Interviews Provided To
with Greg Long, Michaela Kocis and Kal Korff

NOTE: The team that worked together to break open the Roger Patterson "bigfoot" film hoax of 1967 and bring out the information to the public, consists of:
1) Greg Long - AUTHOR of The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, Investigative Journalist
2) Robert Kiviat - Executive TV Producer, World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed
3) Michaela Kocis - Czech Radio Broadcaster, Investigative Journalist
4) Kal Korff - Author, Columnist, Lecturer and Investigative Journalist, President and CEO, CriticalThinkers

EXCLUSIVE: Q & A with Czech Broadcaster, Investigative Journalist, Michaela Kocis
Michaela Kocis' web site:

EXCLUSIVE: Q & A with Author, Journalist, Greg Long
Greg Long's web site:

EXCLUSIVE: Q & A with Author, Columnist, Journalist, Kal Korff
Kal Korff's web site:

Q & A with Michaela Kocis
Michaela Kocis is a Czech radio Broadcaster and Investigative Journalist who covers the culture scene for the public. A former employee at The Prague Post, the Czech Republic's oldest and largest English language newspaper, Michaela is the author of the exclusive expose article, The Making of Bigfoot - The Inside Secrets Revealed, which will be published shortly all over the world. She has been working with The Washington Post concerning her upcoming expose, and was given unprecedented access, along with Richard Leiby of The Washington Post, to the secret six YEAR Long/Kiviat/Korff investigation.
Photo Courtesy: Thao Nguyen
What is a nice girl like you, doing in a Bigfoot investigation like this?
As an investigative journalist, I think I would be in this Bigfoot investigation even if I weren’t a nice girl.
We must not forget that this story is about a hoax and a fraud that was pulled on the world for almost 40 years. I wrote the article that exposed the truth that Greg Long’s investigation revealed. I am a journalist. I would have no right to work in this field if I turned down a story like this because the issue is more than just about Bigfoot.
Bigfoot believers need to especially remember this fact: they were lied to for almost 40 years. This was and remained until this expose of consumer fraud. As a journalist I owe the public the truth and this was a really big truth. So I thought it would be a good way to start.

What brought you into Bigfoot?
To be honest, I never had an interest in Bigfoot before this story and to be very open, and always honest, I don’t really care for the subject right now. I am mentioning this not because I am a skeptic or a debunker or anything negative, I am just a journalist. I think it is possible, in fact I know that science will always discover new things including new life, maybe one day, we may even find a Yeti. Yeti is a Czech word by the way. We don’t use the word Bigfoot because as the Patterson hoax has proven, there wasn’t a Bigfoot there. There wasn’t even a Yeti. There was a Bob H.

What made you decide to write, what has turned out to be, the definitive news story that breaks open the Patterson Bigfoot film hoax?
I will tell you upfront that I have an agenda so if anyone wants to criticize me for what I am about to say, I don’t think they really can. I am telling everyone, I have an agenda. That agenda is open and it contains one item. I have to write about and report about the truth. My expose is the truth. So my agenda was not to expose the Patterson film as a hoax. It happened to be a hoax. My agenda was and will always remain to report the truth.
This is what motivated me to write the story. I was able to investigate the truth, document it and the story is my reporting and writing of it. Because it meets the criteria of my agenda, that’s why I wrote it.

Why Bigfoot?
It’s not about Bigfoot, it’s about the Patterson hoax and how people were lied to and fooled for nearly 40 years. The article and even Greg Long’s book are not about Bigfoot in general, just the Patterson hoax.

What do you think of those Bigfoot believers?
It depends, they are all different. For my article, I did engage the top researchers, I tried to help them, I asked them to give me the best hardest evidence they had. I specifically asked for the best evidence that could prove their strong beliefs that the Patterson film was real. They did not know that I knew it was a hoax. This was the ultimate test of issues of integrity, honesty, openness, forthrightness and dare I say righteousness.
Because, when it was obvious that the evidence they shared with me could not support the strength of their convictions about the film, it was righteous to report that truth.
Most importantly, nothing from anybody disproved Greg Long’s book and that remains the bottom line.
I did not want to expose Bigfoot researchers as dishonest people or people who are less than desirable to be around. I want you to know, that Greg Long is the qualified person to talk about the Bigfoot community, I am not. I just know what I was exposed to and my door is always open as a journalist for anyone.

Are your opinions the way they are because you believe in what Greg Long’s book says, or are they your own opinions?
Everything that I write is my opinion unless I say otherwise.

How long did you have to investigate and study Bigfoot before you were able to solve the case?
I didn’t solve the case, Greg Long did. That’s in the book. For the record, I am the journalist who first broke the exclusive story and I took things a few steps further. I took this breakthrough truth and tested it against the best evidence the pro Bigfoot researchers had. No one has disproved this book, the Patterson film is a hoax.

You must think we Americans are dumb for being fooled all of these years. Any impressions about that?
You don’t want me to go there.

Yes I do.
Allright then. Sincerely, it blows my mind that such a rodeo con artist can fool the world, especially scientists with PhD’s, with a few pieces of fur and a camera he later stole. I am sorry, but it shouldn’t have taken nearly 40 years and it shouldn’t have been Greg Long to solve the case and investigate it with no bias. It should have been those PhD’s, Bigfoot researchers or professors at universities who lecture to young students about this.
As a journalist I should have grown up reading as part of my training for investigative journalistic skills the story that I ended up writing. For nearly 40 years, where was the media?

Are UFOs and Bigfoot related?
Only in the point how they are handled by the media, by the researchers and the believers.

Is their a “paranormal”?
I think there are unexplained events and because they are unexplained, I can’t say they are paranormal. If I could, they would not be unexplained.

Are you religious?
Yes, I am and I don’t discuss my religion in public.

You’re European. When you observe the two cultures, European and American, what are some of the differences that you see?
Americans tend to focus on a lot of material things.

What about the wars on terror that America is waging against al-Qaeda, Iraq, seemingly everybody. What are your thoughts on this?
Sometimes before there is peace, there needs to be some fire. But the fire is necessary otherwise the sun would never come out and the world would remain grey until it would turn black all the way. And I like the sun.

Do you ever let your own, personal interests determine if you decide to write a story? What if you agreed, for example, that the story was “newsworthy” – yet you did not care one iota for the subject. Would you still write about it?
Yes, my Bigfoot expose is a fine example of this, I am not interested in Bigfoot. Yet, I wrote this breakthrough story because people needed to know the truth. When you have a truth that is important, you have responsibilities and I am a responsible person. The greater the truth the greater the responsibility.

What are the responsibilities of a good journalist?
To identify issues that are important, research them as best as I can and then write and report about them to the public.

What distinguishes Michaela Kocis’s journalism or journalism articles from everyone else’s?
As far as I know, mine is the first and only exclusive expose of the inside story of the Patterson hoax. This is just one example of the kind of journalism that I do. This kind of journalism is not done by most of the people in my field. In all fairness, to my peers, most never get this opportunity.

My career has followed a distinctive pattern. I decided I wanted to major in mass media, communications and journalism. I started attending a university, and with every major article I have written I try to take it to the next level and do the best job that I can.


Q & A with Greg Long
Greg Long is a Pacific Northwest resident whose work has been featured on The Discovery Channel. He is a Journalist, Investigator and Researcher, and the author of the explosive new expose, The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, published by Prometheus Books, ISBN: 1591021391.
Why didn't Bob Heironimus confess he wore the Bigfoot suit a long time ago, right after he found out he'd never be paid his thousand dollars by Roger Patterson? You'd think he would have if he were an honest man!

1. Bob H. did confess he wore the suit early on. He confessed to several close friends that he wore the suit, in 1967 and 1969. He asked his friends to not broadcast the news because he still wanted to get his $1,000 from Roger Patterson.

2. Bob H. confessed he wore the suit to his wife Glenda, in about 1970. She has always believed him; has no reason to disbelieve him; she's been married to him nearly thirty-five years and he has stood by his story to her.

3. Bob H. didn't come forward and confess to the general public until now because he had made a "gentleman's agreement" with Roger Patterson not to tell anyone. He had the misguided notion that somehow he would get paid.

4. Beyond Bob H.'s friends, quite a number of people in Yakima have known for many years that Bob H. wore the suit. The story got around the Noell Corporation in Yakima where Bob H. worked for nearly 20 years. It was common knowledge in Noell as early as the 1980s that Bob H. wore the suit. Importantly, Bob H. never denied to ANY OF THESE PEOPLE that he wore the suit.

5. The reason that Bob H. never confessed to wearing the suit to the media or an attorney in 1967 or 1968, and for years later – REMEMBER THE FILM HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR YEARS IN DOCUMENTARIES, MANY OF THESE THROUGHOUT THE 1970s -- is Bob H. held out the hope that he would receive money, and although he has never stated this, I am sure he was concerned about legal ramifications. NOTE: Bob H. DID get an attorney in late 1998 to represent him.

6. Finally, it just isn't true that people who engage in a hoax or an activity and feel guilty about it IMMEDATELY CONFESS when their fellow hoaxer double-crosses them, as in this case Roger Patterson double-crossing Bob H. For example, members of the Mafia never turn in their fellow gangsters when they confess to crimes they commit until there is a benefit to confessing: i.e., witness protection program, reduced sentence, exoneration, etc. Bob H. held out hope that if he kept his promise "to keep his mouth shut" he would get paid.

In the world of Bigfootery, Ray Wallace never confessed to the public to making fake Bigfoot prints at Bluff Creek in 1958. But he did confess to his family. No one knew about Ray Wallace's Bigfoot track fakery until he recently died. Forty-five years had passed until the truth came out! In the annals of ufology, two boys took a photo of one of them holding a plate in his hand. With a bright light shining on one of the boy's arms and hand—and the plate in his hand, and with overexposure of the film—a "flying saucer" with a trail of light was successfully faked photographically. This fake UFO photo even stumped the famous Condon committee which the Air Force sponsored to get to the root cause of UFO reports. The boys, now grown men, confessed in the mid-1990s, thirty years after the hoax. Several years ago a British man confessed that he faked a famous Loch Ness monster photo that withstood explanation for sixty years when he explained how he photographed a small replica of a lake monster's neck and head mounted on a board and placed in the waters of the lake. The photograph was actually taken close to the shore of the lake.

Bob H is not unusual in the respect of coming forward decades after the Bigfoot hoax was perpetrated.

THEREFORE, NOT confessing a hoax until years later isn't unusual.

Well, Bob Gimlin has never confessed to the Bigfoot hoax. It's been more than thirty-six years since the alleged "hoax" took place, and his position is that Bob H. is a liar. Bob Gimlin was "screwed over" by Patterson and DeAtley and never got much money, if any. You would have thought Bob H. would have been angry and exposed Patterson. Bob Gimlin still contends he saw a Bigfoot.

1. That is Bob Gimlin's position: he saw a Bigfoot. But Bob Gimlin also doesn't give open-ended interviews to the media to allow an analysis of his statements.

2. When the Man Who Wore the Bigfoot Suit confessed to his lawyer, Bob Woodard, that he wore the suit, and reporter David Wasson of the Yakima Herald called Bob Gimlin for his response to the anonymous man's allegations, Bob Gimlin had no comment. Wouldn't Bob Gimlin have stated that the anonymous Man in the Suit was a liar?

3. Bob Gimlin told British TV documentary producer Chris Packham on record for X-Creatures, three to four years ago, that Patterson "could have hoaxed him." This sounds incriminating since Bob Gimlin has always maintained he saw a Bigfoot.

Why do you believe Bob H's story?

1. He has never changed his story.

2. He has never embellished the story or suddenly remembered details that would enrich the story. He has admitted to me that he just can't remember certain details. The details, although they would be useful for the story, are NOT CRITICAL DETAILS. The lack of the details doesn't undermine the CONSISTENCY AND TRUTHFULNESS of the story.

3. In interviews, Bob was always spontaneous and unplanned in his answers; no hesitations; no stumbling over words; no body language suggesting deceit; etc.

4. No criminal record.

5. Steady employment - not fired from a job ever, to my knowledge.

6. Married nearly thirty-five years; two children; homeowner. Stable with financial responsibilities and mouths to feed.

7. Open and frank, simple and direct.

8. His friends say he's honest; none has a reason to disbelieve his story.

9. His former employers say he's honest.

10. He was an amateur actor in Patterson's Bigfoot film being shot near Tampico, WA – we have photographic evidence of this fact. Therefore, Patterson knew Bob H. and was in a position to ask him to wear a gorilla suit.

11. He lives in Ahantum, WA, within fifteen miles of Patterson's house – thus, a CONVENIENT resource for Patterson.

12. He owned a horse that Patterson borrowed.

13. Opal Heironimus (Bob H's mother) is on record that she loaned Bob H her car to drive to Bluff Creek. Also, she saw the Bigfoot/gorilla suit in her car right after the hoax.

14. John Miller, Bob H's nephew, saw the suit.

15. Bob Hammermeister saw the suit in Bob H's car.

16. Most of the witnesses I have interviewed said that Bob H. wore the suit.

17. No one in the Ahtanum Valley or Yakima has ever mentioned ANYONE ELSE BUT Bob H. as the man in the suit.

18. Bob H. retained an attorney to advise him. Clearly, Bob H. knew what he was doing when he confessed to me, allowing his story to be put into print. Bob H. has stated that he is taking a risk, but "I am telling the truth," he states over and over.

19. I have NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to doubt Bob H.'s word.

So, you're saying that Bob Gimlin is a liar?

I am saying that I believe Bob H's story.

So Bob Gimlin is lying?

I'll let the facts in my book speak for themselves.

Was Patty Patterson part of the hoax?

All that I can say is that Bob H. told me in an interview that Patty Patterson was looking out a window in the Pattersons' house when he, Bob H., was putting on the suit.

You don't have the Bigfoot suit! You have NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE that a suit ever existed! Where's the smoking gun?

1. I PERSONALLY do NOT have the suit. I don't know if it has been DESTROYED or is LYING IN A BOX in somebody's closet.

2. The suit is NOT required to PROVE THIS CASE.

2.Defendants in MURDER TRIALS have been found GUILTY WITHOUT the MURDER WEAPON, NOR even the BODY.

For example the History Channel recently ran a story regarding William Douglas, a Tufts University professor in Boston, MA, who bludgeoned a woman to death. They found her coat, but not her body. Nonetheless, he was found guilty and is serving time.

3. Even though we do not have the gorilla suit, we DO HAVE THE STATEMENTS of Philip Morris, who sold Roger Patterson the suit! Morris has studied the gorilla suit worn by Bob H. in the sixty-second film.

The analysis of all the suit's features MATCH Morris's suit, except for TWO ITEMS:
a) the mask,
b) the appearance of the fur; the fur was brushed down all over Patterson's (Morris's) suit (Morris teased the fur on his suits to give them a wild look).
Otherwise the suit was Morris's suit.

4. Amy Morris (Philip's wife) identified the suit as the suit Morris made (she sewed together the parts).

5. If a gorilla suit can be created by human hands which looks exactly like the suit in Patterson's film, and if a man confesses to wearing a suit that looks like the suit in Patterson's film, and has no knowledge where the suit came from (Bob H. never met or heard of Philip Morris), and if the man who confesses to wearing the suit walks like the fake "Bigfoot" in the film, it is logical to assume that the Bigfoot in Patterson's film is a man in one of Morris's gorilla suits. And this happens to be the case! Thus, we DON'T NEED the actual suit to prove the hoax!

What if Morris is a liar? Where is his proof that the Bigfoot is a man in a suit? Or that it is his costume?

1. He made the suit.
2. He has studied the suit in the film and compared it to his suits that he designed and made in 1967. The features, except for the mask match. (One difference: the fur on the suit in the film was brushed down.)
3. He ran ads advertising his suit in the time frame when Patterson would need the suit. The ads were in Amusement Business which could have been found in a local rodeo office. Patterson was a rodeo rider.
4. Patterson called up Morris and IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS ROGER PATTERSON.
5. It wasn't long after Morris sold Patterson the suit that the suit appeared in Patterson's film on TV. Immediately, Morris recognized his suit. He used the suits in his own show and sold them to carnival owners and carnival showmen. He knew his suit. He was an expert in gorilla suits since he was the ONLY ONE IN THE U.S. who was making gorilla suits FOR THE PUBLIC in 1967.
6. He knew whom he had sold his suits to at that time and the areas of the country where they lived. He knew he had just sold a suit to Patterson.
7. Bob H. felt what seemed to be football player pads in his shoulders. Morris told Patterson to use football player shoulders in the suit when Patterson asked how to give the shoulders in Morris's suit bulk.
8. Weight of suit matches Bob H 's memory of weight of suit. Etc.
9. Morris was well-known in costume business. He has a reputation. Why lie? He's also 68 years old (just turned 68) and in early stages of old age. Why ask for a lawsuit at his age? Also, why risk his company—his kids work in the company.
10. Like Bob H, he kept the story to himself for decades. He saw recent TV documentaries. He felt the time was now right to tell the story – he wants the truth to be told. He had been telling people in his immediate profession his story, and no one doubted him; I have came along at the RIGHT MOMENT to hear his story and see that the public knew the TRUTH.
11. Good character references.
12. Sells costumes to Hollywood and TV shows. Again, he is known in the industry. He isn't a shady character, an opportunist.
13. He fits the right "role" in the story – he had a gorilla suit at the right time and the right price for Roger Patterson.

What drove you to solve this case?

1. I have had a love of mysteries since a child. At age nine, I started collecting stories on UFOs from my local newspaper, was a fan of science fiction and fantasy, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, and other similar television shows. I read H.G. Wells avidly, collected sci-fi magazines, Famous Monsters of Filmland, Ray Palmer's Flying Saucer magazine, Amazing Stories, etc. I also fell in love with art and writing.

2. I have a love for the truth also. Life has taught me that "truth is stranger than fiction." In the late 1960s and on, I began writing fiction and nonfiction. When I moved to the Pacific Northwest in 1978, both UFOs and Bigfoot fell into my lap, so to speak. I wanted to know the truth: Are UFOs real? Is Bigfoot real? I viewed the subjects as fair game for investigation, research, and writing, and I approached them as a journalist: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?

3. This led me to researching both UFOs and Bigfoot on the Yakama Indian Reservation. I had heard of Patterson's film, and I had seen it on television. Was there a real Bigfoot in that film? Given my decades of interest in mysteries, in both fictional and on-fictional stories, and a general curiosity about all aspects of life and the love to travel, I decided to see if the film did show a real Bigfoot. I wanted to know THE TRUTH. The world is, alas, filled with half-truths and outright lying; witness certain corporate thieves, modern snake oil sellers, less-than-truthful politicians, and terrorists we face today. I became OBSESSED with getting down to the bedrock about who was Roger Patterson; what did he do; when; where; and how?

In short, I was driven by the TRUTH and the DESIRE TO TELL A GOOD STORY – A NON-FICTIONAL ONE – to reveal to the world one of the great CON JOBS of the last century.

Roger Patterson was such a tragic figure. Are you picking on him?

Long: I go where the TRUTH takes me. Patterson was a sad figure, a sociopath and a man dying of cancer, but he could still have lived a MORAL life. He could have made a living in other ways than conning people. He had an ARTISTIC talent and a WAY WITH WORDS and could WORK WITH HIS HANDS. He could have funneled those talents if he had tried. But he took the EASY WAY OUT:

Lying, obfuscating, cheating, stealing, manipulating.

However TRAGIC Patterson was, he could have still died with HONOR and INTEGRITY. That's what counts in the end.

Regardless of who you are, poor or rich, ill or healthy, shouldn't you strive to be HONEST, GOOD TO YOUR FELLOW MAN, AND ACHIEVE SUCCESS WITHOUT LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING?

Or, are certain people above the law?

Q & A with Kal Korff
Kal Korff is an internationaly known Author, Broadcaster and Investigative Journalist known for his hard hitting exposes. Korff is also President and CEO of CriticalThinkers and wrote the Foreword for Greg Long's book. Kal returns to the radio airwaves after a four years hiatus with this popular segment, The Korff Report/Kal's Korner on March 13, 2004.
What motivates you to do these big, intensive investigations you always seem to be either a part of, or leading?
I have dedicated my entire life, all of my very being, to the following:

1. Conduct entirely original research
2. Finish research or studies left incomplete or unresolved by others
3. Examine existing issues or problems, analyze and understand them, then try to implement the best solutions possible, with the objective of resolution.

EVERYTHING I do in my life, either falls into these three criteria, or I am NOT interested, period.

You have a small, but very vocal group of self-described "critics" -- these are people who are very vocal about your work, and seem to always be hostile to it, no matter what you do. Why do you think you cause such a binary reaction in people? You seem to bring out people's passions: People seem to either admire you greatly, if not "love" you, or complain very loudly and try to always undermine you.

I think if you do NOT have so-called "critics" in your life, then you have not done much with your life.

You MUST keep things in perspective here: I have been in the news media for some 30 years now, ever since I was a young boy. During that time, I can count the "negative" articles about me in the mainstream media on ONE finger. If I then count the number of "negative" articles about me that are ACCURATE, this number goes DOWN TO ZERO! I will take this "winning percentage" any day, and pit it against any of the "arguments" that my so-called "critics" care to try and attack me with.

I don't worry much about people who attack me for emotional reasons, that is THEIR problem so to speak. Regardless of what someone may think of me personally, which I have to laugh at because most of the people do NOT know me personally at all, and can't seem to remember even what COUNTRY I live in -- I am too busy doing RESEARCH and MAKING A DIFFERENCE to MOST PEOPLE and I am too busy trying to make a difference in this world. I am here to Serve and Inform. THANKFULLY, the handful of vocal, noisy negativists that call themselves my "critics" are NOT in the majority, in fact they are the rare exception. THEY are the ones that have to face the hard facts and refute my work, not me. Whenever I discover a truth that people care about, I have a moral and spiritual obligation to get it out to the public in as wide a variety of forums and avenues as possible. I am not obligated to respond or spend any time on those who just do not "get it" or cannot see things objectively. As the popular saying goes: I can lead a horse to water, make the horse even drink it, but I CANNOT guarantee that the horse will LIKE it and recommend it to their friends.

You tend to be blunt and speak openly. Do you think that hurts or helps you?

I think the correct answer is that it helps DEFINE who you are and what you stand for. Look, truth is important. Reality is important. Facts are important. The issues I study, expose and write about; research and devote my existence to, are extremely deep, and if I may say so, are considered to universally be some of the most important subjects known. This is not my ego talking, I am speaking facts, just look at what my books are about and WHERE they are heading, like my next book, which is on TERRORISM. I do NOT believe in being "politically correct" at the expense of the truth. When one does that, truth is compromised. I am here to make a difference in this world, to get people to think critically about important issues, and try to make us face some of our very real problems. If we do not face them, and FIX THEM, we are doomed as a species, and the END will MOST LIKELY COME before this century ends, even perhaps in my lifetime. I need no other motive to keep me focused than this fact. Even if we would last anothr 1 million years being as destructive as we are, still, I think morally and spiritually, we have along ways to go before we get our collective act togeter as a species. I do not know when or if this will ever happen. I just know that we MUST try, or DIE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. Right now, we are slowly wiping ourselves out because of greed and nationalism.

Your critics call you a "debunker" or a "skeptic" -- how do you respond to that?

It is a LIE, of course. Just remember WHOM you are citing, this extremely vocal but thankfully extremely minor "penis gallery" of critics I have. Notice I said "penis gallery", NOT "peanut gallery" -- I would not want to insult food, it did nothing wrong.

I am NOT a "debunker" although if I were, there would be NOTHING wrong with this. You see, my "critics" are so SCREWED UP that they have FORGOTTEN what the word DEBUNKER means! Look it up in the DICTIONARY: it means to take the BUNK or things that are NOT TRUE and remove them! I find that to be a NOBLE cause. MAYBE I SHOULD become a "debunker" -- if I did the cause would be noble, and for once my "critics" would be right!

To PROVE to you just how WAY OFF BASE my "critics" are, they do not seem to understand one simple concept: I am JUST A RESEARCHER. I research, and then I publish and inform the public.

I am the ONLY person who can speak for myself and truly tell you what I am and what it is that I stand for. No one else can, and those who pretend to be able to do exactly this are not only wrong, but often do not tell the truth. ASK me and I will tell you, that is one refershing advantage of being blunt and open.

Your next book project is totally UNRELATED to the paranormal. Your next book, Secret Wars, is about Terrorism. WHY?

I have been secrety involved in fighting against organized terrorism since 1980, and in my new book I start off right away talking about this. In my opinion, the issue of terrorism should NOT be a source for division and conflict among nations. INSTEAD, it should be a train of hope that every civilized nation should get aboard, and we should ride it all the way to victory. Then, after the immediate threats of organized terrorism are eliminated, we should BUILD upon this momentum that has been generated that united us all in this cause. If our planet can unite JUST ONCE, then it can do so a SECOND TIME. We can and SHOULD use this positive energy to forge ahead and tackle very real other problems that are just as bad, and existed long before there were suicide bombers. I am talking about the environment and not destroying it, overpopulation, the spread of AIDS. EVERY world cause should UNITE us, NOT divide us. The problems that affect us ALL, we should all affect! But too many people say "that is not my problem," or WORSE, will use the EXCUSE "I can't do anything." It has been my experience that if you believe you CANNOT do something, you NEVER WILL!

Will you use CriticalThinkers to get your message out, now that you are the President and CEO of this metaorganization that now has its hooks buried deep into more than 500 projects around the world?

The short answer is YES. You cannot separate me or my work, or my very being from what CriticalThinkers is about or stands for. I am here to Serve and am trying to make a difference in this world, changing it one person at a time.