PGF debunking debunked

I don’t recall ever having heard of the TV show Making Monsters so I obviously didn’t know they tried to tackle the Patterson-Gimlin figure. And by “tackle” I mean “show to be fake” since the star of the show, effects maker Ed Edmunds, says, “I’ve been wanting to debunk this bigfoot thing forever.”

The set-up is this: Our old friend Phillip Morris apparently goes around and tells people what a load a hokum the PGF is based on how he made the costume and all. In order to make his little talk more effective, he reached out to Edmunds to make him a “state of the art” bigfoot suit. Think about that for a second. This is the guy who made the original. In 1967. But to help demonstrate how the PGF figure is a dude in a suit, he turns to a professional costume and effects manufacturer to make him one using 21st century technology and techniques. OK. This thing is, I bet, going to be pretty awesome.

Here’s the PGF-related segment from the show:

Pretty cool costume. Too bad it looks absolutely nothing like the PGF figure. Hell, it’s not even half as good as the Jack’s Links sasquatch. Also, note the size of the head on the thing and consider that in the context of what Bill Munns told us on BFS 50: The head has to be huge in Edmunds’ suit to fit the head of an actor. The head of the PGF figure is freakishly small.

Here’s some screen caps showing the suit in action.

Newest Morris suit

You can also see all the typical props Morris drags around (including Bob Heironimus) like a monkey mask, football shoulder pads, and what might be a big rubber foot. What I’d rather see Morris do is assemble these bits and pieces into a suit that even passingly resembles the PGF figure. I’m not even talking about replicating the realistic ways the skin and musculature in the movie moves and folds. I’d just like to see Morris, Edmunds, or anyone make a suit that just looks like Patty.

That fact that they can’t — Morris or any other professional — but apparently an out of work miniature stagecoach craftsman like Patterson could speaks volumes and is much more revealing than the neat-yet-totally unbelievable product shown on Making Monsters.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Miscellaneous sasquatchery
9 comments on “PGF debunking debunked
  1. COL (R) Alan C. Hoffheintz says:

    PGF busted by the network the brings us POT PIE PARADISE. Ha! Morons and liars. Every attack on PGF rotates around Patterson’s character rather than dissecting the film. They’ve resorted to character assassination of the dead because they’ve failed on every attack of the film.

    They’re also doing an Honey Island show.

    No mention of the handy print maker that was found though.

    Sent from my iPhone

  2. Nikki says:

    Making monsters never attempted to make the PG Patty bigfoot, he made a completely different one from an already casted ape model he had. He was merely making it because he was paid to make it for Morris. Edmunds already didn’t believe in bigfoot, so there was nothing for him to prove. He was just doing his job…making a monster.

    • Brian Brown says:

      Did you watch the segment? All through it, Edmunds says the PGF is a con. That he’s happy to help Morris expose it as one. Then he produces a crap costume with a cool mask and takes a picture with it like he’s just solve Fermat’s Last Theorem. Sure, he was just doing is job. But this was presented as his demonstration that the PGF was faked and, in that regard, he failed.

  3. I find their lack of breast physics disturbing.
    Just the fact that they make a costume for a male wood ape shows how limited their knowledge of the PG film really is. If the audience really buys their claims based solely upon an assumption that they’re telling the truth, we’re all doomed.

  4. Many eye witnesses claim they have seen male bigfoots that were “anatomically correct”. Considering that Patty in the PGF appears to be an anatomically correct female, and they created an apparently male bigfoot costume, for this program, they did not address the most obvious feature of male anatomy, which leaves no doubt, where maleness is concerned. Obviously, they left out this feature, for the sake of modesty, but, if there are real Bigfoots, they have no such modesty, as some witnesses attest. The problem is, neither Morris, in the PGF supposed hoax, or in this “state of the art” costume program, address the sexuality that some eyewitnesses claim to have seen, including the apparent progeny that have resulted from Bigfoot sexuality. If Bigfoot are real, and have been witnessed by Native Americans even before White men arrived in America, then they have to have been reproducing all this time. That they possess the organs for reproduction, and that they have offspring, is more evidence that Bigfoot is real. I don’t see any evidence that hoaxers would, or have, gone to those lengths, to represent Bigfoot sex organs, in their hoaxes, which is also evidence, that witnesses are seeing real, in their natural state, Bigfoot.

  5. James Smith says:

    the fact that you call it a wood ape shows your limited knowledge on the subject. i do believe the oxford DNA study headed by brian sykes, the go to guy in the world of DNA will support the much maligned kethum study and show your “wood ape” to be some sort relic hominid/human hybrid.

    • Brian Brown says:

      Says you, James. We’ll have to wait and see what Sykes produces (if anything).

      My “knowledge” on the subject is based on my personal experiences and the experiences of those with whom I’m closely associated. I’m happy to stack that up against anyone else’s experiences any day of the week.

    • Donn says:

      Anyone who is pronouncing what this is now is pronouncing from limited knowledge. NAWAC has more skin in the game than you, and their assertion is based on considerable experience.

      No one is going to tell me what this is based on a DNA sequence derived from, praytell, what? Even though observations aren’t taxonomy, so far they back: ape.

  6. Sue Lindley says:

    When I first started spending days and nights in the forests thirteen years ago, I kept an open mind on the question of what the sasquatch really are…human or ape. Based on so much evidence of high intelligence, teeth lacking fangs, fingers with fingernails rather than claws, toes with toenails rather than claws, dermal ridges different than that of great apes
    (excluding man), nine month pregnancies, large male genitalia as opposed to the tiny genitalia of apes, the ability to communicate with voices that sound like an American Indian dialect of some kind, the ability to sing in unison, harmony, melody and beauty, the ability to survive the harm that man could bring to them by staying away from them, blocking roads that bring people too close to their families, and scaring hunters away from their families by pretending to be a wild and vicious beast that will chase hunters back to their trucks, but never harm them. In addition, some sasquatch females cut their and their daughters hair in the front creating neat bangs. They milk cows for milk for themselves and for their children, and steal buckets for that purpose. These are only a few of the reasons that convinced me that they are, indeed, human. I believe that DNA will prove this to be true.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow the BFS blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Your humble hosts
%d bloggers like this: