Jump to content
Terry

Was It A Suit?

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

^^^^

 

Unlike other movie suits (king kong, lost in space, and so on) the Blevins suit and the Bob-the-Ewok suit are direct attempts to make a Patty suit and debunk the PGF.

 

That is why the utter cringe-worthy result is such a big deal.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

He was given a week's notice in October by the independent studio that NatGeo outsourced for Is it Real?, he paid for his own flight and was never paid for his participation in the production. He took no money, only paid his own.

 

It looks like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

Now that is funny...

 

"According to Morris he was given a short deadline by the TV producers at Halloween season (his busiest time) and couldn't acquire more appropriate fur material and couldn't devote much time to it. Bigfooters have been told that countless times but ignore it and forge ahead with assertions that it is a failure in spite of determined best efforts. I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty. That kind of argument strategy cheat is used fairly commonly in Bigfootery." -William Parcher

 

While this Mr. William Parcher fella an yourself kitakaze, continue to try an come up with excuses for what I have ta assume are the same reason the rest of us think his recreation attempt looks like crap. I find it strangely interestin' Morris seemed completely fine with it, this is his own advertisement is it not ? He actually claims to have the original costume that fooled millions ! I know you are familiar with the image kitakaze, I'm goin' ta reckon this Mr. William Parcher is as well. Intellectually dishonest, an argument strategy cheat...oh really...an just who's guilty of that ?

 

Pat...

 

 

post-279-0-01698000-1428711146.png

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes Kitakaze, if you wish to believe what Morris says is true and correct information then what say you when Morris claims he has the "..the original costume that fooled millions the world over.." on display??

Try and twist that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

I question whether Morris was even selling costumes in 1967.  When looking for information on his gorilla costumes of that era, I ran across the following two items.  It's interesting that these older articles give a 1970s date for the start of the costume business, whereas anything done post 2000 gives 1960s dates.

 

I found this article written in 1988: http://creepymagic.com/spooksters/phillipmorris.html

 

 

It is still on the road today (1988).

 

...In the mid-1970s Phil left the road to he able to spend time at home with his wife and daughter. He continued to book attractions but started a show business related enterprise: Morris Costumes. He started this small costume rental business out of his home. It became prosperous and continued to grow as he often bought out costumes from ice shows and Broadway productions.

 

I could be like the skeptics and stop there making it seem as though Morris Costumes wasn't started until the mid-1970s, but I present as much information as I can - pro or con.  The above article gives a lot of detail about Morris and his history.  More accurate information about the costume business itself probably comes from this article where Amy Morris is interviewed:

 

 

post-134-0-67602300-1428740950.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Very interesting, JC. This is definitely worth investigating further. :)


Yes Kitakaze, if you wish to believe what Morris says is true and correct information then what say you when Morris claims he has the "..the original costume that fooled millions the world over.." on display??

Try and twist that one.

 

 

That claim of Phil's is 100% pure deception, Neander. Even kit can't spin that one. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

That suit *stinks.*  And it's done off an animal that we have hundreds of in captivity and have known is real for over a century.  Shoot, they can't even get the hair right.

 

He's immersed in the industry all right.  And that is all he's immersed in.  The diff between him and Munns is the diff between mainstream scientists and proponent scientists:  the latter aren't immersed in groupthink.

 

*That suit stinks.*

 

And we are supposed to presume that, in 1967, Patterson and Gimlin created a suit of such subtlety that it's fooling qualified scientists almost a half century later?  OK, hey!  I think centaurs are real, too.


(Oh.  Baggy saggy baggy saggy bagsag butt.  Did I mention that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

I question whether Morris was even selling costumes in 1967.  When looking for information on his gorilla costumes of that era, I ran across the following two items.  It's interesting that these older articles give a 1970s date for the start of the costume business, whereas anything done post 2000 gives 1960s dates.

 

I found this article written in 1988: http://creepymagic.com/spooksters/phillipmorris.html

 

 

I could be like the skeptics and stop there making it seem as though Morris Costumes wasn't started until the mid-1970s, but I present as much information as I can - pro or con.  The above article gives a lot of detail about Morris and his history.  More accurate information about the costume business itself probably comes from this article where Amy Morris is interviewed:

 

I believe he was pretty much strictly making gorilla and bear costumes in the early '60s, later expanding in the early seventies or so when he bought out a costume supply store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

kitakaze,

 

Now that is funny...

 

"According to Morris he was given a short deadline by the TV producers at Halloween season (his busiest time) and couldn't acquire more appropriate fur material and couldn't devote much time to it. Bigfooters have been told that countless times but ignore it and forge ahead with assertions that it is a failure in spite of determined best efforts. I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty. That kind of argument strategy cheat is used fairly commonly in Bigfootery." -William Parcher

 

While this Mr. William Parcher fella an yourself kitakaze, continue to try an come up with excuses for what I have ta assume are the same reason the rest of us think his recreation attempt looks like crap. I find it strangely interestin' Morris seemed completely fine with it, this is his own advertisement is it not ? He actually claims to have the original costume that fooled millions ! I know you are familiar with the image kitakaze, I'm goin' ta reckon this Mr. William Parcher is as well. Intellectually dishonest, an argument strategy cheat...oh really...an just who's guilty of that ?

 

Pat...

Maybe Morris actually had ample time and made the suit but made the sob story up to cover the lousy product he produced.  Unless the dates of the work order are documented it can't be proven either way.  But according to Phil Morris he is the premier monkey suit maker so such a professional with all those years of expertise should have produced a better suit.  I think even if you'd given him 6 months the result would have been nearly as bad.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Crowlogic,

 

Agreed, simply excuses for suit in need of excuses !

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog

Hey, I heard a rumor that_________________________________!

 

(you fill in the blank)

 

Anything you put down will be just as accurate as the next in regards to the PGF.  We can go back and forth on this subject all day, and have many times, and never, ever come to a consensus on what really happened that day.  I would suggest we all move along to something more provable, one way or the other, but considering human nature and the need to never be proven wrong, the debate will surge on unabated.  Those who believe it was an animal will take nothing less than the actual and verified suit.  Those who think it was a suit will take nothing less than an actual creature as proof, and then will probably say that it was still a suit in that particular film.  There is just no winning this argument either way, all we are doing is fanning the flames to a fire that never burns out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hmm, well, as a relative newcomer to the board and this particular discussion, I'd say this:

 

It appears that the "Real" camp has done a lot more in terms of presenting compelling evidence that it could not have been a suit,

 

whereas the "Suit" camp hasn't really presented anything other than rumors.

 

 

Open to correction if I'm wrong and missed some important evidence....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are 100% spot on and thus do not need to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

If Morris made a bigfoot suit in 1967 then he should have no problem remaking another one now or somebody else for that matter.  Please.. someone make a suit and let's see it.  Not a gorilla suit, a Patty suit, we will all be waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Morris has never made any claim about making a Bigfoot suit in 1967.

Patty enthusiasts want to be accommodated. Meanwhile, BFF poll shows that only 21 percent of the people participating would have a good recreation do anything in terms of considering the PGF a hoax...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/12020-would-a-good-recreation-of-patty-affect-your-belief-in-the-pgf/

Biggandalf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...