Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

CONVERSATION WITH AL DEATLEY

Recommended Posts

ThinkAboutPools

I've read where early showings of Star Wars had a man dressed in a touring Darth Vader costume with armor and helmet cast by Rick Baker from the original props. I could see this same type of thing happening for the PGF. I would be interested to see the quality of the bigfoot touring costume; what materials they used; how different it looks from the PGF, etc. DeAtley had children. I wonder if they would talk about this...

That being the case....the problem for the "Suit on display in DeAtley's home" claim....(originally made by 'BrentD')…..is this statement of Brent's, from several years ago...

BrentD claimed that the "suit" looked just like the subject of the PGF. But that scenario doesn't make any sense....based on the reasoning you proposed.

So, if Brent was lying about the appearance of the alleged "suit".....then his claim would most likely be false, in it's entirety

Additionally....several months ago, a new member of the forum...."Bigfoot Canon"....claimed to be the person who was "BrentD"...and renounced his 'Patty suit' story...saying that it was a complete fabrication.

Was this BrentD guy the only person to have ever claimed to have seen a Bigfoot suit displayed in DeAtley's home?

Edited by ThinkAboutPools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

Was this BrentD guy the only person to have ever claimed to have seen a Bigfoot suit displayed in DeAtley's home?

 

 

No, a former member...kitakaze….claimed to have seen the "suit on display"....via a "Skype video call".

 

Here are a couple of threads relating to the claim...

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/38572-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell-2/#comments

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/53328-about-that-alleged-video-stream-of-the-patty-suit/

 

kit's claim was an extension of BrentD's claim...and hence, if Brent's claim was a fabrication.....then so was kit's....and there would never have been a suit on display, at all....(of any type).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I beg to differ. Brent's claim was what inspired kitakaze to investigate the matter. But Kit's actual claim is based on what he describes as first-hand knowledge and perception, seeing a phone-based video streaming image sent by a member of Al's family who reportedly had access to the office and what was in it, and sent the streaming video images to Kit.

 

So even if Brent's claim is shown to be false, that cannot negate Kit's claim of firsthand seeing something streamed to him by a relative in Al's office. Kit's claim must be discounted on it's own basis, regardless of the status of Brent's claim. So far, it hasn't been.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, Bill said:

I beg to differ. Brent's claim was what inspired kitakaze to investigate the matter. But Kit's actual claim is based on what he describes as first-hand knowledge and perception, seeing a phone-based video streaming image sent by a member of Al's family who reportedly had access to the office and what was in it, and sent the streaming video images to Kit.

 

So even if Brent's claim is shown to be false, that cannot negate Kit's claim of firsthand seeing something streamed to him by a relative in Al's office. Kit's claim must be discounted on it's own basis, regardless of the status of Brent's claim. So far, it hasn't been.


 

I agree Kits claims should be separate and evaluated on their own merits.  That’s the proper way things should be done.  However,  It is for kit to prove not for me and others to disprove.  

I don’t buy kits story.  Yet I leave open the possibility someone hoaxed him in some way.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, Bill said:

I beg to differ. Brent's claim was what inspired kitakaze to investigate the matter. But Kit's actual claim is based on what he describes as first-hand knowledge and perception, seeing a phone-based video streaming image sent by a member of Al's family who reportedly had access to the office and what was in it, and sent the streaming video images to Kit.

 

So even if Brent's claim is shown to be false, that cannot negate Kit's claim of firsthand seeing something streamed to him by a relative in Al's office. Kit's claim must be discounted on it's own basis, regardless of the status of Brent's claim. So far, it hasn't been.

 

If BrentD's claim was a fabrication, Bill....then, at the very least, it would be highly unlikely that kit's claim was true.

 

Brent's claim being false would not equate to 100% absolute Proof that kit's claim was false....but, the odds of kit's claim being true...with the main details of it matching-up with someone else's imagined scenario....would be very low. 

 

Also...kitakaze's other false "Proof" claims....(his "Three Confessions" claim, Bob Heironimus' "major Bombshell" revelations, etc.)….indicate a rather low probability of his 'Patty suit' claim having any truth behind it. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:


 

I agree Kits claims should be separate and evaluated on their own merits.  That’s the proper way things should be done.  However,  It is for kit to prove not for me and others to disprove.  

 

 

Actually, Backdoc…..kit's claim could be disproven by others...if some other people felt like investigating his claim.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...