Jump to content
Guest

Suit Possibly Key To Final Hoax Proof

Recommended Posts

AtlantiS

I need all these overboard things.. cause comments about It doesn't proof anything... will start already if color and shadows doesn't compare with original footage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Eh.. it was a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtlantiS

Ah ok... :) forgot that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If you had a suit and it was 'The' PG suit or thought to be 'The' suit, it seems to me there would be no reason to hold onto it.  Instead, there would be more motivation to go on CNN or whatever and be 'The guy who killed bigfoot' in that, you proved the famous PG film was a hoax and YOU were the one who solved it.  It would be like having a film of the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository or the Grassy Knoll on the day JFK was shot.  It makes NO SENSE someone would have some type of suit and would be holding it back.  Sure, at some point you might want to get some expert to verify it.  But ASAP then you would rush out to Discovery Channel or History Channel or Opera or whatever with this story. Let's not forget it would likely bring you some pretty serious bucks.  For these reasons, I say there is no suit.  There may be some suit that when brought out will be laughed at even by the skeptics but there is NO suit.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I think any possibility for serious bucks being sapped out of a PGf hoax confession or a revelation of 'the suit' has long since passed.  Either that boat got missed over and over again or, it never existed in the first place.  My fairly educated guess is the latter of the two possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoot wears converse

it was probably just a replica for someone who is fascinatednwith the subject. unless we see a pic or video we can only speculate and speculate. i guess when bill is done with his work we will know more on that. were all just treading water till then, but im glad this thread exists thats for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

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.

 

If someone ever brought forward a suit while claiming it was 'the suit', then it must not only look like the Patterson creature, but demonstrate the traits seen in the movie. In other words, it must show muscle movement - hyde stretching, and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I still don't get it.  As a Master in his craft Bill is fair in his evaluation of the suit concept.  That is, If it is a suit then A B C and D would need to be present.  What I don't get is why those interviewed on TV (since I dont get a chance to talk to Hollywood suit makers) all seem to say "it is a man in a costume" and then are quick to dismiss it.   But they offer no evidence to their critique and they certainly don't show how it is done.   They just say it is a man in a costume and that is that.  Shouldn't they feel some shame in that they cannot match a suit from 1967?   I am sure the ego of any costume maker would be 'I can make that suit' as who would admit they could not.  I still just don't get it.   Where is YOUR suit.  I still point to the best attempt from X CREATURES of the BBC.  It failed gloriously I say.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Backdoc:  It has been said that some Hollywood types can be a bit egotistical. ;0  Anything Bigfoot looks exactly like a man in a suit to those who know that everything unexplained just simply does not exist.  I also do not understand that mentality but, it is prevalent.  The possible Bigfoot suit that is possibly in Al's possession could possibly be proof of a possible Bigfoot hoax.  The odds that the alleged suit (if it even exists) was seen in the PGf would seem to be significantly less than the odds that it wasn't. 

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I have respect for scientist who say This or That about the some evolutionary evidence and so on. When they say, 'This does not match the prevailing understanding of the fossil record' and so on they are at least using their heads.  But, just as the Duck Billed Platypuss, the moutain gorilla, or the Panda, we are sometimes surprised. 

 

Maybe there is some man-ape of legend who started getting discovered about the time man was expanding into the wilderness.  It started getting caught on film when cameras were just starting to get in the hands of the common man.  Then as computers came along, we could re-evaluate the 1967 evidence in close detail and raise some legit q's  

 

I might even believe Chris Angel could levitate, unitl such time that I saw other magicians show how it was done.  Just show me how it was done. 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I still don't get it.  As a Master in his craft Bill is fair in his evaluation of the suit concept.  That is, If it is a suit then A B C and D would need to be present.  What I don't get is why those interviewed on TV (since I dont get a chance to talk to Hollywood suit makers) all seem to say "it is a man in a costume" and then are quick to dismiss it.   But they offer no evidence to their critique and they certainly don't show how it is done.   They just say it is a man in a costume and that is that.  Shouldn't they feel some shame in that they cannot match a suit from 1967?   I am sure the ego of any costume maker would be 'I can make that suit' as who would admit they could not.  I still just don't get it.   Where is YOUR suit.  I still point to the best attempt from X CREATURES of the BBC.  It failed gloriously I say.

 

Backdoc

 

 

It's called "swimming with the tide", Backdoc.

 

When it comes to 'Bigfoot'...most people dismiss the possibility of it's existence, out-of-hand. Hollywood suit professionals are no different than the general public, in that regard. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Yawn.  Sound, fury, signifying nothng, etc.

 

I love this.  Patterson and Gimlin filmed a sasquatch, and the skeptics go:  no you didn't.

 

And - after 45 YEARS no less - all they have to do is produce a suit?  A suit?

 

After 45 years, gang, time's more than up.  Duplicate the film.

 

Where was I?  right.

 

[snore]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Sweaty Yeti,

 

I saw one time on Keith Oberman's show he was interviewing the 'man in the suit' and ask some softball Q's.  It was clear that Oberman presented this as a fact it was a hoax like it was accepted science by all but the most kooky people.  Why did they not have a rebuttal since they rarely do.  Yes, the man in the suit was Bobby H.  You would think there should be a challenge to his story as much as to Roger and Bob.  One thing is clear. The PG film scares the heck out of the skeptics the more it is studied.

 

So yes, I do feel I am swimming against the tide. Those that dismiss this for whatever reason, should be asked to put up or shut up so to speak.  Show us how it was done.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty Yeti,

 

I saw one time on Keith Oberman's show he was interviewing the 'man in the suit' and ask some softball Q's.  It was clear that Oberman presented this as a fact it was a hoax like it was accepted science by all but the most kooky people.  Why did they not have a rebuttal since they rarely do.  Yes, the man in the suit was Bobby H.  You would think there should be a challenge to his story as much as to Roger and Bob.  

 

Backdoc

 

 

I think I saw that interview of Bob Heironimus too, Backdoc. It was typical of the "interrogation" that Bob undergoes, in an interview... :lol:

 

Here is another game of 'Softball' with Bob Heironimus...

 

 

 

One thing is clear. The PG film scares the heck out of the skeptics the more it is studied.

 

So yes, I do feel I am swimming against the tide. Those that dismiss this for whatever reason, should be asked to put up or shut up so to speak.  Show us how it was done.

 

 

 

I think so, too, Backdoc... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
The suit is what would be the most important of all.

Irregardless of camera, it should not show wrinkles. It should show muscle movement.

 

Even if someone was to ever create a suit that would look like the subject on Roger's film, my requirements would be that it be made using 1967 technology, performs like the P/G creature, and be able to leave deep tracks in the ground when other people's tracks on site only mark the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...