Disscussion of the Patterson film has often raised the question of what ever became of the "monkey suite" worn during the hoax, assuming it was a hoax after all. Its easy to say now several decades later that sice the suite never showed up the sighting must be real. It is worth keeping in mind that an artifact such as a fabricated Bigfoot costume would be a very easy thing to dispose of. It could be cut into pieces and burned in a fireplace or wood stove, both of which are abundant in the Pacific Northwest and either of which would incinerate something like the suite very easily and effectively. Failing that one could have simply gone into the outback and flamed it over a campfire. Same can be said for the Ice Man and most recently the French version of same.

It is unreasonable to expect that the remains of fakes will be kept intact since a successful fake can only remain successful if the evidence is unavailable. So proof positive will only be attained when there is flesh and blood, living or dead, and convincing/excellent exibits can only be taken seriously if there isn't a convolouted story behind the exibit's existance.

"...So proof positive will only be attained when there is flesh and blood, living or dead..." No way. Really? To think I've spent all this Bigfoot time not realizing that. Sarcasm aside, the PGF is a true BF enigma. It looks real, it seems real, and nothing brought forth so far truly explains that it's anything otherwise (except the proof [or lack of] in general that there's any kind of BF creature at all). As far as the PGF 'suit' is concerned, there's more than a few 'lengthy' threads dealing with such, several of which were the result of a certain poster (Dfoot) here claiming that not only could he make the SAME suit with the same materials blah blah, but that he was in fact doing it. Alas, there's still no suit (from anyone - Patterson, Hieronymous, Dfoot et al) in case you were wondering.

I just found it amusing that because a Patterson monkey suit hasn't surfaced that according to some this somehow adds creedence to the film being real.

My point being
1 Fakery evidence is best disposed of at earliest convience.
2 Phony Bigfoot costumes don't present an insurmentable disposal problem.

[quote name='Crow Logic' date='May 20 2007, 05:14 PM' post='386814']
I just found it amusing that because a Patterson monkey suit hasn't surfaced that according to some this somehow adds creedence to the film being real."

Not at all. On the other hand, one must look critically at "monkey suits" of the day and thereafter when comparing the PG film with what the masters have created to date. To do otherwise merely sets one up to amuse while being amused.

Dan

If the PGF is a hoax, those guys certainly missed their calling in life.

Some things are easy to see as fakes, Marx film ect, Wallaces cheap attempt at a suit, Monster suits are hard to fake, look at movies, even Rciks baker whos work is mind blowing . soes not stand up to the scutiny of pause freeze frame and zoom of DVDs. Werewolf of london, King Kong (1976) Greystoke legend of Tarzan)


Of course the patterson film is far away and jerky andover exposed, but it is just as clear or clearer as lets say the wallace suit or marx or what ever and they are clearly fake and the freeman footage is much worse than the patterson and still easy to see signs of fakery,(overly long formearms in my opinion), but I still withhold judgement. I wasnt there and Freeman was, and he is dead and can't answer up.


Point I am making is the Patterson is a special film if it is real(my belief) It is the only real film of on of these animals that can previde info.


If it is a fake then it is the best special effect Gorilla type suit until Gorillas in the mist Didgit suit, and logic dictates that if a champers or some tv guy makoing suits did this why were suits not being done on tvs and movies at that time that look that real, cause they wern't

Incidently with regards to th ePatterson film I do not believe that it is possible to call it a fake as the creature seems as alive on the outside as whatever is responsible for its internal animation/locomotion. Speculatons when they do arise about a monkey suite showing up now 40+ years later is wishfull thinking at best. A suite surviving 1 month after the film would have been expecting a lot.

Why would the suit have been disposed of? If it was a fake you don't just 'get rid' of something that good. Murder was not commited. Having the suit still around somewhere would not have led to Patterson being put on death row so that he had no choice but to get rid of it to save his bacon. If it was a suit then a lot of effort and time would have been expended on it. Why destroy it when further use could have been made of it? Or even for sentimental reasons???? Why just dispose of all that good work and expert attention to detail?? It wouldn't have been hard to have found a place to hide it and that would have been a much more likely scenario than simply disposing of it as quickly as possible. The Police didn't come round to Patterson's house with a search warrant looking for the suit so why would Patterson have panicked and got rid of it????

It's not just the suit either. There must have been drawings, blueprints, pictures taken, film shot etc etc as test runs. We have nothing. Not a sniff of anything has ever surfaced.

Guys let's be honest the main reason why people ask for proof llike a suite to prove that the patterson film is fake is because with have had over a dozen different people claim to be th man in th suite. And this request does seem completely reasonable given the number of people having claimed to have faked it over the years.

You know this has not been said yet in this tread. The film was made in 1967 that means the suit was made in 1966 or 67 if it was a suit. Personally I have never seen a Movie from back in them days that had any costume that was any where near as good as that suit. Even 10 years later when the first star wars was made their wookie suit I do not think was even close to what was in the Patterson film. If it was a suit then it was a really great one that cost some big bucks back then to make. No way anyone would spend that kind of money on a suit to only use 1 time and not even make any money off of it. Patterson did not make any where near the amount of money off that film that it would have cost to buy the suit to start with. If someone is going to put out that sort of money on something they want to at least break even some way with it. I would think they would keep the suit around a while in case they needed a better film or something in order to make their money back at least.

It is sad to say but to me the p&g film is the only real one I have even seen. To add to that even the only real film be it still or moving that I would bet on as real. Even in todays world I am not 100% sure someone could make the same film and have it be able fool people. Just take a look at some of the big budget films like King Kong and you will see even they look like fake animals if you look close and go frame by frame. The p&g film if you look at it frame by frame you see even more reasons to think it is real instead of fake.

I seemed to have missed something .. Who are some of the ' over a dozen ' people who have claimed to be in the suit ?

There have been at least three people to publicly claim to be Patty: Heironymous, Romney, <forgot that other dude's name>. Point is that several had made this claim and these are the just ones who really sought publicity.

PS - It is doubtful that pouncing on an obvious exaggeration abets any argument.

Mitt Romney? There it is! He's lost my vote.

Dan

Romney didn't seek any publicity. In fact, he denied it. The story came from Kal Korff who later endorsed Bob Heironimus even more eagerly.

According to Green, confessors turn up every couple of years. He didn't name names.

There are two (and only two) possibilities:

1) It is a man in a suit, or
2) It is an uncatalogued creature.

You correctly point out that there has been nothing to establish that it is a man in a suit, despite almost desperate attempts to do so.

And there are several aspects that strongly show that it is not a man in a suit.

Yet, despite the thousands of other witness reports, footprint casts, and native oral history, the scientific community and appropriate government agencies have ignored the entire phenomenon, and some of them have done so with prejudice.



Dfoot wasn't building a suit. He was building a lie. He admitted it on this very forum, and is as unrepentant and remorseful as Satan.

Anyone who's see the Classic Sci Fi film 2001 will remember the opening scenes where the Manapes are depicted at the dawn of man. Although 2001 won many awards it failed to win an award for the costumes of the Manapes. I was a case where the costumes were simply too good and it was thought that real apes were used in the movie footage. By the time it was realized that they were actors in suits it was too late to give the film an award. Given that the film in production during 1966 through 1968 it was clearly possible to create extremly realistic Primate costumes.

I've thought about this myself Lyndon, and actually I can think of a number or reasons why the suit (If one ever existed) would be disposed of. Just for argument sake, let's say it was hoaxed, and the intent from step one was to fool the public with the reason for doing that unimportant.

You get yourself a suit from somewhere and it's delivered to your house. You know at this point the only people who know of the existence of this suit is the creator and his staff, and yourself. Before heading to California you show the suit to a limited number of close friends/family all sworn to secrecy. The number of people who know about the suit is still extremely limited and well controlled. Now you go to California to film your costumed actor, all the way down there you're thinking... What if I get pulled over for speeding? What if I have an accident? What if someone breaks into my car and sees the costume? You know if any of these things happen, the entire plan is out the window. Now if in fact there was a thought of possibly a significant amount of money might be earned by this video, that would make the stress level even higher.

So now you finish filming your bigfoot movie, and it's time to return to Washington. Again you start having those little "What If's" dance around in your head and again you realize if any of those things happen, it's over. You decide it's best to dispose of the suit to lessen the chance of it every being discovered, you don't want to mess up the possibility there may be money made on this film. So how would you dispose of it? You wouldn't want to simply drop it off in a dumpster or in a garbage can along the way back to Washington, it may be discovered. Burn it? I wouldn't, if synthetics were used in it's construction some of those can create very dark or dense smoke. You wouldn't want to attract anyone's attention like a forest ranger or fire spotter. So where would you dispose of it and how, without attracting attention and lessen the chance it will ever be found, you bury it.

If it was me, I would bury it very near the location where the filming was done. I would make sure it was buried far enough from the water and high enough that any subsequent flooding would not uncover it in the future. I would bury it in a place that would be easily camoflagued to hide shovel marks and cover the newly dug up earth. Possibly on the edge of a brush pile, or simply below some pine/fir trees where the needles could be stewn back over to cover the evidence of the digging. Or even under a pile of rocks the could also mask the digging.

So, if there was any metal in the construction of a costume, zippers etc, you have a possibility of finding it, if you look in the right place and IF it exists. Just use a metal detector and follow the same route they rode into and out of the filming area with their horses. I'd limit my search to 150 feet on both sides of the trail I doubt there would have been a need to go further into the woods, and cover the filming location thoroughly. If you find anything remember it was my idea.

Or you burn the suite at night when the potential thick black smoke won't be seen by Rangers. A decent size open campfire started after dusk and fed with dry wood and managable pieces of the suite would finish the deal in a few hours.

So my belief is that a suite was never found was because the film is real and no suite was ever needed or its a hoax and the evidence was disposed of quickly. A hoax suite lingering on for years if not decades makes no sense. So the lack of one dosen't add creednece either way.

A phony suit in 1967 probably cost close to $500. You know what that is like in today's dollars. It is probably around the cost of a very good used car today, maybe around $4,000. Wasn’t this supposed to be about money?

Dispose of a suit when no one knew how good of a hoax it would prove to be? It couldn't have been done until John Green and Rene Dahinden endorsed the film. Wouldn't you be watched in doing something like this after announcing to the world that you have a film of a living hairy giant ape in North America?

And if this particular film didn’t get the response wouldn’t the suit prove useful to keep around for a second attempt. And speaking of a second attempt, all that supposed money they made off the first film would have prompted ole Roger to do it again don’t you think?

Undoubtedly Patterson had, like many others in Washington State back then, a burn barrel in their yard. Burning a suit would be the surest way of disposing of the suit. Of course burning it can not be left unattended for fear of unburned portions. Was the suit flame retardant? Ok how about burying it? But where? On their own property? Is Mrs. Patterson still living on the same property? Has she moved as of recently? Would she have been in on a suited hoax?

I can see the headlines now…

Developers uncover Bigfoot Time Capsule in Yakima Valley. Did someone skin Bigfoot years ago or is this the birthday suit of Roger Patterson’s filmed hoax?

I agree with Rick and I've said it before........why on earth dispose of a brilliant suit that obviously took a lot of time and effort to produce?? You don't just 'get rid' of something like that, particularly when the 'sasquatch police' were not exactly banging on Patterson's door trying to arrest him for fraud. Patterson had no need at all to panic and get rid of the 'incriminating' evidence so why should he get rid of it???? He could have hidden the suit in his house and kept it under wraps and in a box or a chest until he might want to use it again.

A suit like that would be something to be proud of. You don't just chop up and burn a creation of yours like that. I have a hard time believing anybody would do such a thing.....particularly as it could well have been very very useful for the future.

And all this is not even taking into account the money the suit would have cost.