From: John Green
Date: 07/25/04 22:09:11
Subject: Korff article
Editor The Skeptical Enquirer
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." [<-- Editor's note: this statement by John Green is not true. It is another one of his outlandish lies. Clyde Reinke personally signed checks for Roger Patterson from July to October 1967. There was no reason for ANE to retain John Green, he wasn't producing a film for distribution by ANE, Patterson was! Green never produce any such document or payroll checks from ANE to prove his statement.]
"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." [<--this is also another lie told by John Green. ....Ron Olson, his father Frank Olson and his grandmother Glady Olson are Mormons. The owner of ANE was Russell Neihart, a Bishop in the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. Neihart's best friend, still today is Jerry Romney, a relative of Mit Romney, Republican candidate for U.S. President and they are all Mormons. There was NO conspiracy however, Neihart simply rented an ape suit which he kept in his private office and there are witness statements to that effect and to the effect that Jerry Romney, Neihart's best friend DID in fact wear a suit for a production Patterson agreed to produce by signature in ANE's Hollywood office. That production included some of Patterson's Yakima friends but was NOT associated with the Patty film. It was a separate production. Green pretends to know everything Patterson did, but he doesn't know half of it. John Green was never present during any of the filming Patterson did for ANE, but he was present at Bluff Creek when Patty was filmed, which he denies.]
"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." [<--another John Green error, the costume was made for Neihart at Western Costume in Los Angeles, California. Neihart paid for it and there are receipts to prove it; pictures of Romney trying it on.]
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.” [<-- not true, Heironimus may have tried on a suit but it wasn't the custom made suit worn by Jerry Romney fashioned by Western Costume Co in Los Angeles.]
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.” [The suit Philip Morris produced looked nothing like either suit, it resembled a gorilla suit.]
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 with Patty in it.
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 [Patty] 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!
July 25, 2004
Original Skeptical Inquirer Story to which this letter responds:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.....
Back to Stories
Back to Bigfoot Encounters Main page
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Back to Bigfoot Encounters "What's New" page
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.