-
- Answer: I have answered the "dead horse" question.
There is no "conflict" between Bob Heironimus's story and Philip
Morris's story but in terms of the UNITY OF THE COSTUME. Specifically,
Bob Heironimus remembered three parts; Philip Morris remembers six parts.
Regardless of the number of parts, Bob Heironimus says in put on a suit,
and Philip Morris says he sold a suit to Roger Patterson. Both men describe
a costume. The number of parts is a RED HERRING. We know Roger Patterson
owned a tool shed and worked in leather, clay, and wood. Modifying the
suit parts-such as gluing or riveting the hands to the cuffs of the suit,
as well as the feet to the leg cuffs-was well within his skill set.
-
- 8. "On what basis do you find Mr. Morris's claim
to be the creator of the suit to be veracious? It is my understanding that
there is no documentation of either the suit's sale or design (please correct
me if such documentation exists)."
-
- Answer: I believe in the truthfulness of Mr. Morris's
statements based on my interviews with him. I also asked several of his
business partners if they considered him honest. There is no receipt for
the suit he sold to Patterson. Mr. Morris has evidence of the ad for his
gorilla suits that he placed in magazine's of the time.
-
- 9. "Haven't there been several people claiming to
have been the 'man in the suit?'
-
- Answer: Not to my knowledge. Perhaps someone can produce
their names, phone numbers, and addresses, and when they claimed to have
worn the suit. Reports on these claims, field notes, newspaper clippings,
and other documentation are welcomed. (Rene Dahinden made a similar claim
of dozens of gorilla suit claimants, but he never published their names.)
-
- 10. "What is your background in anthropology and/or
primatology?"
-
- Answer: General knowledge.
-
- 11. "You state that it's 'likely' or that he 'may'
{i.e., Roger Patterson] have used something heavy to make the footprint
impressions. You seem both unsure of the material used and the manner in
which it may have been used. Is this merely speculation on your part, or
do you have some 'concrete' evidence to support your assumption?"
-
- Answer: Concrete and cement. An interview with a witness
will be published.
-
- 12. "Why has Bob Heironimus contradicted himself
by claiming on [MSNBC's] Countdown with Keith Olbermann that the 'suit'
he 'wore' was a manufactured one from Philip Morris, when in your own book,
he said that it was made out of horsehide and an old fur coat?"
-
- Answer: This question has been repeatedly asked over
and over again. A careful reader will find the answer on page 345 of my
book. Roger Patterson told Howard Heironimus that he (Roger) had made the
suit from the hide of a dead horse. Howard told Bob Heironimus this: that
Roger had told Howard Heironimus that he, Roger, had made the suit from
a dead horse. Thus, Bob Heironimus surmised that Roger had made the suit
from a dead horse. Bob Heironimus always surmised this until I told him
that Roger bought the suit from Philip Morris. There really is NO CONTRADICTION
here. Bob Heironimus believed that Roger made the suit, when in fact Morris
did (with Patterson modifying parts of the costume).
-
- 13. One critic has written: "..IF this whole thing
[i.e., the Patterson Bigfoot film] was 're-enacted' and SHOWN without a
doubt to be a hoax, I'm SURE you [i.e., Greg Long] would get many converts.
You have to agree that our disbelief isn't unwarranted as I think it's
obvious that ANYONE can 'come forward' and 'claim' to be the 'man in the
suit' or the 'maker of the suit' yet conveniently NOT want to SHOW exactly
how all that was done."
-
- Comment: Bob Heironimus has come forward and he wants
to show exactly, to millions of people, that he walks just like the Bigfoot
in the film. Philip Morris, the maker of the suit, has come forward and
he will show how he made the gorilla suit that he sold to Roger Patterson.
- IT IS NOT TRUE that Bob Heironimus suddenly "came
forth" as a member of the Yakima community to "cash in"
on Roger Patterson's hoax. He had been thinking about confessing to his
role in the hoax for many years. He had revealed to close friends and family
members his role not long after he participated in the hoax, in 1967 through
1970. His family and friends have known about his role in the hoax for
nearly forty years. Bob Heironimus opened up to a newspaper reporter who
befriended him and told him his story many times, starting in 1981. Bob
Heironimus's story didn't just "pop up" out of the "woodwork."
The story has been with him from the moment he wore the suit until now.
- Bob Heironimus isn't just "anyone," such as
an opportunist hanging around the Bigfoot scene and waiting for an opportunity
to come forth. These are the facts:
- 1. Bob Heironimus met Bob Gimlin when Gimlin was a bartender
in Yakima; the two men became friends.
- 2. Bob Heironimus played a "Bigfoot hunter"
in Roger Patterson's amateur Bigfoot documentary, along with Bob Gimlin,
Howard Heironimus, Jerry Merritt, and John Ballard.
- 3. While riding one day, Bob Gimlin asked Bob Heironimus
would play the Bigfoot-wearing a Bigfoot suit.
- 4. Bob Heironimus made a gentlemen's agreement with Patterson
that he would play the Bigfoot.
- 5. Bob Heironimus played the Bigfoot; and he was never
paid the $1,000 he was promised.
- 6. Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson were friends.
- 7. Roger Patterson and Jerry Merritt were friends.
- 8. John Ballard and Roger Patterson were friends.
- 9. Howard Heironimus knew who Roger Patterson was; he
had known who he was for years since his teen years since he spent most
of his time over a year period living with the Mondor family, of which
one member was Patty Mondor, who Patterson dated and later married.
- 10. All of these men were part of Roger Patterson's "Bigfoot
documentary" shot in May-June 1967. All of them lived in the Ahtanum
Valley area or near the Ahtanum Valley (Gimlin for awhile lived in Union
Gap, not far away). They all were cowboys with varying skills; they all
rode horses. They had all lived for most of their lives in Yakima.
- 11. Bob Heironimus, because of his size, was the perfect
candidate to play the Bigfoot.
- 12. After Roger Patterson cheated Bob Heironimus, as
he cheated everyone he came in contact with, Bob Heironimus let his story
out, quietly, hoping that he would someday get paid his $1,000.
- 13. Over the years, Bob Heironimus's story spread, among
his close friends, his relatives, and into the community.
- 14. Starting in 1981, he met a newspaper reporter, and
on hunting trips and other occasions, Bob Heironimus told his story. After
much questioning over the years, the newspaper reporter concluded that
Bob Heironimus was telling the truth.
- 15. When TV documentarians began scrutinizing Patterson's
film starting in 1997, Bob Heironimus' anger grew - he had never been paid,
yet here were Bigfoot "hunters" and TV producers profiting off
Patterson's film, and it was Bob Heironimus who had played the Bigfoot.
His anger boiled over when he discovered that Greg Long was planning on
writing a book about Patterson and the film, and the final straw broke
when Heironimus watched Fox TV's World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally
Revealed. It was then that Bob Heironimus decided to tell the truth. Bob,
therefore, never suddenly came forward and pretended he wore the gorilla
suit. Bob Heironimus isn't "anyone." He isn't someone who never
knew Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin or the other amateur actors in Patterson's
documentary. He knew them all, some better than others. Bob Heironimus
is THE ONLY ONE in 36 years who has ever come forward to describe the suit
and his role in the hoax. He stands by his story today. His family supports
him as do his friends. His employers vouch for his honesty. He has no criminal
record. He is who he says he is, and he told his story to Greg Long knowing
that the Bigfoot believers would immediately deny it. Predictably, he has
been called a drunk, a liar, and a fraud.
-
- 14. A critic has asked if Greg Long's evidence has been
interpreted "wrong."
-
- Answer: No. Bob Heironimus and Philip Morris have made
it very clear as to what they did in 1967. They have repeatedly told their
story without changes, contradictions, retractions, or additional details.
Also, there is no "counter-evidence" that proves Roger Patterson
was an honest man when it came to his business dealings and that he didn't
desire to make money off the Bigfoot subject. The exact opposite is true:
Patterson was dishonest; the pattern of his dishonesty is corroborated
by many witnesses. Patterson was chronically unemployed-purposely, by his
own choosing-and he wanted to make money from not only a book on Bigfoot
(1966) but from a Bigfoot film "documentary." Roger Patterson
knew who Bob Heironimus was, Bob Heironimus knew who Roger Patterson was,
Bob Gimlin knew Roger and Bob, and vice-versa. Roger Patterson knew Howard
Heironimus and vice-versa. Jerry Merritt knew Roger, from childhood, and
Bob Gimlin knew who Jerry Merritt was. All of these men knew each other.
They form the core group that was involved in whole, or in part, in a Bigfoot
documentary. It was Bob Heironimus who agreed to play the Bigfoot. All
of these men, but Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson, have told me his story.
What could I have misinterpreted regarding their stories? I have proved
that these men all had ties to each other. The story of the Patterson hoax
film is clear and obvious and direct. There is nothing "wrong"
in my interpretation of the evidence.
-
- 15. "We [Patterson film believers] aren't presenting
the claim that the Patterson film is a hoax, you are. Prove it."
-
- Answer: My book proves it. For those who do not believe,
Bob Kiviat's special will add additional proof. Also, additional proof
from me is forthcoming.
-
- 16. "Why did Heironimus say on Keith Olbermann's
program [MSNBC] that Roger Patterson contacted him to carry out the 'hoax,'
and say in the book it was Bob Gimlin who contacted him?"
-
- Answer: Roger Patterson needed someone to play the "Bigfoot"
in his film. He asked Bob Gimlin to ask Bob Heironimus if Heironimus would
play the Bigfoot for $1,000. Bob Heironimus was then asked to meet Roger
Patterson at Roger's house. In effect, Roger Patterson asked Bob Heironimus
through Bob Gimlin. Roger Patterson had clever ways of operating; he found
people to do the work for him, as he had Jerry Merritt convince Vilma Radford
to allow him to bring Roger to her house. In other instances he avoided
his creditors or those he had business dealings with.
-
- 17. "Why hasn't Bob Gimlin come forward and confessed
to a hoax (which you and Bob Heironimus insist he was part of the hoax)
seeing as how he was cut out of all profits on the film, which would have
been a great motivation for him to come forward?"
-
- Answer: I believe Bob Heironimus's story. Since I have
not disproved Bob Heironimus's story, I speculate in this way: Would Bob
Gimlin gain anything by coming forward and confessing in 1967 or the years
that followed that he had lied, that he was part of a scheme? Gimlin lives
in a small community. Would he have risked his reputation? Or wasn't it
better just to sue Patty Patterson and Al DeAtley, as he did, hoping he
would gain profits that way without confessing? In that way, he would have
profited without being exposed as a liar. Bob Gimlin does not give interviews
on the subject.
-
- 18. "Why has Bob Heironimus waited 37 years to come
forward when he could have settled all this years ago?"
-
- Answer: Bob Heironimus kept his promise to Roger Patterson
for decades, as well as kept the truth inside himself, until his usual
mild disposition burst forth when he kept seeing himself in documentaries
in recent years-he was the Bigfoot, the "star" of Patterson's
hoax Bigfoot film, and he had received nothing for his efforts. The time
simply came when he decided enough was enough, and that he would tell the
truth, even risking his livelihood. Perhaps a TV producer would buy his
story, and he could finally "settle" with Roger Patterson. Furthermore,
would Bob Heironimus have wished to come forward and named Al DeAtley not
long after Patterson's death as the man who handled the processing of the
film? Al DeAtley was a wealthy man then. Would Heironimus have wished to
be sued by Bob Gimlin?
-
- 19. "Why do you insist on cutting down the memory
of a man who is long since dead (Patterson) and trashing the reputation
of the only living witness (Gimlin)?"
-
- Answer: First, I am not "cutting down the memory
of a man," that is, Roger Patterson, since there is NO MEMORY TO CUT
DOWN, but a romanticized and idealized image of Patterson that Bigfoot
believers take pleasure in and want the public to believe. None of the
facts of Roger Patterson that I present in my book has ever been published
before. As the growling Bigfoot "hunter" Rene Dahinden said,
"I give out the clean version [of Patterson]." The Bigfoot community
would rather you didn't know about these facts. Therefore, the public can
now know the true memory of Patterson as that true memory has been revealed
by Patterson's living neighbors and former friends (and victims). The "memory"
of Roger Patterson that Bigfoot believers try to peddle is false. Patterson
was a cheat, a liar, a thief, and a con artist; he wasn't an honest man,
and it's even questionable if he was a "Bigfoot hunter." Second,
I haven't "trashed" the reputation of Bob Gimlin. I would welcome
proof someone that I have trashed Bob Gimlin's reputation. (For the record,
I asked Bob Gimlin for a personal interview, and he refused.)
-
- COPYRIGHT
-
- 1. "Are you sure [that Roger Patterson] was trying
to 'copyright' the name 'Bigfoot,' since you cannot copyright a name. I
think it is more likely he was trying to register 'Bigfoot' (or 'Big Foot')
as a trademark. It makes no odds to most, but as someone that deals in
copyright and trademark law, it is important to me."
-
- Answer: Jerry Merritt told me that Roger Patterson was
attempting to copyright the name or word "Bigfoot." The extent
of Jerry Merritt's answer can be found in The Making of Bigfoot in the
chapter called "Jerry Merritt." Possibly Jerry Merritt meant
that Patterson was attempting to copyright the title of his Bigfoot movie
that he was shooting in the hills behind his house.
-
- 2. Did you unearth any documentation at the patents office
to that effect?
-
- Answer: No, I did not.
-
- 3. "Secondly, how sure are you that it was 'Bigfoot'
and not 'Big Foot?' The A&E film [sic] used the title 'Big Foot' -
this is how Patterson seemed to write it usually."
-
- Answer: Perhaps Patterson was attempting to copyright
the name as one or the other, "Bigfoot" or "Big Foot"-I
do not know. NOTE: A&E is the TV network. However, ANE stands for American
National Enterprises, the film company who bought the film from Patterson.
ANE is defunct.
-
-
- GREG LONG
-
- 1. Greg Long is a "yarn spinner."
-
- Comment: This is a false statement. A "yarn"
is a "tall tale," in short, a fictional story. I have not written
a "tall tale." My non-fictional book is based on interviews and
available public and private documents. I provide my own conclusions based
upon the information I give in the book. There will be more information
forthcoming.
-
- 2. "Greg Long spent all his time digging up dirt
on Roger Patterson."
-
- Comment: False. I spent all my time interviewing people
who were willing to talk about Roger Patterson. Virtually none of them
had anything good to say about Patterson. Therefore, the so-called "dirt"-in
this case, the truth-came to me during my interviews. I didn't have to
"dig" it up.
-
- 3. "Do you [Greg Long], believe there may be a North
American great ape, regardless of the Patterson footage results."
-
- Answer: I will believe that there is a North American
great ape when a live or dead specimen is discovered and the world's best
anthropologists and primatologists examine the specimen in a laboratory
and declare, through group consensus and peer review, from DNA, and from
other physical evidence, that the specimen in their possession is a North
American great ape fitting the descriptions of Bigfoot witnesses. Until
that happens, I will remain open-minded; I am waiting for the indisputable
evidence.
-
- 4. " What caused you to write this book? What was
your motivation? If you didn't write the book for the money you'd make
off it, then why did you do it?"
-
- Answer: I have long been interested in Bigfoot stories.
Also, like just about everyone in America, I have known about the Roger
Patterson "Bigfoot" film. Living only two-and-a-half hours from
Yakima by car, I decided to find out who Roger Patterson was. I was motivated,
as I am now, to find out facts about him. A journalist cannot separate
Patterson from the film, and therefore the whole question of the authenticity
of the film came up during my interviews with Yakima residents. As I continued
my interviews, I could see that a book was warranted on Patterson, and
of course, when I learned the name of Bob Heironimus and that he was the
likely candidate to have worn a gorilla suit, I decided to write the book.
My intent was from the beginning, and always was during my interviews,
to document the truth about Patterson and his film. Yes, any writer wants
his book to be published. Certainly, most authors want to gain something
monetarily from their books. But I was never motivated to make money. Luckily,
to date brisk book sales have come from the book, and I'm gratified. I
am more gratified that the truth is finally being told.
-
- ROBERT KIVIAT AND KAL KORFF
-
- 1. One critic has said, "..Korff and Kiviat are
very easily taken in and have never seen a primate in their lives."
-
- Comment: Ridiculous.
-
- MISCELLANEOUS
-
- 1. ".in the chapter where you interview Les Patterson,
you mention that the Ford Motor Co. gave Patterson 'Land Rovers.' I am
curious - did you check this fact with Ford companies."
-
- Answer: No.
-
- 2. "Do you have the fortitude to offer a rebuttal
to Mr. Green and Dr. Meldrum? Myself, everyone else here, and I'm sure
Mr. Green and Dr. Meldrum will be very interested to hear it."
-
- Answer: Yes, I have the fortitude.
-
- 3. "Are you saying that the foot in the film was
made of Latex?"
-
- Answer: Yes, along with other materials, such as dynel
fur and a rubber sole and glue.
-
- 4. "I would like to know why Kal Korff claimed at
UnCon last year [2003] that 'we had personally deposed dozens of witnesses
for this book.' I have read most of the book; I can't see a single deposition
- why is this?"
-
- Answer: The statements of almost all witnesses were audio-taped.
Some witnesses did not wish to be taped. The witnesses agreed to be quoted.
No one was "deposed" in a court of law.
-
- 5. "Korff told those of us who were at UnCon that
Bob H had 'been in a car accident - that is why he walked funny' - is this
true? If so, why is this not in the book?"
-
- Answer: Bob Heironimus and Russ Bohannon recall that
both of them were in a car accident, and that Bob was severely injured.
These two men state that the accident occurred after the hoax filming.
Unless there is forthcoming evidence that the accident actually occurred
before the filming, and that Bob's injury contributed to the "odd"
walk of the Bigfoot, then Bob Heironimus's injury is unrelated to the 'gait'
or 'locomotive' features of the Bigfoot.
-
- 6. "Why did Bob Heironimus say that Patterson had
told him how to walk?"
-
- Answer: Patterson demonstrated for Bob Heironimus how
he wanted Bob Heironimus to walk during the filming, specifically, swinging
the arms, bending the needs, and so forth, and looking over his shoulder.
Interestingly, when Jim McClarin visited Patterson in the spring of 1967,
Patterson demonstrated physically for McClarin how a Bigfoot walks. (McClarin
reported this on April 4, 2004, on Artist First Radio on the Internet.)
-
- 7. "Is Bob H. gaining financially from his 'confession'
?"
-
- Answer: He is not. If there is a Bigfoot TV special,
Bob Heironimus should be paid for something.
-
- 8. "Is Kal Korff gaining financially from this book
(or is he using it as a springboard for another TV show)?"
-
- Answer: Kal Korff is receiving ZERO MONEY from The Making
of Bigfoot. He might play a role in a TV special.
-
- 9. "Which police department are you cooperating
with in regard to the 'consumer fraud' case against Bob Gimlin (source
Kal Korff)?"
-
- Answer: I am cooperating with no one with regard to such
a case.
-
- 10. "Why was the title of the book changed to 'The
Making of Bigfoot?'"
-
- Answer: The publisher changed the title, which is the
publisher's right under contract. The title appeals to a broader audience
than the working title, Sixty Seconds at Bluff Creek, which only the narrow
Bigfoot community would recognize.
-
- 11. "Where you not concerned that [Les] Johnson
was so quick to finger Bob Heironimus as the man in the suit, claimed to
have drunk in the same tavern, but could not recognize him or his brother
in Larry Lund's photograph ?"
-
- Answer: No. The photograph had been taken 30 years earlier.
He knew who Bob Heironimus was, but not as well as Roger Patterson.
-
- 12. "Greg, has there been an attempt to find the
original film footage that, as you stated in your book, would have the
date and location of processing printed on it? I wonder why the location
of the original is not common knowledge given the importance of the film.
This would certainly prove whether or not Patterson told the truth about
the filming."
-
- Answer: The Bigfoot community claims it doesn't know
where the film is, or that attorneys are guarding it. These attorneys are
not identified.
-
- 13. "And why didn't you and Mr. Korff present Philip
Morris on Jeff Rense's program last Tuesday [in March 2004] night? Did
you cancel out or did Mr. Rense cancel you?"
-
- Answer: Mr. Morris had a conflicting schedule.
-
- 14. "A police officer knows that an eyewitness
is the least reliable evidence. A lawyer knows that they can spin the evidence
to anything they want. And an author is always partisan, despite any protests
to the opposite."
-
- Answer: Then why do we have eye witnesses reporting
crimes, and why do jurors believe their statements? Please prove to me
that I am partisan?
-
- 15. "Film can be the least partial witness to an
event. It up to the interpretation of the viewers as to what they see in
the film."
-
- Answer: I see a man in a suit.
-
- 16. "How long did you research this book? I find
it interesting that there are three different references to how many years
you did research into this: three years, four years, and six years."
-
- Answer: I started researching and writing in August 1998
and submitted the manuscript to Prometheus Books on August 1, 2002. The
book was published on March 1, 2004.
|
