Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Sakari

any questions for Philip Morris?

71 posts in this topic

So other then his Word, is there any evidence? A book or ledger with accounts, or receipts? A letter? A phone bill? Anything that could tie Morris to Patterson? It sounds like the same story he was telling back in 2003, except probably a lot more polished.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he mention anything about John Chambers or any of the other guys mentioned in the articles below?

In fact, for years it has been "generally known" in the Hollywood special effects makeup community that Academy Award® winning makeup artist John Chambers fabricated the suit in the Patterson Bigfoot film.

In 1967 Chambers created the makeup for Planet of the Apes, which was released in 1968. The Patterson film was allegedly shot on October 20, 1967

I next heard about Chambers making the Patterson Bigfoot Suit in 1995, from effects makeup artist Dave Kindlon. Dave was working with his wife Colleen on an animatronic cat for Disney's remake of That Darn Cat at the time.

http://www.strangema...chambers17.html

Rumors circulated that the creature seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film was a suit designed by movie special effects expert John Chambers, who designed the ape costumes seen in many of the original Planet of the Apes films, and was reportedly an acquaintance of Ray Wallace and Bob Gimlin.

http://monsterkidcla...=1#.UapI7ZwhMok

There are also rumours that Patterson rented the suit off Chambers.

I did not get into that. I asked about evidence and such. I am busy right now, but I will respond better later on this.

So other then his Word, is there any evidence? A book or ledger with accounts, or receipts? A letter? A phone bill? Anything that could tie Morris to Patterson? It sounds like the same story he was telling back in 2003, except probably a lot more polished.

No evidence Die. I can not make anything up. We just had a friendly chat on the phone. He was nice enough to call me ( twice ) knowing I am no one, and that I was not writing a journal or a book. He new it was for personal reasons only. To me, that says something. He mentioned he gets a ton of requests for interviews and such, and he rareley does them.He said he could be booked every day with them.

Anyway, I have no evidence, I only have what he said to me, and how he talked to me like a friend. He did not try to convince me of anything. We actually talked more about other things then Bigfoot. He told me if I were ever in the area to let him know.

He is sending me a copy of a arrest warrant for Patterson. ( I am sure some know of this )

He told me of a cool story with National Geographic, doing a shoot in Washington. Sounded recent, but it may have been older. It was with the suit.

Funny stuff, I will post it later.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this be the arrest warrant for the overdue rental bill for the camera?

Strange he kept a copy of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this be the arrest warrant for the overdue rental bill for the camera?

Strange he kept a copy of that.

Yes, and it is kind of lame, and even Phil said that.

The charges were dropped on that......

It is just one of many things showing that Patterson was a con man, and a fraud, and a liar.....Kind of one piece of evidence for those still trying to prove anything.

It is not something he " kept ", he just happened to have a copy of it, and we discussed it, so he asked for my address to send a copy. Phil used to do talks on this. I need to go back and find the name of the book his daughter suggested. I think it may be a very good read, I have seen it on other sites also.....Nothing Morris or anyone he knows wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an overdue library book once. Am I considered a con man?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an overdue library book once. Am I considered a con man?

Apples and Oranges....

Go rent a riding lawnmower worth about $1200.00 and not return it.

Whatever the price of that camera and whatever else he rented was, would have been a felony to get a warrant. Also, getting a warrant from something like that means a " failure to appear "......

As I said, " some people " use that as one piece of many pieces of evidence supporting he was not a respectable person.

Me, I have not looked into all of that, as my mind has been made up a very long time, and I am convinced the film is a hoax, and Bif does not exist. So, I really have no chips on the table for this. I am just passing on information from my conversation is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem, I think everyone should be reminded that at least in the U.S., we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. An arrest warrant can indeed be issued over misdemeanors, which may be something as minor as a traffic violation, and are not exclusive to felonies.

While there was an arrest warrant issued on Patterson for Grand Larceny, which is over $400, and while often is classified as a felony, it is not always a felony. We should also know that those charges were dropped and there was no trial let alone any conviction in a criminal court. As to the reasons why it was issued, we should know that from 1964 to 1983, "a constitutionally adequate affidavit comprised exclusively or primarily of hearsay information had to have contained information suggesting to the examining magistrate that (1) the hearsay declarant supplying the information to the police was a credible person, and (2) that the hearsay declarant had a strong basis of knowledge for the alleged facts." Since 1983, a constitutionally sufficient affidavit must support a conclusion by a reviewing magistrate that the "totality of the circumstances" suggest that there is a fair probability that the facts relied on by the police to find probable cause to arrest are in fact valid; the magistrate will balance "the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending an informant's tip."

If today a magistrate just needs a 'fair probability' that the facts are valid, what about prior to 1983?

I believe the date for the warrant's issue was October 17th, 1967, and for Patterson for not paying the bill on the long overdue camera, which does suggest he was low on money three days prior to his October 20th film.

Having an arrest warrant issued on a person does not automatically incriminate them. People may wish to view Patterson as a con person or a fraud, but he is still entitled to the fact that the District Attorney decided to drop the charges and he was never tried let alone convicted of a crime. We do not know why the charges were drop, but the reasons are likely in the court transcripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah he couldn't pay his camera hire bill, but could easily whip up $450 for a monkey suit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah he couldn't pay his camera hire bill, but could easily whip up $450 for a monkey suit.

And it would be nothing more than speculation that the reason he didn't pay the bill for the camera is because he bought an ape suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and it is kind of lame, and even Phil said that.

The charges were dropped on that......

It is just one of many things showing that Patterson was a con man, and a fraud, and a liar.....Kind of one piece of evidence for those still trying to prove anything.

It is not something he " kept ", he just happened to have a copy of it, and we discussed it, so he asked for my address to send a copy. Phil used to do talks on this. I need to go back and find the name of the book his daughter suggested. I think it may be a very good read, I have seen it on other sites also.....Nothing Morris or anyone he knows wrote.

The allegations by many Hollywood makeup artists that makeup master John Chambers made the suit have been snowballing since my investigation into this subject began several years ago.

There was extreme pressure on Patterson to produce Bigfoot footage quickly. An arrest warrant was brought against Patterson for not paying the bill for his long overdue, rented camera. He was up against a wall and had to come up with a film of a Bigfoot. There are two possibilities--that he is the luckiest Bigfoot searcher in history or that he is a hoaxer. Patterson not only was able to supposedly film a Bigfoot but was also lucky enough to allegedly find fresh Bigfoot tracks on the very first day that he went into the field. Maybe he was a little too lucky with regard to Bigfoot.

http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

First, the arrest warrant was not a secret, anyone could have got a copy of that.

Nothing personal against you Sakari, I am just saying that its very strange that if Chambers is the main man here then why did Morris not say it was no so? Thats the first thing I would expect him to have tried to proof was not so. Unless he had dealings with Chambers himself, but again, why not mention it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The allegations by many Hollywood makeup artists that makeup master John Chambers made the suit have been snowballing since my investigation into this subject began several years ago.

There was extreme pressure on Patterson to produce Bigfoot footage quickly. An arrest warrant was brought against Patterson for not paying the bill for his long overdue, rented camera. He was up against a wall and had to come up with a film of a Bigfoot. There are two possibilities--that he is the luckiest Bigfoot searcher in history or that he is a hoaxer. Patterson not only was able to supposedly film a Bigfoot but was also lucky enough to allegedly find fresh Bigfoot tracks on the very first day that he went into the field. Maybe he was a little too lucky with regard to Bigfoot.

http://www.strangema...onfilm30th.html

First, the arrest warrant was not a secret, anyone could have got a copy of that.

Nothing personal against you Sakari, I am just saying that its very strange that if Chambers is the main man here then why did Morris not say it was no so? Thats the first thing I would expect him to have tried to proof was not so. Unless he had dealings with Chambers himself, but again, why not mention it?

Nothing personal taken. I posted it is a mute point anyway, charges were dropped. Also posted I did not care :)

Phil did tell me I could google it and find it myself, it is on a few sites. He was not claiming it to be a secret at all. It was news to me, so he felt he would send it to me as a nice gesture.

No questions were asked about Chambers.....

I had a feeling this would happen. I asked for questions for Morris, got very few, and now people are going to question things after the fact.......( not just you, and nothing personal either )

ARGHHHHHHHH

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing personal taken. I posted it is a mute point anyway, charges were dropped. Also posted I did not care :)

Phil did tell me I could google it and find it myself, it is on a few sites. He was not claiming it to be a secret at all. It was news to me, so he felt he would send it to me as a nice gesture.

No questions were asked about Chambers.....

I had a feeling this would happen. I asked for questions for Morris, got very few, and now people are going to question things after the fact.......( not just you, and nothing personal either )

ARGHHHHHHHH

I am actually doing the ARGHHHHHH bit too, cos I wish I had asked you to ask him that. Never mind, save it for next time, or hopefully you mentioned this site and that he was being discussed, he may join up and comment himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually doing the ARGHHHHHH bit too, cos I wish I had asked you to ask him that. Never mind, save it for next time, or hopefully you mentioned this site and that he was being discussed, he may join up and comment himself.

He will not join. From what I gathered, he is done with it really. He said his piece and has moved on. He looks at Bigfoot the same way I do, but he does not feel any need to try to show people why they do not exist. I also doubt I will talk to him again. He was a very nice guy, but I do not see me calling to ask any more questions. I believe ( yup, I said it " believe " ) he sold a suit to Patterson, and I also have no need to try to convince anyone on my belief.

I did have Chambers in my mind, but once we started talking, and it turned into a discussion with two friends ( that is how it felt ) I lost the thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I appreciate your effort in this case but you have to accept this. Morris has not said anything that we have not heard already. In fact he can offer no more evidence than you can that the person who phoned you was even Morris. Lets face it you only have his word for it that that was the person on the phone.

It could well have been Peter Pan, especially from a man who turns down press interviews everyday, how did he establish you were not another reporter?

The more I hear about Morris, the more a fantasist he sounds. Especially now we have learned he believes he invented the whole sasquatch/Bigfoot myth (bit like he believed he invented the Austin Powers bad guy).

Maybe he should grab a history book and learn about the native Americans who lived there centuries before the European migrants. They have well documented cave drawings of a large hairy man, I am more inclined to believe it came from them.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Being unaware prior that Morris had a copy of Patterson's warrant, and how things operate temporally, a question I would have liked to have asked is why he has a copy of an unrelated person's 40+ year old arrest warrant but not financial records of his business from the same time frame.

Sure we can say why keep financial records that long, but at the same time we can ask why have a copy of an arrest warrant of a non-family member, and deceased person, just as old.

I know they are public record and all, but 'happen to have' versus 'keeping' can be a thin line to cross after almost 50 years.

Edited by Insanity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Being unaware prior that Morris had a copy of Patterson's warrant, and how things operate temporally, a question I would have liked to have asked is why he has a copy of an unrelated person's 40+ year old arrest warrant but not financial records of his business from the same time frame.

Sure we can say why keep financial records that long, but at the same time we can ask why have a copy of an arrest warrant of a non-family member, and deceased, person just as old.

I know they are public record and all, but 'happen to have' versus 'keeping' can be a thin line to cross after almost 50 years.

Thought I answered that.

He does not have a copy sitting in a file. It sounded like it is from a book. He, as any of us, started looking into Patterson, well after the film was released. He did not care about the film for a very long time. I believe it was around 2003 that he started investigating it more, after he released his information.

He found the warrant around that time, in a book, or on the internet.

He is sending me a copy, of a copy.

Hope that explains it.

As for reciepts, same thing. Hi company has been the number 1 costume seller for years. Keeping reciepts from over 40 years ago is un heard of for any company like that. I believe the standard is 7 years for tax purposes.

Also, as I said, until 2003 or so, He had no interest in the Patterson film. I think his interest sparked after seeing more and more debates, and the crap on Discovery channel and such.....

How Long Should You Keep Business Records?

  • Business Income Tax Returns and Supporting Documents.It makes sense to keep a final copy of your business income tax returns and related correspondence with the IRS permanently to help you prepare future or amended returns. The IRS recommends that you retain supportive records that corroborate any business income or deductions claim until the “period of limitations” expires for that tax return. The period of limitation is the time period from your filing date in which either you might seek to amend your return for a credit or refund or the IRS may pursue your business for additional taxes. Typically, the IRS can come after your business for failing to report income for up to 6 years after your filing if the amount is greater than 25% of your business’s gross income. If you filed for a deduction for a bad debt or worthless security, the IRS suggests you keep your supporting tax records for 7 years. Under these circumstances, you may generally wish to retain your supportive records for at least 7 years.
  • Employment Tax Records. If you have employees, the IRS suggests that you retain all employment tax records for a minimum of 4 years after the date those taxes were due or were paid, whichever is later. These employment tax records include such items as your employer identification number, amounts and dates of wage, annuity and pension payments and tax deposits, the names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment and occupations of employees and records of allocated tips and fringe benefits.
  • Business Asset Records. If business property is involved, the IRS recommends retaining your records until the period of limitations ends from the year you disposed of that property. These records will aid you in calculating applicable depreciation, amortization or depletion deductions and to determine any gain or loss on that property. If the business property is real estate or a vehicle, keep the deed or vehicle title in a safe, secure spot until you sell or otherwise properly dispose of that property.
  • Business Ledgers and Other Key Documents. CPAs tend to be a conservative group and will often recommend that businesses keep their journal entries, profit and loss statements, financial statements, check registers and general business ledgers permanently. Similarly, major business documents, like annual reports, corporate by-laws and amendments, Board of Director information, annual meeting minutes and business formation documents, should also be retained on a permanent basis. Aside from supportive tax records, other documents such as accounts payable/receivable ledgers, invoices and expense reports should be retained for a minimum of 7 years.
  • Human Resources Files. You may have numerous other employment files related to current and former employees and applicants to your firm. Excluding employment tax records, files relating to current employees should be retained while they are working for you and at least 7 years after a current or former employee has left or been terminated. For any job applicants who were not eventually hired, keep these files for at least 3 years. If an employee has suffered an accident on the job, consider retaining those records for at least 7 years after that matter was finally resolved or up to 10 years after which any workers compensation benefits were paid. If an employee lodged a discrimination claim against your business, consider retaining those records for at least 4 years after the case is finally concluded. Think about keeping records of employee benefit, pension payment or profit sharing plans permanently.
  • Cancelled Checks. Cancelled checks without a tax or other significant business purpose can normally be destroyed after about 7 years. If a cancelled check is a supporting tax document, then follow the IRS rules discussed above.
  • Bank Account and Credit Card Statements. Generally, these records should also be retained for about 7 years. This retention period may be longer if they are supporting documents for tax purposes. However, if these statements have no tax or other key business purpose, then consider retaining your business’s detailed annual statements for 7 years and disposing of underlying monthly statements after about a year.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We will just go round in circles. He can show absolutely nothing to prove anything, other than we should believe him 100%.

I guess he doesn't believe he needs anything else as he is behind the whole Myth/legend.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will just go round in circles. He can show absolutely nothing to prove anything, other than we should believe him 100%.

I guess he doesn't believe he needs anything else as he is behind the whole Myth/legend.

Why go rounds and rounds?

I all ready agreed, he has no evidence.

And you are correct, he could care less if people believe him or not. He has a good life, a good family business, a goo financial situation also.

He released what he did, he went along with a couple requests from Networks, and is done with it. National Geographic was a awesome story......The guy that was wearing the suit was supposed to get $1,000.00 for doing that. He did not get paid yet.

Anyway, he released what he did, he does not care if anyone believe him or not, he has no reason to go through a trial on it.

I agree, and I agree there is no paper evidence, and I also see why there would be none.

No need to go round and round......:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I would hardly call it we are making any progress.

Maybe Morris can come up with an original costume of that era, he said he sold at least one a month. All he has shown so far is a replica of the Bigfoot produced much later.

Maybe then we could see how much it resembled it and how easy it would be modified. What happened to all his costumes?

He said he recognised it as his costume, strange none of his customers who owned one didn't.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He said he recognised it as his costume, strange none of his customers who owned one didn't.

I posted 2 pics of those costumes....

How do you know?

In reality, percentage wise, not many people give a rats ass about " bigfoot ", and especially the Patterson Film.

We are a minority Skookum, this topic is not as popular as you may think to the " general population "......

Where are the costumes and those people?....Hmm...sold in the 60's and 70's....And they were around their 30's to 40's?

You do the math.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is definately one thing Patterson had against him. Anyone that checked even a little would see he was exactly the kind of guy that WOULD fake such a thing. That is why he brought Gimlin with him, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Did he mention anything about John Chambers or any of the other guys mentioned in the articles below?

In fact, for years it has been "generally known" in the Hollywood special effects makeup community that Academy Award® winning makeup artist John Chambers fabricated the suit in the Patterson Bigfoot film.

In 1967 Chambers created the makeup for Planet of the Apes, which was released in 1968. The Patterson film was allegedly shot on October 20, 1967

I next heard about Chambers making the Patterson Bigfoot Suit in 1995, from effects makeup artist Dave Kindlon. Dave was working with his wife Colleen on an animatronic cat for Disney's remake of That Darn Cat at the time.

http://www.strangema...chambers17.html

Rumors circulated that the creature seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film was a suit designed by movie special effects expert John Chambers, who designed the ape costumes seen in many of the original Planet of the Apes films, and was reportedly an acquaintance of Ray Wallace and Bob Gimlin.

http://monsterkidcla...=1#.UapI7ZwhMok

There are also rumours that Patterson rented the suit off Chambers.

But Chambers was asked, and he himself said, No, I did not make that suit, I wish we had, we could have done it better.

This link explains the convoluted path that resulted in todays rumour and this linksys:

© CNI News Agency

Oscar-winning Hollywood special effects wizard, John "Planet of the Apes" Chambers, has been alleged by rumor for years to be responsible for creating a costume featured in the famous Bigfoot film footage shot by Roger Patterson in 1967. The rumor was masterminded allegedly by film director John Landis and Baker perpetrated the advancement of the rumor, which was totally false in order to promote Chambers reputation. This was then believed and subsequently noted to be supported by numerous artists within the special effects industry. However, new information from Brian Penikas, Creative Director for a company called Makeup and Monsters, puts to rest the theory that Chambers had any hand in the Patterson film. Penikas writes:

"Recently my crew and I were involved in a surprise 75th birthday tribute to Mr. Chambers, for which 9 of us recreated a parody skit re-enacting characters from the Ape movies. Mr. Chambers and the rest of the guests, many of whom were survivors of the Apes saga, were wonderfully surprised.

"I had only met Mr. Chambers briefly prior to the surprise party, and the opportunity to discuss the "suit" rumor was not high on my agenda. This past Saturday [October 25, 1997], however, the cast of the Apes birthday skit went back (sans costumes and makeup) to visit with Mr. Chambers and his wife... [This] was our chance to truly and finally confront Mr. Chambers about these rumors and stories about him being involved in the Patterson film project. "Mr. Chambers told his story, on video tape, to us to set the record straight. I now have pictures of the suit that Chambers did make and you can rest assured that it is NOT the famous Patterson Bigfoot. In fact, it's not a suit AT ALL. It is an 8 foot tall plaster dummy of actor Richard "Jaws" Keil that was built (in 4 days) as a prop for a travelling carnival to be billed as "Bigfoot's Body" or some such sideshow attraction, and was apparently displayed in a coffin. That's all. Just a solid, 800-pound prop. "Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, 'We could've one better.'

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt whatever he has to say skeptics will believe his every word. edited to add:

He is more believable because he is the only one with any physical proof and he did remake the suit which we were told was "impossible" and the BBC suit touted as an example that it could not be done. Not one of the proponents have ever offered more than an anecdote.

As I keep saying anyone who is willing to go to Geni The Conjurers magazine can find the proof this is a fake. Verne Langdon, who has an extensive background in costume design claims Phillip Morris left an apology there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an overdue library book once. Am I considered a con man?

If you took it under false pretences and had no intention of returning it, then yes.

So other then his Word, is there any evidence? A book or ledger with accounts, or receipts? A letter? A phone bill? Anything that could tie Morris to Patterson? It sounds like the same story he was telling back in 2003, except probably a lot more polished.

Consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any pictures of one of his gorrila suits ?

Here is one he made in 2002 and beside it is the original Patty.

3790698201_9e0bf39317.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.