I once heard several Taos Pueblo Indians (as they call themselves!) on a bus, discussing (in English, not in Tewa, which they usually slip into in things of a sensitive nature) horseback riding in a remote part of the Pueblo land, and encountering some “wild indians” there.

Now THEY know, and I know AS WELL, that there are no “wild indians” dwelling on Taos Pueblo land! I had no choice but to believe they were speaking in “code”, so to speak, about Bigfoots. And there is quite a history of encounters on their land, which they have continuously occupied for over 1000 years.

And it was only a couple miles from Taos Pueblo land that I had my Bigfoot speech encounter, at close range. But I’m not here to discuss that….

Personally, I’ve never thought Bigfoot to be a Gigantopithecus simply based upon anatomy; pictures and video released don’t seem consistent with the representations of Gigantopithecus. But that is my opinion, as I have never seen a Bigfoot, or Gigantopithecus and I, personally, reject the “I was Bigfoot’s love slave”, et al., descriptions.

I believe Bigfoot is a flesh and blood creature. I do not subscribe to the shape shifting, dimension hopping, creature idea. Having said that, I do not want to be inundated by those who do believe Bigfoot is a forest fairy/spirit. So in the physical sense I think Heidelbergensis is a possible candidate, though DNA analysis might indicate otherwise and there is the issue of hair: Heidelbegensis is typically not represented as being unduly hirsute.

I look at dog breeding as simple examples. Take the American Pitbull Terrier as an example–again, I’m not trying to begin a debate about pitbulls, just making a point here–There are the American Pitbull Terrier which is the true “Pitbull” in American history, the American Staffordshire Terrier which is the show counterpart bred for show standards, The American Pitbull, the English Staffordshire Terrier and lesser known “bully” breeds. They are all distinct if one is knowledgeable about them, yet to the person uneducated in the distinction between them all, they are just “pitbulls.” They all have the common ancestor that is now extinct: the English White Terrier.

I don’t think that having a creature that at some point tens of millions of years ago evolve (Oh, I’m sorry, I’m a Christian yet I believe in evolution, too. In my mind, I can accept both and rectify them but that’s another whole post in itself not proper for this forum) alongside humans and apes.

Loren has devoted a good portion of his life to the study cryptozoology and Bigfoot as a cryptid found with that scope of study. Jeff Meldrum, who placed himself under the microscope with his peers as an academic who believes Bigfoot exists based upon his examinations of evidence falling into his area of expertise. Anna Nekaris, another academic who lends scientific credence to Bigfoot and others too numerous to mention. But my point is this: none of them has had a body, or other real physical evidence to examine so they put forth their opinions based upon experience with similar creatures and scientific method. No one knows for a fact what Bigfoot is.

As Loren consistently points out, there are undiscovered species being reported all the time. The fact that Bigfoot has remained elusive is indicative of intelligence. That alone causes me to lean toward its DNA proving a closer kinship to humans

Everyone here makes very good points in their posts and I, for one, appreciate all (except for the “spirit” non-physical Bigfooter posts) the opinions and observations everyone have taken the time to put into word in this forum.

Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed,  308  for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet; but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed it was no longer of use, and therefore it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground, and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed; and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue.

The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change, and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterwards. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree.

Secondly, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology, that is to say the knowledge of the composition of the members, records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the  309  redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black, so as to attract the rays of the sun; for if it were another color, that is, uniformly white, it would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known.

Thirdly, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance, and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man; that is to say, an embryo of a man, and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the foetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color, and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.

To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period — in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in  310  the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species, that is, man, and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, “We will make man in Our image and likeness.” He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful, and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener became finer, sweeter, and acquire more freshness and delicacy.

The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God.

(Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith – Abdu’l-Baha Section, p. 309 circa 1928)

But YOU: YOU have special knowledge, I swear! Did you feed one a banana, and train him to do circus tricks?

Of COURSE YOU DIDN’T! What you claim to “know” is unknowable. At the present time.

Arrogance always begets boastfulness and ignorance. And hey, I KNOW that’s not YOU!

The very notion of “a body” makes my skin crawl, frankly. If the fools want to bag a body, I can’t promise anyone I won’t go and bag THEM. I just wouldn’t be able to take it.

I’ve never actually called anyone an “ape”, but perhaps I’ve been called one. Hard to remember.

In fact, YOU’RE the anthropological expert here. ASK YOURSELF.