Well, I just put in the three hours or so to listen to this broadcast. I'm afraid I didn't come away with a lot of novel thinking on the subject, as I don't find the confrontational interview style particularly effective at allowing a person to lay out their arguments. That said, there are certainly points worth discussing.
As far as Kitakaze's question about what I think of Biscardi, let my answer that with a long, convoluted story...
When I was about 10 or 11, I was a fan of the TV show "You Asked For It". I thought about what the coolest possible thing was I could see on the program, and I thought of the Patterson film. I wrote a letter to the show asking to see it. But at the time, I didn't know it was called the "Patterson - Gimlin film" so I simply asked to see a "new Bigfoot film".
Amazingly, the honored my request! But unknown to me, Ivan Marx had gone to the show at roughly the same time with one of his goofy films. How do I know this? I read about it years later in Dahinden's book... Anyway, I tell all my little friends about this at school, and show off the letter I was sent by "You Asked For It". That night, the big moment comes, and out pops an Ivan Marx "creature" romping in the snow, and looking like his costume was made of shag carpet. I expected to be ridiculed the next day at school, but other kids were not as fascinated with Bigfoot as I was. I don't think they even watched the show.
Years later I see Biscardi is associated with Ivan Marx, so I simply write him off... But you can tell he is charming and well spoken on the radio, essential characteristics for his line of work.
As far as novel information revealed that was not contained in Long's book, I must say that in three hours I most liked Phil Morris' line about "ask Rick Baker". I've said it before about the "Minnesota Iceman" and I'll say it again about the Patterson film;
IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT IF SOMETHING IS AN ILLUSION OR NOT, ASK THE ILLUSIONISTS THEMSELVES, NOT MEMBERS OF THE INTENDED AUDIENCE.
When top of the line professionals like Rick Baker, John Vulich, and Stan Winston state flat-out that its a guy-in-a-suit, we all need to listen, as what guys-in-suits look like is a known commodity.
There is in my mind unresolved inconsistancy still with Morris and Heironimus claims as to what the "suit" exactly looked like. How does the "dead horse" fit in with Morris' costume? Was the face mask made of leather? The breasts? How do "hip waders" fit in? Were "hip waders" part of Morris' costume?
Is Morris now claiming that what we see in Long's book, the suit apparantly used in the girl-to-gorilla illusion, was only one of several suits made by Morris at the time? I say this because of how Morris responded to Chris Murphy's question. Did Morris' girl-to-gorilla illusion suit have the form fitting look that we see on the Patterson film subject? If so, wouldn't it have to be tailored to each individual wearer?
I'm afraid I lean toward a position on this that lies somewhere between Mike Dennett and Roger Knights. While I suspect that what we see on the film is a guy-in-a-suit, I'm not convinced that it was Bob Heironimus in a Phil Morris suit.
As far as MK Davis goes, I think the "Digger Indian" business from a while back confirmed his level of crediblility... I poked around the web and found this page:
http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/Photos_From_M._K._Davis
In which Davis promotes casts made by Don Monroe as having "dermals". Indeed, they show dermals, HUMAN dermals. Some time ago, when I took Bigfootery more seriously, I had a series of private e-mail exchanges with Davis, in an attempt to "warn" him that Monroe's casts were not Bigfoot. It occured to me that perhaps Davis had not seen them first hand, as I had, and perhaps couldn't immediately see that they were human. What Davis fails to inform his readers is that Monroe sent his casts to Chilcutt, who found them human. But the thing is, the casts are so obviously human that it doesn't take a professional fingerprint examiner to see the obvious. Why does Davis knowingly promote bogus Bigfoot evidence?
What we see here is something that Ben Radford talks about; the bar for Bigfoot evidence is set very low. As long as you claim that what you see on the Patterson film is not a guy-in-a-suit, your notions can be as off-the-deep-end as Davis' and still be taken seriously by many Bigfooters.
By now, it should be obvious for anyone with more than three functioning neurons that Davis' notions on Bigfoot are pure unadulterated crank and crackpot. Davis is now the unofficial Richard Hoagland of Bigfootery. Here is a guy who has the audacity to publicly imply that Heironimus is a "pathological liar" yet who obtained his own Patterson stills in a totally underhanded fashion.
In honor of MK Davis designation of "Patty" as a "Digger Indian", I should like to propose that all albino Sasquatches, such as the famous Lake Worth Monster seen here, be known as "Wigger Indians"
Absolutely bat$#!% insane. That is truely diamond.
