Jump to content

Substantiating Philip Morris' Statements


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Backdoc

Q  What is your guess about the suit?

 

 

A  Since the PGF was not a suit, I would say any suit one views in person, or over a phone pic, or whatever is not the suit.   Now, it may be anyone can in fact take a pic of many fake gorilla suits.  It is also a fact a person wishing there to be a suit might indeed be more likely to fall for some vague suit being the 'pgf suit'

 

Further thoughts:  I have begged the more knowledgeable  skeptics to show me the best efforts to replicate the PGF.  Show ME the suit or at least your best version of it.  See, I do not like to be fooled.  I leaned towards the PGF being real.  The continued failure can only further push me further toward the only conclusion left.  The PGF is strongly suggestive of a creature of nature based primarily on the failure of the skeptic offering up what 2 cowboys could do.  I do seek the truth.

 

My idea of a suit?  The Blevins suit may be the most hilarious thing I have witnesses since joining the BFFs.  As far as the PGF is concerned, if there was a suit, it would have surely been destroyed after the decision was made by the players involved to not use it again to make more money. Thus, it would have been burned. 

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
bf2011HBMay

Phillip was recently on Darkness Radio, last week, and he gave different prices as to his gorilla suits circa 1967. One minute he says the suit cost about $150, the next $450. Go here and listen to the June 12, 2014 podcasts, second and third hours: http://podbay.fm/show/294988529

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Phillip was recently on Darkness Radio, last week, and he gave different prices as to his gorilla suits circa 1967. One minute he says the suit cost about $150, the next $450. Go here and listen to the June 12, 2014 podcasts, second and third hours: http://podbay.fm/show/294988529

 

He said his suits were about $400 (21:43)...

 

http://podbay.fm/show/294988529/e/1402720059?autostart=1

 

He says in the third hour that the suits got up to about $450  and then says mistakenly "the suit Patterson wore" was about $150. (10:30)...

 

http://podbay.fm/show/294988529/e/1402722639?autostart=1

 

When asked about this he explains that the suits later sold for $450, but he thought at the time the version of the suit they sold Patterson was between $150-$175.

 

Do you think if Morris misquotes prices for his suits in 1967, that it indicates Morris Costumes was not selling gorilla suits? 

 

screen-shot-2011-12-06-at-5_54_50-pm.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

You mean a person can have minor differences in their story and still be honest and truthful after all?    Times they are a changin' 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Absolutely. They can even have their testimony affected by others. What are we to think? The owner of Morris Costumes misquoting a 1967 price for a costume made by his company indicates that heeeeeeyyyyy, that must mean Morris Costumes never sold gorilla costumes in the 60's!

 

Multiple changes in Gimlin's stories, such as what the heck he was doing with the horse of the only person to ever to make a public claim of being in the suit, a person he described as a trusted friend, who was in Roger's Bigfoot film the same year, a person who goes to the extent of taking and passing two polygraphs attesting that a person who lives nine doors from him was a hoaxer, who could open himself to litigation from that person or from Patricia Patterson should he be lying, thereby causing harm to the profitability of the film as legitimate evidence of Bigfoot.

 

First he provided his own horse. Then when it became known the horse belonged to Heironimus, Gimlin stated he was breaking in the horse for Heironimus. Yet conversely he claims the horse did not throw him as Roger's did because it was an experienced and trailwise horse. He described himself as the horse person, he gets awarded his 51% from a judge partially based on that claim. Then he changes his story completely 180 to having nothing to do with the horses, Roger got them. Roll the dice.

 

He never touched the camera, didn't even know how to work one, wait, no, he filmed Roger various times throughout the, wait, is that three weeks or one?

 

You tracked Patty for three and a half miles? Wait, you never tracked Patty? You watched Roger chasing Patty through the brush, jumping over logs as she fled?

 

What's that? Gimlin says he was never friends with Heironimus?

"I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for a long time, but as far as I'm concerned, he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all. And he probably tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying the've been in a suit down in Norrthern California."

"I'd say the story Bob has come up with is pretty far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. You know, I've confronted Bob on that. I've said, 'Hey, what's going on?' But he won't talk about it. We're still friends. He just lives a little ways from me. I've worked with him and I've done things with Bob. I've rode horses with him. But this thing he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make sense to me."

"I used to trust Bob a lot, but then lately him and the whole family kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this thing is kind of out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."

 

There is no denying Heironimus has changed various elements of his story. Having interviewed Philip and Amy Morris for 5 hours in person, I have to concur with the conclusion of the interviewer for Darkness Radio. I don't accept as fact that a Morris Costumes modified suit is what is seen in the PGF. I do accept, however, that he sold Patterson a suit. I think Morris did on a number of instances significantly contradict himself regarding the nature and quality of the suit. 

 

Compare the 10:20 time mark to the 22:48...

 

http://podbay.fm/show/294988529/e/1402722639?autostart=1

 

I think the biggest tell in the reasoning of Morris that it was his suit used is when he asks how many other suits were there for Patterson to use? This is faulty reasoning on Morris' part and does not at all take into account the possibility that the suit he made was no better for Patterson's purpose than the one Patterson rented from Hollywood in the hoax attempt recounted by Yakima camera store owner Harvey Anderson. That suit not being satisfactory and Al DeAtley funding a better one used in the film is something Morris does not consider because he is convinced solely based, I think, by the fact he did sell Patterson a suit.

 

I think the best point the interviewer makes (34:35) is that if it was only a Girl to Gorilla costume used which was modified in the very specific ways Morris suggests, that it is highly in Morris' interest to then go ahead and make and market and sell such suits as PGF Bigfoot suit replicas.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

 

I don't accept as fact that a Morris Costumes modified suit is what is seen in the PGF. 

 

 

It is a fact that Patty was in no way, shape or form a Morris suit. 

 

It is simply a matter of not nearly enough time...(from early August-to-late October)...for Roger Patterson to have made the quantity, and quality of changes required, to turn a raggedy, fold-o-ramic Morris suit into "Patty". 

 

A thread devoted to illustrating all of the changes required could prove the point....but it isn't really necessary. It's obvious. It is now 46 years 'after the fact'....and nobody has yet to replicate even ONE of Patty's very-realistic features.....how could Roger have accomplished ALL of them, within a time frame of only 9 weeks??? :)

 

That proposal is utterly laughable.......kinda like somebody making these two contradictory claims...

 

kitakaze...2012:

 

But that is the reality if the fate of the PGF suit. It exists and the one who owns it doesn't feel like exposing the hoax. My one advantage is that they are not the only person I am dealing with about it. 

 

And, kitakaze...2014:

I have never dealt with Al DeAtley regarding the PGF. I've made every effort to go around him based on his past behavior with other investigators.

 

 

:lol:

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

I do accept, however, that he sold Patterson a suit.

 

 

If Morris did sell Roger a suit, in August....that would be inconsistent with Roger already having a 'Patty suit' 'in the works' in August.....which was the only alternative scenario to Patty being a modified Morris monstrosity.

 

 

Therefore...if Roger did, in fact, buy a suit from Morris in August, '67.....that would actually constitute very strong evidence that Patty was not a 'suit'. Instead, it would indicate that Roger bought a suit simply for use in his Documentary.

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