Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[OntarioSquatch]

Mr. Morris was claiming it's the original. I have no idea what he meant by original, but clearly both him and BobH are lying about their involvement with the film.

 

[Resume]

BobH in the "original" suit made by Philip Morris:

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/inhnnm.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/rtias7.jpg[/qimg]

Patty :

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/155qgrs.jpg[/qimg]

Anyone claiming a marked material difference between the two monkey suits exposes his/her credulity. But I dunno, perhaps some unnecessary, though highly ironic crayon scribblings are in order.

Even if Patterson didn't make a dime on his little venture, he must've banked a vaultload of chuckles at the antics of the gawping gullible.

 

[William Parcher]

Mr. Morris was claiming it's the original. I have no idea what he meant by original, but clearly both him and BobH are lying about their involvement with the film.

Post the Morris quote. Don't just explain - post his exact words and their source.

 

[LTC8K6]

Mr. Morris was claiming it's the original. I have no idea what he meant by original, but clearly both him and BobH are lying about their involvement with the film.

Remember that skeptics have no need to show who might have worn or made a suit for the PGF.

Proving that it wasn't BH and it wasn't that suit wouldn't really say much about the film's authenticity anyway.

For the record, I have never believed BH's story and have never thought he wore the suit for the PGF. I think he is a typical late "joiner" in a hoax.

I have also never felt the need to decide who might have worn the suit or made the suit.

I have no problem with other people believing him, but I think it's a mistake for skeptics to go down the road of deciding who wore or made the suit.

Unless there is proof, of course. Proof or good evidence trumps everything.

 

[William Parcher]

What do you think is the most damning to the PGF patty cake bible?

Well it's the lack of a Bigfoot creature on this planet.

It's trivial to talk about details of what is seen in the film. Those things don't really matter one way or the other because the most damning thing (above) destroys all things in its path.

IOW, purported evidence for Bigfoot is destroyed by the fact that we have no Bigfoot at all.

If you were presented with a unicorn film it would be silly to talk about the bit of glue you can see holding the horn on the horse. Why bother? The only reason to talk about it would be if you have a subculture of loons insisting that it is real. Even then it's pretty silly to engage those people.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Here it is, from his own website

 

[Resume]

Here it is, from his own website

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/vgn2hy.png[/qimg]

Is there a point?

 

[William Parcher]

Two obvious untruths...

1. This is the original costume.
2. Fooled millions.

 

[GT/CS]

Here it is, from his own website

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/vgn2hy.png[/qimg]

Assuming you know a little about the PGF and Roger's history with the suit what part of, "Roger modified the suit he purchased from Morris" do you not understand?

 

[William Parcher]

On second thought I have to say OS that that is not necessarily a Morris quote. That is an ad. It may have been written by a marketing person who is spouting trash in an attempt to sell.

You need to do more work to show that Morris himself is calling the recently-made costume "the original".

 

[William Parcher]

Chris, I definately think Bobo and Matt $-Maker fall into that group, well, Matt is more Salesman, Cliff is the target audience

If you pay attention you see that Barackman is a Bigfoot salesman. He is constantly selling the audience (TV and web) on the idea that Bigfoot is real.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why hasn't Morris been sued to stop the claims?

 

[Northern Lights]

Why hasn't Morris been sued to stop the claims?

Lawsuits can be very expensive. I read recently where Bills Munns was considering bringing a suit against someone (not Morris) but couldn't afford the attorney fees.

 

[William Parcher]

Munns was banned from this forum for threatening to sue. That didn't cost anybody a penny. Good stuff can be accomplished for free.

 

[Northern Lights]

I knew he had been banned, but did not know why.

 

[GT/CS]

Lawsuits can be very expensive. I read recently where Bills Munns was considering bringing a suit against someone (not Morris) but couldn't afford the attorney fees.

The reason we have so many lawsuits in the U.S. is because lawyers' fees are a poriton of the settlement. That way anyone can sue anyone else and it doesn't cost a dime if the suit is successful. There is no reason Munns can't sue someone unless the suit is so ridiculous no lawyer will take it on a percentage basis and demands to be paid hourly.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lawsuits can be very expensive. I read recently where Bills Munns was considering bringing a suit against someone (not Morris) but couldn't afford the attorney fees.

If they can't afford to file a lawsuit to stop a claim that their famous film is a hoax, they can at least come out and show us that the claim is false.

 

[Northern Lights]

If they can't afford to file a lawsuit to stop a claim that their famous film is a hoax, they can at least come out and show us that the claim is false.

Here you go: http://youtu.be/O0a5eaoR1U0

 

[Drewbot]

Ummm. 50 minutes of Bill? really? you are not going to at least give us a starting point?

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

Here you go: http://youtu.be/O0a5eaoR1U0

Bill Munns is a bigfoot believer, and has been long before he started his attempt to attain bigfoot-celebrity status. He has also completely blown any credibility or benefit of the doubt by-standers might have given him.

Why should I pay attention to a word he says, let alone sit down and watch close to an hour of him blabbing away? I already know how it ends. Patterson filmed a bigfoot, it's the only explanation.