Q & A - The Making Of Bigfoot
By Greg Long

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.
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.)
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.
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.
1. One critic has said, "..Korff and Kiviat are very easily taken in and have never seen a primate in their lives."
Comment: Ridiculous.
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.



This Site Served by TheHostPros