Roger Knights - Pure Genius!!!
Today a member of my message board (SearchforBigfoot.org) by the name of "justwondering" posted this detailed list of problems with Bob Heronimus's story. I had almost forgot about this very involved detailing of the many mistakes made by Bob H.
I am posting "A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005 by Roger Knights." You will not be dissapointed.
Thank you Roger for creating this list!! Pure Genius.
A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005
By Roger Knights
HOWEVER ....: Here are 26 Reasons Bob Heironimus (BH) Wasn't Queen Kong (the Bigfoot in the 1967 Patterson film).
A. BH's initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. BH described the suit he thought Patterson had made as having a zipperless upper torso part that BH donned like putting on a T-shirt (pp. 344-45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (BH's words, p. 349). Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped (p. 449). It had no torso part or top like Patterson's (supposed) top-and-trousers affair. This difference between them was one he couldn't possibly have mistaken or forgotten.
And there were other differences that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between heavy, supple, rubbery horsehide and the light, mesh-fabric-backed Dynel in Morris's. There might be an innocent explanation for BH's changing his story to accommodate Long's Morris-Suit theory--but it's hard to think of one.
B. BH implied he possessed a suit for only two days before Patterson reclaimed it. BH let that implication stand when he reviewed the manuscript.
But there is testimony (e.g., pp. 47-48, 232, 331 & 397) that indicates that he showed off a suit (not described in detail) from his trunk several times over the years (no dates given). (Long avoided confronting what this implied, and instead--I think as a distraction--fretted over the minor issue of when BH confessed to his buddies to being in the suit (pp. 366, 370-71 & 412).)
In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong, namely: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3 inches--p. 449); head not oversize; no helmet inside.
Further, BH indicated to others that he currently owned the suit used by Patterson at Bluff Creek. For instance, on p. 397, Bernard Hammermeister described being shown the suit in the trunk, and said that BH said to him that that's what he wore when he and P&G went down and did "our thing." No date was given (why didn't Long ask--or print the answer!?), but the familiar way he referred to the filming as "our thing" suggests that it had by then achieved enough fame to be referred to off-handedly like that. Certainly, if the suit had been displayed the Friday BH returned from Bluff Creek, his listeners wouldn't have known what he was referring to, since there had been no media coverage of the filming at that point. And BH stated in May 2005 on TV that "I didn't tell them what it was." when he displayed his suit on his return. I.e., he purposely did NOT indicate its role.
And on p. 398 there is another clue that the date was long after the filming. Hammermeister said that BH told him he did it, and he didn't want it spread around for awhile, although he had the suit and he showed him, because "there was still supposed to be payola" that he hadn't received. The word "still" pretty much rules out the possibility that he displayed the suit immediately after returning from Bluff Creek.
There might have been a way Long could have "explained" BH's possession of a second (yeah, right) suit. But BH's implicit attempt to conceal its existence from readers can't be explained away. It's very damaging to his credibility. The most likely explanation for such evasiveness is to conceal that he was a long-time car-trunk ape-suit show-off (i.e., he had perhaps been claiming to pals to have hoaxed pre-Patterson local-area Bigfoot sightings (p. 232)), and that his mom's car-trunk ape-suit sighting fell in that category.
C. BH's descriptions (pp. 366-67) of Bluff Creek's locale are incorrect, especially the distance he traveled up the last road, as J. Green noted. (BH said four or five miles (p. 348), the map says 20.)
D. BH plainly implied that Patterson didn't run forward with camera in hand at the start, and that he observed (or heard tell of) Patterson sitting on horseback and shaking it instead (p. 337; see also p. 349.) (The initial phase of the film is a jumble of images.) But analysis of the film (pp. 375-76) proves that Patterson did run forward, because the creature is larger (i.e., closer) in later frames.
E. BH stated in an interview, and indicated in the book (p. 349), that he walked across Bluff Creek, implying it was dry at the time. But John Green asked knowledgeable gov't. officials if Bluff Creek ever runs dry, and they said No. And even if it had, climbing its two-foot embankment would have been awkward in a suit. It wouldn't have been part of a hoax--especially if its filming was too jerky to make sense to viewers.
F. BH gave three details of Patterson's behavior during their Bluff Creek expedition that would have been reasonable if the shooting had occurred the day before the announcement of the filming to the press. These were (p. 350): lending BH the suit to take to Yakima, giving BH the film to mail to DeAtley, and saying he was going back to make tracks that night or the next day.
However, 23 & 70 pages later (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21), BH and Long claimed that the filming took place in September, perhaps in early Sept. But in September none of Patterson's three behaviors would make any sense. There would have been no need for concealment of the suit, nor for speedy delivery of the film, nor for premature track-creation (which could have degraded or been discovered in the interim), if no announcement to the press was imminent.
Despite his awareness of this fact, Long absurdly stated (p. 350) that they [P&G] didn't want to be caught with the costume, which is why they handed it over to BH for transport. He was apparently relying on readers not rereading the book and noticing the contradiction.
G. Another irrationality would have been for Patterson to remove the suit from its sack (p. 350) before giving it to BH to take back to Yakima. Why expose it to tumbling and dirtying, and possible visibility to bystanders when Patterson reclaimed it, or if BH's mom happened to open the trunk? (But BH needed this absurd detail, and one below (H), to enable "discovery" by his mom.)
H. Another irrationality is for Patterson to have told BH to leave the suit in his mom's car for him to retrieve when he returned BH's horse, for convenience's sake (p. 355). But it would have been more convenient and safer for Patterson not to have had to retrieve it at all, but for BH to have dropped it off at Gimlin's, whose house was right off the Interstate's exit (on Rudkin Rd.), which BH would have driven past on the way to his mom's and the Idle Hour bar. P&G had to stop there first anyway, to feed, water, and stable their horses.
Other possible drop-off locations were BH's own place then (on Hackett Rd., just a block off S. Wiley Rd. that led to the Idle Hour), or at Gimlin's parents' then (just a bit off Ahtanum Rd., on the way to and from the Idle Hour). Or in a storage locker at a bus or train terminal. If Patterson was so worried about some outsider seeing the suit that he let it out of his hands, surely he would have preferred such methods for their greater security.
Further, on p. 363, it was pointed out that one of BH's mom's routines was to place apple boxes in the trunk to hold the apples she frequently bought at a local fruit stand. (I suspect that she normally did this on a Saturday.) So how come BH, knowing that, failed to anticipate and protect against the possibility that she'd discover the suit, ruining everything? (I suspect he DID anticipate precisely that.)
I. It would have been irrational for Patterson to tell BH to mail the film, since BH was heading up to Yakima anyway and could drop it off at DeAtley's himself. That would have been cheaper, faster, and safer. (The only reason Patterson shipped the film to DeAtley was that he intended to remain in Bluff Creek hoping to catch another sight of the creature-a plan that was abandoned after heavy rains forced him to leave. That makes no sense in BH's scenario: since Patterson knew the creature was a phony, and since the filming was in Sept., he wouldn't have hung around longer than the day it took to make the tracks-certainly no one would credit him with sincerity for doing so. So there'd have been no reason for him to hand the film over to BH. BH apparently didn't think things through and realize this, and instead just figured that since Patterson shipped the film to Yakima, it would make sense for him to claim so too.)
J. What did BH do with the postal receipt? (Patterson would have required such a valuable package to be insured and shipped by registered mail.) A receipt would have included the date, the sending location, and the addressee-powerful stuff. He can't say he discarded it, since Patterson would have told him to keep it until he heard from Patterson the package had been received in good condition. And he wouldn't have discarded it after that point, since he now says he wanted evidence to back up his claim he was involved in the filming. According to his latest (May 17, 2005) story, he displayed the suit to acquaintances at a tavern upon his return for precisely this purpose. And he can't say he gave it to Patterson either, for one of three reasons:
* He implies he never encountered him again (p. 361). Or, if he actually did encounter Patterson:
* It would be implausible for him to have meekly coughed it up, since Patterson's request would have been the perfect opportunity to tell Patterson that he'd hand it over after he got paid. Or, if he lacked the nerve to say that (unlikely):
* He could easily claimed to have discarded it, or at least to have left it at home. (Whereupon he could have made a photo or photocopy before transferring it.)
K. P&G's making two trips to Bluff Creek is unlikely, since they lacked the time and money for such gallivanting. It's made unlikelier still by the bright-red foliage-colors in the PG film, which typically don't occur there until October in that intensity, and hence couldn't have been filmed in September, as Long claims (p. 421). Another objection to a September date, as pointed out by John Green, was BH's statement (p. 349), that it was October and they had hunters out there. Another objection is that Dahinden's analysis of the light and shadow patterns in the film indicated a late-October date.
L. BH never described writing or talking to Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have done if he had had a valid claim. He had lost three days off from work, 20 hours on the road, travel expenses, a scratch on his mom's car, etc. And he'd been disrespected. So he wouldn't have taken non-payment lying down. And he wasn't a business entity like the phone company who would have turned the matter over to a collection agency. In a realistic scenario, BH (backed if necessary by his three brothers) would have become his own collection agency. BH said on p. 351 that he tried to run into Roger and Bob a couple of times. But a letter to Patterson putting him on notice that'd he'd go to the press would have done the trick.
And BH never appealed to one of Patterson's four siblings, or his spouse, for assistance in reaching Patterson or in making him see reason and avoid the embarrassment to his family that would ensue from a hoax-exposure. This was an obvious point of leverage-and a postcard would have worked. Their addresses were in the phone book, and BH was well acquainted with Patterson's wife, Patty, whom he'd been friendly with since childhood (p. 344).
M. BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & DeAtley when they were raking in the dough and a threat of exposure would have had leverage to obtain far more than his $1000 debt. (As Igor Bourtsev has pointed out, it would have been absurd for Patterson to have put his whole gravy train and reputation at risk by not paying a relative pittance for BH's silence.)
N. BH unaccountably failed to complain bitterly about Patterson in private. Possibly he feared if he did so his friends would then urge him to see a lawyer, and he would lose credibility if he declined. A lawyer would have requested supporting evidence that should then have existed, like his name in the logbook of the motel he stayed at in Eureka (p. 350), or the location of the October 19 film site, or records indicating his absence from work. (All three days were weekdays, according to p. 347.)
O. BH told his friends that he didn't want to publicly make a stink about being stiffed because he hoped for eventual payment by Patterson (p. 398). If so, it would have been irrational for him to have acted as he did--i.e., by occasionally spilling the beans and/or showing off the suit. That violated his pledge of confidentiality and amounted to voiding his contract. Rational creditors adopt the opposite policy: they are polite but firm, and studiously avoid giving the debtor an excuse to take umbrage. And, given his past soft-spokenness about RP, BH's current indignation over others' making money (pp. 336, 340 & 370) is suspiciously peculiar.
And why did BH continue to pussyfoot even after Roger's death in 1972? Long stated, in a radio interview on the Rense show, that Bob H. held out hope that if he kept his promise to keep his mouth shut he would get paid. In a talk at the Mill Creek Library on Jan. 27, 2005, Long asserted, "Patricia Patterson continues to sell the rights to the movie ..., she's made hundreds of thousands over the years ...." But BH never contacted Pat Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have once he realized the film was still garnering TV royalties. It might be that he hesitated to confront Roger Patterson, an irrational hothead, but there should have been no inhibition about approaching an old acquaintance like Patty. Surely SHE'd have seen the wisdom of paying a little hush money to protect her revenue stream. Since BH said she observed him rehearsing in her husband's Bigfoot costume (p. 344), he knew she was aware that the film was a hoax and couldn't fob him off with a claim of being unwitting.
Long also stated in the Rense interview, that although BH never stated this, he was sure BH was concerned about legal ramifications. But there would have been no ramifications in merely contacting Patty, or in hiring a lawyer to do so, because that wouldn't have involved a public revelation. Telling his story to a lawyer wouldn't have voided his confidentiality agreement, because Patterson's non-payment had already voided it. (And there was no need to accuse DeAtley of being in on the hoax-his involvement could easily have been skirted.) Anyway, he had nothing to lose; a spontaneous payout was obviously a forlorn hope after 1975, say. And the possible legal ramifications of going public then would have been less than doing so today, because he'd have been able to back up his claim with records that have now been destroyed, like his work-attendance records and his signature in the logbook of the Eureka motel.
P. In Long's book (pp. 370-71) BH had denied telling his buddies at the Idle Hour about the suit. However, on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 8 pm EDT, he appeared on the PAX cable network show Lie Detector (the quote below is not from the book) and changed his story. He stated the following on TV:
Bob: "The next day I drove home, and uh, I went to the local watering hole where all us guys hung out. And ... uh, I lifted the trunk up and said, uh, take a look at this. I didn't tell them what it was ... I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like. Well, TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER, OUT CAME THE MOVIE, you know, on the television, the film. They said, ah ha! That's what you were doing, you know. They brought my horse back the next day, I think it was, and uh, they just took the suit out of the car, and that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit."
Interviewer: "Why did you show the suit to those guys?"
Bob: "Because I wanted them to know, you know, when they found out what it was that I wasn't lying ... that I really did do this."
It's suspicious when a claimant changes his story from one that makes him look innocent to one that admits of some guiltiness only when new evidence is brought forward. That's what's happened here. BH has now admitted he violated his confidentiality agreement, and has done so only because critics have harped on the many witnesses who'd observed BH displaying his suit. (Most notably, Michael Dennett's review in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Skeptical Inquirer.) The suspicion is that a claimant who was willing to fib to cover up a little guiltiness might still be doing so.
It's also suspicious that he seems to be preparing the ground to claim that he later purchased a second Bigfoot suit, with his on-TV words, "that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit." This is another revision he has made only when faced by new evidence (a witness to whom he showed an ape-suit in 1968); and it's another revision that reveals his initial version as a self-aggrandizing fib. (I.e., he claimed to Hammermeister (p. 397) that the suit he showed him was the real one used in the film.) Again, the suspicion arises that the claimant may be fibbing as much as he can get away with.
And it's suspicious that he said (on TV, not in the book) that the buddies to whom he'd shown the suit saw the film of Queen Kong on TV news: "TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER OUT CAME THE MOVIE." This contradicts the September-filming / October-announcement version he gave in the book (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21) and implies the hoax-filming occurred in October.
Q. It's suspicious that BH was evasive with Long (pp. 370-71) when originally pressed about visiting the Idle Hour upon his return and discussing or displaying the suit. BH avoided specifically denying or confirming going to the Idle Hour, or showing the suit off, although that would have been the natural way to answer to Long's probes. Instead, he was deliberately non-responsive (e.g., changing the subject to whether he drank beer there or was a drunkard), thereby leaving wiggle room to later recollect that he HAD done so. It was a carefully crafted (lawyerly?) response.
R. PF, BH's roommate from 1967 through 1970 (p. 370), told me in June 2004 that he'd heard nothing about any Bigfoot suit or film hoax. His being ignorant fitted in with BH's initial version, under which he disremembered displaying a suit and minimized his talking about it. But roommate PF's ignorance is implausible under BH's new I-confided-in-my-buddies-to-obtain-witnesses version. It's more likely that PF knew what really went on, but was answering me in accordance with the code of the Woosters: Don't Let Down a Pal.
S. It's suspicious that, given that BH said on TV he wanted proof "that I'd really done this":
* He apparently didn't give his buddies more than a guarded peek at a nondescript pile of fur in the back of his trunk. That could have been a Halloween-grade ape-suit (and probably was). If he'd really had the goods, he'd have showed off any the Patterson suit's half-dozen unique features. E.g., breasts, for a start, or a glass eye. And this despite saying that he was trying to get them to notice salient details: "I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like." (Statement on the TV show in 5/05.)
* He didn't take a photo of the suit. He could have bought or borrowed a camera easily, and it would have provided evidence ten times stronger than saying that three of his drinking buddies saw a pile of fur in the back of his trunk. Such a photo could have been sent to Patterson, or to his relatives or associates. The camera doesn't lie, whereas three drinking buddies might stretch a point for a pal. The power of a photo was well known to anyone who'd read a newspaper, or a paperback, or seen a movie.
* He didn't call the motel he'd stayed at and asked them to save the logbook-page he'd signed, and/or send him a photocopy.
T. BH took his lie detector test (pp. 210 & 356) under his own control, which meant he could have suppressed an unfavorable result. The consensus among experts is that such a non-threatening test-environment reduces the subject's anxiety, making it easier for him to pass. And his control may have meant that he knew the questions in advance, which also helps reduce stress.
U. Long stated, in a videotaped speech on March 27, 2004, that there was a strike in progress at BH's employer (the Boise Cascade plywood plant) when BH participated in the filming. Telling Long this might have seemed like a good idea to BH at the time, because it would have partially explained why he participated in Patterson's project without demanding a down payment, and why he failed to aggressively pursue collection of his debt: he was at loose ends and had nothing to lose by spending three weekdays in California. However, I have learned from a WCIW union official who was there at the time, HP, that there was no strike (except perhaps for a few one-day wildcat walkouts) at that facility in 1967-the most recent strike was in the summer of 1966. BH's false claim could not have been due merely to faulty recollection of a long-past event, because if he had lost money from absenting himself from work (he was paid by the hour), his indignation at that fact would have imprinted itself in his memory.
V. Long published only two details (pp. 363-65) of BH's relatives' suit-descriptions (a dark face and a stench), these being attributes that support BH's description of Patterson's suit. Long would surely have questioned them on all other features of the suit, and printed other supporting details they mentioned. (E.g., a helmet, a glass eye, shoulder pads, a zipper, rubber waders in the legs, latex chest-piece, breasts, etc.) The fact that he didn't is therefore significant. I.e., it suggests those details contradicted BH's tale. (This brings to mind the dog that failed to bark--& thereby spoke volumes.) I suspect the details they recalled match those of the suit GR saw. (These two relatives had hours of unfettered access to the suit while Heironimus slept, and one donned its head.) Incidentally, BH's mom described the suit as "black" (p. 363), at variance with Morris's emphatically non-black "brown" suit (p. 449).
W. In the Jan. 2005 National Geographic special on Bigfoot, BH didn't match Queen Kong's perambulatory style. BH's re-creation failed in two key features: his knee bent only to an angle of 70°, not to QK's 90°, and the sole of his foot was never vertical before its toes left the ground (Bill Miller has mentioned this first), again unlike QK's. (Cf. C. Murphy's book Meet the Sasquatch, p. 52, frames 72 & 310.) It's not easy to incorporate these effects while also walking with QK's compliant gait. If you try, all you'll achieve is a Silly Walk, not a QK re-creation. Your speed and smoothness will be noticeably reduced. But QK walks with the fluidity of a cat.
X. BH's body proportions don't match Queen Kong. E.g., his torso depth, thighs, and shoulder breadth are much slimmer, and yet BH claimed in an interview that no torso padding was used. More important, his torso and arms are proportionately significantly shorter than QK's, and his legs are longer. His intermembral index (ratio of arm length to leg length) is about .70 (human-like); QK's is about .85. And, as John Green has pointed out, no arm extenders were worn, because QK's sharp elbow-bend reveals that her forearm is not disproportionately long.
Y. Such extensive suit modifications would have been necessary to produce a torso, head, and limbs as thick and well-defined as Patty's that an expert tailor and lots of extra fur would have been required. So why bother to buy a suit in the first place?
Z. BH was not measured for a custom-fitted suit. And the Morris's gorilla suit, like all off-the-peg ape-suits, would fit a wearer loosely, even if it had been custom-tailored to the wearer. (E.g., in the movie Harry and the Hendersons, "Harry" has trouser-legs: a pair of uniformly tapering tubes.) Queen Kong, OTOH, has a well-defined body: a butt crack (in the last frames), bulging thunder thighs, mobile kneecap, shapely calf, visible tendons and hamstrings, shoulder blades, realistic biceps, quivering flesh, non-uniform hair color and length, etc., all features missing from Hollywood ape-films. (And the photo on p. 460 of the Morris suit looks like a fright-wig: a comical Abbot-and-Costello affair.)
Conclusion: To swallow Heironimus's story, one must WANT to believe it. Desperately. The rest of us are well justified in being unpersuaded, or even derisive. BH-believers should also reflect on the evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:
* Quotes by Patterson or Gimlin even hinting at a Bluff Creek hoax.
* An indication by DeAtley of a specific reason for suspecting a hoax. (His mere belief that Bigfoot can't exist, so it had to be a hoax is insufficient. Indeed, DeAtley's inability to back up that disbelief, despite his close acquaintance with P&G and the film's production, actually argues for the film's authenticity. Long argued that if DeAtley provided specific reasons he would be "risking his reputation" with such a confession (p. 188). But that's silly; he's "confessed" already. As far as the community is concerned, that's what's important-the details are trivial
* A photo (or non-BH testimony) of Patterson (or Gimlin or DeAtley) with a Patty-like suit.
* A zipper pull (or equivalent) in the film-not just seeing Martian canals in the form of ambiguous dark areas at the waist (pp. 378 & 383) and spine (pp. 451-52).
* Indications that the Bluff Creek footprints were mold-made.
Long has objected that his critics haven't disproven the witnesses' testimony about Patterson's character. He's established that Patterson was:
* An occasional moocher and outrageous deadbeat (a person who dishonors his debts), sometimes in a nasty way, as with Vilma Radford.
* A possible sometime-hoaxer of footprints and (maybe) sightings--if one believes Harvey Anderson implicitly, which I don't. (But, even on the evidence selected for inclusion by Long, he was also a sometimes-sincere seeker of prints (p. 120) and sightings. And, after 1967, he spent money searching for hominids in Thailand, and bid on the purported Bossburg Bigfoot body.)
* A would-be hoaxer of an ape-suit film in 1961 (again, according to Anderson). (But, after viewing that effort in private, he never went public with any ape-photo hoaxes, most likely from having come to realize how phony such a re-creation looks. That is a bitter experience that pooh-poohing debunkers lack--but will acquire when BH's costumed, in-motion recreation is broadcast.) (PS from 2007: Guess what, it has been withheld from even DVD distribution, presumably because it's embarrassingly bad, according to a neutral witness of the attempt from National Geographic.)
But again, there is evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:
* Testimony indicating that Roger was insincere in his belief in Bigfoot.
* Evidence that Patterson ever promoted a phony ape-suit photo or film as authentic.
* Evidence that Patterson promoted knowingly fraudulent products or projects for money--i.e., scams. Only people who do that are, strictly speaking, con-men. (Trying to sell Bigfoot to Yakima residents, whose attitudes on the big boy ranged from the dubious to the derisive, was an unpromising game-one a true con-man would have avoided. As Charles Mackay wrote back in the 1850s (out of copyright!), "The man who would cheat the people, must needs found his operations upon some prejudice or belief that already exists.")
* Evidence that Patterson's dishonesty was of the mortal-sin, proactive, meat-eating variety, rather than of the venial-sin, opportunistic, grass-eating type (e.g., one-time insurance fraud). Long inaccurately implied he was type-1 (a career criminal), calling him a con-man, etc.
In addition there is evidence (and there would be more in a book less partisan than Long's) that points to Patterson's sincerity and good traits. For sincerity, see pages 46, 49, 88-89, 91-94, 96, 116-18, 129, 131-32, 201, 205, 235, 255, 269-70, 272 & 397. For other good traits, see pages 72, 113, 116, 122, 128-29, 205-06, 228 & 270.
Finally, it's absurd to believe, as Long does, that it is enough to discredit Patterson to disprove the film. He indicated that Patterson and the film are so closely joined that to destroy Patterson's credibility and the film dies, and, that when it comes to the truthfulness of a fantastic story "all other things being equal," the credibility of the story-teller is crucial (p. 430).
But other things are not equal: there was another witness, of excellent character (Gimlin), who has resisted strong provocations by Patterson to expose him; and there is more than a story, there is evidence: the film and the tracks. So readers should not follow Long's specious reasoning. Proving that Patterson was--sometimes--a dodgy dude is not nearly enough, unless one really WANTS to believe Heironimus.