Jump to content
Guest

Suit Possibly Key To Final Hoax Proof

Recommended Posts

Guest Theagenes

If the cable guy story is directly attached to this suit then there is one small red flag I see. His story was that the suit was in a room full of replica cryptids- like the Fiji Mermaid, etc. There are people that professionally replicate famous pieces like these, and this suit owner apparently had done dealings with a replicator.

So probably not related. Are the cable guy's posts in BFF 1.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I asked Kit this exact question regarding the leather parts and he stated it was not speculation.

http://bigfootforums...210#entry579320

That's interesting too. But his response is still a little vague. It seems like he saying that the damage he was describing is not speculation---not the material they're made from. Putting hide over a helmet for the head I suppose makes sense on paper, but why would you need hide gloves? If it was a Morris suit, the hands it came with should have been fine. But a Hollywood gorilla or bear suit would probably have rubber hands that would also deteriorate. I'm just not sure how much confidence to put into his description given that it's only based on a photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

That's interesting too. But his response is still a little vague. It seems like he saying that the damage he was describing is not speculation---not the material they're made from. Putting hide over a helmet for the head I suppose makes sense on paper, but why would you need hide gloves? If it was a Morris suit, the hands it came with should have been fine. But a Hollywood gorilla or bear suit would probably have rubber hands that would also deteriorate.

I'm just not sure how much confidence to put into his description given that it's only based on a photo.

I don't know that kit's description was based on a photo, Theagenes.

Here is kit's description...from last April...

Here is what I can clarify without compromising my situation...

1) The damage to the suit is mainly to the face and hands which are made out of hide and are now extremely dry and cracked.

I can't say anything about the exact details of the suit or the manner in which it has been stored without compromising the situation.

http://bigfootforums...l/page__st__120

And...coincidentally...here is Brent's description of "the suit", from a few years ago...

""......... the only sign I guess it could of been worn is the hand were leather and they were cracked and looked old.

Other than that it was in good shape, just looked old.

Notice the similarity, Theagenes? :)

Quite laughably.....after kit's simple repeating of Brent's description....kit said this...

I can't say anything about the exact details of the suit or the manner in which it has been stored without compromising the situation.

Gee whiz, to go into any further detail would have "compromised the situation"!!

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

^^ Yeah its so staged and plagiarized its comical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The true situation of this "suit" has never been correctly guessed by anyone in this forum for the entire time it's been talked about.

If this is true then DeAtley does not have the suit. But who else? It's anyone's guess how Kit has convinced Bill that there is a suit and it's connected to the PGF sight unseen...esp if it's not with DeAtley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Quick question for you law-folks.

What is the penalty for physically harming an international diplomat?

I would think that in and of itself would be the only deterrant needed to prevent any 'harm' befalling Kit regarding the 'suit'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Giganto, Bill posted his "batting zero" comment in response to my original post, before Theagenes stated that we needed to stop dancing around the suit's owner identity, which he posited as Al DeAtley. So Bill hasn't explicitly shot down the notion that Al is in possession of the suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No, Bill said no one on the forum has guessed correctly the entire time it's been talked about, which is long before Theagenes brought it up. Last June in the Kitakaze's Patty Suit Bombshell thread I speculated that BrentD was the alleged cable guy who saw the suit in DeAtley's mansion. Bill has heard this theory mentioned many times since then and even confirmed that Kit's contact was a cable guy. It was also speculated that Al's estranged son Alan was the "complicated" contact for viewing the suit.

So unless Bill is just putting us off the scent or splitting hairs with his use of "true situation", I think we can take Bill at his word that DeAtley hasn't got the suit. Telling us who "hasn't" got it shouldn't compromise anything anyway. Bill?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Seems my remarks are being discected intensely, and the "batting zero" remark was a casual remark. I don't read every comment in this discussion, and I'm in the awkward situation whereby trying to explain anything is talking about it and I'm on record as feeling that talking about it is counterproductive to getting it done.

So maybe I should rephrase it to say that thus far, the speculation I have read has not anticipated enough real factors which are affecting this issue to see the picture clearly and know the obstacles I face in trying to make this happen. So the "batting zero" thing would be more appropriately intrepreted as no one offering a senario which actualy describes the situation remotely similar to the reality I am facing and trying to resolve.

Bill

added to address GF's remarks above:

1. I'm not doing anything to put people off the scent, unless asking people to leave it alone is doing so. Usually I intrepret "putting people off the scent" as giving false leads to send people the wrong way, and i am not doing so.

2. Splitting hairs is similarly a thing I'm not intending to do. I'd much rather stay on the big picture than get into some discussion of semantics and discecting individual words or minute facts. If it seems like I am, I apologize, as that's not my goal.

3. Saying who hasn't got the thing is a part of deductive reasoning to find the answer, by eliminating opitions , so it seems to me that any remark even about who doesn't have it would be further fueling speculation. So I'll pass on that suggestion.

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Am I the only one that dismisses any claims/arguments that include the phrase 'potential legal issues" OR "for legal reasons"? Like there are really a hoard of lawyers out there willing to sue people about claims/comments about bigfoot made on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I'm pretty sure the only people who could sue if a PGF hoax came to light would be those who had direct financial dealings and suffered some kind of hardship over it.

They would have needed to have retained the documentation for the dealings, and then to prove a hardship exists. Given that there are also statute of limitations on these kind of things after several decades, I'd say the threat is about zero to anyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

Am I the only one that dismisses any claims/arguments that include the phrase 'potential legal issues" OR "for legal reasons"? Like there are really a hoard of lawyers out there willing to sue people about claims/comments about bigfoot made on the internet.

I can very much believe that DeAtley has attorneys on retainer and would have no problem getting litigious if he felt it was in his best interest to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Am I the only one that dismisses any claims/arguments that include the phrase 'potential legal issues" OR "for legal reasons"? Like there are really a hoard of lawyers out there willing to sue people about claims/comments about bigfoot made on the internet.

Mrs. Patricia Patterson is quite mindful of her piece of the pie.

She has lawyers keeping her ice cream cold as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

^and what are you basing this knowlegde of Mrs.Patterson upon ?

She was recently interviewed by friends of mine for a documentory and everyone I know who got permission to use the film spoke directly to her .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...