HomoErectus was the first hominid with an external projecting nose and downward facing nostril.
In primates the nose does not jut out, only exception is the proboscis monkey.
Humans, sasquatch and the proboscis monkey are all excellent swimmers. sayyyyyyyyy.

One HomoErectus fossil (#1808) had Vitamin A poisoning...from eating carnivore liver.
Sasquatch munches liver.
Giganto munched bamboo.

hmmmmmm.




Or, maybe the Asian population didn’t go extinct……


HomoErectus fossils are found everywhere (including possibly Australia/USA).
Sasquatch is spotted everywhere (including Australia).
Giganto is only found in SE Asia and there are no apes on Australia.



sasquatch a giganto?.......something just doesn't smell right.

That one fossil with Vitamin A toxicity (of which it should be noted some scientists doubt the validity of those findings on the basis of skeletal abnormalities) does not imply that BF must be a modified Homo erectus. There are far more things that indicate that H. erectus is a poor choice (size, shape of anatomical structures, etc) for the possible source of the animal that is sasquatch. And remember, the assumption that BF eats liver is just that: an assumption. To my knowledge, no one has actually seen one of these animals eating the liver from a deer kill or anything else for that matter.

The problem only occurs in the livers of carnivores (similar to the buildup of DDT in a apex animal; the hypervitaminosis results from en masse consumption of prey animals livers, and since vitamin A is fat soluble (stored in the body, principally in the liver) it accumulates over time) not in deer that are the supposed target of the liver seeking by BF. Deer liver can be, and is, safely consumed without fear of hypervitaminosis A (vitamin A toxicity). A search of medical texts have revealed no known cases of toxicity from ingestion of non-predatory animal's liver. There was one anecdotal case of acute toxicity, from the late 1970's, stemming from the ingestion of wolf liver in Scandinavia.

So Chronic ... while I must admit I didn't follow ALL of that, what is it this information leads you to think or suspect?

Chronic thinks bigfoot is Homo erectus (or whatever H. erectus eveolved into). I give him credit for his persistence!

Well fair is fair. He has no more or less to go on that the giganto crowd. In fact he may have a little more to go on.

I dont think for a second that BF is a Homo Erectus. We all know they are shape shifting, titanium, droid, psychic, UFO pilots.

I hope you're kidding skunk....

Am I the only one who believes a bigfoot is a bigfoot?

I am with you.

By the way, orangutans, snow monkeys and several other species of flat nosed primate are excellent swimmers. And I know some humans who can't swim worth a damn. It's not a natural ability for us (i.e. we're not born with it) so saying that because a primate's nose sticks out then it must be a good swimmer is an ineffective argument.

Besides when was the last time you heard a BF being described as having a nose like Robert DeNiro. All the reports I have heard describe "ape like" or flat faced features.

Oh and I believe the species prior to H. erectus (H. ergaster if I remember the sequence correctly) also had a "man-like" nose. The angle the nostrils assume in relation to the ground has more to do with the angle and length of the structure called the anterior nasal spine on the under side of the nasal orifice on the skull (this border of the nasal opening in the skull is known as the inferior nasal aperture margin and the ant. nasal spine is part of the maxilla for those of you keeping score) than with the nasal bones proper (the bones the form the top of the nose). In most lower primates, and certain races (notably Negroid and Mongoloid (African and Asian for those of you who want to be "politically correct")
tbe spine tends to be shorter and have a more severe upward angle making the nares (the nasal opening in the fleshed out nose) lie more forward and be more apparent.

Could be possible though consider this face with thousands of years of evolution covered in hair and what not. Note the similarities in the facial features and those from the face of the creature in the Patterson film.

Yes, but look at the body that head was attached to.....everything points to a lower primate rather than a hominid. Just because it's bipedal doesn't make it a member of the genus Homo.

If I had to bet my life on something my guess would be it's a higher genus in the same order as orangutans (which is where Gigantopithecus is placed if I am not mistaken). I am not saying I fully buy the G. blackii theory, but I find it more plausible than an offshoot of the H. erectus idea. The physical makeup of the animal is more consistent with what we see in BF. The trend in hominids was for larger brains and smaller body mass (leaner body type), not for larger mass and an (assumingly ape type brain). I doubt we are specifically dealing with a member of the genus Gigantopithecus or Homo, but rather a totally new genus in and of itself. Only time will tell.

I'm in the camp of Gigantopithecus Biptus. Why else would this site exist?

Family pride BABY!!!!!

I was thinking more along the lines of Canadopithecus pattersonii (Canado- being the term for North America- "Patterson's North American Ape") But then again what about Bob Gimlin? Hmmmmm.....Gimlinopithecus pattersonii perhaps? I think these two men deserve recognition for providing our first real evidence of what this animal looked like.

@ Blackdog!

I agree with Chronic in his belief that the best candidate for bigfoot ancestor is Homo Erectus and specifically Homo Erectus Meganthropus.
Not sure just what it is in the bigfoot body (assuming Patty as the example) that makes it appear lower than "hominid." I agree that being bipedal does not necessarily make it closer to humans but I am curious what it is in the bigfoot body that more closely resembles Orangutans. I look at things differently than most I guess. It is a mistake in my opinion to assume that chimps or other apes are "lower" in an evolutionary sense. It is nice to assume that we are the pinnacle of evolution, but I think it is not very realistic. Each animal is adapted to its own niche. It is true that our intelligence makes us very special, but does it really separate us from apes or are we simply very intelligent apes. We set they rules so we can call ourselves whatever we want. I believe humans and Chimps had a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. I believe our common ancestor was probably an upright walking ape. Some would have you believe that we evolved out of our apeness yet chimps did not. In reality, we both evolved significantly, and it could be argued that chimps evolved more drastically than did we from our common ancestor, certainly in locomotion.



Actually Homo erectus didn't change much in 2 million years. That indicates to me it was a very sucessful well adapted species. It also evolved into H. erectus Meganthropus which was a true giant. It didn't seem to be trending to greater intelligence, at least not dramatically so. Its tools didn't change much either.

I think Chronic was alluding to his belief that Homo erectus might have been able to swim. There is certainly abundant evidence suggesting Bigfoot to be a very good swimmer. Taking advantage of the near shore environment might be important to animal crossing the land bridge into America. There is a famous theory of aquatic apes which it was theorized we evolved from. Humans do have a lot of features which seem to be well adapted to swimming. Human infants do swim instinctively but they will forget how to swim over time.
On a related issue, there was a couple of H. erectus in America stories lately. First there was a supposed fossil evidence approximately 20,000 years old of Homo erectus brow ridge in Mexico. This would be totally astounding and almost unbelievable. I will wait skeptically till proven. If this proves to be true, the interesting part for me will be the lack of tools. I would expect the tools to be found in greater abundance than the fossils yet I have not heard of any being found. The second thing was that I remember reading a month ago about two species of lice being found which might have indicated that Indians (Native Americans) met a group of "primitive" hominid, one author even theorized Homo erectus, after crossing the land bridge into America. I am not saying that if this was Homo erectus, that it was necessarily bigfoot but it does make it more likely (IMHO). I would think an Ape would have a hard time crossing the Bering Straight yet, Homo erectus was a mobile intelligent hunter. Sorry, I get long winded.

Just because a species doesn't change over a given period of time (be it several generations or several hundred) doesn't mean it was especially well adapted for anything....it implies that it was not under any pressure to change, e.g. there was nothing else competing for a given food source, etc. Actually your very suggestion that this homonoid animal is the direct descendant of an early hominid (note the different terms!) is an issue of what basically amounts to "devolution"- basically a lineage pulling a cladistic 180 turn and going backwards in terms of development. Not even the arrival of a more advanced hominid on the block is likely to have stimulated such a drastic change.

BTW, changes in hominid evolution tended to take place through succession of species rather than change within a given animal.....although there are some remarkable "intermediate" specimens of H. neandertalis and early H. sapiens from Europe and the Middle East. The succession tended to wipe out the less "brainy" apes. That is what I meant- that evolutionary forces in hominids tend to select brains over brawn.

The following basic problems exist in the Homo erectus theory (and these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head at midnight):
1. Lack of a metatarsal joint as described by Krantz, Meldrum, et al.
2. Ankle is in the wrong position in a H. erectus to produce the tracks found (and if you look at human legs and feet compared to those of early hominids you will see little difference in design (other than size differences)- nature has a tendency not to screw with things that are working well.
3. A 500+ lb difference in size between the largest H. erectus and the smallest described adult BF.

"Meganthropus" is a shaky subspecies at best and most likely represents the result of someone who wanted to get their name in print. The person who described it is what is referred to as a "splitter" in cladistics circles due to the tendency to want to split species apart based on any slight difference. It is likely simply a representation simply of larger individuals within a given species. It would be like stating that my friends Myron and Tyshon can't be human simply because they are both 6'6" and 280+ lbs. If you were to look at their skeletons next to mine (5'10" 150 lbs) and didn't know any better or were so inclined (such as you wanted to make a name for yourself in the field of paleoanthropology) you would likely think they were a subspecies of humans rather than what they actually are: Two VERY big black guys.

There is no evidence to support your contention that the "common ancestor" of chimps and man was strictly bipedal (at least not to my knowledge- as my areas of interest in paleontology are multituberculate mammals and marine reptiles). The reason I suggested the orang family is that the animal is problem in a more primitive group (primitive in the sense only that it has been around longer than our own) is that there is no fossil evidence to support the belief that this animal is a member of the genus Homo. There is a little (and I will admit all of it will fit into a shoe box) fossil evidence to suggest that there was an upright bipedal primate that generally matches the description of sasquatch. I'm siding with the option that at least has a little evidence.

We are each entitled to our opinions; I am not saying that for 100% you are wrong, just trying to point out weak points in your case so that you can be better prepared to defend it if possible against more aggressive personalities. Time will tell which of us are correct. I will buy you a beer if you are right. What do you say?

One more thing....there is no evidence to suggest that H. erectus had anymore conscious thought, reasoning, or planning ability than the average chimp. Some authorities have even argued that they were inferior in intelligence to present day apes.

After reading about Homo Erectus Meganthropus today I really believe this to be a better canidate than Gigantopithacus(sp?) for the following reasons.

1.We know that Homo Erectus Meganthropus was bipedal.

2.Estimated to be 7-9 feet tall weighing 700-1000 pounds.

3.I doubt that Giganto ever consumed meat rather just sitting on all fours eating bamboo all day.

4.If Giganto ate bamboo and thrived in a tropical climate why would it want to cross the land bridge? It makes more sense that a Omniverous hominid to follow game for the massive Vitamin A intake. Chronic above mentioned remains of a homo erectus with Vitamin A poisoning.

5.If Giganto is related to the orangutan family why would it's modern day form have man like feet? look at the feet of an orangutan they are shaped like their hands. It makes more sense for a bipedal relative of Homo Erectus to have large manlike footprints proportionate to it's size

6.Also The Giganto theory would support there only being Sasquatch in North America. What about the sightings from all the places around the world? Places in which Homo Erectus skeletons have been found?


It's to late getting sleepy will come back in the morning to add more if I happen to think of it during the night.


Jack"Hope this makes sense in the morning after coffee"Shiite

The fact that it didn't change means it had no evolutionary pressure. I think it is safe to assume that indicates that it is well adapted to its environment. His point is that it is you that are assuming a chimp is less advanced based on your preconceived notions.


Not quite sure what you mean here. Just so you know, my brother is very knowledgeable in the theories of evolution. Evolution always tends to select only those who are best able to reproduce. A large brain is very expensive in terms of diet and calories. If the animal doesn't need the larger brain, I think it would tend to devolve as you put it. I think that shows your prejudice. Nature doesn't care who has the biggest brain unless there is an advantage that outweighs the expense. I would agree with your statement though that hominids tend to select brains over brawn.



http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=149357

Please, take a look at the recent thread my brother posted on the feet. I think it answers all these questions. You seem awfully willing to discount the possible growth in Homo erectus. How do you account for the great difference in size between a pigmy and a Samoan? I don't know if it is a decedent of Homo erectus, but you are giving me very little evidence it isn't.


I don't know the evidence for the existence of Meganthropus. Krantz describe it as being very large in his recreation. He is after all the only reason that people think BF is Giganto? There must be something to Meganthropus.
http://www.boneclones.com/BC-141.htm



http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=138354
This post describes new evidence of an upright ancestor of chimps.


I think your assumption of being unprepared is in error.

That is just not true.

It's brain is much larger than a chimps brain. How else would you guage the likelyhood of conscious thought, reasoning, or planning ability than by size of the brain.

Would also like to state that it seems plausible that H. meganthropus is a good candidate, while also pointing out that the diets of extinct primates such as Giganto are not well defined. Up until serious field research was done, no one knew that Chimpanzees hunted down game or for that matter routinely kills other Chimpanzees. Now we also have this new species of ape in the DR of Congo, which seems to be a cross between a Chimpanzee and a Gorilla, which acts fairly aggressive, which is not an atribute of either of these species unless threatened. Just a thought.

Since when!?
They're restricted to southeast Asia, China, and Indonesia.
The Australian skull was an aboriginal H. sapiens braincase that Krantz misidentified.
NO hominid other than H. sapiens has been found in the North American fossil record ever.
Oh, and the liver-eater from Africa was H. ergaster, not H. erectus...different species.
Nothing personal, just keeping with the known facts.

assuming all the fossils currently attributed to H. erectus reall are the same species...many specialists are starting to think otherwise...
It might not have lasted 1.5 million years...the dating scheme has been reviewed recently too...it might only have been around a few 100 thousand years...less than has conventionally been believed.

No feet are even known for H. erectus...or H. ergaster.
No feet means no akles to compare to the prints.
The largest H. erectus probably has not been found...the sample size is very small and mostly isolated crania and a few leg or arm bones...not much to get an average size from...
sorry to be a party-pooper, but I'm just tryin; to keep it real, yo.

that's why I used the word "possibly"

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20041003/D85FLUT81.html

Plus, there's the California Calico site.




None from Africa or Europe? okay.



debatable.

Actually Chronic, even after half a million years, H. erectus (or H. ergaster, or whatever anyone wants to call it) would probably be a different species by now...H. sasquatchensis?
The California skull might have had strong brow ridges, but so do paleoindian skulls...these were once confused for Neanderthal skulls until better ones showed up...still no evidence for anything but H. sapeins in North America's hominid fossil record.
So let's go dig up a fossil 'squatch!!!! YYYeee-hhhaaawwww! First one to find the skull buys the beer!

A beer it is then.
I have had a hard time believing in Meganthropus also and I have never been very satisfied with what I found out. It is hard to separate hipe from reality. Some claim 12 footers. There seems to be a lot of hype in the little information there is but there does appear to be some real evidence. I believe it really existed and it was a true giant. How could there possibly be evidence of a giant hominid and almost no one know about it. It blows my mind. Maybe because of my interest in bigfoot and anthropology/paleoanthropology, it is more important to me. Even if it is not the ancestor of bigfoot, it is a truely awesome being, and it is probably very close to human.
From the Wikipedia Encyclopedia


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus"

Just as long as it isn't Gigantopithecus Erectus Bipto, I might have a problem with that.