The possible existence of a “Bigfoot” has long been in the public consciousness. Researchers have wondered what form it takes, whether it belongs to an entire species and whether it really exists. There are many unique ideas to explain the mystery, but they must be analyzed to consider the quantity and quality of the evidence. Do these explanations have any analytical support and make them or seem plausible by realistic standards? Above all, the sources of any evidence must be reliable. These criteria will be used to evaluate the idea that Bigfoot is a descendant of the giant ground sloth, that the creatures exist and their bones have been found but misinterpreted by humans, that the species is a form of ape highly evolved but different from humans, and that Bigfoot does not exist at all and is the product of misidentification, imagination and hoaxes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Of these hypotheses, one of the least supported but most interesting is the idea that Bigfoot is part of the Sloth family of species, specifically a descendant of the giant ground sloth. Much of the supporting evidence focuses on the overlapping physical traits between Bigfoot and modern sloths. Some of their qualities may be important for a theoretical species of Bigfoot to exist and remain hidden in the vast regions where sightings occur. 'Today's sloths are extraordinary mammals; the adaptations they have developed through evolution have given them the ability to survive in an environment that can sometimes lack the necessary nourishment' (Bravo). A Bigfoot could go long periods without being spotted hunting because "sloths have evolved large, specialized, slow-acting stomachs with multiple compartments" whose "digestive process can take a month or more to complete" (Bravo). Furthermore, according to most sightings, the Bigfoot creature moves at a slow pace without darting away. “Sloths have such a slow metabolism that any kind of vigorous movement would cause them to expend too much energy and lead to exhaustion very quickly” (Bravo). Indeed, striking evidence of this animal connection is the fact that no sightings have ever described genitalia, and coincidentally, male members of the mammalian superorder Xenartha possess internal reproductive organs. While this hypothesis is not widely recognized, it contains more accurate connections between species traits than other more common theories, such as the possibility that Bigfoot sightings are simply black bears standing upright. While these associations are thoughtful, they are not supported by any evidence: they are just a researcher's personal theory piecing together clues and characteristics. There is no hard evidence and only one personal theory to support this idea. The associations make sense but could be counteracted by other unspecified aspects that do not match between Bigfoot and Sloths. The theory suggests that Bigfoot is an existing mammal species rather than an altered alien, magical, or human creature, making it more realistic than many theories. The source is just a Bigfoot hobbyist, making him not particularly reliable or supported by any evidence. A less creative but more possible explanation is that Bigfoot exists in the form of an altered humanoid and that many of its bones have been discovered but are often incorrectly attributed to humans. There are dozens of reports of bone finds too unusual or oversized to be explained as human remains. It seemed impossible that many of these belonged to one beinghuman, yet they have always been thought to be an extreme human specimen. They were often given to an Indian tribe for burial, with the old-fashioned idea that such Native Americans could grow to very strange or extensive sizes. “Scientists studying the bones, knowing that Native Americans are the only known ancient people of North America, can classify these bones only by reference to known indigenous human species, regardless of whether the anatomical features do not match” (Dover). Several recent unexplained bone discoveries have been provided to Bigfoot research organizations and are still being analyzed. Many reports, mostly historical, claim the discovery of massive or strange human-like bones, and as a result, there is a significant amount of potential evidence. However, these sources are mostly outdated or anecdotal and cannot be verified. More modern cases have the potential to be analyzed, but are still held by Bigfoot organizations for years without any disclosure, damaging the chance that they contain anything that Bigfoot hobbyists can get excited about. For example, a 2008 femur found in Oregon was submitted to the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Project; “however, for whatever reason, bone was not used in the study” (Dover). Another alleged Bigfoot bone, a tooth, was found in California in 2002 and is also part of the Ketchum project, "but has not yet been tested" (Dover). The theory seems unrealistic because it assumes that Bigfoot exists and tries to support it with unexplained discoveries that have no hard evidence remaining, despite being physical discoveries. The sources of evidence, like most sightings, are varied and are usually subjective. (Dover)Although less exciting, it seems more plausible that a species of Bigfoot is simply a different evolution from the common ape. An ancient species of ape called Gigantopithecus was discovered in 1935 by Ralph von Koenigswald after the surprise discovery of a large molar for sale in Hong Kong, and perhaps this is the ancestor of a larger ape-like creature that deviated from 'Homo erectus. "Gigantopithecus was closely related to modern orangutans and to Sivapithecus, an ape that lived in Asia between 12 and 8 million years ago" (Wayman). Most accounts of Bigfoot agree that it resembles an ape in many ways, but it is different enough that you can immediately tell it is neither an ape nor a human; therefore, it seems reasonable to examine the varied ancestry of primates and larger ancient specimens. This enormous ape refers to the concept of Bigfoot due to its size and primate traits, and perhaps evolved in several regions from other known ape descendants. It may have developed to remain hidden and exist in vast, harsh climates, escaping frequent detection, much like the sloth traits mentioned earlier. There is little hard evidence for this claim, other than the idea that Bigfoot is clearly related to apes. The best support for this theory is that it is by far the most realistic if Bigfoot really exists. There are countless sightings citing an ape-like creature, but this is weak evidence at best. Bigfoot researchers also doubt this possibility, as "Bigfoot is said to be a fast, agile, upright walker, not a large, 1,200-pound quadruped" (Wayman). Although many people believe in the existence of a Bigfoot, he probably doesn't. they exist at all and the beliefs come from misidentifications or pure imagination and are perpetuated by hoaxes. Large amounts of evidence have been disproven while so many others.