Sir David Attenborough, the legendary naturalist and broadcaster, has made a surprising statement that’s got cryptozoology enthusiasts buzzing.
He believes Bigfoot might actually be real.
Now, before you roll your eyes, let’s look at the facts. Attenborough points to some intriguing evidence from the fossil record. There was indeed a massive, red-haired ape that once roamed parts of Asia. This creature, known as Gigantopithecus, stood up to 10 feet tall and weighed over 1,000 pounds. It’s not just a myth – we have the fossils to prove it existed.
Attenborough’s argument is pretty straightforward: If such a massive primate could evolve once, who’s to say it couldn’t have survived in remote areas? He’s not claiming definitive proof, but he’s open to the possibility.
In an interview, Attenborough said, “There are footprints that stretch for hundreds of miles and we know that in the 1930s a German fossil was found with these huge molars that were four or five times the size of human molars.” He’s referring to the Gigantopithecus fossils, which have sparked plenty of debate among scientists.
But here’s where it gets really interesting. Attenborough suggests that if Bigfoot-like creatures still exist, they’d be incredibly adept at avoiding human contact. He points out the vast, unexplored areas of dense forest in places like the Himalayas. “If you have walked the Himalayas,” he says, “there are these immense rhododendron forests that go on for hundreds of square miles which could hold the Yeti.”
Now, I’m not saying we should all grab our camping gear and head out Bigfoot hunting. But Attenborough’s words do make you think. How much do we really know about the remote corners of our planet? Could there be surprises lurking in those unexplored areas?
It’s easy to dismiss Bigfoot as pure fantasy. But when someone with Attenborough’s credibility and experience speaks up, it’s worth listening. He’s spent his life studying the natural world, and he’s seen firsthand how nature can surprise us.
Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We’d need a lot more than footprints and folklore to prove Bigfoot’s existence. But Attenborough’s open-minded approach reminds us that there’s still mystery in the world. It’s a call to keep exploring, keep questioning, and never assume we know everything about our planet.
Me? I’m on the fence but as with all these things I did my own research and remain open minded and here’s why.
You see there tens of thousands of reported sightings across the world each year. If Bigfoot didn’t exist it would mean that every single one is a hoax or misidentification. Now I have no doubt that this is the case for most of them and that 99.9% are not Bigfoot or Yeti. But there still remains that tiny element of could be or maybe!
For me the biggest issue is the simple lack of high quality footage. We’re all walking around with 8K cameras in our pockets, so why is every recording a blur or terrible quality? It’s frustrating, to say the least. You’d think with all this technology, we’d have crystal clear evidence by now if Bigfoot was real.
Ironically, what remains as the most credible footage is the Patterson-Gimlin film, shot way back in 1967. It’s grainy, shaky, and far from perfect, but it’s still the gold standard in Bigfoot evidence. The film shows a large, ape-like creature walking through Bluff Creek, California. It’s been analyzed, debated, and scrutinized for decades, yet it still holds up to scrutiny better than most modern “sightings.”
The Patterson-Gimlin film is fascinating because it’s stood the test of time. Despite countless attempts to debunk it, no one’s been able to conclusively prove it’s a hoax. The creature’s gait, muscle movement, and proportions have puzzled experts for years. Some say it’s too good to be fake, while others insist it must be a man in a suit.
What makes this footage so compelling is the context. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin weren’t professional filmmakers or effects experts. They were just two guys out looking for Bigfoot. The idea that they could have created such a convincing hoax with the technology available in 1967 seems far-fetched to many.
Of course, skeptics have their arguments too. They point out inconsistencies in Patterson and Gimlin’s stories over the years. They argue that the creature’s movements could be replicated by a skilled performer in a suit. And they question why, if the footage is real, we haven’t found similar evidence since.
These are all valid points, and they’re why the debate rages on. But the fact that we’re still talking about this film over 50 years later says something. It’s a piece of the Bigfoot puzzle that refuses to be dismissed, no matter how much our technology advances.
Patty and The Patterson-Gimlin Film
Alright, let’s dive into the arguments against the Patterson-Gimlin film. There’s plenty to unpack here, and it’s only fair we look at both sides of the coin. So when I first saw this film my immediate reaction, as is probably yours, was
“Jeez! a man in a suit”
I thought it was a man in a suit. Simple as that. Case closed, right? But things get weird the more you delve into it. And I mean really weird. To this day, the more it’s studied, the less able the skeptics, academics, and experts are to debunk it. It’s like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
You’d think with all our modern technology and know-how, we’d have cracked this case wide open by now. But nope. The Patterson-Gimlin film keeps throwing curveballs at us. Every time someone claims they’ve finally put the nail in the coffin, another expert pops up with a “well, actually” that sends us back to square one.
I’ve spent more hours than I care to admit going down this rabbit hole. And let me tell you, it’s a deep one. The more you learn, the more questions you have. It’s frustrating and fascinating in equal measure.
Let’s break down some of the stuff that keeps the believers believing and the skeptics scratching their heads. Because trust me, this isn’t just your run-of-the-mill mystery. The Patterson-Gimlin film is the granddaddy of all Bigfoot evidence, and it’s got some tricks up its sleeve that’ll make you think twice about dismissing it outright.
The Big Foot in the Mouth: Arguments For The Patterson-Gimlin Hoax
The Suit Theory
One of the biggest arguments against the film’s authenticity is the “man in a suit” theory. Critics point out that the creature’s proportions and movements could be replicated by a skilled performer in a well-made costume. They argue that the film’s quality, while decent for its time, isn’t good enough to rule out this possibility.
Patterson’s Credibility
Roger Patterson’s background raises some red flags for skeptics. He was known to be in debt and had previously written a book about Bigfoot. Some argue that he had both the motive and the imagination to fake the footage. The fact that he’d drawn illustrations of Bigfoot before the encounter adds fuel to this fire.
Convenient Timing
The timing of the film has been questioned. Patterson and Gimlin went out specifically looking for Bigfoot and, lo and behold, they found one. Skeptics argue that this is too convenient to be believable.
Lack of Physical Evidence
Despite numerous expeditions to the site, no conclusive physical evidence has ever been found. No hair, no bones, no droppings. For many, this lack of tangible proof is a deal-breaker.
Hollywood Connections
There are rumors of connections between Patterson and Hollywood makeup artists. Some claim that the suit was made by professionals in the film industry, which would explain its quality. While these claims are largely unsubstantiated, they persist in the debate.
Inconsistencies in Accounts
Over the years, there have been some inconsistencies in Patterson and Gimlin’s accounts of the event. While this could be chalked up to the passage of time and the stress of the moment, skeptics see it as a red flag.
The “Too Good to Be True” Argument
Some argue that the footage is simply too perfect. The creature walks across the frame, even turning to look at the camera. For skeptics, this seems staged rather than a genuine encounter with a shy, elusive creature.
Scientific Skepticism
Many scientists argue that the existence of such a large, undiscovered primate in North America is highly unlikely. They point to the lack of fossil evidence and the improbability of a sustainable breeding population remaining hidden for so long.
These are the main arguments against the Patterson-Gimlin film. It’s a complex debate, and both sides have their points. But hey, that’s what makes this whole Bigfoot thing so fascinating, right?
Patty’s Paradox: Why the Patterson-Gimlin Film Continues to Baffle Experts
Alright, let’s dive into the evidence supporting the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film. This is where things get really interesting, and I’ve got to admit, some of this stuff is pretty mind-bending.
The Size and Gait
First off, let’s talk about the sheer size of the creature. Patty is estimated to be around 7’3″ tall and incredibly muscular. That’s not something you can easily fake with a guy in a suit. But it’s not just the size – it’s how she moves. Experts have analyzed her gait and found it to be unique, not matching any known human or ape locomotion. The stride length, the arm swing, the head movement – it all adds up to something that’s, well, not quite human.
Non-Human Anatomy
When examining Patty’s anatomy, several striking differences stand out. For starters, her legs appear disproportionately short compared to her overall height. This characteristic is more akin to some primates, which often have shorter legs relative to their body size, allowing for a different type of movement and stability. This anatomical feature could explain her unique gait, which experts have noted doesn’t align with human locomotion.
Additionally, Patty’s arms seem unusually long for her height. If you compare her arm length to that of an average human, it becomes clear that they extend further down her body. This is reminiscent of ape-like species that rely on their arms for balance and mobility in their natural habitats. The longer arms could provide greater reach and help with climbing or traversing uneven terrain, which fits the narrative of a creature living in the wild. People have said this can be achieved by holding sticks with hands attached but look closely and you’ll see the hands actually move in a free and anatomical manner.
Then there’s the width of her shoulders. Patty’s shoulders are broader than what you’d expect from a human of her size. This could indicate a more robust musculature, suggesting strength and power that would be necessary for survival in a rugged environment. The overall build—muscular and powerful—reinforces the idea that this creature is not merely a person in disguise but rather something entirely different.
These anatomical differences—shorter legs, longer arms, and broader shoulders—paint a picture of a creature adapted for life in the wilderness. They support the notion that Patty’s movements and proportions align more closely with those of an unknown primate rather than any known human or even ape species we’re familiar with today.
Muscles Under the Skin
Now, this is where it gets really wild. If you look closely (and I mean really closely), you can see muscles moving under the skin. Subtle movements in the thighs, shoulders, and back that match up with Patty’s walking motion. Costume technology in 1967 was nowhere near advanced enough to replicate this kind of detail. Heck, even today it’d be a challenge to fake this convincingly.
The Fascinating Foot
The foot is where things get really interesting. In the film, you can see Patty’s foot flex in a way that humans simply can’t replicate. When she takes a step, her foot points straight down – something our anatomy doesn’t allow for. But: if you look really closely, you can see her toes curl up, almost like they’re gripping the ground. This detail has been captured in footprint casts, and it’s a behavior we see in other primates, not humans.
Footprints: A Record of Movement
Gimlin took plaster casts of the foot prints which are still available for study, and they weren’t just any old footprints – they were a goldmine of anatomical information. Here’s what makes them so fascinating:
Foot prints are not simple depressions, they are a record of movement containing a huge amount of data. First off, these prints showed a level of detail that’s hard to fake. We’re talking about subtle pressure ridges, depth variations, and even skin texture impressions. These aren’t the kind of things you’d get from strapping on some fake feet and stomping around.
The anatomy of these prints is where things get really interesting. They show features that are consistent with a large, bipedal primate, but with some key differences from human feet. For instance:
- Flexible midfoot: The prints show evidence of a flexible midfoot, similar to what we see in other great apes. This is something humans don’t have – our arches are rigid to support our weight during bipedal walking.
- Toe splay: The toes in these prints show a wider splay than human toes, more like what you’d see in other primates that need to grip uneven terrain.
- Pressure distribution: The way the weight is distributed across the foot is different from humans, suggesting a different gait and posture.
- Size and proportion: While much larger than human prints, the proportions are consistent with what you’d expect from a scaled-up primate foot.
Now, let’s talk about the infamous “Bigfoot Cripple” print. This isn’t from Patterson-Gimlin, but it’s a key piece in the broader Bigfoot puzzle. This cast shows what appears to be a deformed or injured foot, and the level of anatomical detail is mind-blowing.
The print shows how the creature’s weight distribution shifted to compensate for an injury. It’s not just a static imprint; it’s a snapshot of movement, adaptation, and anatomy all rolled into one. To fake something like this, you’d literally need a PHD and then a specialisation in this field of large ape biomechanics.
Think about it – to create a hoax this detailed, you’d need to know not just how a giant, unknown primate foot might look, but how it would adapt to an injury. You’d need to understand weight distribution, bone structure, and soft tissue mechanics.
This print, along with others like it, raises a pretty big question: If Bigfoot isn’t real, who’s out there with this level of expertise creating these incredibly detailed fakes? And why aren’t they working in paleontology or special effects?
The key thing here is that these prints don’t just look like big human footprints or some generic “monster” feet. They show specific anatomical features that are consistent with a large, bipedal primate, but distinct from human anatomy. To fake this would require not just artistic skill, but a deep understanding of comparative primate anatomy that few people would have had access to in the 1960s.
He’s a She
Here’s something that often gets overlooked: Patty is female. You can clearly see breasts on the creature. Now, think about this for a second. If two guys in the 1960s were going to fake a Bigfoot sighting, would they really think to make it female? To craft big, floppy, hairy boobs? It’s a level of detail that seems unlikely for a hoax, especially given the attitudes of the time.
Too Many Things to Get Right
When you add all these elements together – the size, the gait, the muscle movements, the foot anatomy, the footprints, the gender – you’re looking at an incredibly sophisticated hoax if it’s not real. We’re talking about a level of detail and expertise that would be challenging even with today’s technology, let alone what was available in 1967.
The more you look into it, the more you realize just how many things the hoaxers would have had to get right. It’s not impossible, but it sure makes you wonder. Is it more likely that two cowboys pulled off the most sophisticated hoax in history, or that they actually filmed something extraordinary? I’m not saying I’m 100% convinced, but man, it sure makes you think.
So what does Sir David think?
Well, he doesn’t point to the Patterson film but has his own go-to Yeti mystery. That of the footprints photographed in the Himalayas. And his take on this is pretty interesting.
The prints Attenborough talks about aren’t the recent ones found by Indian soldiers. He’s referring to a much older and more famous set of footprints photographed back in 1951 by mountaineers Eric Shipton and Michael Ward during their Everest expedition.
These prints were found at about 19,000 feet on the Menlung Glacier, near the border between Nepal and Tibet. They measured 13 inches long and 8 inches wide. Shipton took a now-famous photo of one of these prints next to an ice axe for scale.
What makes these prints so intriguing, and what Attenborough points out, is their location. At 19,000 feet, you’re way above where people live or even visit regularly. It’s a brutal environment where survival is a challenge even for experienced climbers.
Attenborough’s point is simple:
“Why would anyone go to such an extreme and dangerous location just to fake some Yeti footprints?”
And if they did, why aren’t there any other signs of human presence around the prints?
Now, I’m not saying this proves Yetis exist. And neither is Attenborough. But it does make you scratch your head a bit. If it’s a hoax, it’s a pretty elaborate and risky one. And if it’s not… well, that opens up a whole can of worms.
