Jump to content

Substantiating Philip Morris' Statements


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

DeAtley is married to Roger's sister, not the other way around.

 

In one instance when questioned by Dahinden about the impossible film development, DeAtley says he is not supposed to tell. How could his answer damage a long gone Roger. Roger himself said when asked by a reporter that it was a secret, but not one protecting him, but someone else's job. As if DeAtley would care.

 

And yet then when Byrne goes down this same path with DeAtley, he just up and says look, it was a hoax, but he wasn't one of the hoaxers.

 

This is your provenance, your three-alarm flailing house fire of a source.

 

John Humphrey's only took responsibility for his creation when the cat was already out of the bag. Even then he said that until he had been asked to recreate the alien, he had been sworn to secrecy.

 

Even better example - who confessed to making this?

 

Bigmim.jpg 


 

1) Where do I argue the PGF is a modified suit?

 

You have never argued that Patterson modified the suit? Or had it altered?

 

Where Morris is concerned, I have for years now since interviewing him personally with his wife that I was not satisfied with his claim that Patty was originally his suit, only that he and Amy sold Roger a suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Morris had a son who needed his suit altered for Prom.  Since Morris only sold suits, he sent the son to Roger who did the alterations at no charge.  Roger was an expert at alterations in addition to all his other skills.  Naturally the son got voted Prom King when he appeared in the Tux wearing shoulder pads underneath.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

"And yet then when Byrne goes down this same path with DeAtley, he just up and says look, it was a hoax, but he wasn't one of the hoaxers."

 

I think that is exactly what I would expect DeAtley to say, its called remaining neutral. Judging by the mans successes in life, I doubt he is a fool, but he does seem a tad political don't you think?  You have to think critically about these things Kit, and know when your looking at very careful politically neutral statement by a prominent business man who really probably wants nothing to do with incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

John Humphrey's only took responsibility for his creation (the Alien body) when the cat was already out of the bag.

 

 

That's right, kit....he did take credit for his work. :)

 

In the case of the PGF, though....no-one has ever stepped forward and made a credible claim of being the suit supplier, and/or designer. 

AFAIK...there has only been one person to have made that claim.....and his claim is bogus, beyond all doubt.

 

 

And, as a bonus....kitakaze cannot name anybody as a likely candidate to be the 'suit maker'....even after having allegedly "found the guy who owns the Patty suit".

He doesn't endorse Morris as being the suitmaker....and neither has he ever produced any other names. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

 

Great pic but does the tiny photo credit in the lower left give it away.

 

No. You need to google Minnesota Iceman, Frank Hansen.

 

So who made it? That's a PGF era hoax and where's the creator confession? That thing was literally competing with Patty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

That's right, kit....he did take credit for his work. :)

 

In the case of the PGF, though....no-one has ever stepped forward and made a credible claim of being the suit supplier, and/or designer. 

AFAIK...there has only been one person to have made that claim.....and his claim is bogus, beyond all doubt.

 

 

And, as a bonus....kitakaze cannot name anybody as a likely candidate to be the 'suit maker'....even after having allegedly "found the guy who owns the Patty suit".

He doesn't endorse Morris as being the suitmaker....and neither has he ever produced any other names. 

 

1) What circumstances were responsible for Humphrey's coming forward?

 

2) I don't know who made the suit. Why must I know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

2) I don't know who made the suit. Why must I know?

 

 

Thanks, kit. :)

 

You were (apparently) making plans to have Bill go with you to DeAtley's to "inspect the suit"....and yet, in over 2 years of "knowing that Al DeAtley owned the Patty suit"....you never had any conversation with him, in which you asked him who "made the Patty suit"???

 

Really?

 

 

So, how many conversations have you had with DeAtley?

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

You must know because you spent years hammering at the back story, coming up with every ludicrous theory you could. On top of that you relied on character assassination, trickery, and lot of questionable accusations. 

 

 Then you triumphantly announced how your face melting claim to have found the suit, yet could not produce it, or even a likeness of it.

 

 So bring some legitimacy to your work, or I should say your constant regurgitation of others "work". and tell us who produced the suit. The iceman looks pretty mundane thawed, just a typical monkey suit, where as Patty is a wonder of technology for 1967, so how hard could it be to find the maker?

 

Do something Kit, other than repeating the same old tired irrelevant repeats of others.

 

Put up, or forget it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats really great is seeing example after example of how they can not reproduce the muscle structure, they can not even get in the ball park. It just continues to do nothing but continue to demonstrate how difficult it would be to produce such a thing. It continues to show us just how accurate Dr. Meldrum, and Bill Munn's analysis is. Kit you should consider putting all your material together and writing a support paper on their work, goodness knows your promoting it enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit,

 

Do I understand all this correctly:

 

-You believe Morris sold Roger a costume.

-You think the Morris costume is not the costume in the PGF. 

-You, like many people, feel Patty is a costume.   You just contend it is not the Morris costume or a altered Morris costume appearing in the PGF.

 

Do those 3 points fairly represent your thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Believe is not the best way to describe the first point. Proven in fact is also arguable, but to my satisfaction the correlation between Amy Morris placing the shipment of the suit to August 1967 and Heironimus' description of having first being approached by his friend Gimlin in July or August to be in the suit is helpful. I base my entire acceptance of the suit having been sold on only the details Amy Morris could provide.

 

Second point is not black and white. Do I think the PGF shows a Morris costume with minimal modifications as described by Morris? No. I think their perceptions are affected by their having sold Roger a suit. Could some part of the suit been used materialistically? This I have neither ruled out nor endorsed.

 

Main point, what Morris says about the creation of Patty as we see it I do not accept. I think Roger may have attempted using what Morris sold him and when DeAtley became involved, Roger's own efforts became  informative to the final design.

 

I do not think Roger was the sole designer of Patty.


Thanks, kit. :)

 

You were (apparently) making plans to have Bill go with you to DeAtley's to "inspect the suit"....and yet, in over 2 years of "knowing that Al DeAtley owned the Patty suit"....you never had any conversation with him, in which you asked him who "made the Patty suit"???

 

Really?

 

 

So, how many conversations have you had with DeAtley?

 

 

Follow your line of reasoning. If Al DeAtley is a hoaxer, currently guarding his own involvement in the hoax, why would he divulge any true details of his involvement to Dahinden, Byrne, Long, myself, or anyone who came sniffing around.

If you've paid any attention at all over the last few years, my contention has been that DeAtley deceived Dahinden, Byrne, then Long. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would imply that many people where involved, not only in the hoax, but also in the construction of the suit. Where are these people? This reminds me of any other "conspiracy" theory, as in you expect us to believe all these people where involved, yet have kept the secret for over forty years. Anything at all, said by Bob H is not really reliable, its just ridiculous, so where does that leave us? How does this apply to critical thinking? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...