Gigantopithecus? Hold on a sec...
Editor’s Note: Michael Higgins is 28 years old, Texas born, Oklahoman. He is an advocate and a firm believer of the Squatch. He has witnessed one of the big guys or gals near a powerline trail in Honobia, Oklahoma. Michael is a realism artist interested in doing sasquatch sketches for eyewitnesses. You can visit his blog at okiesquatchartist.blogspot.com.I know many a person believes that the Squatch could be Gigantopithecus in the flesh. Me personally, I think not. From what I've found on the net, the only fossils of Giganto that have been found are a jaw bone and teeth (if you are to correct me, please provide the source).
I know us humans are excellent at creating what we theorize Giganto to be. But it's all based off of a jaw bone and teeth! We really have a limited idea of what we believe Giganto could look like! We base it off of great apes as we know them. Are we right? Maybe. But the Squatch seems to have more human-like qualities.
Now, many people wonder about the hair. Hair is not fossilized with the bone fossils that are found of early man. Erectus, heidelbergensis, florensiensis, neanderthalensis-we don't know how much hair these forms of early humans had. We basically use anthropomorphism to recreate these beings, when depicting them in any form of artistic image. Most of the time, we recreate their image to be clean shaven. We know how human facial features measure up, pertaining to the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, etc. We can't truly confirm how early humans actually looked. Perhaps they looked more ape-like. We will never really know. If you want to know more about what I am talking about, go to youtube and type in Neanderthals Super Predator and watch Vendramini's theory of how the Neanderthals actually could have been. It's very intriguing and worth your time.
Giganto? I highly doubt. Sasquai are smart. Not that apes are not smart. It's been proven that they are extremely smart, and that they can, in some ways, put humans to shame with their memory abilities. But humans have a sophistication that other great apes have not been able to acquire. I don't see great apes building the amazing structures that man has been able to build. Great apes do not posses a sophisticated language. Great apes do not normally walk on two legs.
So I ask you, what grounds do we have to base the theory that Sasquatch may be Gigantopethicus? I certainly don't believe that it is. Nor do I believe that it is a freakin sloth. In fact, the sloth theory, in my opinion, is rediculous all the way around. These things posses a human-like intelligence. Most likely, they have stood the tests of time and eluded, for the most part, our destructive nature. Giganto? I think not.
Why didn't you learn how to spell the name correctly before imposing your worthless opinion on everyone?
ReplyDeleteyou needed your ups there didn't you..and no value added
DeleteThat gigantos are scaled up orang based on jaw bone and teeth alone is inferred from other situations where more of the skeletons were available: when jawbone and teeth were close, so was the rest of it. Hence the probability that animals in giganto genus are close to orangs is high, but not certain.
ReplyDeleteThis is beautiful. I don't think we'll learn modern Sasquatch is a Giganto descendant, either, but this painting rocks.
ReplyDeleteWe can compare Gigantopithecus jawbones to gorilla and human jawbones. After comparing the teeth and jawbones from the Gigantopithecus genus (there are 3 known species), we know that Gigantopithecus blacki was 11-13 feet tall and 1,200 lbs. Gigantopithecus giganteus was about 6 1/2 feet tall. Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis was about the same size as Gigantopithecus blacki. We know of no other genus of fossil hominid that is as large as these apes, so it makes perfect sense that the Sasquatch is just a new species from this genus.
ReplyDeletePopulations of heidelbergensis contained tall individuals-reaching over 7 ft.
DeleteSays your obscure German “scientist”. Why don't you provide us with the details of his theory and the data that it is based on so that we can evaluate his hypothesis ourselves?
DeleteThe few anthropologists that think about this topic never propose anything in the homo genus. Why? Well, they don't want their peers to scream in their faces "Where are the freaking tools?!".
DeleteWe don't know whether Giganto even walked upright so Krantz' theory is severely flawed, or should that be clawed. To be honest, I think Giganto probably didn't walk upright instead I just imagine it more like a giant Gorilla. The Sasquatches have a proven language, that spells intelligence, they're bibedal we know that and have humanlike facial features all this is the homo family. They just aren't apes so they aren't Giganto, yeah I know we're apes too troll jive that by all means but it makes them hominins rather and not beasts.
DeleteFeral Man bones = medicine
ReplyDeletePersonally, my money's on a robust Australopithecine like Paranthropus.
ReplyDeleteCould be possible imo
DeleteSaw a documentary last night on a fossil graveyard found in the back of a cave on a small island in Palau. The fossils were of a hominid which reached a maximum height around 4 foot, very similar to the Flores Hobbits in size. The big difference was that the carbon dating showed them to be between 4000 and 2000 years old. Man was not thought to have the ship building know how to make an ocean crossing of this magnitude until around 3000 years ago. The final theory on these little guys is that they are descended from normal sized humans. After their ancestors arrived on the islands and found limited resources it is thought that in a period of only 200 to 300 years they went through a period of rapid evolution resulting in their small stature.
DeleteThis has made me think of this in terms of Sasquatch. If man is capable of this type of rapid evolution then maybe we aren't descended from them, but they from us. Man lived through the ice age, and it doesn't seem to be completely beyond reason to think that an isolated group might over time develop a larger frame and a coating of thick hair to deal with harsh temperatures. I know it's a stretch but I haven't been able to stop thinking about it the last 24 hours. John
I don't mean to sound like an a-hole, but the OP is showing an ignorance of modern paleo-anatomy. They use fossil remains, relate them to know full remains and use a lot of formulas and such to come the conclusions, it has worked for dinosaurs and so far for mammals and primates as well.(when partial remain were used, and later full remain discovered they tended to match the predicted anatomy described )
ReplyDeleteWooooooooo
DeleteFunny you still sound like one, Nicky.
DeleteIf gigantopithecus is an ape, then it would be likely that it would share characteristics such as opposable big-toes, short, bowed legs, lack upright posture and thus be ill-equipped for bipedal locomotion, as Sasquatch are reported to be. By all accounts, Sasquatch appears to be a type of hominid (or "hominoid", as I've heard one party insist) and not an ape.
ReplyDeleteHominid refers to all great apes, including Humans. Hominin refers only to the human branch of the family.
DeleteCitation: http://australianmuseum.net.au/Hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference/
Correct, and Bigfoot's got lots of hominin traits and bodily resemblances.
DeleteAndy P. You have it backwards.
DeleteFood for thought...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I like turtles!
Jonathan Poulsen = idiot
ReplyDeleteOkie, I don't believe in Bigfoot at all, but if you’re going to criticize other peoples theories you should be smarter about it. The sloth theory (though wrong) has at least two things going for it; giant ground sloths have a fossil record and are known to have existed in north America, and, unlike most apes, sloths actually are very cryptic animals. Most apes (I am not sure about bonobos) are territorial, and minimally sneaky. A lot of known apes will meet intruders with a threat display, not any kind of “tree-peaking” bullshit. Oh, and your Giganthopithicus crap is just you giving your opinion. You're really just saying that a giant orangutang doesn't quite fit you vision of the mystic ape.
ReplyDeleteBingo. If you support the sloth theory, you at least get to wave a NA fossil around. The lack of which is a deep cut to any other theory. I'm still hoping a giganto fossil might turn up here.
DeleteWrong. The sloth is not an ape, shows how much the complainer there knows. It's got claws which apes don't and it's related to anteaters and armadillos no less, not primates.
DeleteWrong, you retard. Neither of the above posters said that sloths are apes. The first poster actually said “unlike most apes” which means that a sloth is “unlike most apes”. It does not mean that a sloth is an ape you stupid shithead. The poster then went on to compare sloths to apes. Read the goddamn post rather than imagining things that aren’t there.
DeleteLook at the fossil jaw and teeth of what was once called nutcracker man. Since the teeth were huge it was assumed they were used for cracking nuts. In reality it was recently stated that the teeth were used for eating grass. In all likelyhood there are many undiscovered species yet to be found in the fossil record. Perhaps a bigfoot fossil is among them.J.D.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see an article like this. I agree.
ReplyDeleteI believe Giganto was theorized only on it's assumed size match to sasquatch. Most other attributes of the two do not match what is believed. It is just one theory among many. Not mine though.
ReplyDeleteGlenn
It was big; Krantz said it was bipedal and for this your accusation may be correct.
DeleteI think 'Bigfoot' is something from the lineage of Homo Rudolfensis personally. The second likeliest candidate would be a descendant of Paranthropus Robustus with Gigantopithicus Blacki third likeliest.
ReplyDeleteThanks (eye-witness) Michael. A well written article with an argument I generally agree with. However, as Anon Sunday 8:05 points out, the apparent lack of tool (and fire?) use seems strange. Tim, U.K.
ReplyDeleteWell, to begin with you are correct in that the only evidence we have of Gigantopithecus is a jawbone and many teeth. Further, that evidence all comes from Asia, though that is certainly no reason to discount the Bigfoot connection in and of itself. Analysis of the above mentioned dentition reveals a diet consistent with a creature that lives in deep canopy forest, like Bigfoot. The projected size of the Giganto, matches the reported size of Bigfoot. It is not unreasonable to assume hair as I am unaware of any mammals that range from temperate to alpine environments that do not have a full coat of fur. Lastly, consider that there are no confirmed discovered remains of a bigfoot, and so very few discovered remains of a Giganto. This is pure assumption, but there is a pattern, that it is not out of the question that they dispose of their dead. There is considerable evidence that Bigfoot live in clans, even evidence that they possess language of a sort. So it is not unreasonable to go further and think they hide their dead.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have personally never seen one but my wife has and she don't lie
ReplyDeleteI have personally never seen one but my wife has and she don't lie
ReplyDelete