Bigfoot: What is it? Digging through fossil records and eye-witness descriptions such as the "Sierra Kills" to find an answer

Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Josh Brown, Anthropology Major (Physical) from Sacramento CA, and CEO of "Skye Highland Outfitters".


What is Bigfoot? Is it a Gigantopithecus, homo erectus or a hybrid of either of these species? We will attempt to answer this question by using fossil evidence and the latest eye witness descriptions from the Sierra Kills event and others.

Matt Moneymaker recently tweeted: "Bigfoots don't wear tartan EVER!". As a kilt maker, this was devastating news. It is my personal mission to get everyone on this planet into a kilt - Bigfoot being no exception. This statement actually is a good lead into my first posting. We all know that Bigfoot isn't a kilt wearer....As a matter of fact, we know a lot of what Bigfoot is not. So can we take what we DO know to determine what exactly is this creature called "Bigfoot"?

To really begin this post, let’s go ahead and practice some applied anthropology. Just because we don't have the elusive physical evidence as of yet to determine the answer to this question, we can utilize and apply other sources of evidence to make a reasonable determination of what this creature "most likely" is.

Let’s begin....

Science is based on theory, hypothesis, formula and proven fact based on solid physical evidence. Bigfoot broken down to its most basic common denominator is an upright being that walks on 2 legs (Having big feet is actually secondary of which we'll come to later). This puts Bigfoot within the family of "Honidae" of which we, as humans, also belong. Physical anthropologist have created an extensive map through archeology, osteology (The study of bones), and radio carbon dating (A technique that allows us to determine the general age of an artifact) of the first tree dwelling hominids that made the transition to upright, bi-pedal hominids. We've all seen the famous comparison schematic (Origin of man). You know the one, a small ape-ish looking creature almost standing. In front of that a more erect, taller version, and so on, and so on, until you reach modern man at the end of the line. I think we all can agree that Bigfoot belongs as a divergent species within this grouping, so directionally; we're on the right track to answering our question.

For time's sake, we cannot review every species from Australopithecus (We've all heard of "Lucy") on up to modern Homo sapiens, so we'll need to make some refined choices as we continue. To make these choices, let’s determine:

A) What descriptive evidence we have so far for Bigfoot.

B) Let’s pair this evidence with known hominid bi-pedal and ape species that have been discovered and see if we can't narrow the search even further and to begin a cross comparison of potential species and the probability of Bigfoot being a sub group.

Through all the indigenous folklore, eyewitness sightings, videos and pictures, we see a reoccurring theme concerning what Bigfoot looks like. They are:

• Large hairy ape-like creature, ranging between 6–10 feet (2–3 m) tall, *Weighing in excess of 500 pounds (230 kg.
• Covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair.
• Large black eyes.
• A pronounced brow ridge and a large, low-set forehead.
• Large lipped mouth, but without the protruding mandible that is present on modern day apes and monkeys
• Head has been described as rounded and crested, similar to the sagittal crest of the male gorilla.
• Enormous footprints for which it is named have been as large as 24 inches long and 8 inches wide.

For cross comparison, I want to list the description as given by Justin Smeja who has purportedly shot and killed 2 of these creatures. If true, his description would be the most accurate:

NOTE: I'm including differentiation between Adult and Sub-Adult.

• Bigfoot Youth -- “rounded” mouths like humans, with no tusks or fangs, enlarged but not long canines, similar to a gorilla’s.
• Bigfoot Youth --- eyes like humans.
• Bigfoot Youth --- looked very different than the Bigfoot Adult.
• Bigfoot Adult --- no “cone-head”.
• Bigfoot Adult --- compared to Roger Patterson’s film subject, “it was so much like that but totally totally different and not even close in appearance” and it looked “as different from patty as chuck norris and the cable guy.”
• Bigfoot Adult --- not muscular looking, not fat, not as wide as generally portrayed in recreations.
• Bigfoot Adult --- when shot, it ran on two legs, and then on all fours, then on two legs, then on all fours before it left view. (this part was in Randles’ recounting).
• Bigfoot Youth --- communicated, “talked” like humans, in the vocal way of the deaf, with no ape like grunts.

As you can see, both descriptions share some similarities, while at the same time there are stark, intriguing differences. Before we move on, let’s go back into time to the earliest existence of the modern human “Homo sapien sapien”.

Evidence proves to this point (It is sufficient to note that current paradigms in Anthropology concerning this theory could change as more fossil evidence is discovered) that modern humans arose out of the Rift Valley area of Africa (As seemingly all other hominids) around 200,000 years ago and began to migrate North and North-East out of Africa about 100,000 years ago. Europe and Asia Minor at that time was inhabited by a reasonably successful hominid called "Neanderthal - Homo sapiens neanderthalensis", and Asia had "Homo Erectus". We know that Humans were contemporaneous with both of these species by carbon dating bones of each species (This means that they lived side by side for a period of time). Since the advent of DNA sequencing, we have also determined that there was interbreeding between at least Humans and Neanderthals. Let me emphasize that again - Humans and Neanderthals were able to copulate and produce offspring. I think this ability to be able to cross breed might have a bearing on our conclusion to this posting's main question.

We now need to do some comparative canceling out. In relation to North America, we must decide which theater of the world might produce a hominid that would be able to inhabit North America other than modern human. We know for certain that there was no land bridge from Europe to the Americas to give an access way from that point. We do know that the Aleutian Islands land bridge were a gate way between Asia and North America up till almost 6,000 years ago. This is the key to this quest. We can now focus this mission to Asia and REALLY begin to narrow down the search.

Let’s begin this focus on Asia by determining the hominids and apes that inhabited this region within the last 300,000 years.

Hominids:

HomoErectus

Homo sapien

Apes:

Gigantopithecus

Orangutan

So we have reasonably narrowed down the choices to 4 species. Before we take the descriptive evidence and begin to cross compare with the known facts of each species, we must take a quick look at 2 evolutionary traits that are key to helping us discover an answer to our quest for "What is Bigfoot". The 2 traits are Sclera (Or the phenomena of showing the whites of eyes) and the ability to have and make speech.

Take a look at these pictures of existing apes. Please keep in mind that apes have retained their morphology for up to a million years without significant change:

Gorilla

Chimpanzee

Orangutan

Gibbon

Now - Take a look at modern human and our conceptualization of homo erectus as based on forensic reconstruction:

Human

Homo Erectus

You can see immediately that the adaptation of "Sclera", or the formation of the "White of the eyes". It is theorized that this adaptation evolved because of our social nature. The eye became a useful communication tool as well as a sensory organ that coincided with the hominid ability to have speech (the main form of communication). On the reverse end it is theorized that apes have retained blacked out sclera so as not to give away directional gaze. This is a fantastic offensive and defensive adaptation that overrides the need for visual communication to coincide with ape's meager verbal "grunts" and shrieks that act as their only form of verbal communication. This is VERY important.

Secondly - Humans (Possibly Neanderthals and Homo Erectus) are the only species to have developed vocal language through specialized vocal chords and genes that "turn on" around 8 months so our bodies can begin to mimic and perceive words for attention, want, pain, etc. While humans have taught apes how to communicate through sign language to some degree, we don't have any observed evidence that primates have the ability to make speech at any level. In order to make communicative speech, the brain must execute the fundamental articulations of the mouth to produce pitch/octave/stop noises that can be taught, learned and understood by successive generations.

OK - So now that we've taken into account attributes of the 4 possible species, let’s make further eliminations and narrow our field even more. Humans and Orangutans are not likely candidates based on the descriptive and media evidence. This leaves us with the 2 most probable species (or direct descendant thereof) :

• A) Gigantopithecus
• B) Homo Erectus

When we compare the 2 lists of descriptive evidence, you will see some attributes of both species; however, you will also see completely contradictory attributes that seemingly cancel the other out. Here's what I mean:


1.) Large, hairy bi-pedal animal is consistent with the theory of Bigfoot being a direct descendant of Gigantopithecus. To further this, there is no evidence of any Hominid being this massive in Asia.

2.) Coned head is absolutely consistent with great apes. A coned head is the result of a prominent Sagittal crest that all great apes exhibit, and a Gigantopithecus would absolutely have this attribute. The sagittal crest acts as an anchor for muscles that work massive, protruding mandibles and jowls.

Gorilla skull and Orangutan skull for example of sagittal Crest

Homo Erectus skulls exhibit the slightest of crest

3.) Large black eyes devoid of sclera is completely consistent with great ape species of today, so it is plausible to assume that a Gigantopithecus would exhibit this trait as well (Remember-sclera is not present with apes)

So far, the Gigantopithecus is the obvious choice, but as we continue to compare and contrast the rest of the evidence, we begin to see a shift towards Homo Erectus like attributes. The first one is the biggest piece of evidence that we see suggesting hominid relations - THE BIG FEET!!!!

4.) The most collected evidence of Bigfoot are castings of its massive feet, and guess what - They are not like any ape foot structure at all. Not even close. Take a look:

To further this proof, it is pretty clear that the metatarsal break unique to bi-pedal hominids can be detected within the castings. If Gigantopithecus is an established ape, then we know that it cannot have this foot structure. Houston.....we have a problem. Let’s keep going-

5.) Linguistics have now been documented and noted by witness accounts and by recording (Google "Samurai Chatter"). Linguistics is solely an attribute of the human/hominid line and not to ape.

I would point out that there are shared characteristics between the Homo Erectus and Gigantopithecus - Large brow ridge, low set forehead, large lips. Another shared characteristic is sexual dimorphism within the Bigfoot species which also is noted within the hominid and ape species. I point this out because Justin Smeja's claim that the adult Bigfoot he shot had no coned head. Female apes tend to have lesser sagittal crests, not giving the same pronounced coned head as males.

So there it is. Bigfoot seemingly is a combination of these 2 different species. Remember earlier I cited that there is now DNA evidence that humans and Neanderthals were able to breed and give birth to live young that then went on to reproduce? Speciation is possible obviously, and I propose that Bigfoot is the direct descendant of the breeding of Homo Erectus with a relative of Gigantopithecus that may have been genetically closer to Homo Erectus as to be able to produce offspring. How this would happen, or why.....I don't know. But I do know that the attributes of both species seem to be seamlessly merged. This hybrid creature, having acquired the successful attributes of both species, set up life within Northern Asia. Like other animals, some of this hybrid species would have followed game across the land bridge into North America where it found the perfect habitat for survival. Here it continued to develop and adapt to the common species we know today as "Bigfoot".

We know from morbid experiments in Stalinist Russia that humans cannot produce viable young when inseminated with sperm from apes, but I'm willing to consider that this phenomena is plausible with our distant relatives and closely related ape species (Remember - We share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees),

This idea first came into my head when I was shown the "Sylvanic" videos by my kids. Take a look and see if you can spot attributes from the head shots alone of each hominid and ape:

I know that many have written Tom Standing off as a hoax, but when I saw these pictures and began to apply all my training in Anthropology to work in my head, the idea of Bigfoot being a "real" species was solidified to my opinion today. Again, I'm just an arm-chair anthropologist and invite one and all to critique this opinion, or make additions to it. Let’s have an intelligent discussion and see if by using this post as a foundation to learn and build a model of what this amazing creature is!

Discussion starts now.........