Jump to content
Guest

Suit Possibly Key To Final Hoax Proof

Recommended Posts

Guest

For those who believe the PGF shows a real animal, the lack of evidence of a hoax makes sense. When Bob H. made his claims, he was not supported by any of his contemporaries nor could he produce corroborating evidence.

For those who believe PGF depicts a man in a suit, many have been waiting for the time when the hoax evidence becomes too overwhelming to deny and most or all of those involved start coming forward in an ever-escalating opening of the floodgates of truth. Several believe that time is nearing.

The suit could be the key.

Kit found evidence of a bigfoot suit currently in the possession of someone closely involved with the PGF. To the joy of some, and the consternation of others, Kit spent a year being coy. He provided no proof of his find and has been dismissed by many, and reasonably so. But in articulating his find to Bill Munns via private conversations, he has provided us with some information from which we can make some inferences.

1) Bill has stated he believes Kit has indeed located a bigfoot suit

2) Bill acknowledged the person is one of the inner circle of PGF

3) Bill conveyed that revealing the suit is a delicate matter requiring some diplomacy

4) Bill also stated there are potential legal issues that must be worked out

Since there is a suit, the only two possibilities are that it is the suit used in the PGF or it is not.

If it was not the suit used in the PGF, there would be no issue whatsoever with showing the suit. The owner may get a chuckle out of people scrutinizing it for evidence that it may be Patty, but would not have any concerns over the examination. It's simply their souvenir, a prop that speaks to their having been involved with a major bigfoot breakthrough some decades ago. No delicacy, no diplomacy, no legal issues to resolve.

Only if the suit is THE suit does the situation make sense.

Coming forward with a suit that, through provenance and examination, can be authenticated as the suit used in the PGF, entails impacting several lives negatively. From 2003 on, Bob Gimlin has been the toast of bigfoot conferences. That will cease. Patricia has received license fees from television production companies. That will cease. The suit owner will undergo scrutiny for both the hoax and the subsequent silence. His family may likewise be impacted. Each participant in the hoax who received money may be subject to legal consequences for profiting from a misrepresentation. The statues of limitation must be researched. And Patricia may not be protected by the passage of time if she had knowledge of the hoax, having received licensing proceeds in the recent past. And would the participants be open to civil suits from bigfoot researchers that expended time and funds in seeking a non-existent animal based largely on the representations of the footage and those who captured and distributed the footage?

The hesitation is reasonable. The issues are indeed delicate.

By analogy, we would all love to know who the real DB Cooper was, and if he were alive, would it be prudent for him to hold a press conference and say, "I'm the one, I'm your celebrated mastermind!"? Likely, the FBI would seek to prosecute him for robbery, hijacking, and an act of terrorism on an airplane.

THERE IS HOPE

It's obvious the owner of the suit knows the importance of the suit to history. Given the widespread sustained interest in the PGF, the suit will wind up in the Smithsonian, alongside the original Star Trek suits and Lincoln's hat.

It's also obvious the owner has not entirely rebuffed attempts to persuade him to go public with the suit. From this, we can infer the owner understands the gravity of the hoax, namely the enormous investment of time and effort on the part of researchers and amateurs in searching for bigfoot and scrutinizing the PGF. He likely feels its time for the truth to come out.

We can also recognize that there are offsets to the negative consequences outlined above. In the scheme of things, compared to identity theft, the war on terror, and other modern evils, a film depicting a modified gorilla suit being represented as an unclassified hominid ranks very low. Couple that to the fact over four decades have passed, and you have very little chance of legal repercussions.

As for the loss of income to the principals, I would suggest that they will receive a short-term pop, an increase. The revealing of indisputable proof of hoax would receive national coverage. The people would be flown to studios of the national morning talk shows, followed by a circuit among the daytime talks filmed in Burbank. News programs would license the footage (copyright laws are strict) and subsequent "greatest hoax" cable shows would likewise license the show and seek commentary from Gimlin. And no individual researcher could point to PGF as their sole motivation for their efforts, so there's no basis for civil suits. And to what degree has Patricia or even Al stated the subject was an unclassified non-human animal, verses letting people draw their own conclusion and not disabusing them of their impression? For that matter, Bob took a secondary role to Roger in contemporaneous interviews, using pronouns to describe the subject of the film rather than making direct assertions as to its content.

Once the suit is revealed, it would be folly for others to hold to their position that it was authentic. With the suit comes the supporting statements of all involved, Lance Armstrong style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

They can show a suit all they want. They can even show a suit that looks somewhat like Patty. That won't change the fact that they will NEVER be able to show that said suit was used by Patterson at BC to film the PGF. Their only "actor", Campfire BobH doesn't match Patty's biometrics. This has been demonstrated time and time and time again right here at BFF. They also can't explain why Campfire BobH can't keep his story straight (3 different suits, for example), or why he didn't get the details of the filming right (the hole, etc).

Putting up "a suit" proves nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You sure took the long way to offer nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have a 1000 times more confidence in the Ketchum Study than I do in Kita's claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Your dialogue is full of holes, assumptions and presumptions. Please take the time to read the many posts devoted to the PGF and I'm sure a lot of your thoughts will be answered. Kit claimed a suit, which was NEVER produced. Basically, all you had was a claim, from an "unknown" internet source pushing forth their claim of an unproven product, in the hopes of garnering a majority of the public opinion.

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

Quote HardDataLover: "Only if the suit is THE suit does the situation make sense."

I won't say the dreaded word (llort). But do you live for silly "only if" statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Your dialogue is full of holes, assumptions and presumptions. Please take the time to read the many posts devoted to the PGF and I'm sure a lot of your thoughts will be answered. Kit claimed a suit, which was NEVER produced. Basically, all you had was a claim, from an "unknown" internet source pushing forth their claim of an unproven product, in the hopes of garnering a majority of the public opinion.

Well, to be fair, Bill has apparently confirmed that there is some sort of suit on proffer. I have no reason to think that Bill would be in on a "we found 'the suit'" hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Since there is a suit, the only two possibilities are that it is the suit used in the PGF or it is not.

^This sounds as if we already know Patty is a suit. One would need to know if she's a suit to begin with.

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

presumptions half truths conjectures guesses do you have anything that remotely resembles your name? Your hear to antagonize ....it grows tiresome

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I'm looking around but, I don't see the 'great hoax' coming out anywhere. (Just like it never has.)

:blind:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It could just as easily be a case of being delicate, simply because its Kit. Considering his long history and method of investigation, combined with many of the statements he has made here, I would not be surprised if many of the people involved with the PGF would not be interested in dealing with Kit at all, for any reason. If its all about fame and fortune of hoaxing, as so many skeptics seem to think it is, then now, with all the players advancing in age, they would profit far more by exposing the hoax now, attain new fame, and bring attention to the film yet again.

Adam, I plussed you for calling it the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^This sounds as if we already know Patty is a suit. One would need to know if she's a suit to begin with.

That's a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Well, to be fair, Bill has apparently confirmed that there is some sort of suit on proffer. I have no reason to think that Bill would be in on a "we found 'the suit'" hoax.

True, Mulder. But for it to be the "PGF suit", well........highly speculative. God forbid, this thread turns into another 2 year, multi-post, multi-page, waste-of-time odyssey?

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

The National Geographic documentary that analyzes the film and concludes that it depicts a real creature clinches it for me.

Give me a more credible source of information and I'll consider it, but not until then.

BTW, if it was a suit, it was put together by someone who'd seen a squatch up close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

True, Mulder. But for it to be the "PGF suit", well........highly speculative. God forbid, this thread turns into another 2 year, multi-post, multi-page, waste-of-time odyssey?

True on all points. I've been making the first one for some time now (even up this very thread)... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...