Growing up, camping and fishing with family, I thought bigfoot was just a bogeyman story to keep us from going off into the woods. Until I got my butt chased. Anyway, not too long after, before finishing high school we moved to Hawaii. I've never studied bigfoot, didn't even know about the movie about the southern bigfoot, forget what it's called. Just surfed the web recently and found some cool bigfoot sights. It's brought most everything back. Forgetting an encounter would be like forgetting your first sexual encounter. Not likely.

1) Is bigfoot a gigantopithecus? Forgive me if I'm wrong, still new, but didn't giganto supposedly go extinct only 10,000 years ago? Not long enough to evolve too much.

2) Are gigantopithecus bones common? Or as difficult to find as bigfoot bones?

3) If so, can't we just use the magnificent research into gigantopithecus and apply that to bigfoot?

It is more likely 2 hundred thousand years ago if I remember correctly. It is still not enough time to reasonably assume that it changed very much, like into a biped or something like that, assuming that it wasn't.


All they have are teeth and portions of two jaw bones last I heard.



There is only so much you can do with teeth and a portion of a jaw. This is a link to my brother's argument against Giganto.

Thank you, but that great description of giganto has only piqued me further. Pardon the French.

I don't think anyone necessarily thinks bigfoot is an evolved Giganto. Could be exactly a Giganto. Could be something completely different. Who knows?


I'd say Giganto bones are infinitely easier to find than bigfoot bones, considering there are zero bones identified as coming from a bigfoot.


Actually, I think some people are doing that in a way. Problem is, not much is known about Giganto, including if it even was bipedal. The wide jawbone suggests that it was, but since no parts of skeleton other than the jaw and some teeth have been recovered, a bipedal Giganto still elicits some questioning. Lots more info on Wikipedia.

I think you can spend a lot of time speculating about what a bigfoot is or is not, but in the end the only way those questions will be answered is to find one. Seems that working towards that would be more productive than trying to assign it taxonomically before it's even discovered.

Now, tell us about this "got my butt chased" thing!

I think the giganto reference when discussion BF is usefull in that if shows that primates, hominids possibly, can grow to enormous proportions under the effects certain evolutionary pressures. Iin the case of giganto, evidence from their teeth and some portions of jaw bones found in caves from China and VietNam (pretty much the only evidence we have), show under electron micorscopic instpection, to have scratches which seem to be very similar to the kind of scratches pandas have on their teeth's enamel from encountering phytoliths in their diet of bamboo, so we think that giganto also used its gigantic teeth and jaws for processing bamboo.
My own perspective (and one not widely held by fellow enthusiast); I personally don't favor the idea that giganto an/or his progeni is actually BF for the following reason: As forest dwelling bamboo eaters, it seems unlikely that this kind of adaptaton would have permitted them to travel the area between where we find their fossils to where we report seeing the creature BF here in NA. It's true that during the last 2 million years North America has been almost continuosly connected to Asia via the now submerged region of Beringia (a vast 1500 mile wide section of low land beneath the Bering Sea, sometimes called a bridge), but peleo-ecologists are fairly certain that there wasn't a forest of bamboo, or anything like the forests that we now see in the north, during those characteristic climates of the pleistocene, and to which, one day, we probably will return based on the inter-relationship between the continents and ocean currents.
To me, another more likely candidate, would be a relic population of pre-h.sapien hominids like h.erectus, adapted to live in small, quasi-solitary bands, that husbanded with the huge population os mega-fauna grazers and browsers that occupied and travelled over the northern steppe mosaic common and contiguous for most of the last 2 million years between central Europe and central North America. Due to the warming-up of our climate during the Holocene, forests have now invaded the northern forested lands and the diversity and productivity of the open grasslands have not evolved yet. BF finds refuge in forests during the day and so that is where we occasionally run across them close up, in the forests where their evolutionary sensory equipment is at its least advantageous. I think their primary activity of food gathering by taking surplus animals from the population of resident prey animals...and like most predation of this sort, under the cover of darkness. I think it's no wonder we fail to find them at night around our campfires and bait-stations with much regularity. Would that I could monitor the movements and behaviors of elk and their predators at night and over great distance. I think we'd see something interesting.

Thank you guys. First, my 'encounters' are under "Wanna hear a scary story" in sightings.

Great info on giganto, thanx. I didn't know it was exclusive to Asia.

The h. erectus possibility intrigues me now. Or homo neanderthalensis, didn't he drop out only 30,000 years ago. Not long. Maybe he hoofed over here (mainland, of course; not Hawaii). Is there any trace of primates in North America. He didn't come from outer space (just to be outrun by h. sapien). He coulda come across via Greenland, explorers regularly traverse the northern latitudes during the frozen winter (see ExplorersWeb). Would 30,000 years provide enough time for a hominid species to grow to double it's height. I didn't see one, didn't wait for him to use me as a rag doll. But it's strong, fast, and scary. And deceptively intelligent. Like most hominids.

One more important question (to me): what were the vocal capabilities of h. erectus and h. neanderthalensis. Did they have the ability to speak as we do, or just let out forest shaking roars and yells.

Let me clarify, I saw only 2 eyes, spaced considerably further apart than our own.
Here's a little ammo to skeptics : I keep coming up with the idea that my second encounter, although non-h.sapien, was a hominid wearing a bear head, like some tribes do in certain ceremonies. It was only about my father's height seemingly, but twice as wide throughout its body. Could only make out vague size, because it was camouflaging itself.

Psst, hey Bubbs. Getting warm?

Okay, try this out. The great amount of large footprints, including the one I saw could be explained by the fact it was wearing some type of crude footwear. They would find ours impractical. Note, the print I saw was large and nondescript. And all the differing types of fur/hair gathered could be attributed to his outer wear. If it is determined or even possibly considered to be hominid, then killing one would definitely be out of the question. But instead of regular bait, why not hang a nice leg of lamb, complete with jelly, out of reach of any bear, raccoon, etc.. It would be irresistable. Also, the great distance between prints could also be due to the possibility of running as its primary means of transportation.

The late Grover Krantz, a respected anthropologist, reconstructed the skull and concluded the animal was likely erect bipedal, as opposed to the more popular image of a giant orangutang. Given the size of the animal matching descriptions, the land bridge existence, and (my own 2 cents) the history of giant unknown apes in both the areas the fossils were found and in the connection place in North America for the bridge, the conclusion is that the animal did not go extinct but migrated and is with us still.

I think it's our best theory to date, I've read Krantz and viewed him and he seemed legitimate and professional to me. His description of the bossburg cripple tracks still send shivers up my spine (as they did him - for it was then that he realized he was dealing with a real animal).

In my book, professional anthropologist beats interested layman every time.

But yes, we need to find MORE BONES!!! A more intact skull and part of a foot would be excellent.

To see the skull:

http://www.boneclones.com/BC-140.htm

hey everyone wow this going to be a very interesting new thread about bigfoot. bill

Thanks BC. But I was quickly corrected in Post 2. It refers to one of those respected guys.
Plus, there was never a land bridge to Vietnam, or China. But there still is a winter 'bridge' every year in the higher latitudes. Connecting Russia, Greenland, Canada. I believe h. neanderthalensis was in Western Europe only 30,000 years ago. Not to mention Cro Magnan. Plus, considering the differing types of hairs collected by some really good researchers, it seems more likely it is a hominid. A relic population, living in real fear of discovery by h. sapien. It probably remembers what we did to the rest of them, back in Europe etc.

And then there's that Minnesota Wildguy. Someone knows where that body is. Now, if the Smithsonian could just track that thing down, it would be pretty much settled. Or that Bubbs guy. I bet if someone gave him indian burn on his wrist, then he'd talk. Hey, that hurts, you know.

Obviously, people who use the land bridge theory have theorized the species walked north and then east from their original territory.

I don't know what your talking about by stating that different hairs = hominid. The sheer distance and different environments over the territories of reported sightings would give enough difference for species divergence. What is the skunk ape? Is it a different animal or a territorially evolved sub-species? What is the Yowie? How about Almas? Yeti?

I think if your looking for hominids, your best bet is the Almas, which I think could be a relic population of neanderthal.

I would expect far more intelligence and tool use, and group settlements, if we were entertaining the idea that the sasquatch here in NA was a relic hominid. To me, it's a gorilla with long legs, period. Very similar behavior in some respects (including hatred and hostility towards dogs, bluff charging, reclusive and shy behavior to humans) very VERY similar appearance.

And the best candidate for THAT description I have seen so far is Giganto. blacki.

Thanks BC. Ever play any hockey? I had some great rivalries with North Delta, Stanley Park, and a good friend at Burnaby. Got to attend Don Berry's school in White Rock. Even stayed with them.

Anyway, do you have any access to any of the oldtime lumberjacks? They know what's out there.

I don't think BF is descended from Giganto, but is most likey a cousin, another hominid that probably branched off and was more nomadic. No large animal is native to North America, they all are descendents from animals that migrated over the Bering land bridge from Africa through Asia. South America has very few large wild mammals. They just discovered another species of hominid recently which shows there were many species of hominids. BF is a hominid, not an ape. I have not seen one, but most sightings remark how apelike and manlike the creature appears.

No, but I like the new Canucks Jersey. It's kinda boring but I like the classic look.

No, but I am taking up bow hunting, I feel that hunters are far more 'in the know' than loggers, and it will give me another excuse to get my butt off the couch and get out in the woods.

"BF is a hominid, not an ape. I have not seen one, but most sightings remark how apelike and manlike the creature appears."

Not an ape, yet apelike???

And what does 'manlike' mean? Monkeys are manlike, so are orangs and gorillas in their own way. I've been called 'old silverback' on more than one occassion

You do realize that by hominid, we are talking about primitive man, cavemen? There is almost NO evidence to support this.

There is AMPLE evidence that this animal has virtually NO tool use, intelligence comparable with the great apes.

THAT means ape, best theory.

Rather than get into the crazy 'you say tomato I say tomaeto, you say hominid, I say hominoid' nonsense, just state the specific species of hominid you are talking about. I've seen various candidates floated, but versus the classic gorilla description of the huge conical sagital crest, huge barrel chest, and heavy black or dark brown hair, I'm inclined towards Giganto.

Why the assumption that all hominids had technology? Why the assumption that Sasquatch are no smarter than an ape? There were several varieties of hominids that had brains not much larger than a chimp. Some of them are known to have lived fairly recently, about 1 million years ago, like boisei or robustus. Some of them also had sagittal crests. Actually there is no reason to assume that the crest isn't a nuchal crest just from them being so muscular and having very strongly supported necks. I am unaware of any reason that wouldn't develop on any hominid that became larger and more muscular. A nuchal crest was even reported on one of the large Sangiran Java erectus. It is apparent that many hominids inhabited the same geographical area at the same time. There is no reason to believe that they all developed technology like our lineage apparently did. There is no reason to assume that any lineage that didn't lead to us was technological if they separated from our lineage before technology. It is also highly dubious, in my opinion, that technology couldn't be lost if one of the more "advanced" hominids was forced into hiding.

How much like a human do think an animal would be if it split from our lineage about halfway from a chimp common ancestor. Most of the change in brain size has happened since that time so I wouldn't assign much human behavior or "humanness" to all hominids.

Indeed Bill, indeed.


Bill, are you trying to pad your post count or do you just normally talk like that?! Granted your posts are certainly valid posts and you have a very cheery disposition indeed. Seem very happy. That is good!

No offense intended Bill. I hope you are well.

Hmmm.. In order for something to be considered a viable species it seems there has to be a white Oxford-accredited acedemic putting his stamp on it. That isn't necessarily always a reflection on reality..

Giganto existed at a time when other species were very giganto themselves. It would make sense that way back when everything was supersized. In cooler times like during the ice ages, having larger bodies makes sense to fend off freezing to death. Giganto would've been supremely adapted both in climate and as an apex hunter of big game that roamed back then.

We know virtually nothing of giganto, other than they existed. How can we surmise that they became extinct? When reports are coming in from non-Oxford accredited common folk of high credibility, why can't we take them seriously? I've been all over the net reading reports from all walks of life. The common thread is: wide chests, neckless heads that slope to a crest or point, longer arms, a swinging gait, knees that don't fully extend straight, heights averaging 8-10 feet in adults. Consistent behaviors include freeze-camouflage, tree-banging, unearthly screams of similar description, huge strides, effortless climbing and a form of language of which the best description I've read so far (after hearing the Sierra audios) as "someone talking with a mouthful of food".

There have been consistent reports of these qualities down through time from the dawn of written history. Today reports still roll in of the same nature. The only crazy thing is to have ignored such a plethora of eyewitness accounts for such a long time.

Think of it this way, if you held a hearing in a court about the final decision of whether or not we should believe that this species exists, we could line up thousands upon thousands of people who have seen it, heard it, seen it's spoor, it's scat, it's bedding and present tons of accounts throughout history that were documented, coming from people who clearly had more to lose by telling them than to gain. This, in a court setting, would be considered the best of evidence you could hope for. The opposing view could only offer the phrase "that's ridiculous" as it's retort. Just saying "that's ridiculous" over and over does not refute an avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

Food for thought.

Giganto has been hiding out all these hundreds of thousands of years. It pays close attention to where we live and avoids those places like the plague. Chance encounters are the best they'll let us get a glimpse into their lives, and I think this is on purpose. Having survived as long as they have, it occurs to me that they have a line on us and our behavior and are avoiding us as a matter of staying alive. They talk to each other and have language, expressions, memory and cognition. If I was living wild and free in the woods like they do, my perception of homo sapiens would be one of awe and astonishment at the utter insanity of their foriegn and largely destructive world. Earth movers and logging machines have had huge boulders dropped on them. That's our cousins out there saying to us, "keep your insanity on your side of the fence and leave our homes alone."

Just my two cents.

wow is that supposedly real????boulders have been dropped on our machines?????do you know of any reports saying this or any web sites that have a report like that cuz i never heard one like that,i think if i'm driving something and all of a sudden a boulder comes crashing down on me i'm gonna continue to drive....right the hell out of there!!!!

Unfortunately, in a court of law, that wouldn't be enough to overcome the rule of "reasonable doubt". First, the opposing view has a point they could raise that's far more damning than aying "that's ridiculous". They could say that for all these years and all these thousands of "alleged" sightings and sounds, not one shred of physical evidence has been proven to come from that of a sasquatch. Where are the tests results on the scat found that prove it's from a sasquatch? How can one know that the bedding found is that from a sasquatch? No one has any documentation showing that a sasquatch was lying on that bedding or defacating or yelling or throwing rocks, etc... While these undocumented encounters might be enough to make us believe in the likely existence of these creatures, I think it's naive of us to think it's solid enough to win in a court of law. After all, if it were, we wouldn't have the numbers of non-believers we do would we?

It could be a hung jury...

There have been hair samples of primate nature of unknown origin. We do have that. And of course the numerous footprints some that have been verified by that professor in Idaho to have have skin ridges throughout: making hoax almost an impossibility. We are talking "beyond a reasonable doubt" not " beyond an UNreasonable doubt.."

Unreasonable doubt can be cited when even in the face of thousands of reports, video footage such as the Patterson film showing articulating muscles at skin level that would've been impossible in that era to hoax, "unknown" primate hair samples, barefoot "hangten human" footprints averaging 16 inches or longer and 6-8 inches wide in the middle of nowhere, discovered by credible people like peace officers, made by incredibly heavy beings in soils that don't compact near as much with the weight of a common man or even a bear. These things would compel a reasonable person to find in favor of the likelihood of a large human-like primate wandering our backcountry areas. The fact that bones haven't been found is unimpressive to me. Being intelligent they might simple keep track of their own and have ways of disposing of the remains. I've wandered around for decades in the backwoods and will tell you that bones of any animal are a very rare find indeed. Between the vultures and the scavengers and duff fall burying nearly everything, plus the possibility that the F "dispose of their own", we can't use the lack of bodies as evidence.

Personally from all I've heard of Uncle Sam's attempts to quiet information the masses are "allowed" to receive "in the interest of national security", if they did have a body or bodies they wouldn't risk upsetting the delicate minds of rabid christians, for example, who believe that God created man as the apex creature on earth. Imagine suddenly millions of christians or other human-centered religious fanatics realizing their faith was in error? Chaos.

So there's that little bungle as well.

Here's my reason for starting to believe that bigfoot is a homonid species. I was listening to a recent webcast on blogtalk radio and there seemed to be a ridiculing of the 'Skookum Cast'. First, I had my doubts about it also. But upon reflecting on the criticism directed at a seemingly respected researcher, I tried to put myself in his moccasins. Okay, here goes: If I felt the need to produce definitive proof, and I also had a bigfoot individual or group under direct and constant observation, that provided a consistent opportunity for study, then I would do exactly as that researcher did. Exactly. (I'll never be that good) So, then I would throw it on the table (present the evidence) and wait expectantly for the results of the scientific analysis. But, wham, it's elk hair. But I've studied, observed, baited the creature. (Not me, him) So just what the (blank) happened? Was my research saboutaged? No, they just did their job. So what could cause that result.

Back to me: Not knowing Mr. Noll personally, but expecting his research to be thorough and constant. (by explorer's standards) The conclusion I reached is that it was some type of outer wear (clothing) that the creature was wearing. If it is hominid it would be rational to presume he wears some type of clothing. Sorry, I like to use the Image feature when I search the web. Like reading comics, I know. But all the depictions show H. Erectus, H. Neanderthalensis wearing some type of clothing. That must be based on research. If they were wearing those types of clothing thousands of years ago, I would assume that they are likely to be still clothed, unless on a beach in Cali.

As far as bigfoot discovery leading to a catechism or whatever. No. Religion has survived the dinosaur discovery, the acceptance of native people's inclusion into h. sapien, and many other fervently held beliefs. Not to mention the abandonment of the (how many?) commandments.

A few quick questions:
What is the scientific consensus on the specific genus of Kennewick man?
Were neanderthals what we commonly call caveman, and is there a distinct physical distinction between sapien sapien and neanderthal? (Not considering direct evolution btwn the two, just if there is a notable difference)
Another question: Is gigantopithecus a type of hominid, descending from australopithecus?

A few years ago, my brother's and my families went on a camping/water skiing trip around Eastern Washington (east of the Cascades). While camping at Lake Entiat on the Columbia River there was a big fire in the Chelan area. The Red Cross used our campground as an emergency shelter. The canyon people were forced out of their trailers and down to our campground. I befriended one of the distraught families and got an interesting story. The guy (in his 20's) stated that he regularly sold ancient artifacts to the local museum, right next to the campground. He stated he felt robbed at the value he received for an old spear, which he thought was much older than the museum publicised. He said that he had more and better artifacts, and access to other areas with finds, but was unwilling to release them to this museum. He had a family to support, and that's reason he sells his items. Didn't bother me at the time. Just mentioned to him to take care, he said the fire wouldn't get his items. Might all be related to Kennewick man. He said some items didn't match regular indian artifacts. He also said his name is mentioned as discoverer on some items in the local museum.

(The scientific silence is becoming deafening to my questions.)

It is not based on research in the case of erectus. They may have some reasons to suspect the neanderthal probably wore cloths. As far as erectus is concerned, the are just making a wild guess and not a particularly reasonable one to apply if what many in the anthropology field is correct. Very few people think that cloths go back as far as erectus. It may just make publishing the illustrations easier into places where children would read it and not offend those that consider it indecent.

Link from the archeologyinfo site you reference in another thread.

That interpretation would make some or all of the Asian Erectus about 2 million years removed from our us or in other words 2 million years ago we had a common ancestor with the Asian erectus. There is no biological reason that erectus didn't split into multiple species as it spread out. The recent fossil evidence of erectus and habilis coexisting supports that possibility or maybe even makes it likely that it split earlier sense it likely increase the age of erectus. That would make some of the erectus presumably more primitive than the actual ancestors of modern humans. What the habilis, erectus fossils indicate is that at least two species of similar hominids can inhabit the same environment at the same time. They can form species quite easily and rapidly. People have a tenancy to see things as labels and paleontologist go to great length to put a label on everything. All you can say is that some of the Asian erectus are likely more primitive than others because they may have split from our lineage which presumably lead to technology. You cannot say from fossils how hairy they are or even how technological they are either since we now have evidence of how likely it is for two or more similar species to live in the same environment. The best gage to determine how human one of the hominids is, is to relate it to modern humans. That gets increasingly uncertain as you go back in time. The assumption of how humans they are is likely exaggerated in cases where the animal split off the human branch earlier than supposed.

Nice avatar, Bob Zenor. I'm hopin' to carve a cedar kayakin' hat just like that one of these days...and nice reply on the generalized erectus and other anthropological aspects, too.
Did I get that right? You implied that erectus and its affiliated radiations would have been presumably more primitive than the part of the evolutionary bush that became us. I'm sure you'd agree that the use of that word "primitive" should be clearly understood as a figure of speech. To characterise those those adaptations that erectus exhibit (or any other species on the planet have for their particular needs) as primitive would be subjective and indeed the use of the word harkens-back to the days when we observed the world we live-in as an expression of some kind of inherent intelligence, intent as if moving from primitive and simple to sophisticated and complex, with an objective direction in nature embued with a consiousness which is something even less certain than the existence of BF. We are prone to confusing our success as a species as evidence of sophistication and complexity, but were the blue-green algae to take over again (as some say it might), we'd probably not attribute that to their being less primitive.
And I don't reject the use of the word primitive altogether, but it is one of those descriptives that should be used carefully so people don'tget the idea that science and the standard model predict that we humans are the inevitable product of a process called evolution. Nature bats last.

That is a Kwakiutl mask from the Smithsonian labeled as a seal which it obviously resembles.

I agree with you, dogu4, that you need to be careful about using the word primitive in an evolutionary sense. I have been overusing the term human lately. It seems that many people just imagine that all the species of hominids are on some sort of parallel evolution toward higher technology and being "human". Paleontologist regularly attribute the highest technology found in a area to any hominids in the environment so it is understandable.

Here's a try. European neanderthals remained until at least 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens had covered the rest of the globe by that time. Neanderthals are descended from a migration of h. erectus occurring approximately 7-800,000 years ago. H. sapiens migrated later, around 200,000 years ago. The evolutionary difference between the two is very great. Now, if some of the neanderthals came to North America in the last 20-30,000 years ago and continued to live as cavemen, that would be where the evidence is. But, we have an immense population of large predatory mammals that den in caves. The neanderthals would have had to find a safer alternative to inhabit. I guess it was back to trees or somewhere. Plus, there's the head-on migration of sapien from the west, the Clovis.

hey people/ for my ten cents i'd think giganto and sasquatch were and are possibly one and the same and that there
are 9 or ten different kind of bigfoot creatures around the world. i think sasquatch eventually wandered here,
at least some of them from asia across the bering land bridge possibly. i think there were maybe two
or three types of sasquatch, one from 8 to ten feet tall and one from 10 to 12 or taller. i think maybe momo's
and skunkapes are indeginous to north america, mainly the u.s. though there may be some skunk apes or a close
relative in central and south america, if it is the same creature as here in north america i dont know for sure.
if giganto bones are bigfoot bones i think so and that we've only got a few teeth and jaw bones is amazing for
as long as the human race has been around now. i believe giganto defintely walked upright and is sasquatch
in the flesh though they can also go on all fours or however they like or whatever suits the moment. i saw
a three toed footprint near a creek around here way back in the early 80's. been so long i dont remember
to good, it was in a creek but i was working with my dad and didnt think much of it. it was probably 13 to 14
inches long, had 3 toes though i didnt have time to look around for other prints or anything. this is in
northwest missouri, just a couple of sighting reports from here not much. one thing i think they like abandoned
or unused barns or sheds to hide in and they like lakes and good water supplies because it also means abundant game and plant life. also they possibly just naturally go somewhere where its cool when its hot or warm when its
cold, which is the north/south, south/north scenario. i think to there are some stragglers or wanderer's that like to
wander around on thier own, going just about anywhere they please maybe. they probably when in a group
like the most inaccessible isolated parts of forests, swamps and valleys, caves also are a sure bet i think.
theres my ten cents worth i hope u all like it. lol

I'm always amazed when folks say there are multiple species of BF........ how and on what is this based?

We don't have conclusive evidence of even one species much less multiples......

I have to agree with that. Although in his defense, I think his statement is based on opinion, rather than evidence. I don't want to speak for manofthesea, I just think he's based this on the different names & characteristics from different regions.

It's just that the initial observation led to the assumption that Kennewick Man was a neanderthal descendant. They have evidence of Clovis culture at least 11,000 years old. There must have been an obvious difference in skeletal structure for a scientist to presume publicly of its neanderthal traits. The Kennewick Man is dated at around 9,500 years old. That would prove concurrent habitation by two hominid species. And also, it's been mentioned that we do not precisely know the hairy-ness of certain hominid species. Could be that neanderthals are rather smart, if simple.

Good point, but we have to remember that all of us are 'one' species.......... but I dare say that if you lined us all up that there would be a great deal of difference in how we appear. Height, muscle mass, hair density......... etc......... a casual or brief observation of 'us' darting around in the trees could easily lead one to think that there are multiple species......... which would of course be completely false......... and that doesn't even factor in any mistakes in describing the 'morphology' of the creature being sighted........ in a brief moment of fear and excitement, I'm certain that some things are over blown and some forgotten or simply missed.........

Yet these things haven't compelled many reasonable people to find in favor of the likelihood of the existence of a BF. Also, I'm a very dedicated Christian and have no problem with the discovery of a BF. As far as God not having created man as the apex creature on the earth, maybe you can tell me which creature it is because it certainly isn't Sasquatch.

How does finding BF impact Religion at all?

I'm a dedicated Christian believer and teacher, and I don't see a problem at all? Obviously, the fossil record shows that there have been several species of advanced primates (even neanderthals, which had a larger average brain capacity than we do!!), nearly all of which predate the appearance of our own particular species....... the fact that an additional large primate (besides the known apes) has survived, does absolutely nothing to my Faith.....

Be very careful that we don't venture into Religion though..........

I'm not sure if I should bring this up yet, but, at one of the neanderthal study sites in western Europe they have made some amazing discoveries/analysies. One standing out is that a neanderthal was discovered buried, with simple adornments, such as flowers. Surrounding the burial site was a circle of a certain type of large animal skulls. (Forget the animal offhand)

Seems to me I remember reading something like that 'years' ago......... like 25 to 30 years back.....

I'm more than alittle surprised that a 'true' museum would still be purchasing artifacts from an individual? The problem is that once you've excavated an artifact without properly documenting EVERTHING...... you've lost nearly all it's value as an artifact. Proper dating also becomes controversial and I'd question this fella's spin on the age of anything he's finding. Who is he and what is his background? Personally, I'd say he should get himself a regular job and stop destroying these sites that he's plundering!! If he has found something valuable, then he's destroying it's true value........ shame on him!

True, there's a website I previously mentioned, Archeologyinfo.com. It shows methods to be used if someone 'stumbles' upon a suspected archeological site. And the State of Washington is considering damming (literally, not religiously) the Columbia basin. I'm an environmentalist, but we all need water. (and clean air...)

Wow, just visited Mark Hall's site. So many bones, so many possibilities. But a complete refusal to officially classify or study any of them.

He is my best guess at what a bigfoot is.

The grey erectus is just a random erectus at this link but his orientation isn't prefect but it is close. I suspect that some of them separated from our lineage 2 million years ago or somewhat sooner. They may have become a less dominant version that avoided other closely related hominids that developed technology. You cannot assume this is the same animal as the fossil which is about a million years old or that it is a human ancestor. You should assume that it continued to become different and that means less like a human. The skull may be one of the Sangiran or Java erectus which may be a different species. Some of those are reported to have a nuchal crest but it is disputed. Other had enormous teeth and were likely very large.

I basically put a typical erectus on Patty. The blue is what I am supposing might be a nuchal crest. It would be consistent with her enormously powerful shoulders. It is basically extra muscles to support the neck. It probably doesn't need so much to support the head but is more to balance out the design of the rest of the body which is built for strength. Some of it may well be hair as well and the skull may be a bit longer with a more evolved nuchal crest. So what you have is a VERY "primitive" (non human) erectus that became very huge and strong.
Click to view attachment