Leaderboard

You don't have to go to arguments based on behaviour to determine if BF is human (meaning genus Homo) or not. Whether they have a saggital crest or not doesn't really signify either because previous forms of human DID have them...they simply are a place for really huge chewing muscles to anchor on in a very large skull. The presence of a mid-tarsal break isn't very meaningful either to go by as we have classified previous homo species with no knowledge of whether they had it or not, and indeed it could simply be an adaptation to a very large bipedal creature becoming more flat-footed in a montane environment where they have to travel quickly up and down mountains. But going from previous forms of humans, what we do know is that no previous non-human primate has a foot with toes so close together as us...and BF. Also there is no other form of primate which has such a high, large cranium as us...and bigfoot, at least according to sighting reports. Look at how flat the top of the head is in australopithecines and other non-homo great apes. Even little Homo habilis and Homo floresiensis had more inside their heads, and there is possible tool use in digs where they are found which further supports the argument that these tiny creatures were really humans. Ultimately though the answer will not come until we can examine both the bones and the behaviour of sasquatches in more detail. Until then all is simply speculation. My guess is that if they exist then they are a form of non-tool using Asian Homo erectus which has become larger and more adapted to cold, Northern forested areas. I think that anything that has the word Homo in front of it is human, but not human by most people's standards as in Homo sapiens sapiens. If it turns out that they have language then the potential is certainly there.

Bob Gimlin on Patty: "Overall it looked like a huge hairy human being"