Gigantopithecus

[Bill]

I don't know anything about the source of the photo, or if there are more showing the thing in different postures, but frankly, it looks to be dead-on match for a mature chimpanzee. I've spent a lot of up-close-and-personal time with chimps of all ages over the years, and the posture, the proportions, the pale apparent hand and face, the flat head with wide ears, the head sitting low in relation to the shoulders, all are characteristics I've seen often.

Has that been considered by whomever evaluated this photo? Just curious.

Bill

[MIB]

How many of you guys believe that Sasquatch could be a relict Gigantopithecus?

Specifically a relic ... no chance at all. A descendant .. a little more chance but not much more, something in the 1-2% range.

MIB

[Guest]

Specifically a relic ... no chance at all. A descendant .. a little more chance but not much more, something in the 1-2% range.

MIB

Why.

[MIB]

Unless you want to discount mainstream science' view of "giganto", it was very different than what I saw. Incompatible. As far as "evolve into", there hasn't been enough time. 300,000 years ... no. Unless you postulate that giganto is "TOP", that is. I'm "not going there."

I allow for the possibility that mainstream science may change its mind about gigantopithecus in the future, but unless that happens, and until it happens, I'll stick with what I said.

MIB

[Guest]

I don't doubt what you say, I'm just at the back at the drawing board stage after the DNA debacle and want a fresh take on the subject.

[Guest]

In my opinion, there is a zero percent chance that bigfoot is Gigantopithecus. I say this because of what is known by science about Gigantopithecus blacki and also because of my sighting in NE Oregon.

According to the article "Why bigfoot cannot be Gigantopithecus" linked above by blueb4sunrise, there is no proof that Gigantopithecus was bipedal and without a complete skull this cannot be proven. The article also states that bipedalism has not been confirmed in any Asian ape species, living or extinct. And, that bipedalism has only ever been proven to exist within African ape species that have descended from Australopithecine. The article also says that Gigantopithecus fossil finds suggests that the range of Gigantopithecus was in the bamboo forests of Southern China and other parts of SE Asia and that there is no scientific evidence of Gigantopithecus in NE Asia. So I agree with his theory that Gigantopithecus could not survive in the wide range of habitats in North America, given that the only known habitat of Gigantopithecus was the areas of SE Asia that contained bamboo forests.

The sighting that I had in the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness confirmed to me that sasquatch is not an ape, but a relic human. The face of the being that I saw in my binoculars was similar to that of Neanderthal or Homo Heidelbergensis, but not necessarily an exact match to either. The hair was a reddish brown, and the face was human like. The closest depiction that I have found to what I saw, is the face shown on the cover of the book “Enoch†by Autumn Williams, but still not an exact match. In my opinion, Bigfoot is a new species that has not yet been proven to exist by modern science. I think that it could possibly be a relic caveman like species that has somehow survived extinction due to its intelligence and its ability to withstand adverse conditions.

Edited March 10, 2013 by squatcher

[Guest]

Bill,

I can see what you are saying regarding the proportions in the pic. The main reason it caught my eye is it illustrates the difference in color between the face and the rest of the body. There is no chance what I saw was a chimp.

[ThePhaige]

I have attached two pics. One is the illustration of a giganto that I mentioned earlier. The other is a photo of a BF taken in FL. I have included it, because it is very similar to what I saw. I can only describe what I have seen.

There seems to be a more orangutan like species in FL. That pic on the right I believe was proven to be a bird lifting off the ground though I may be mistaken FR. Perhaps the GP is closely related. Not enough of the animal was found to be sure and we dont seem to have SSq bones or facial bones for comparison

Edit: Oh no my bad that was in Kentucky

Edited March 10, 2013 by ThePhaige

[MIB]

I don't doubt what you say, I'm just at the back at the drawing board stage after the DNA debacle and want a fresh take on the subject.

Despite the DNA debacle, I have not given up on the hybridization concept. When I first heard it, it was like 20 puzzle pieces that didn't otherwise fit dropped cleanly into place. There's something akin to mathematical elegance there ... like doing integration instead of computing Riemann sums. I'm not throwing out the hybridization baby with the Ketchum bathwater.

It's likely my motivations are different. I seek understanding of behavior. The Ketchum study would not have contributed to that if validated and does not take away from it if refuted. It's a curiosity, a distraction during a long gray winter, but it changes nothing for me.

What I'm going to do, "post Ketchum", is what I'd have done anyway ... wait for some snow to melt and head for the mountains.

[Guest]

Despite the DNA debacle, I have not given up on the hybridization concept. When I first heard it, it was like 20 puzzle pieces that didn't otherwise fit dropped cleanly into place. There's something akin to mathematical elegance there ... like doing integration instead of computing Riemann sums. I'm not throwing out the hybridization baby with the Ketchum bathwater.

It's likely my motivations are different. I seek understanding of behavior. The Ketchum study would not have contributed to that if validated and does not take away from it if refuted. It's a curiosity, a distraction during a long gray winter, but it changes nothing for me.

What I'm going to do, "post Ketchum", is what I'd have done anyway ... wait for some snow to melt and head for the mountains.

I agree with you that it makes since and adds up nicely, the hybridization theory. It works to the extent we can fit bigfoot into a mold that works and fits possibly scientifically. I guess it is just disappointing to realize we know nothing really about the DNA. Can we even assume that the MtDNA is human? I don’t know that we can assume that based on the study.

[MIB]

At least it's an explanation that has the potential to work scientifically.

I don't want to bet more than I can afford to lose, but I think ... Ketchum or no Ketchum ... that there seems to be something to the mtDNA coming back human. Think about the samples in the past that have been presumed contaminated and discarded because they appeared human. What if someone had had the foresight and funding to dig a little deeper rather than discard?

[Guest]

@ Florida reader,

That is a good point about how the one you saw looked similar to this artists impression of gigantopithicus

that is a great sketch

There is just one wee niggle I have.....This artist impression was created from just a jaw bone and some teeth of giganto', so it's really just an estimate of what it looked like.

I think, in my humble opinion that we need more information about Giganto' and about BF before we could ever determine one way or the other if they are indeed related species. But going from what we have learned about giganto, so far it looks unlikely.

[Guest]

That drawing looks like Harry from Harry and the Hendersons.

[Guest]

Ace,

Yep, it does look a little like Harry and the Hendersons.

Blue,

Blot out the nose and mouth and you have what I saw. No artists conception was involved with what I saw. It is merely a means to communicate/illustate what was seen. Oh, and don't forget to add the long orang type reddish brown hair. Where did the artist get the wide cheekbones? They were unmistakable. Are there other hominins with cheekbones like this?

[Guest]

species A hybridizes with species B, it will not produce a new species C. I have studied hybrid populations. What you get is a complete mixture. Individuals that look like A, individuals that look like B and individuals everywhere in between.