Alleged Suits & Morris Missteps
Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 5th, 2008
The shifting story of Philip Morris’ involvement in the supposed costume that “he made” for the Patterson-Gimlin film is remarkably silly.
First, the suit was made from horse hide, according to one author. But that story changed to then say it was a Morris costume. However, no one even claimed that until almost 40 years after the fact. This was followed by attempts to say so-and-so was in the suit or that the costume had disappeared or that Morris couldn’t seem to produce even the same kind of suit that matched the film.
Now, however, he has “created” a new one, supposedly that is a dead ringer for the creature in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Who is he kidding?
Does Morris’ newly created costume, based entirely on his repeated viewings of the Patterson-Gimlin footage even look like a match for the original creature? Can anyone actually claim he created the alleged suit for 1967?
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
LOL!
Like I said the first time someone forwarded that silly promotional flier to me, the closest that thing gets to Patty is that you might be able to pass it off as her shorter, squatter, ugly little sister (to Tom Biscardi or someone else who thinks fake suits look “real”).
Bluff Creek National Park? Does the NPS know about this? I live about 100 miles from Bluff Creek and don’t recall a National Park there. It’s misinformation that just kills your credibility. I remember a station out of Sacramento on the anniversary of the Patterson/Gimlin footage talking about how JOHN? Patterson had shot in 1968? SUPER 8? footage of Bigfoot. Hmmmmm……
According to the promotional copy in the article above, this show played on November 19th? Would’ve loved to have seen it… did anyone get a chance to check it out? Looks mind numbingly hilarious.
I LOVE a good Morris dance!
Wow. That is – the only word I can come up with is “Biscardian.”
OK. Bob Hieronymous rivaled this one for silliness. But didn’t exceed it.
That figure is as obviously human as any of the crap I’ve seen on Youtube.
Bluff Creek National Park. I am going to have to change my PANTS here.
So, this joker down. Hieronymous down. Chambers didn’t do it, because he said he didn’t. And I’m so sure he would have disowned his greatest creation (no, he never did anything else even close) on his deathbed.
That is, um, everybody that has stepped up. (Or been propped up.)
Starting to think this little film might be the real deal, aren’t we?
What sasquatch scoffers have gotten away with offering as their counter to the proponents’ mountain of evidence – shame on that naughty John Patterson and his sidekick, Roger Gremlin! – is an eternal monument to human ignorance and credulity.
I’d sooner believe they can disappear at will, or beam up to a starship fercryinoutloud, than this malarkey. Wouldn’t you?
Maybe this is why we haven’t seen much of our friend Benjamino Radford lately.
He’s so embarrassed, he’s out there looking now!
It sort of resembles Patty in the way a halloween costume resembles a werewolf or vampire, it just looks like a guy in a suit. But is it because we know it’s a guy in a suit? I tend to lean towards the Patterson film as being genuine. Is this because I don’t know who it is or because it’s an unknown animal? How much of certain elements are we influenced by?
squatchwatcher: OK, you raise an interesting question.
But.
When I first saw P/G – after decades of viewing the stills and going, what IS that? – my first response was the stifled guffaw through closed lips that we’re all familiar with. I mean, it looked human, and goofy at that. On first look.
But then I kept watching it. I obviously had no “desire to believe;” I don’t believe anyone has that who responded the way I did, and I’d been leaning all along, based on the stills alone, toward it being genuine. I read the analysis by qualified people in relevant fields, but I couldn’t put that to what I was seeing. (Which is why I’m not a qualified person in a relevant field.)
The more I looked, the less human it looked.
The Patty stills never looked funny to me. I mean giggle funny. The ones above, well, they do.
But my approach might be different if I’d heard a yahoo chorus of qualified people shout down Patty, and no one with chops coming in on her side.
I guess I can say these things:
1. I cannot utterly rule out Patty as a hoax.
2. It seems to me that Patterson and Gimlin’s story is so believable, and so backed by the evidence, and the hoax so hard to do that, to me, the genuine animal is easier to accept (given what I know which is far more than most folks do on this subject).
3. There will always be many factors that influence you, in various ways. And the factors that line up behind Patty – and against this one – are very decisive to me.
That is, to ME.
I’d be interested in what others have to say.