Do we rely on Patty too much?

If you are involved in the bigfoot phenomena, you would be hard-pressed not to know who "Patty" is. Or Roger Patterson. Or Bob Gimlin. Those three names, that film footage is considered by many to be the rock on which we base our research.

Or should we?

There is no denying that the Patterson Film is remarkable footage. And that the images of Patty are awe-inspiring.  But are we letting those items color our views of research being done in the field today?

In my opinion : YES.

Before you stop reading, or start cussing at me, hear me out. 

Thank you.

Think back, now. How often has someone, somewhere, shared a photo of what they say is a bigfoot, a sasquatch -- and someone out there [maybe even you] makes the comment : "Ah, I don't know. It doesn't look like Patty. I think it must be fake."

It doesn't look like Patty. Oh dear.

Well, I don't look like my neighbor next door. She's a little shorter, has a narrower face, dark hair, and different shaped eyes. Does that mean one of us isn't a human?

Not all sasquatch or bigfoot look exactly alike. If you have spent any time at all in researching this subject, you have to accept that. You have to stop using the subject of Roger Patterson's film as the end-all to what a sasquatch should look like.

Heck, I should look like a young Brigitte Bardot, but that sure as you know what ain't gonna happen.

There are as many varieties of sasquatch/bigfoot as there are varieties of humans. Skin color. Hair color. Eye color. Height. Weight. Build. And every type of combination of those items as you can think of.


And another thing. Video footage. Let's stop complaining that the videos people share are too shaky, too blurry, too whatever. And compare it to the Patterson footage.

Have you ever watched the original footage? It's no wonder many of the scientists who watched it shook their collective heads and had doubts. We are used to [and spoiled by] the stabilized, sharpened images that are regularly viewed now. [And let's not forgot the altered one by some computer whiz who used a program to "fill in" frames of the original footage and thus changed the actual action portrayed in the footage].

Hand held cameras are gonna move, causing the footage to jump. As the lens tries to stay in focus, you're gonna get some blurs.

Some of the best film footage and best photos I've seen in all my years of research have been dismissed at one time or another by the self-proclaimed "experts" and self-titled "professionals"  as being faked, a suit, photo-shopped, etc. all because the images didn't look like Patty.

So let's become better at what we do. Let's forget about Patty and judge each piece of evidence on its own merit.  Let's stop building walls against moving forward with learning.

And above all, let's keep an open mind. What seems improbable today, may become reality tomorrow.

But if you refuse to record that evidence, you'll never know if the "weird" or "unusual" might not be that weird or unusual after all.

Nancy

This Post By TCC Team Member Nancy Marietta. Nancy has had a lifelong interest in the paranormal and cryptids. Nancy is also a published author and her book, The Price of war, has been met with great reviews.

[Please Note: Sadly Nancy passed away at the first of January, 2022. We will continue to honor her and her research by sharing her work. RIP Nancy. -Thomas]

This post sponsored in part by