The term “Bigfoot” has been as tied to fraud and gullibility as the Confederate flag is to racism and bigotry. Both have points of legitimacy in their backgrounds, but the usage of neither implies anything intelligent today. Although those cryptozoologists who use the term “Bigfoot” might very well be intelligent professionals, they betray none of that and imply no level of legitimacy to the creatures themselves.

Let us get these evidence and find out more about these interesting creatures. To protect them in the future. Then we can sit and discuss the right name.

‘Bigfoot’ resonates with people; it has a playful undertone, which may be necessary for some folks to help them cope with what otherwise would be an scary reality.

As long as it remains playful, it remains manageable; it may be silly, but that’s just human nature.

I’d rather people focus on following up the evidence.

Whatever baggage surrounds any name, a handle is better than nothing. I think it will be hard for scientists and the general public to take a discussion like this one too seriously if the real research - the following up of evidence - is going nowhere. It can admittedly get annoying when “yeti,” for example, is used for animals that don’t seem to be. But I don’t think we should be wasting time on what to call something that, so far as science goes, isn’t recognized to exist. I might even say - and have seen it - that any effort to get too technical about the name and status of an unconfirmed animal might just increase the “snigger factor,” as well as transfer the baggage to a different handle.

And as to this from Igor Bourtsev: “Of course, all the evidences in America prove that THEY are NOT APES!”

Well, I’d tend to disagree. We have NO proof yet, so I think the word “prove” isn’t the right one to use in context. And I would say that such evidence as there is suggests - very strongly, to me - that the animal IS an ape. That is, a member of the ape clade, as we consider ourselves to be.

I’d just want to confirm it before debating what to call it. The final proof may render every name discussed on this thread invalid.

“Bigfoot”, for instance, whose feet are big only in comparison with ours - when considering the depth to which they penetrate snow, compared to a human’s adjacent shoeprint depth, a direct indicator of weight spread across square inches of footprint, perhaps we should be calling them “Smallfoot”!

To group Sasquatch, Yeti, Almas, Skunk Ape, Orang Pendek - the whole array of hairy, upright, bipedal creatures roaming Earth’s wilds - under one name acceptable and familiar to laypeople and researchers the world over seems to me, as pointed out by kittenz, “…an exercise in futility” - not to mention local conflict and confusion.

Before I ramble on too long, the point I am trying to make is that when we discover what these creatures are mainstream science is going to call them something else. They will try to take away the thing that reminds us all that they rejected even the possibility of the Bigfoot’s existence. They will try to take away the mythical power of his name to strike fear, and awe, and wonder. They will tame his name and by doing that will tame his impact on the imaginings and curiosities of those who will follow us. I just don’t think it would be right to help them.

I’ll vote for “Descendants of Esau”; they’re hairy, hungry, gullible hunters. Good one, cryptidsrus!