The following urls is where I obtained the evidence, shallow though it may be.

http://www.evolutionnyc.com/IBS/SimpleCat/...-id/892385.html

Item#/SKU: SS408
Meganthropus paleojavanicus Skull
Reconstruction by Dr. Grover Krantz, based on Sangirin 31.
Size: 9 1/2"L, 7 1/2"W, 8 1/2"H
Origin: SE Asia
Age: Over a million years old

http://www.evolutionnyc.com/IBS/SimpleCat/...20Q00/pg/2.html
Homo ergaster
Nariokotome Boy
Item # / SKU: SS046
Discovered in 1984 by Richard Leaky (and described as H. erectus), this is the first skull...
Size: 7 3/4"L, 5"W, 6"H
Origin: Nariokotome, Kenya
Age: 1.6 million years old

I wondered if I could compare sizes (specifically heights of skulls of Homo erectus meganthropus) and the Nariokotome Boy. Luckily (thank you Google) I was able to make some comparisons. I have read the Nariokotome Boy was probably about 6 feet. Conveniently, its skull is 6 inches high (one inch equals one foot) as indicated above. I am assuming that the skulls are life sized and I realize that is a very big assumption. Interestingly, Meganthropus, as recreated by Krantz has a skull 8.5 inches high. If the ratios are the same and the proportions are the same, I would conclude that Meganthropus was around 8.5 feet tall. I would predict that Meganthropus would actually have a slightly smaller head than a homo erectus for its size, and this would indicate an even larger animal. For this comparison, I am assuming they are equal. Who knows, maybe Meganthropus had a giant head. I have read that when Meganthropus fossils were found, they were believed to be too big to be Homo and was assigned a different genus. They were later reclassified as a giant homo erectus. If they were close to 6 feet tall as has been suggested, I am confused why they were so reluctant to label it as homo. I would certainly would appreciate any info anyone has because I am still unsure just how big Meganthropus was. Google didn't help much in separating hype from fact. The picture shows the boy to the left and Meganthropus to the right.

We gotta be careful with this since skull size is a very poor indication of overall stature! Paranthropus boisei has a skull and teeth absolutely larger than an average human, yet stood only a little over 4 feet tall.
Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis had huge skulls, yet were shorter than the average European. Meganthropus apparently fits in all measurements and features within H. erectus and by that measure might have had the same large head/small body configuration as seen in Neanderthals and Paranthropus.
Same thing with Gigantopithecus...large skull and teeth could very well have been on a body no larger than a gorillas (possibly even smaller).

Since were starting out comparing a Homo Erectus (actually Ergaster in this case, but it is very comparable with erectus) who is 6 foot high, based on an adequate number of bones, and it has a skull 6 inches high. A member of the SAME SPECIES (as erectus) has the much larger skull (over 8 inches high). Meganthropus is merely a variation of erectus as it is currently classified. I think it is not logical to assume it is as short as the animal with the smaller skull. I think all we can really say is that it was probablyapproaching 8 feet tall (if not taller) based on the limited available evidence. There is no reason I can think of for a big headed Homo erectus unless that head was also attached to a proportionately big body. It is a pretty big stretch to theorize otherwize, in my opinion. Recently I saw an erectus skull next to a modern human skull. I could not escape the conclustion that the H. erectus was a much more powerful animal just based on its skull. I think the Meganthropus obviously had an even larger more impressive skull.

In case there is some confustion about Meganthropus paleojavanicus, it is the same thing as Homo erectus meganthropus. I was not referring to Gigantopithecus in my comparison above. I agree with DY that it would be pretty difficult to ascertain the height of Giganto based on bits of its skull. The attached photo is Gigantopithecus reproduction by Krantz.

I believe it is a different situation altogether when making size comparisons of H. erectus meganthropus with members of its own species (or very close relatives).

I wonder if anybody here knew that Grover Krantz was originally called into the investigation of the Kenniwick man but was later dropped because of his affiliation and writings on Bigfoot. The government knew that the topic would be very contoversial and that they didn't want any complications especially with First Nations tribal members being able to call into question his prior work.

Reconstruction of living beings from bone fragments was one of his jobs. I think he was pretty good at it, at least no one is making claims of errors on his part in that area of his work.

I talked with him extensively on the Giganto reconstruction and both he and Daris Swindler agree the most likely canidate is Giganto. There apparently was enough time between the age of the Giganto bones found and contemporary reports of Bigfoot to allow for evolution, so bipedalism did not have to be evident right at that moment. Daris had nothing but good things to say about Grover.

Daegling is qouted in his own book on Bigfoot as saying that the advocates have something of a coup (sic) with getting Daris's comments concerning the Skookum cast. Daegling and others approached Grover towards the end of his illness and questioned him on the Skookum cast but Grover was in so much pain that he didn't want to talk about anything. They took that to mean that he did not endorse the cast or find, but I have it on tape and in his own writings that he believed otherwise.

What a shame to try an promote their ideas and concerns onto a very sick man. A correction for this will be forthcomming though.

First, I want to say that I admire Dr. Krantz for both his intellect and guts. I do know that Dr. Krantz believes that Giganto is the best candidate. It would be difficult to justify his desire to kill one otherwise. Why he actually believes it, he explains fairly well in his book. I just don’t happen to agree with him about the most likely candidate. He explained that one of the hand prints shows that Bigfoot does not have an opposable thumb and that is assuming the hand prints were not fraud. That was only one reason he provided. Although there is no thumb evidence for Meganthropus, it is likely to be similar to H. erectus (with opposable thumbs). I do not believe that the slight rotation necessary to result in the Bigfoot handprints evolving from opposable thumbs is that big of a deal. Anyway, Krantz doubted that it could evolve the thumb that quickly. I think it is easier for people, especially scientist to accept an ape rather than a hominid. That is why I think he believes or at least why he favored this theory, but I don’t think this is really a very rational reason.

Kenniwick man was supposedly close to Polynesian in race or at least that was the conclusion of anthropologist associated with it until the Indians took the remains for political reasons. There is now evidence that the Folsom points came from technology developed in France. The American Indians are not going to appreciate that theory. They want to keep their claim as being the first inhabitants.

I've seen photos of two of the reconstructions.....the Scanaheauvian one looks exactly like me......i'm Danish, Swedish, Finnish and German......

The second one looks more like Patrick Stewart......don't know his ancestry.....

Efforts to obtain Kenny Wickmans DNA have been partially successful ...... i have been encouraging them to try to get the DNA out of one of his teeth instead of out of a rib.....this has been denied by the court the last i knew.....our government seems to be still trying to placate the tribes....hopefully the courts will eventually allow the scientists to finish the evaluations which were started.......

what i expect to eventually see( if i live long enough) is that science will also come around to the realization that the Americas have seen many groups of peoples coming here over the last 40,000 years....our Amerinds weren't the first, Kenny Wickmans ancestors likely weren't the first, either.....

edited for spelling

Yep, that pretty much spells out my belief about what is most likely also. Too often modern people think ancients were stupid and incapable. The more we learn, the more we realize they were as bright as moderns. Most Indians probably migrated less than 12,000 years as they happen to be from a newer race apparently originally from Tibet, certainly the Sinodonts which include the recent arrivals like Navaho, I believe the Northwest Indians, eskimos and others. Some of the others such as Sioux were apparently from the Old Oriental races that migrated maybe 10,000 years ago. For me it doesn't change their claims to land, it simply reveals the real history, so I wish they would let the scientist have access. It is only a matter of time anyway before the truth creeps out.