Image: stevensaint.substack.com
The Story
Philip Morris said he sold Roger Patterson a gorilla suit, but the filmed suit has not been independently tied to that sale.
Philip Morris said Patterson bought a gorilla suit after asking whether it looked realistic, and later maintained that the film showed a man in it. That testimony supports a hoax pathway, but its late emergence and the absence of independently presented proof that the sold suit is the filmed suit leave the central identification unresolved.
- Philip Morris said Roger Patterson contacted him in 1967, asked about a realistic gorilla suit, and bought one for what Morris understood to be a prank.
- Morris's connection to the film was publicized decades after filming, including through a 2004 book and later media coverage.
- The supplied accounts do not provide an independently verified chain of custody linking Morris's sold costume to the filmed figure.
Deeper Insight
The Morris story may explain a hoax theory, yet the disputed costume trail still leaves the filmed figure’s identity open.
The Morris story remains one piece of a contested hoax case rather than a final answer. Supporters of the film’s authenticity point to anatomical and costume-matching objections, while the originating account adds a claimed National Geographic test costume and disputes over location and timing. Those details keep the supply story from closing the mystery.
- The originating account says Morris provided an identical costume for a National Geographic film test, then withdrew film rights after seeing the footage; it also reports conflicting location and timing claims.
- A pro-authenticity analysis argues that the figure’s apparently normal-looking arms are difficult to reconcile with a man wearing the alleged suit.
- Loren Coleman challenges the Morris account by highlighting changing descriptions, the late appearance of the claim, and the lack of a demonstrated match between Morris's costumes and the original figure.
Sources · 10
- 3 Groups & independent outlets
- 3 Forum, video, personal
- 4 Other / unclassified
What do these mean?
- Groups & independent outlets. Think tanks, advocacy groups and independent outlets or blogs, on any side of the question. They publish with a point of view.
- Forum, video, personal. Forums, social posts, video, blogs and personal accounts.
- Other / unclassified. A site we have not classified yet. This says nothing good or bad about it.
Featured · Analysis · reddit.com
Phillip Morris denied the rights to use the costume he provided to National Geographic after seeing the footage the shot.
Forum or personal account
Bob Heronimous claims that he wore the costume. The costume that Morris Costumes claims to have sold to Patterson. The costume that Morris Costumes has a order form for. Yet an identical costume that Morris gave Nat Geo to use in a film test was a failure and Morris reneged on the film rights. Heronimus also claimed that the sight he filmed at was close to the paved road yet the actual site was ho
Read sourceAnalysis · woodape.org
Thoughts on the Patterson-Gimlin Footage - North American Wood Ape Conservancy
Independent outlet
Thoughts on the Patterson-Gimlin Footage - North American Wood Ape Conservancy # Thoughts on the Patterson-Gimlin Footage March 14, 2005 Daryl Colyer Articles 14 March 2004 Almost thirty-seven years ago two young men from Yakima, Washington, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, emerged from a remote fore
Read sourceAnalysis · cryptomundo.com
Cryptomundo » Alleged Suits & Morris Missteps
Independent outlet
Cryptomundo » Alleged Suits & Morris Missteps ## 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 hor
Read source