Utah voices
Bigfoot and the repugnance of truth

By Ryan Kenneth Peterson
Article Last Updated: 10/13/2007 11:21:22 AM MDT

Like everyone, I'm guilty of not wanting to accept certain possibilities.
For instance, is it possible that Oswald shot JFK from behind, despite the exit wound being on the back of our fallen president's head? Is it possible, that on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7 could collapse like a controlled demolition despite not being hit by a plane? Is it possible that George W. Bush was legitimately elected president in 2000?
And, finally, is it possible that the legendary Bigfoot doesn't exist? I guess anything is possible, but, I'm going to fight against this last one.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the infamous 16mm footage shot by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in Bluff Creek, Calif., on Oct. 20, 1967.
On that fateful day the two men filmed "something" walking in a wooded clearing that could be one of two things: It either shows the most successful costume ever constructed, or an actual Bigfoot was caught on celluloid.
Somewhere on these frames lies the answer to a fairly profound question: Does a primate exist that is genetically closer to homo sapiens than the chimpanzee - a missing link?
I'm not a scientist. I am an artist who has worked as a creature designer for film special effects. I've had the privilege to work for the best monster maker in Hollywood and the king of gorilla suit construction, six-time Academy
Now, I can't speak for Rick Baker, this is my own analysis of Patterson's "star." So I'll get to the point: In my opinion, the technology and artistry were not available in 1967 to create such a convincing Bigfoot costume. Even if Roger Patterson orchestrated the whole affair and was able to hire John Chambers, the one special make-up effects man on the planet at the forefront of such technology, I would argue it wasn't enough.
Take "Planet of the Apes" for example. If a major motion picture studio like Twentieth Century Fox, during the same period, with all of its money and resources, couldn't motivate the construction of a full-body, ventilated hair suit on top of a sculpted foam musculature with arm extensions aiding an overall "man/ape" design and performance of such naturalistic nuance, how the hell could a professional rodeo rider named Roger Patterson?
Unless there was an unknown genius of such brazen pretensions, content to live in obscurity, who was willing to incorporate features into his costume design that would set itself up for potential failure - such as making it female, as well as shortening the fur where flaws would be more pronounced and allowing it to be filmed under midday sunlight in the middle of a remote wooded location with no crew or witnesses - I would say it was impossible then and I dare say even today.
Back to the big picture: Humans are a peculiar species. We demonstrate faith in technology on a daily basis - we travel by plane, go under anesthesia, genetically alter the food we eat - yet most of us don't allow technology to disrupt our illusions.
Truth, it would seem, is problematic, even repugnant, because it's perceived as scary and oh so comfortably allusive. What if it's not?
---
* RYAN KENNETH PETERSON is a self-employed fine artist in Salt Lake City and works part time in Los Angeles doing makeup effects for various studios.

...As to Peterson's opinion of PGF - if one is going to appeal to authority - then one should include the fact that Chris Walas sees flaws in the film subject that scream to his experienced eye: "suit".

I don't think it should be a split decision...
There's too many good analyses out there at this time...
all are covered in Jeff Meldrum's "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science."
Grover Krantz's treatment of the subject is most convincing as are the documentation and illustrations
found in Chris Murphy's "Meet the Sasquatch."
if you don't want to read, then check out Doug Hajicek's "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" dvd...
I don't think the herniated thigh muscle is part of any costume.

yep, I am always amused and amazed by those who follow this subject so intently and are "on the fence" about the P-G film subject.
film, tracks, multiple eyewitnesses...12 consecutive track casts exhibiting a flexible foot...

it's a shame not to enjoy the real deal when it's staring you right in the face.

In the practice of science, scientists will only consider the possibility that a theory has been falsified if an alternative theory is available which they judge to be credible. If there isn't, scientists will continue to adhere to the established conceptual framework. If a paradigm shift has occurred, the textbooks will be rewritten to state that the previous theory has been falsified.

I'm always amused and amazed by those people who constantly rail against the reliability of humans, yet seem to suggest in the same breath that human institutions of learning are somehow exempt from this same unreliability.

Let the horse be led to water: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Wikipedia Article)

We could shift from fact to fancy.

Often in this field we wonder why people have such "dead set" claims that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is BS. I've come to the certain realization that it relies heavily on a person's belief values.

Many people who have strong feelings towards their belief systems become involved in as journalism, science, clergy, and politics. Ususally most of these folks have a very small window for open mindedness.

That seems to be your specialty.

Nope - I'm not the "believer" here.

yet some of the evidence is non-dismissible

Please elaborate? What evidence is non-dismissible? I can think of nothing that is uncontested?

And whether or not it is justifiable is a matter of opinion. Yet we still argue about it. Go figure.

I put the P-G film, some of the footprint evidence, some of the statistical work that has been done, and the collective weight of credible sightings into that category. Non-dismissible yet not enough to be definitive.

Hardly non-dismissible............ inconclusive at best.............. sorry.