From: John Green
Date: 07/25/04 22:09:11
To: letters@csicop.org
Subject: Korff article

Editor The Skeptical Enquirer
Dear Sir:
For the sake of its own reputation The Skeptical Enquirer should ask its associated organization, the Council for Media Integrity, to take a truly skeptical look at the piece of puffery the Enquirer has recently published promoting Greg Long's “The Making of Bigfoot”, a current offering of its other associated organization, Prometheus Books.

Under the heading “Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax” the Enquirer has  opened its columns to Kal Korff, one of the people  involved with “The Making of Bigfoot”, so that he can try to halt the book's slide towards the remainder bins and revive his hopes of financing for a TV documentary.

A truly skeptical enquiry into the statements in Korff's piece would reveal the following facts:

Korff was involved in a previous Bigfoot documentary, part of the Fox Network series “World's Greatest Hoaxes” in which he claimed to prove that a Utah man named Jerry Romney acted the part of the sasquatch in Patterson's movie.

“The Making of Bigfoot”, features Bob Heironimus, from Yakima, Washington, as the man playing that role, so it is understandable the Romney isn't mentioned in Korff's Enquirer article. He does, however, repeat the claim made in the documentary that Roger Patterson was an employee of a wildlife film company, American National Enterprises and that together they cooked up the scheme to fake the Bigfoot movie which was to be a “loss leader” to promote their other films—something also totally contradictory to the story line of the book.

I know that Roger Patterson was not employed by American National to assist in the production of their Bigfoot movie, because I had that job, and I still have the correspondence to prove it. Korff has also claimed at times that the making of the movie was somehow a Mormon conspiracy. Ron Olson, son of one of the three owners of American National, says that none of them were Mormons, and that their only association with Patterson was that they paid him for using his footage in their movie. In his article Korff glosses over the fact that “The Making of Bigfoot” contains two detailed, specific, totally contradictory descriptions of the costume supposedly worn in Patterson's movie, one by the man who claims to have worn it, the other by the man who claims to have made it.

Heironimus, the supposed wearer, says: “It was made in three parts. It had legs. It had a corset or middle piece between the neck and waist. And it had a head.” “….the legs of the suit…felt like they were hip boots or wading boots…” “They helped me stand up, and Roger and Bob slipped the torso part down over my head and shoulders. I raised my arms up. I kind of wiggled into it. I put my hands and arms into sleeves. It was like putting on a T-shirt.” “It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse.” “There are bare patches and then hair parts like it was shedding. I remember it had a smell. It could have been horse hide. I don't know.”

Costumer Philip Morris, the supposed maker of the suit, is not quoted directly, but Greg Long, writes: ”Morris described the suit in precise detail and how he made it. The suit had six separate pieces: a head, a body (arms, torso and legs), two hands and two feet. A knitted cloth material served as a backing to thousands of synthetic nylon strands called dynel…..with the artificial fur sewn into the knitted cloth material a person could cut pieces from yards of the stuff to make a gorilla suit.” “A thirty-six-inch zipper ran down the back of the body piece of Morris's gorilla suit, from the neckline to the crotch, so the wearer could get inside. Once zipped up, the wearer would put on, first, the feet, then the head, and finally the hands, which were simply gloves.”

After Long added a chapter to what had been an already-completed manuscript, adopting the Morris description of the suit in preference to the horsehide version, Heironimus has been amending his description to try to match it—just as in the book he agreed to changes in his story of where he went to play his role in the movie when the Long pointed out that his story didn't match a road map. Unfortunately between the two of them and the map they didn't manage to get within a hard hour's drive over dirt roads to the actual site, where obviously neither of them had ever been.

In his Inquirer article Korff recites quotations from the book that have Heironimus saying he was first approached to play a part in the film by Bob Gimlin, the person who unquestionably was present on that significant occasion. He doesn't mention that on a later TV program Heironimus said it was Patterson who approached him.

According to Korff, Heironimus said Patterson told him to stand in one place and wait for a signal to start walking, then comments, as if it had some importance, “The first few frames of the Patterson film do indeed show the Bigfoot starting its walk from a standstill.” One would hope that is not the sort of “validation” a “skeptic” would consider significant, but in any case it isn't true, when the camera first captures the creature's image it is already walking.

Korff then tells how Heironimus' mother, sister-in-law and nephew saw a hairy suit in the trunk of a car he was using. The nephew even confirmed that the suit stunk. The book quotes independent witnesses as well, who saw the suit in Heironimus' car at one or more of the taverns he and they frequented. So there is testimony that Heironimus had a fur suit, which he presumably used to play tricks on someone, but it is Heironimus' changeable word alone that connects the suit in any way with Roger Patterson. If there actually was a suit and there was such a connection it could as easily be that the suit was used to play tricks on Patterson as that he was involved in its use. And Heironimus also said "I think there was more than one Bigfoot suit," a statement which Long strangely did not consider needed further explanation.

Korff also claims that Heironimus had never previously gone public with the details of his story and had never been paid any money for his involvement in the hoax. He is evidently unaware that a Yakima lawyer about five years earlier was trying to sell such a story for a client he would not name, and that one of the “Bigfoot researchers” that Long and Korff like to hold in contempt very quickly learned that anonymous was Heironimus.

A good chunk of Korff's piece is taken up with statements by the owner of a Yakima camera store about various interactions with Roger Patterson concerning making footprint casts and using cameras, but Korff doesn't mention that the book makes clear this took place when Patterson was first getting involved with the Bigfoot investigation, some six years before he shot the movie.

Almost half of Korff's article is taken up with the Philip Morris story. Morris claimed that he sold a gorilla suit to someone in Yakima who identified himself as Roger Patterson, and later recognized his suit in the movie. He has nothing to back up his claim about the sale, and  if it is true was dealing only with a voice on the telephone. Patterson was trying to film a Bigfoot documentary at the time, so there would have been nothing incriminating about him buying a gorilla suit to use in recreating incidents that witnesses had described, which is fairly standard practice with Bigfoot documentaries. Alternatively, if the boys from the Idle Hour Tavern were getting their jollies by playing tricks on Roger, one of them might well have used his name in buying a suit to do it with.

As to Morris recognizing his suit in Patterson's movie, that is obvious nonsense. A picture in Long's book of a Morris gorilla suit (see attachment) bears not the slightest resemblance to what is seen in the movie.

Korff quotes Morris as saying “the guy who wore the suit must have had his clothes on because the suit was really tight on him, and writes, “This was another important revelation that further proves the Patterson Bigfoot film is a hoax.” Why important? Because Heironimus had said he wore his clothes under the suit and it fit him rather tightly. (No explanation of how he prevented his trouser legs from bunching up when shoved into those tight-fitting “wading boots”). Is this really the quality of evidence that the Skeptical Inquirer considers convincing?

No mention, of course, of the people with relevant expertise, including those certain the film must show a man in a suit, who have said that the suit had to be tight to the wearer's skin, with no sort of padding, because they can plainly see the muscles moving.

Then there is the “validation” provided by Heironimus' glass eye. He claimed that Patterson glued his spare eye into the right-hand eye hole of the mask of the suit, and Korff claims there is “a sudden burst of light on the right eye, which cannot be explained by normal sunlight reflecting off of an organic eye.” Anyone in a position, as I am, to re-examine a good second-generation print of the film whenever a claim of this sort is made, is more likely to seek an explanation of how Korff could imagine it shows any such thing. There is no “sudden burst of light.”

Korff also refers as “vindication” to “the alleged ‘fur line' of the creature that goes down its back at the exact spot where both Heironimus and Morris claim the zipper is located.” Heironimus, remember, originally made no such claim, he said he needed help to get the torso of the costume put on over his head like some bulky, rigid T-shirt. And if the line that can be seen down the middle of the film creature's back proves it is wearing a zippered suit, then real gorillas must wear zippered gorilla suits too.

Morris inadvertently made one valuable contribution to real sasquatch research, by claiming that he told Patterson how to make the arms of his suit longer, by extending the hands, which were just gloves, on wooden sticks. Such an extension would be entirely below the elbow, and indeed any extension would have to be, since the elbows bend and straighten in the film   but a forearm extension long enough to match the relationship between total arm length and total leg length observable in the film would have to be so great that the arms would look ridiculously out of proportion. The arms of the film creature, while much longer, are proportioned about the same as those of a normal human.

A posting about this observation on the internet brought a response that the percentage which the long bones of the arm are of the long bones of the leg is called by physical anthropologists “the intermembral index” and the IM index is used as a standard way to distinguish one primate from another, presumably in studying skeletons. Humans have IM indices ranging around 70. All the great apes are over 100.The bones of the film creature aren't available for measurement, but observation of its movements provides a reasonable indication of where the joints are, and almost all estimates of its IM index have so far ranged in the 80's. Reuben  Steindorf, a forensic animator who studied the film using a sophisticated computer program, says he expected to prove it showed a man in a suit, but instead found it had a way of walking totally unlike that of a human, and an IM index close to 90. (Korff, of course, says that Heironimus walks just like the creature in the film, but he said the same about Jerry Romney.)

Unless further study proves the estimates done so far are in error, Morris' claims and Long's book have led to the discovery that, even though the creature's size cannot be established beyond argument, the film contains conclusive proof that it what it shows cannot be a man in a suit and must, in fact, be an unknown higher primate. It can be argued, of course, that there could be a freak human somewhere with the necessary leg and arm proportions, but a picture of Heironimus in Long's book establishes (see attachment) that it could not be him.

Korff ends his article by bragging that the media reaction to Long's book “has been overwhelmingly positive. The mainstream press is no longer taking the Patterson Bigfoot film seriously as evidence of anything but a hoax.” More accurately, the media reaction has been pretty much non-existent and the one brief mention I have seen in the mainstream press was not particularly favorable. Its sales on Amazon.com were never high and were sinking steadily until about the time the Skeptical Inquirer published Korff's puff piece, and even with that it is still down at number 66,484 on today's listing. Loren Coleman's year-old book “Bigfoot, The True Story of Apes in America” consistently outsells it, and Dr. Grover Krantz' Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence,” published five years ago, and just an update of an earlier book, sometimes does too.

This is certainly bad news for the prospect of financing for that new documentary that is clearly where Korf, Long, Heironimus and Morris hope to gain their real rewards. Why do I say that? Well Korf and Long claim to have found the man who wore the suit and the man who made it, and the obvious way for them to prove their claims would be to have those two recreate what they did so easily 37 years ago. Media people have asked that question and the answer has been that they are going to do it, but they are saving it for the documentary.

Korff expresses sadness that “the reaction by many Bigfoot researchers has been not only negative, but also outright hostile. Unable to disprove these damaging revelations, they have resorted to everything from name-calling and threats of violence and lawsuits to accusing everyone of being liars.” Two examples of Korff's reaction when Bigfoot researchers were actually given an opportunity to publicly disprove the book's supposed revelations are attached. It may give responsible contributors to the Skeptical Inquirer cause to give some thought to the company they keep. And while I am not aware of any threats of violence, I am aware that those who think the possibility of lawsuits for the libels contained in the book has passed them by are not out of the woods yet. They would be wise to hope that it continues to slip quietly into oblivion.

And Korff takes a parting shot at the “Bigfoot community,” quoting Long:

“Their standards of ‘evidence' are not what science demands.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Yours sincerely,
John Green
Box 374
Harrison Hot Springs,
B.C. Canada V0M 1K0
July 25, 2004
Original Skeptical Inquirer Story to which this letter responds:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/korff04.htm

John's attachments:
Greg Long/Korff letter Date: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 07:02:38 I find it unfortunate that I got an email from Kal Korff this morning, in which he writes: "I 'heard' that you and Danny Perez are scheduled to be on Rense to 'REFUTE or DISPROVE the Greg Long book??" And almost as if to validate John Green's comments, Korff notes that: "....you should also know that the sales figures on Amazon alone, when the Rense show aired, put the book at a ranking of 657,421. AFTER the show, the RANKING WAS 5,351!! Today, sales are holding at 8,000 -- and this was just from the RENSE show. WAIT until the rest of the campaign begins...the book is already on its way to becoming a bestseller, and at this rate, the BESTSELLING Bigfoot book of all time." Do you all understand how insane this is going to get? Here's another part of the emotional email that Korff sent: "As for ME, I WANT to see Gimlin PROSECUTED and am WORKING TO ACHIEVE THIS. I just hope he does not run and 'confess' to Kiviat before my work with the Attorney General is complete. If Gimlin 'comes clean' to Kiviat before I finish, he probably WON'T be prosecuted. I hope he DOES get nailed, because consumer fraud IS CONSUMER FRAUD. I also expect to fly out (unless I can accomplish the same from over here) to give a deposition to the Attorney General's office for CONSUMER FRAUD...specifically Gimlin's comments over Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science." I'm rather certain I will not be appearing on Rense's show on Monday! and

Note: Writing in caps in email is considered generally "rude or shouting.”

Statement About The Roger Patterson Bigfoot Film Comment From kalkorff@kalkorff.com 3-8-4 Dear Listeners to the Jeff Rense Program, Ladies and Gentlemen of the general public, Citizens of the World: Last Monday, March 1, 2004, radio history was made. The man who wore the famous, now infamous, Roger Patterson "Bigfoot" suit, used to fake the Roger Patterson "Bigfoot" film of 1967,appeared on the Jeff Rense Program with Executive TV Producer Robert Kiviat, Author and Investigator Greg Long, Investigative Journalist Michaela Kocis, and myself. For the first time EVER, you were TOLD THE TRUTH about how the infamous Roger Patterson hoax 1967 "Bigfoot" film was made. The specific details of this hoax, and all of the FACTS that have been either HIDDEN from you by various members of the "Bigfoot community" or were never discovered, UNTIL NOW, can be found in the newly-released book, The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story by author Greg Long. This URL, http://www.northwestmysteries.com (link inoperable) includes some information about the book, and the startling and historic revelations it discloses. The book is brand new, in great demand, and can be purchased for less than $20.00. This is a small price to "pay" for the truth. Notice this truth did NOT come from the "Bigfoot community" – which really does not exist in any tangible sense. They would like you to THINK there is a united group of researchers out there, all practicing high, objective, scientific standards, but there is not. There are several members of this self-proclaimed "community" that are now very upset. Their reactions are very emotional, and one important FACT must NOT be forgotten: NONE of them can PROVE that the man WE CLAIM wore the Bigfoot suit, IS WRONG or not telling the truth! They CANNOT prove that the man we are now offering to the public, is lying. INSTEAD, The ONLY thing they CAN DO, is say that Bob Gimlin denies it. We are not surprised Bob Gimlin "denies" this. He has been "denying" things for years, but as we revealed on the Jeff Rense Program on March 1st, 2004, he now has a CREDIBILITY PROBLEM. There are several EYEWITNESSES to the Bigfoot suit. ALL OF THOSE WHO COULD BE FOUND, ARE DEPOSED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN GREG LONG'S BOOK. THE FACT A SUIT EXISTED, AND IT WAS THE ONE USED IN THE PATTERSON FILM, PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO BIGFOOT THAT DAY, THE DAY THEY FAKED THE FILM, CONTRARY TO WHAT BOB GIMLIN SAYS. The man who MADE AND SOLD the Bigfoot suit to Roger Patterson, has also been found. HE WILL EMERGE IN THE PUBLIC SHORTLY. Our "critics" - despite their desperation, CANNOT disprove Mr. Phillip Morris' testimony either, since he DID MAKE THE BIGFOOT SUIT, SOLD IT TO ROGER PATTERSON, AND GAVE HIM ADVICE ON HOW TO HELP MAKE HIS "CREATURE" LOOK MORE GENUINE. MORRIS ALSO SHIPPED PATTERSON EXTRA FUR TO HELP "DRESS UP" THE SUIT, and ADVISED PATTERSON TO USE SHOULDER PADS, WHICH PATTERSON DID, TO "PAD" THE SHOULDERS OF THIS PHONY "BIGFOOT". ALL of these witnesses are saying one thing: their existence proves the same thing they are saying: That Bob Gimlin's "story" CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.
Tonight, our Bigfoot Investigation Team, especially myself, expect to be attacked on the Jeff Rense Program. We will be attacked emotionally, and according to the rumors, We have to LAUGH at this notion. Do you think gravity CARES if people do not want to believe that it exists? Do you think the rain CARES of people think it is "horrible" that it is raining out?
NO, they do not, and they SHOULD not. Our "critics" sometimes mean well, but are fundamentally MISGUIDED. They have FORGOTTEN ONE RULE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE: that extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. WE HAVE SUPPLIED OUR BEST EVIDENCE, IT IS IN THE FORM OF GREG LONG'S BRUISING, AND DEFINITIVE EXPOSE OF THE ROGER PATTERSON "BIGFOOT" FILM HOAX. Our "critics" will do EVERYTHING BUT DISPROVE US, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT. So when they start attacking us, especially me, with emotional claims that I am a "debunker" or a "skeptic" -- I will NOT let such reckless charges stand. They are FALSE and they are LIES, and those making such claims WILL be held ACCOUNTABLE and EXPOSED. As you listen to their "case" on the Jeff Rense Program, ask yourselves these three questions: 1) Are they calling us debunkers or skeptics? IF so, they are LYING, there is nothing further to discuss.
2) HAVE THEY PROVEN that Bob Heironimus is NOT the man who wore the Bigfoot suit? The ANSWER IS NO!
3) Have they PROVEN Phillip Morris did NOT make the Bigfoot suit that he sold to Roger Patterson? The answer once AGAIN, is NO!! Until they DISPROVE AND ADDRESS THESE THREE ISSUES, THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER TO DISCUSS. THEY CAN COMPLAIN, BUT THAT IS ALL.

Greg Long's The Making of Bigfoot, HAS ALREADY BECOME the BESTSELLING, AND THE FASTEST SELLING BOOK ON BIGFOOT OF ALL TIME. WHY? BECAUSE IT CONTAINS THE TRUTH, AND IT IS A TRUTH THAT CANNOT E FOUND ANYWHERE ELSE, AND A TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY COVERED UP AND HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC. Its sales ranking at Amazon.com has ZOOMED from roughly 657,000 up to as high as 5,031. THE PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC EXPOSURE WILL CONTINUE. OUR EXPOSE IS JUST BEGINNING. I CALL ON, AND CHALLENGE, MR. BOB GIMLIN TO CONFESS THE HOAX, TO FINALLY TELL THE TRUTH. MR.GIMLIN, FEEL FREE TO SUE US IN COURT FOR LIBEL AND SLANDER. JUST REMEMBER THAT THESE CHARGES GO BOTH WAYS. WE LOOK FORWARD, SHOULD YOU PROCEED WITH YOUR IMPLIED LEGAL THREATS, TO PUTTING YOU UNDER OATH, MR. GIMLIN, AND DOING DISCOVERY, AND CROSS-EXAMINATION. Mr. Bob Heironimus HAS ALREADY PASSED A LIE DETECTOR TEST WITH "FLYING COLORS" Mr. Gimlin, YOU, sir, so far, can't seem to pass the "smell" or "credibility test". WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL YOU ARE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, AND YOU CONFESS THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE PATTERSON BIGFOOT HOAX, which you CONTINUE to deceive people on, and make money on, by selling to consumers, a story that is NOT true, and because it is NOT true, you are leading people to BUY what they BELIEVE is true, but it IS NOT. That is CONSUMER FRAUD, AND WE WILL NOW COOPERATE WITH AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTION UNDER THE CONSUMER FRAUD STATUTES. If ANYONE in the Bigfoot "community" has a "problem" with trying to hold Mr. Gimlin ACCOUNTABLE for his role in the Patterson HOAX, then it is because the Bigfoot "community" has a PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH.
Sincerely yours,
Kal Korff
President and CEO, CriticalThinkers

Note, I would argue the claim of 'best seller figures' and ask who & what is the CriticalThinkers organization that Korff is CEO of.....

There are additional responses, which I will add here FYI:

From: Cryptologos
To: letters@csicop.org
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: Russian response

Editor: The Skeptical Inquirer

Dear Sir:

Fully supporting John Green’s position and arguments, we are offering some views of our own concerning the latest preposterous attack on the 1967 Bigfoot film and ask you to publish them.

Exposing Greg Long’s Attempt To Refute Science With Hearsay

Rebuttal to the article “Exposing Roger Patterson’s 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax” (Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2004)

The Skeptical Inquirer article by Kal Korff and Michaela Koch fails to mention basic facts regarding the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, thus presenting the issue in a false light. The film’s authenticity has not only been “hotly debated” but firmly established long ago by researchers in Canada, Russia and the U.S. Scientific studies by different specialists of different countries have revealed in the filmed creature a number of non-human characteristics, both in its anatomy and locomotion, thus excluding the possibility of a disguised human being (i.e. Homo sapiens). The analysts of the film had no other motive in investigation than seeking the truth, for which they even risked their reputations.

In contrast, the sole motive of involvement of Bob Heironimus, the source of the alleged exposure, is money. The Korff article says, “it was just a way to make some quick and easy money”. Another salient point of the affair is the claim by the debunkers that they know all about the make and origin of the costume allegedly used in hoaxing the film. They claim they know who sold the costume and how it was modified by Patterson. The obvious question is: Why haven’t they re-created the costume for all to see in the first place? By failing to re-create the alleged Bigfoot costume and re-enact the film Kal Korff and Greg Long have exposed themselves as sham investigators and presumptuous men.

The truth of the matter is that the truth of Bigfoot, both in the bush and on film, is hidden from the general public by the scientific establishment and the obedient media. We are confident that as soon as the truth prevails, the first Bigfoot documentary is bound to win a grand prize and be placed in the U.S. National Archive. “There are still people on the earth who believe that the planet is flat and not round”, says Korff. This rather fits those who still believe that Bigfoot is a myth and its image on film was hoaxed.

We regard Greg Long’s book “The Making of Bigfoot” as just another in a series of brazen attempts to refute scientific findings with hearsay. To put an end to such attempts we make the announcement sent in attachment.

Sincerely,

Dmitri BAYANOV, ICH science director
Igor BOURTSEV, ICH general director
-----
----------
From: SkeptInq@aol.com
To:Daniel Perez

Thank you for your comments, which I have forwarded on to the editor for his publication consideration.  We appreciate your interest in our efforts, and that you took the time to share
your opinions on the magazine contents with us.
Sincerely,
Barry Karr
CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer
www.csicop.org

In a message dated 7/29/2004 Daniel Perez writes:

Editor: With regard to Kal K. Korff's article, "Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax," as published in your Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2004 it should be clear to all who engage in the business of science that Greg Long's thesis (the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin
movie is a costumed man) is a testable one, yet no one to date, be it CSICOP, science or Hollywood has been able to duplicate that movie and they have had almost 37 years to do so.
  
Furthermore, the picture of the "footprint allegedly found at Bluff Creek site," as shown on page 38, there is nothing alleged about it. It is a fact. It was photographed by Lyle Laverty, a timber management assistant with the United States Forest Service on October 21st, completely independent of the late Roger Patterson and his friend, Bob Gimlin. I have a taped interview of Mr. Laverty made in 1992, so I am no stranger when it comes to a detailed and engaging discussion about the P-G film. And finally, that alleged footprint was cast by the late Bob Titmus just before the close of October 1967, a trained taxidermist very familiar with animals of the Pacific Northwest and he reported there was never any indication of fakery.
Daniel Perez
Norwalk, California
-----

From: SkeptInq@aol.com
To: Bobbie Short
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: In response to Mr. Korff's article allegedly exposing the Patterson film....

Thank you for your comments, which I have forwarded on to the editor for his publication consideration. We appreciate your interest in our efforts, and that you took the time to share your opinions on the magazine contents with us.

Sincerely,
Barry Karr
CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer
www.csicop.org
- ---
In a message dated 7/31/2004 10:17:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Bobbie Short writes: Re: Kal Korff’s article published in the July/August issue of the Skeptical Inquirer titled: "Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax"

Dear Skeptical Inquirer,

I would like to point out for the record, without sounding mordant that Korff’s article makes it abundantly clear Mr. Korff does not have the educational background qualifying him to make judgments with regard to the creature filmed October 20, 1967 by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek California nor does it appear he bothered to study the work of those professionals who have studied the film in depth.

Qualitative biomechanical analysis of the skeletal structure, gait/stride etc of the creature in the Patterson film has been studied in depth frame by frame by such certified specialists as:

Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy, Chief of the Chair of Biomechanics at the Russian Central Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow, Russia; Professor Boris Porshnev, Science Academy of Moscow; Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev, both directors of ICH also in Moscow. Dr. D.W. Grieve, M.SC., Ph.D., Reader in Biomechanics at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London; Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D., Anthropologist at the University of Washington at Pullman; Dr. John Napier, Birckbeck College, London University; John Green, highly regarded film expert, author in Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia; the late Rene Dahinden, Richmond, British Columbia. Additionally, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D., Idaho State University Professor and primate print expert Jimmy Chilcutt in Conroe Texas; Dr. W.H. Fahrenbach, Ph.D., Oregon and NASI. There are many others of course, their work is available, but probably more than your author is interested in exploring.

Many men have pretended to be a man in a so-called monkey suit in the Patterson Film like Bob Heironimus and Jerry Romney, the latter two men are affiliates of Kal Korff and subsequently Greg Long. Not to sound repetitious, but none of the claimers have been able to replicate the Patterson film or produce a suit comparable to that which is seen in the Patterson Film. This puzzles me.

It is totally understandable that unqualified observers have oscillated between total acceptance of the sasquatch’s existence on the basis that the film would be difficult to fake, - to one of irrational rejection of the film based on lack of information and emotional responses generated by preconceived/biased agendas.

Other than the Patterson Film, none of the above names have seen alive that which they have studied outside of the Patterson film except me, and I assure you I am satisfactorily educated and of sound mind. . . usually. I am certain the sasquatch does exist, though apart from regions in Canada, probably close to extinction in the States... Washington State notwithstanding....

Footprint hoaxers like Ivan Marx, Rant Mullins and Ray Wallace are quite dead and still, something continues to leave extraordinary footprints, mostly in the Pacific Northwest and interestingly, similar footprints in Central Asia and some of the Pacific Rim countries.

Sincerely
Bobbie Short
Southern California
http://www.bigfootencounters.com
- ---
In response to the Skeptical Inquirer’s July/Aug 2004 article titled “Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax” uploaded here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/korff04.htm written by Kal K. Korff and Michaela Kocis comes this response from one of our orthopedic physicians, this one addressed specifically to Michaela Kocis reads:
To: mkocka@hotmail.com Michaela Kocis
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:34 PM
Subject: your outrageous theory

Madam,
I read your absurd assertion that some guy named Hieronymous was the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Hieronymous; allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the film, you are a fool's fool. I have had the opportunity to examine the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a suit able to exhibit muscle movement and contraction available. Nor would one be easy to create today.

I have attached frame 72 -Prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion, as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. I speak specifically, the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of the upper leg, and the pplantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Hieronymous is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out.

We have determined the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?

Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist
- - - - -

Back to What's New?
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Home/Main

Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards of this website under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law
as educational material without benefit of financial gain.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
This proviso is applicable throughout the entire Bigfoot Encounters Website