Jump to content
Guest

Suit Possibly Key To Final Hoax Proof

Recommended Posts

bipedalist
BFF Patron

...

To my mind, resolution is in a three-way race between:

1. - Biological evidence that surfaces from a lucky field researcher

2. - The unveiling of the true suit used in the PGF

3. - The creation of a QUALITY replication suit with which we can shoot recreation footage with a K-100 to compare against the PGF to determine the degree of "musculature" movement, glute movement, etc. that can be seen.

I don't think any other path will shift majority opinion in a major way.

And in my mind here's how it is shaking out (jmho)....

1. - "They're real, I've seen them" it could happen --- more than a maybe

2. - Ain't gonna happen despite the indigestion and grumblings

3. - Skillful suitmakers have a tall order ahead of them, miniscule percentage chance of this happening;

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest blackbriar

The best way to convince anyone about the existence of "the suit" is to show someone it, managing to convince anyone without them actually seeing the suit is just good spin.

With the subject of Sasquatch sightings lots of them rely heavily on eyewitness testimony but in this case its the old:

0d099c06-d98c-4102-8a42-fc843b675987_zps7a26f3b9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

Funny, the movie works for me (until proven unviable)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

The initial assumption of this thread is flawed. It assumes there is a suit.

There is no suit. How do we know?

Kit followed the SOPs of the BF world regarding the suit:

1) announced the upcoming event (i.e. the revealing of the suit)

2) upcoming event collapse

3) rinse, wash, repeat

IOW If there was really a suit, then there would have been no announcement of the upcoming revelation of the suit. He would simply have produced it. Its been what. over two years?? There is no suit and never was. Either he was hoaxing or he got hoaxed. End of story, nothing to see here, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Salubrious, I agree there's a lot of reasons to be skeptical of Kit's claims. His delay in producing the suit coupled with his delay in transferring his evidence to Bill does raise red flags.

On the other hand, he did have a lengthy open-kimono (Japan pun) discussion with Bill, something a lying person would not do, and Bill agreed there was *something* there. I want the key players holding up the show to mentally think through the ramifications, brace, and then embrace the consequences of the unveiling, be it fake evidence or evidence of fakery.

Primate:

There is some truth to Kit's fear. regret I can't elaborate, but what prompted his fear is real and part of the complication.

Bill

If the suit exists and can be shown to be THE suit, most people would not only write off the PGF, they would write off bigfoot entirely, as the PGF is the only non-blobsquatch evidence. To that end, any audience of books, conferences and television shows would be proportionally diminished. Moneymaker would become an oxymoron.

I could easily see someone applying pressure using the modern form of mob threats, i.e. hire a private detective to find the whistleblower's skeletons, then threaten to expose the skeletons should the person go public. If the skeletons are big enough and the person knows they've been discovered, he or she might even pack up and leave, disgusted. Bill's comment makes sense. [/speculation]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

HDL I think you give entirely too much endearment to the prospect that contemporary thinkers rely on PGF to cement their observations of BF witness in the modern post-60's era. But, that is just me speaking as a witness and observer of all things research.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The PGF and the dermal ridges on a select few tracks are far and away the best tangible evidence.

The dermal ridges are effectively disputed IMO, at

http://orgoneresearc...eview-material/

PGF remains open. But the actions of Kit and Bill are not nothing. They deserve examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I know you can't go into detail, but I just want to make sure I'm hearing this right: are you implying that Kita has been or is being threatened with some sort of direct harm over all this?

I think people are subconsciously conflating "movie magic" (FX) with stage magic, where the practitioners do take an oath not to reveal either theirs or others' techniques to non-magicians.

Mulder:

In answer to question one, one can have a fear even without a threat, if you are aware of some potential for harm. Example, if you see a mature black widow spider in your home, but it hides before you can kill it, so you know it's somewhere in your home, alive and harmful (potentially deadly), you can have fear just knowing if you encounter it unexpectedly (like it's hiding in a shoe you try to put on), you can be bitten and your life is at risk. You may have fear just driving on the freeway if you realize the car ahead of you has a drunk driver and is "an accident waiting to happen" if you continue to follow behind it.

I am aware of at least one potential source of harm that Kit was concerned about. I cannot elaborte. Sorry.

On the second question, the makeup profession does not have any "code of secrecy" as illusionists and magicians do. I think you are correct in that some people mistakenly think makeup artists do have such. They do not. The only policy of old was that union makeup artists were not allowed to teach non-union people the craft, but could only teach formal union apprectices, back in the 60's. But that all fell apart in the 70's when the Union ceased the apprenticeship program. And Cinefex magazine was a major leader in revealing all the details of the special makeup effects craft, and any remaining concern for secrecy more or less vanished.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill, sorry to have made you have to repeat yourself ^ in two threads. This thread appeared to be dismissed by those who won't engage in constructive deduction and so I decided to transfer the response to the Kit Bombshell thread owing to the statement of another person who couldn't fathom why Kit would go silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John

On the second question, the makeup profession does not have any "code of secrecy" as illusionists and magicians do. I think you are correct in that some people mistakenly think makeup artists do have such. They do not.

For what it's worth I would certainly agree with Bill & Mulder here.

I would imagine any secrecy to be a simple matter of economic survival in the days of the PGF when special make-up was not the crowd drawer it became later (more jobs available).

I seem to remember reading **** Smith* (who is known for generously sharing knowledge after being stonewalled himself ) went something like a year before he could bid on a 'special' make-up job (putting body make-up on Burt Lancaster for a swimming scene?).

Ethical confidentiality of course can not be ruled out in any profession.

------------------------

*

**** Smith, RICHARD Smith? Auto censor madness :lol: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I don't understand the problem people have with speculating about the possibility of a suit---to the point where they don't want other people to speculate about it either. If you have nothing to offer other than "This thread is pointless because Patty is real---there is no suit" then why bother posting in it?

Personally, I think it's a great topic. I don't mind speculating a bit.

I think from reading Kit's comments in the other thread there are several things that we know. It's pretty obvious to everyone I think who supposedly has the suit. Do we really need to keep dancing around this fact?

So based on Kit's comments, the assumption is that DeAtley has the suit (there's no one else that fit's the bill) and Kit was in contact with a relative of DeAtley's (son maybe?). Presumably DeAtley doesn't know that this relative is spilling the beans and does not want the hoax revealed.

DeAtley may actually have the suit on display at his house? Some cable repair guy claimed to have seen it, correct? If DeAtley is the one who paid for the suit it would make sense that he would be the one to have it. Does he still have the original film too perhaps?

If this is the case you can see why it's a touchy situation. After Bob H.'s story came out, DeAtley tried to hedge his bets in public by saying that he only loaned RP some money and he didn't know if it was a hoax or not (and claims he never asked). Though years ago he told Peter Byrne it was a hoax. DeAtley is Patrica Patterson's brother, so if the suit is revealed it cuts off her cash cow. What kind of relationahip do they have and would he do that?

On the suit itself, Kit says it is mostly fake fur, in three pieces: head, torso, legs. The hands and feet are dried and cracked and in bad shape. Kit says this is because they are made of hide, but that sounds more like deteriorating latex. Was Kit just assuming hide because of Bob H.'s story?

If this suit is really the Patty suit, then it is an incredibly important artifact of popular culture and it would be horrible for it to be destroyed because DeAtley was afraid of the hoax being revealed. But it sounds like it is badly in need of conservation efforts and if there is even a remote possibility that it is real then it needs to be investigated. Bill, I truly hope you are able to confirm or deny this suit one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

HDL you are willing to speculate and grant any possibility supporting your view . Curious why you would not consider , if someone had "something" to remember an incident of long ago . If that person were connected to the PGF . They would not hesitate to reveal owning that "something" . For fear it would cause speculation about the authenticity of that experience ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

Edit above: Meant to say DeAtley is Patrica's brother-in-law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

To my mind, resolution is in a three-way race between:

- Biological evidence that surfaces from a lucky field researcher

I don't think any other path will shift majority opinion in a major way.

"Opinion" would be soft data, majority or otherwise.

"Resolution" would required hard data, indisputable facts.

Indisputable evidence that Bigfoots do indeed exist still will not mean the PGF is real.

Edited by Rockape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

From John, above:

"I would imagine any secrecy to be a simple matter of economic survival in the days of the PGF when special make-up was not the crowd drawer it became later (more jobs available)."

When I got started, (learning in 1967 and hired at universal Studios in 1969), secrecy was a bit thing in Hollywood, but it was restricted to materials or techniques. John Chambers made the best bald caps out of a vynal resin, and his formula was his "secret". George Bau made the best foamed latex (passed on to Charlie Schram, and then called schram foam, and then passed on to Sandy Burman and called Burman foam) and it's exact formula was a "secret". So, yes, there were some secrets, but they were specific material formulas or techniques or tools, not jobs or finished products like suits.

But there were two amazing people who had no secrets, **** Smith as John noted, and Don Post Sr. They both inspired me to have no secrets myself, as I reached a level where I designed projects and invented tools or processes for unusual effects.

But in the 60's yes there was secrecy of some materials or techniques, from insecure artists who thought their secret technique would give them the edge on getting a job or not allowing competitors to do as well and compete for a job.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...