Sasquatch Coffee

Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 21st, 2008

Paranthropus Skull

Paranthropus sp. image courtesy of Skulls Unlimited

Based on a comment maker’s question here about how does Paranthropus fit into all of this Bigfoot business, let me revisit this topic.

Taking the stance that Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-Mah, whatever you wish to call the classic Neo-Giants of the Pacific Northwest, do exist, what fossil candidate fits best with the reportedly upright, hairy, 6 feet to 8.5 feet tall forest giants of North America?

Everyone seems to be Gigantopithecus lovers, right? But what of the other major fossil choice, Paranthropus?

The general scientific agreement is that Gigantopithecus specimens were in the range of about 10 feet tall, in fully grown adults. Some of the fossil primate scholars most linked to Gigantopithecus even have interpretations that assume Gigantopithecus was not bipedal.

Other than mandibles and over a thousand teeth, no other bones of Gigantopithecus have been found. Despite this, the late Grover Krantz and others have constantly said that Gigantopithecus is the best fossil candidate for Sasquatch. The one major fossil candidate often overlooked by the Krantz camp is Paranthropus.

The other favored fossil affinity for Bigfoot was proposed in 1971 by Gordon Strasenburgh, who wrote of his theory in scientific journals, self-published booklets, and through correspondence with other cryptozoologists. Strasenburgh thought Bigfoot would be found to be related to Paranthropus robustus and suggested that the name Paranthropus eldurrelli be used for the Bigfoot of the Pacific Northwest.

Paranthropus is a fossil hominid genus initially assigned by Robert Broom to a robust form of australopithecine found at Kromdraai and Swartkrans in South Africa. One of the most famous Paranthropus species is boisei, discovered by Mary Leakey in 1959 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It is known for its massive jaw muscles and huge back teeth the size of quarters that inspired the nickname "Nutcracker Man."

The evidence gathered to date suggests the Neo-Giants could very well be Paranthropus. In Neo-Giants, as in primates that have large jaws and well-developed chewing muscles (e.g., gorillas and baboons), the skull’s parietal bones continues upward at the midline to form a sagittal crest. The early fossil evidence shows that Paranthropus of both genders exhibited a sagittal crest–a feature that provides a very strong link to the male and female Neo-Giants seen today.

In Southeast Asia, during the 1940s, paleoanthropologists Franz Weidenreich and Ralph von Koenigswald found evidence, generally ignored by anthropologists, that Gigantopithecus (the very strong and enormous anthropoid ape), Meganthropus palaeojavanicus (the great man of ancient Java, which some see as an example of Paranthropus), and two different species or subspecies of Homo erectus (namely the so-called Java apeman and the Peking man), all lived at the same time.

Then in 1996, Carl C. Swisher III of the Berkeley Geochronology Center found new data indicating that Homo erectus had indeed lived in Java at the same time as Homo sapiens, the modern human. Using new techniques to date fossils found at Solo River, Java, Swisher’s team concluded that the supposedly very much older species known as Homo erectus had actually lived in Java as recently as 53,000 to 27,000 years ago. This was earth-shaking news to anthropologists who had assumed a much older date for Homo erectus.

Also in 1996, researchers lead by Russell Ciochon and Vu The Long discussed the apparent co-occurrence of Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus blacki in Tham Khuyen Cave, Vietnam. This giant ape was contemporaneous with archaic humans throughout its range from six million to 300,000 years ago. That is quite a long and successful span of coexistence, and Gigantopithecus must have been a formidable “neighbor”–a true giant on the landscape of the world with the little near-humans and humans like so many troublesome distant cousins breeding furiously and taking up living space.

So this is what we know. Apes, near-humans, and humans lived at the same time, probably just as they continue to today. And gorillas and various other great apes, and such fossil species as Paranthropus show sagittal crests in females as well as males. Krantz’s reconstruction of Gigantopithecus with a sagittal crest is only logical based on the massive mandibles that have been discovered, which show evidence of heavy chewing probably taking place. Also Krantz, no doubt, added them too because he considered the Sasquatch his living model. But, of course, we don’t really know if Gigantopithecus had sagittal crests. We do, however, clearly know that Paranthropus did have these crests, as we have fossils with them on the top of the skulls.

Among various problems I have with Gigantopithecus, therefore, is the very large size of this ape, which would have put them at the extreme end of any Bigfoot heights recorded in sightings that most people studying these cryptids would consider valid. Paranthropus, at between 5.5 plus, and maybe evolving to 7.5 feet, with known sagittal crests, I sense, is a more plausible fossil candidate for the classic PNW Bigfoot, the Neo-Giants. The case is straightforward for me. It seems unfortunate that people have spent a lot of time studying the few bones of Gigantopithecus as the "celebrity big fossil ape," when more attention might be usefully devoted examining Paranthropus.

For those interested in the question of Paranthropus, I recommend an article:

Clarke, Ronald J. "The Genus Paranthropus: What’s in a Name?" in W. E. Meikle, F. C. Howell, and N. G. Jablonski (eds) Contemporary Issues in Human Evolution (San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, 1996) Memoir 21, pages 93-104.

Clarke talks about the use of the name Paranthropus and the generic separation it denotes as having "well-known and long-standing support." Indeed, he writes that "the name Paranthropus has been alive and well and supported by zoologically sound credentials. It is certainly welcome news that more human anatomists and physical anthropologists are coming to the belated realization that Paranthropus merits generic distinction, but it is to the zoologist John Robinson that credit must be given for not only recognizing this from the outset, but also for his many clear explanations of why this was so."

Paranthropus is a unique, intriguing-looking primate which fills the bill for what the Pacific Northwest Bigfoot has been and is. The African Paranthropus has been associated to the Asian Meganthropus, which appears to be linked to the American Sasquatch.

What do you think?

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


38 Responses to “Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus?”

  1. mrbf2006 responds:

    Very thought-provoking article, Loren. I have suspected for quite a while now that the Sasquatch could be more closely related to Paranthropus than Gigantopithecus. Giganto was not known for certain to stand and walk erect, but Paranth. was, so that does make Paranth. the much more viable candidate, in my opinion. Again, very though-provoking article.

  2. Spinach Village responds:

    I am so glad to learn more about this subject.

    Good read Loren. Interesting info. I want to read that article that you recommended next.

    I won’t write off Gigantopithecus completely (as regards bigfoot heritage), but i will write on Paranthropus as a nice alternative candidate.

    There seem to be a atleast 2 to 3 species (of bipedal hominids) if not 4 considering the hobbit species.

    In North America there seem to be some distinct sighting characteristics.

    sasquatch/ bigfoot- Canada, Alaska, North West, and basically from California to New York…

    bigfoot/ swamp ape/ lizard man- Deep South mysteries..

    The werewolf and moth man can’t be ruled out either and since we are on the subject Moth man also overlaps with giant bird/ pterosaurs sightings

    This is my armchair analysis after a few beers, so who knows?
    ..but i love the quest!

    thanks :)

  3. dogu4 responds:

    Nice summary of the range of thought out there…some of it way out there, but out there none the less.
    If we allow for the existence of one population of crytic primates here in N.America and elswhere, I suppose there could be others having found various refugia and niches in which to exist and with the modern de-population of the countryside, perhaps even expanded. Having acquired an informed layman’s understanding of the paleo-biogeography of the Neogene geologic period and speculative cladistics, the likelihood of the supposed sasquatch seems to me to be more likely to be a relic hominin such as h. erectus rather than gigantopithecus or others expressions of non-human apes. Evidence of its wide range and presumed intelligence has been positively shown in the fossil record across Eurasia and who knows, maybe one day it will show-up in the still largely unexamined geology of N. America. Cheers.

  4. DWA responds:

    My personal, nonscientific take:

    Neither the yeti nor the sasquatch will be considered a species or subspecies of – or anywhere in the direct line of – either Paranthropus or Gigantopithecus.

    We have something completely new to science here, with both.

    Says here.

    For my money, reports of neither animal seem to fit what’s known of – rather, speculated for – either of the fossil candidates.

    But that’s just me.

  5. MultipleEncounters responds:

    No not everyone favors Giganto! I believe Krantz and others partly favored it because it is the ‘safe’ alternative. No doubt it would be damming to their careers to claim sasquatch may be closer to humans. Many of us who have encountered these creatures up close and experienced other interactions, realize there is something more to sasquatch then some giant ape. Does anyone REALLY think that an ape could be so intelligent to have avoided being proven real after all these decades of searching? Yes we are all (apes) primates, but everyone knows what I mean here.

    Frankly, Giganto is ‘Old School’, OK it is dogged thinking! Not all sasquatch have sagittal crests either! I have been under 25′ from sasquatch twice now in my life, the one I had the most illuminated frontal and side view of, had no such crest as depicted in Paranthropus. They had much larger brain cases too, in proportion to ours, but much larger. A lower jaw in China is not substantive proof of itself as being sasquatch either! And if based on the more complete fossil evidence, Paranthropus had a brain size of only about 40% the size of modern humans, so I don’t think it is a very plausible candidate for sasquatch. No matter how much we rationalize the reasons, sasquatch are able to outsmart us sly modern humans at every step. There are reasons for this that are not being honestly weighed by scientists and amateurs alike. It is so easy to ignore some of the claims people make about capabilities of these creatures, but it is also presumptuous to discount what we do not understand.

    I haven’t posted here in a while because the limits placed on open thinking are frustrating. The status-quo has become dogged on many forums! Maybe we should consider greater possibilities? Today, Great Britain is declassifying their UFO files, one involving a US Fighter jet. France began declassifying last year. The US may soon follow, finally! As was stated on Nightline last night, it is a slow process of disclosure on ‘both sides’ of the Atlantic. Ironically, many people in BF research are afraid to even discuss UFO’s in context with our subject. Ironically, UFO groups won’t discuss sasquatch within their field either. Fear of a subject can be so conspicuous sometimes. While I understand the reasons, it continues to restrain free thought. It sure would explain so much. No I’ve never seen any such connection between UFO’s and sasquatch, but I have an open mind as do many others in the field. Many in mainstream society even think we were ‘put’ on this planet long ago. Who is to say that sasquatch wasn’t as well? There are many possibilities for sasquatch that don’t get seriously discussed, and this is a real hindrance to the field. Science is still catching up in so many areas. Science may soon come to grips with ET’s existence. That will prompt the biggest paradigm shift our planet has ever seen. The existence of sasquatch would surely be the second most significant. There is a hell of a lot more money going into ET research then there is sasquatch too! UFO’s are even more accepted then sasquatch. Heck, even ESP gets much more government and university funding then sasquatch ever has. No this does not mean that CM should transform into a UFO or ESP site, but the lines of demarcation can move just a little. That’s how we all grow.

    I personally favor sasquatch being some ancient form of human. Yes much larger then us, but there may be reasons for this that are still not understood. There are many possibilities still out of reach and I have my own theories. But some of the behavior they exhibit is more reconcilable as having human traits then lesser primate. I know someone who they have bartered with. I’ve had experiences of my own that prove to me they are something more. I won’t share these things openly because the ‘status quo’ is so far behind the truth. But at least I can say that many in this research field are opening their eyes to the possibility that sasquatch is something more then just some giant ape.

  6. BunniesLair responds:

    As was pointed out in the article, only the mandibles and teeth have been found of the Gigantopithecus. And from the mandible alone, most scientists agree that it most like was a fist walker, because of its close likeness to that of present apes. It could stand on two legs and amubulate, but the majority of time would not.

    Science is guessing at gigantopithecus’ height and weight. Typically the height of a human is based on the thigh bone. A partial skeleton of a human without that bone present, makes the degree of inaccuracy as to height rise.

    Then you take into account the myriad of human skeletons that have been measured in the first place, to get the calculation that will give a humans height; you compare that to the few odd mandibles of the Gigantopithecus we have, and .. hmmmm sorely lacking in evidence. It is all supposition.

    Which brings me to the fact, there is not enough information to conclude that Bigfoot IS or IS NOT in that line.

    Now then the Paranthropus, which I believe has just as few bones as evidence as Giganto, it does however have the crest. Which in my view is enough to place it in the running for Bog foot.

    But here is why I am loath to commit to either one. If science had nothing more than a Giraffe’s skull or mandible as evidence, what are the odds that science would say it was an extremely long necked animal? OR would they try to give it the look and similar characteristics of other animals such as the horse, zebra, goat, sheep? Namely shorter legs, stockier neck?

  7. Found_One responds:

    Neither.

  8. RyanWinters86 responds:

    I dont think Bigfoot is really that hard to find…The only reason we havent found it is because All the researchers (which I completely respect everything they are doing) are not actually spending enough time in the wilderness… The way bigfoot will be found is by a research group who spends more than a few days in a hot spot… I think that a group needs to spend a good month or two in a bigfoot hotspot And bring a GUN….Think about it… Spending 60 days in Snelgrove Lake??? I think thats the only way we will be able to know for sure What Bigfoot is related to.

  9. Lightning Orb responds:

    I wouldn’t say Sasquatch is more likely Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus; more likely that more Sasquatch are Paranthropus than Gigantopithecus. With so many variations, it seems like there may well be more than one species, as has been noted here at times. Since there are a few reports of ten-footers and a lot more of shorter entities, the ten-foot Gigantos may be relatively few in number while the Paranthropus are thriving. And as Spinach Village noted, there are some other “extinct” primates as well, which could account for sightings that don’t agree with either specimen. So I say both, and maybe more.

  10. eireman responds:

    It’s far too premature to make such speculations. I do agree with RyanWinters86; more time needs to be spent in the field. While I realize this costs money, it is nevertheless necessary. And not just something like 60 days, but months – if not years. Entire armies of trailcams that feed into a database would be nice too. And while I’m dreaming, I want a pony and a castle and a…

    What I would love to see is a universal “family” name, if you will, for these types of creatures across the globe. Nothing scientific necessarily, but just a common reference term like “bigfoot” only without all the silliness attached to it.

  11. DWA responds:

    MultipleEncounters:

    I get your frustration. I get that way sometimes, too. And I, too, think that giganto and paranthropus don’t have to be the only options for inquiry. The fossil record will never be complete, says here; and current fossils on hand may be leading us down the wrong track if we think those are the only places to look for leads.

    But I also think that scientific inquiry – which is the only way we’ll confirm these guys – won’t work unless it follows scientific rules. And, taken in toto, the evidence would tell a scientist that it is quite likely we have an ape here.

    Your personal experience can count as nothing more than anecdote to a scientist. People’s impressions can be subjective; I hear folks saying that the feet, or the face, or the upright posture make the sasquatch human, which is no more true than saying that fins make it a fish, period.

    There are two kinds of proof, I think: cultural (we all see the evidence and accept it) and personal (you’ve seen it, and you, personally, know). Boy, I’d be ecstatic to have the latter; and I wouldn’t care what science thought if I did. But until the former exists, open minds can’t be so open that the brains fall out. We have to keep the inquiry to things that can be safely assumed.

    If I were a scientist looking into this, I’d be starting with: OK, given that nobody knows, the body of the evidence tells me: ape. Let’s look there until something tells us different.

    Glad you’re back. Missed you.

  12. MattBille responds:

    Bunnies has a good point – “insufficient data.” IF we assume there is a sasquatch, then it had to have evolved from something. Giganto was an obvious favorite because its estimated size would cover the range reported for sasquatch, but it still seems likely Ciochon is right and that an animal this size used knuckle-walking. (I quizzed him once on Krantz’s reconstruction, and he felt Krantz had inferred too much from the shape of the jawbone.)
    Could the sasquatch ancestor be something else, maybe from the Paranthropus line? Certainly. But we just don’t know.

    Here are two thoughts I can’t recall seeing discussed.

    1. You’d think that, sooner or later, someone would have to discover preserved Giganto tracks. It seems odd we don’t have any, given that we have preserved tracks of ancient humans and their much smaller primate ancestors. Giganto was apparently widespread, at least on the Asian continent. It likely has to do with preferred habitats, but it still bugs me.

    2. If we assume Paranthropus or a relative as the ancestor, why did it get so big? This is an interesting question because the creature must have established itself first in the Arctic regions (on both sides of the Bering Strait, as it gradually migrated to North America). The species didn’t just take a running start in SE Asia and keep going until it hit moderate climes in North America. Bergmann’s Rule suggests that growing large would be a likely adaptation to that northern habitat. In contradiction, though, no tribe of known humans which settled at high latitudes ever got big. They got compact and stocky to minimize skin area relative to body mass, but they never grew big.
    So many puzzles….

  13. RyanWinters86 responds:

    eireman; You hit the nail on the head with that comment…There definitely should be a universal name for these creatures.

  14. SOCALcryptid responds:

    I agree with DWA on this one.

  15. dogu4 responds:

    MattBillie: you ask why would a paranthropus (or any predator for that matter, hominid or otherwise) grow so large? I would suggest one consider the natural history of the continent-scaled environment to which it had adapted. In contrast to the taiga/tundra of today, during the previous 23 million years of the Neogene period, the cool dry continental landscape is characterized by the spread of vast grasslands which are ideally adapted to those conditions (climatic conditions which were the result of the general configuration of the continental land masses relative to one another and which had never really existed on planet earth in the previous 200 million years), as well as the populations of ungulates and other grazers/browsers (mammoths, mastodons, rhinoceros and others) that took advantage of that gigantic resource. Especially during the last 2 million year when we know from the fossil record that h. erectus had at least had spread into eruasia, which in a practical sense was united with N. America via the Beringian mammoth steppes, and which constituted what some have identified as a super-continental landform called Laurentia, creating a latitudinal zone of similar geophysical and climate conditions dominated by grasses and interspersed with forests spreading from NW Europe, across Siberia, and periodically connected to N. America clear out to the Atlantic’s coastal plain. Its scale and its array of megafauna is unmatched. Any hunting primate adapted to it would have to be large, able to travel distance and probably not communal since the prey for this large primate would be widely dispersed. Without social instincts, or need of them, they would travel individually or as small reproductive units, migrating with the herds. As conditions changed one might easily imagine the surviving hominins retreating into refugias which would sustain them in small pockets connected by the denizens ability to travel over long distances to follow their prey, waiting for opportunity.

  16. norman-uk responds:

    Fascinating stuff this -what is needed is a dedicated research programme as a lot is already known about this subject, I only know enough to speculate but maybe a GROVER-KRANTZ is needed to put it all together. Im sure his equivalent is here about but unfortunately not with a focus that involves sasquatch?

    The evidence for paranthropus goes back rather a long way to have any direct connection with sasquatch. If there is a connection I would expect there to be an intermediate form. I wonder what this might be? I note that what is described as ”a partial postcranial skelton” of paranthropus was unearthed in 1994 but imformation and conclusions have still not been released. Could this be true? It was supposed to have lots of potential presumably about posture and leading to inferences about life style.

    I don’t think the saggital crest is all that important as there is the example of the Bili ape which has a crest and other supposedly related chimpanzees do not! (personally i am suspicious of DNA results) This suggests that having a crest is not all that definitive!

    It seems to me that gigantopithicus has got in a bit of a perceptual rut somehow he comes through to me as a simple rather static big ape. It might have been a much more lively and intelligent character as are gorillas. If he definitely did walk upright more so.

    There seems to be a chance of getting DNA as there is evidence of gigantopithecus up to 100,000 years ago. Maybe there are more recent samples if a hard look is taken and not assumed that DNA will not be present.
    One thing for sure, much more will come to light, sasquatch ought to be in the fossil record somewhere and maybe we already have it stuck in a dusty cupboard or invisible in full view.

    What I am waiting for is for a professional to look at that treasure of (sasquatch) DNA and say it indicates this and that characteristics like huge hairy bipedal, different etc etc etc. This doesn’t seem to be happening.

    Anyway isn’t all entertaining!

  17. DWA responds:

    MultipleEncounters: this passage also caught my eye:

    “There are many possibilities for sasquatch that don’t get seriously discussed, and this is a real hindrance to the field.”

    I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more. Nor could a scientist.

    That so many possibilities for sasquatch DO get seriously discussed is the greatest hindrance, by far, to the field, in fact, it could be argued, the ONLY hindrance. That so much [blarney] is getting tossed around, without a shred of evidence backing up any of it, is why very few take sasquatch sightings seriously. No headway, says here, will be made on this issue until a critical mass of scientists are thinking: we could have an APE here, and we need to follow up and see if we do. Because there is nothing – other than anecdote and people’s subjective impressions – that would lead someone well-acquainted with the evidence to think anything else. “Human” is sure not what the evidence says to me. And I’m one of the better-acquainted I know with the evidence.

    Scientific inquiry follows what is known by science, or it doesn’t follow at all. This is nothing but a good thing. Science can’t afford to be harebrained. Science can’t toss half-baked theories around. We all have to trust what it says, don’t we?

    We want science to make safe bets with society’s money and time. Not play blindfolded craps.

  18. cryptidsrus responds:

    I tend to agree with DWA.
    This is something that is completely unknown. Who the blazes knows.
    I keep remembering the biblical Esau. Hmmm. Two parallel races that still cannot interact after millennia??? Curioser and so on.

  19. gkingdano responds:

    It is surprising what this scientist can come up with just from a couple of jaws and teeth. What it ate, I can understand, but how it moved, can’t. WHAT is strange to me is how come from an animal as large as gianto was , with massive bones, only these pieces are found. I know that teeth are very resistant and the chinese eat every thing that their culture says will cure some thing “dragon bones = fossils of limestone etc.” If bigfoot has a culture of doing something to their dead it could help explain why none have been found YET.

  20. Lightning Orb responds:

    Has anyone done a photo comparison between a Paranthropus and Gigantopithecus skeleton with the Patterson/Gimlin Sasquatch?

  21. BunniesLair responds:

    Lightning Orb,

    Unfortuately there are -no- skeletons of either.

    All there is of Gigantopithecus is the jawbone or mandible and some teeth.

    And the Paranthropus is a particial skull, no mandible.

  22. MultipleEncounters responds:

    ‘Science’ is a fairly dynamic and loose term. Acceptable science in one specialized field differs from what science means to those in another. Some of the most complex, involving quantum mechanics, readily accepts there is more then our own dimension. Does an anthropologist accept there are other dimensions? Generally not. In String Theory and then M-Theory, these scientists ACCEPT that 11 alternate dimensions exist. One of the goals of the Super Collider in France & Switzerland, run by CERN, is to understand how to transport matter. An additional goal of CERN (the real inventors of the Internet) is to try and detect these alternate dimensions. Amazing, thousands of the brightest minds on earth are working in a unified manner to detect alternate dimensions. So does this mean that ‘alternate dimensions’ are now acceptable subjects for all science?

    From another standpoint in determining species identification, is the subject of ‘behavior’. When Jane Goodall began her field work, she had no degree. But now that prior work of hers, which was primarily ‘behavioral’ in nature, has become the landmark basis for understanding chimpanzees. Well, there are many researchers out there who have findings that are just as valid as Ms. Goodall’s were, they just aren’t realized yet. Much of what has been learned by individuals, truly supports that we have a species that is not just some giant ape. Does the mainstream bigfoot field listen to these independents? Nope. Unfortunately when independent researchers report on events that seem extraordinary by our so called ‘mainstream status quo’, they are soon ridiculed.

    Not that this is the best example, but one of my experiments last year at my feed station was to leave a small metal tubular survival whistle on a long lanyard hanging from a branch about 8′ up that protruded from a tree. My hope was that the subject would actually take the whistle. When I came back 3 days later, I found the whistle on the ground. I simply assumed that maybe a squirrel or jay must have pulled it over all the smaller branches that would have otherwise prevented any amount of wind to accomplish the same. Well, after I returned to my vehicle, I scanned through my recording session to see what kind of good stuff may have happened during this session. And keep in mind, my feed station is fairly deep in the woods of Oregon where people simply don’t go. So I’m listening to the recordings and I hear some movement. Then I hear a couple of pure clean smooth whistles of the same exact sound that the metal whistle produces. I was floored! There was no fumbling or spurting. The whistle didn’t have bite marks. He knew EXACTLY what it was. But within a minute an airplane flies over at fairly low altitude. This is when I suspect he dropped the whistle where I found it and went for hiding. He never touched the whistle again. My point is, few believe this could happen.

    When I said: “There are many possibilities for sasquatch that don’t get seriously discussed, and this is a real hindrance to the field”, I guess you could say that I meant Occam’s Razor will not provide the answer to many of our questions because our bag of answers is still too limited.

    Our own government and scientists from universities have invested millions to study ESP, they accept there is something to it. They don’t understand it, but they know there is valid reason to research it. There are many in our research field who also ‘claim’ some ability here. These individuals only see a brick wall with mainstream forums, so why try convincing such an inflexible field? WHEN have they EVER been taken seriously by the mainstream in this field? Actually, you’d be surprised how many researchers there really are who know there is more to these creatures then the majority are willing to accept. But they have to keep what they’ve learned to themselves because they don’t want to be ridiculed. These people become unfairly labeled by those who don’t know much beyond what they read over and over, ruled by the same old status quo. Not everything in our universe is black and white with a simple explanation. Science is not meant to be safe either. It is meant to explore what we do not understand.

    Hmm, and ironically, the study of Sasquatch is not accepted science either is it? Sure, I know they exist and so do many here, as well as a handful of independent scientists. But according to mainstream science, these creatures do not exist! Wow, therefore science must be wrong. But how can that be? How can a species that is so large, so widespread, possibly elude man as they have? Well, I suspect its because they have an edge, or edges, that our own status quo science is not yet willing to consider. What that is, well I’m not saying. lol Actually, I don’t quite know either, but I do know they are more then just some giant ape.

    Back to the Super Collider (and the tens of thousands of scientists who advocate String Theory), when they verify that alternate dimension do indeed exist alongside ours, does this once-and-for-all, shift the paradigm of science? We’re almost there, the paradigm is evolving as we speak. No doubt there are a number of advocates, including Native Americans, who believe sasquatch can come and go between dimensions. Will our two divergent views merge when alternate dimensions are finally detected? Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating that sasquatch can disappear. I’ve never seen such a thing. I will attest however that I have had a couple of experiences that offer no normal ‘scientific’ explanation. I’m just trying to be open minded because the usual scientific explanations are falling painfully short.

    Oh but it sounds so ridiculous to consider that there are other dimensions. Blasphemy right? How could such a thing be possible? But that is the direction of science and the greatest minds we humans have. In fact, this question of alternate dimensions has another consequence, it can even explain how the long debated UFO’s actually get here, since its too far otherwise, well unless you can generate your own wormholes. LOL Isn’t it interesting that ‘alternate dimensions’ is where modern science is focusing much of its attention?

    My point is, we’re not getting the answers to sasquatch because we’ve been using filtered glasses limited by our own knowledge. Conventional science doesn’t know everything. We’re not listening to those who say they get regular visits from these sasquatch. We laugh at those individuals because this is a ‘scientific impossibility’ right? People think “Well I don’t have any such experiences, I spend hundreds/thousands of hours in the field and it doesn’t happen to me, so they can’t possibly be telling the truth”. But luckily there are a few scientists who do have an open mind. So not all is lost. The thing is, these creatures decide who to trust and who not to. We don’t choose who they allow to get close to them. Sure there are all of the accidental sightings. My last major encounter 5 yrs ago was NOT accidental however. This big boy came crashing through the timber and cut me off on the trail. Then he stood there while I approached him to within that 22′ in order to pass. He put himself in this location where I could not avoid him, that is if I wanted to get back to my vehicle as darkness approached. Even holding a rifle and my German Shepherd at my side, I’ve never been more scared in my entire life. At the same time, I was able to speak calmly to this species that many in science says does not exist. What a privilege I have been granted, and I was able to face the worst part, the fear. I was able to walk towards him and he just stood there watching & listening to me talk calmly to him. What an honor. Last November I had another one visit my elk camp before dawn in NE Oregon. All I could see was his silhouette walk across some grass in the dim morning light for a few seconds, then I made the big mistake of grabbing my spotlight. He was gone. I can only learn from my mistakes. But I’ve had visits in the same area in years past too when hunting with others. I’m headed back there in a few weeks. Unfortunately I didn’t have any real encounters this Summer, but I didn’t spend the time I wanted in the field either.

    The approach to sasquatch by science and most researchers has been wrong in many ways. It’s easier to attract flies with honey then with vinegar. I’ve made my own errors, like with the spotlight, and hiding audio & video recording devices, or trying to sneak up on them. They somehow know when we are up to something. Our trying to prove their existence is probably sensed as ‘sinister intent’ to them. The humans are up to something. Our own fear of them is definitely a significant hindrance too. But how do we bridge this mistrust? As many researchers do realize, one thing we must recognize is that they are in control.

    For the most part, it has been taboo for a scientist or researcher to openly propose that sasquatch may be a form of human. I don’t mean Homo sapien sapien either. But something within the Homo genus. And what will Dr. Kurt Nelson’s and Dr. Meldrum’s ultimate findings be? While not 100% human, why so close thus far? And will the Orangutan theory be thrown out the window? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz5-MvyERko

    Yes, I think we’re closing our eyes to some very interesting and exciting possibilities that could provide more answers then we are getting using conventional science. Too bad this same ‘science’ doesn’t honestly allow many who have regular ongoing encounters to share what they’ve learned.

    Gkingdano, a certain scientist involved in bf research once confirmed a question I had for him. “Isn’t it possible that bamboo just happened to be what was in Giganto’s last meal and not necessary what was its regular diet?” The answer was yes.

    Still, there is zero evidence linking Giganto to sasquatch. It is merely a convenient explanation because the alternatives are still too controversial to publicly & politically embrace. Whew, sorry so long winded.

  23. Clark1 responds:

    i think that Bigfoot is more likely a Paranthropus or a mutant gorilla

  24. DWA responds:

    Multiple Encounters: fair enough. But, unfortunately, life isn’t.

    I have looked at more than enough on the sasquatch and yeti to consider both of them not only possible, but very plausible and, I might say, much more likely than what would have to be going on if they’re not real. In fact, if I had to put down money, yes or no, on the existence of these two, the orang pendek and the Almas – and maybe the Yeren to boot – I’d put my dough on yes.

    But it’s science we’re talking about here. OK, really, scientists, which is different from “science.” And I’m not about to snow you with how exacting, rigorous and scrupulously fair scientists are. In fact, scientists are pretty damn human, and that’s the problem.

    Most scientists haven’t looked at the file on the sasquatch. Most of those who have, haven’t come out saying they’re convinced. Fear for their careers probably motivates this, despite the numbers that have put their reps on the line. They want evidence to provide them with spine-by-proxy.

    One thing I would think habituators have going for them is, well, photo opps. Recording ops. This-is-the-sasquatch opps. As worried as I am about habituation of anything wild, gotta say there’s mucho evidence potential there.

    Unless I’m wrong. Am I…?

  25. DWA responds:

    Another thing occurs from my exchange with M/E above.

    The proponents strew their own way in this discussion with more than enough mines. Two of them seem to crop up here, and I’ve addressed them before, more than once:

    1. The idea that the only way these guys remain “hidden” is by being almost preternaturally smart and elusive. As I’ve said, more than a few times, only the numbers changing: the sas could be twice as big, one-third as smart, and ten times as numerous as whatever it happens to be, and it would still be undocumented. What protects the sasquatch is that witnesses aren’t taken seriously. I wonder how many small towns there are in which every citizen has seen a bigfoot, and only a few talk. Skeptics get way too much mileage out of asking: why has no one ever shot/run over/killed/found a dead one? And having proponents sputter and look foolish in response. The evidence says: each of those things has happened, in each case more than once. And in each case, there was a more than legitimate reason science didn’t find out. (Hint: you’d just skin that carcass out and tote it to a museum, wouldja? Sure you would.) Fact is: to most people, including a lot of scientists, bigfoot ISN’T the Holy Scientific Grail. Or, says here, we WOULD know by now. (Myra Shackley agrees. She was astounded at the percentage of scientists who responded to a questionnaire on the subject by saying that the discovery of hairy hominoids among us wouldn’t be a big deal.)

    2. The idea that interaction with humans of any kind should be seen as “scientifically impossible” if the animal truly existed. This might be the same as the above, really. Patty is often denigrated by people who think there’s no way she’d react like that on seeing a human. Really? That she acts like that tells me that she had a lot of encounters before the one with Patterson and Gimlin. Not only that, but a similar reaction to humans – casual, not wanting particularly to hang but being in no intense hurry – is described, over and over and over and over again, in the reports I’ve read. It is, in fact, standard bigfoot behavior. They’re not particularly scared of us, at all, although they avoid direct conflict to an extreme even greater than that of the known apes. How many animals do you know for which the encounter literature routinely includes animals looking into houses, frequently face to face with the occupants? They may be elusive, but no more than any other North American animal that hasn’t gotten really abundant and totally conditioned to human presence.

    So, until evidence comes forward that forces community attention – and that would have to be pretty compelling – we need to get used to community indifference. And scientists need to proceed carefully, along the lines of what is known.

    As someone smarter than me put it, and I only paraphrase: Unless the sasquatch becomes a community experience, it remains hallucinatory, as that term is defined by Western culture.

  26. MattBille responds:

    To get back to the original point, it is, at this point, not critical what guess we make about the ancestor, but it’s an animal and therefore must have an evolutionary ancestor. It could be Giganto, it could be Paranthropus, or it could be an offshoot of some other line we know of OR of a line we have yet to find fossil evidence of. They key is to find the extant species, if it exists. It’s possible that, in the meantime, paleontologists will turn up fossil evidence of an interim species, like a Paranthropus relative in Siberia. We need something closer to the present day and location to make any strong connections.

  27. MultipleEncounters responds:

    DWA, first I might as well get out of the way that I pretty much agree with everything you said in your last entire entry. However I do wonder about the questionnaire by Myra Shackley. I mean what was going on in the minds of the scientists who did respond. There does seem to be a desire to play down the plausibility of sasquatch by science even today. Therefore, in this questionnaire, I wonder if maybe there was some accompanying rationalization by those scientists to not build up the significance of a creature they already have trouble with accepting? There is also the possibility that the scientists referred to, really hadn’t comprehended what this discovery would mean to the world? Heck, it would turn our world upside down. EVERY single science book would have to be rewritten because what we knew about human evolution might be completely altered. If they do indeed have language, well, Homo sapiens would have to get off our high pedestal for our place in the universe. Laws would finally be written preventing the harassment of the species. Of course there is the question of protecting habitat. I could probably contemplate a dozen scenarios of how the ‘proving’ of these creatures would be a very big deal, maybe only second to spaceships landing on the capitol steps and the occupants saying ‘take me to your leader’.

    Anyway, back to the prior entry. There are a few misnomers about habituation that most people who have never been in the position, don’t understand. The process of habituation is really about trust building, and you know what, these creatures don’t let anything get past them. Really!

    This is where it gets real tricky in the field. I know they’ve found both my audio recorder and my very discrete video recorder. They seem to know to approach the latter from behind too. The audio recorder has produced some awesome results however. I’ve caught his breathing, his tongue tocks, his chewing an apple, his walking, his breathing. On one of the very first sessions, he pounded the hell out of a couple of bananas I put on top of a log. These were placed there as I used slight of hand, my body to conceal, and misdirection when hiding the small recorder under the log. He was located not 100′ away watching my every move from behind some bushes. He would even break branches occasionally so as to get my attention, but I mostly ignored him, other then the occasional loud comment I would make for his benefit like, “I know you are there”. :^) Whether he understood me, well that’s another question. The rush one experiences being so close to them for lengthy periods is indescribable.

    But back to the trust thing. Each time they find some device that you’ve hidden, you lose just a little more of their trust. This is the biggest dilemma because it is almost impossible to conceal unnatural devices in a natural environment. Not leaving any scents whatsoever on a device is equally challenging. You cannot imagine how little it takes from something a person ate hours earlier, or our own scents, and how this can blow everything. Because remember, you area also leaving food for them. Its a real letdown when you discover that your device was moved and after you listen to the audio, you know it wasn’t the normal critters.

    Realistically, the most successful habituations aren’t about trying to photograph or document. Once you head down that road, trust is always the price. Others in habituations have been pressed on the question of ‘why don’t they get some video?” Well, until you’ve been there and literally realize that ‘they’ control the situation not you, this isn’t understood. Once you attempt it, you break down the fragile trust you so wanted to accomplish.

    Somehow I was able to get him to keep coming back during many of my visits, but I know he didn’t fully trust me either. I don’t know if this one realizes that I am the same person he confronted 5 years ago? I’d like to think so because then he would know that I meant him no harm as I even had my rifle cocked and finger on the trigger during our encounter. But I also know that had I shot, I would not be here today. It is for this reason I prayed that he make no aggressive move towards me in those tense moments. Unfaltering trust may be the most important factor we have in any future relationships between us and them.

    So where does this leave the task of proving their existence? One thing I know is this. I don’t have the appropriate gear to take chances without there being significant risk of detection. Still I try and I probably take one small step back every time. My single high tech camera is good, but it needs to be better. It requires a full sized car battery just to run it 2 days. Try carrying a car battery for a half mile along with everything else, and going through the motions of concealing it and the camera, when you are trying to be discrete about just the process of hiding this equipment in the field. And if there is a possibility you are being watched, well hiding or digging & burying without being seen is extremely difficult at best. My audio recorders are fairly simple, and have yielded some incredible stuff, but they are limited in their recording times and quality. Like with anything there are logistics, but trying to capture sasquatch on film is the most challenging tasks there is.

    There are many different approaches and those who think that a team in the woods for a long period is the only way, well those individuals really don’t have a full grasp on things. Sure it can be exciting and things will happen, but to what end? On the other hand, a habituation is about trust, and maybe even eventually some form of inter-species friendship. Sadly we may be a long ways from that with some of the individuals and groups out there who are also trying to kill a specimen. Would any creature trust a human if another human also took shots at you?

  28. gavinf responds:

    With respect to Multiple Encounters, I am confused. You have had, as your screen name states, multiple encounters with bigfoot. You have spoke in a loud voice, but you have no picture.
    I understand the idea of “trust”, but, if he/she already knows you are there, why not a picture?

    As regards the original question, Gigantopithecus just works better for me. Besides, Gigantopithecus may have been 10 feet tall, does that mean in a new environment, that 10 feet remained the norm?

    Just a thought.

  29. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Gavinf, the one 5 yrs ago I was deer hunting not looking for sasquatch. Wanting to see one then was the last thing I wanted. No camera in hand either. And if I did have a camera on me, well I seriously doubt I would have dared take a photo anyhow. Why? Because in the low light the flash would have gone off. At 22′ in an already confrontational situation, how might he have responded to a bright flash? Yeah, not to mention, I was pretty scared in those minutes too, and I’ve got a German Shepherd at my side equally protective of me. I’m not going to do a damned thing that might wipe out my hopes for living through the encounter.

    As for other encounters, its not like they stand out in the open allowing a photo op. Ever seen a blobsquatch? So no, no effort to take a pic of a possible outline through brush. Again, the idea was to try and build trust. Again, maybe hard for some people to understand this who have never been in the situation themselves. That’s what separates real work from the internet.

  30. gavinf responds:

    Sorry, but I can’t accept the explanation to your story. You purposely set up cameras to catch Bigfoot.

    You wrote: “Somehow I was able to get him to keep coming back during many of my visits”.

    But not one photo? Not EVEN a blobsquatch? I simply don’t believe the encounters happened. (And yes, I have never done ‘real work’ in the field.)

    I do not know you personally. You have an obvious love for the field, but something doesn’t seem right.

    If you had just one chance encounter, awesome. I believe you did. But several different encounters, with no evidence (other than audio), makes me wonder if something to your story has been left out.

  31. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Somehow my intended editing at the end of last sentence during preview mode did not work. Started to say ‘real field work’ then didn’t delete properly. Anyway, here’s my intended statement.

    “That’s what separates ‘field’ work from the internet.”

  32. MultipleEncounters responds:

    One of the very mysteries of these creatures gavinf. Can’t make you believe me, won’t even try. But I do know there are others who have had more then one encounter with them like myself. And yeah, what I left out was some of the other encounters, but not even going to go into them on a defensive posture to explain to someone who has never been involved in field work or why it happens. Draw from this whatever you wish.

    Unfortunately the ‘something doesn’t feel right’ statement leaves so many possibilities for the readers to contemplate. I have a good handle on forum discussions and innuendoes don’t come across very positively.

    But so you can understand that I don’t see a bigfoot behind every bush. Here is a paper I wrote this Summer that discounts one of the most-often claimed signs of sasquatch there is by many field researchers. Well at least in regions where there can be heavy snow loads anyhow. I’m speaking of tree breaks of course.

    My first encounter with a Sasquatch was 32 years ago in the Sierras of California where I almost ran into him one night on a mountain road. Had my roommate along who was nodded off but got to see him as he bent over to lower himself off the road and down the mountain. Got within 25 feet from him then after braking and looked right into his eyes when he looked into mine. I’ve never wanted to pursue the subject until 3 Summers ago due to the stigma attached, but realized I must occasionally encounter them for a reason. So I finally got over the initial fear to pursue the subject at the encouragement of a few well known researchers. Yeah, there is a hell of a lot more to my encounters that you don’t know, but that will just have to be the way it is in a public forum.

  33. MattBille responds:

    OK, we are off track, but I thought this was an opportunity to share a couple of thoughts from an admitted armchair (or library, as I prefer) student of this business and see what folks with field experience think.

    Point one: Pardon me, but the comparison to Goodall is inaccurate. No one has done what Goodall did – find the species and stay out there until the species accepted her presence, then provide voluminous documentation, including photos/film and the accounts of other researchers, including students and photojournalists, who stayed with her. (Granted, this requires some source of support.) I don’t reject anyone’s personal account without reason, but it is only that – one personal account, which zoology is not going to accept, even in the aggregate, as proof of ANY species without better supporting evidence.

    Point Two: As to the claim made above about extant but unavailable supporting physical evidence (bodies or parts thereof) that’s been deliberately suppressed, this is an extraordinary claim of its own, which requires proof. The idea that any scientist who had in hand physical proof of a spectacular species would reject the idea of becoming famous as its discoverer because other scientists would shun him is absurd. They’d be breaking down his door if he had an actual type specimen. Professional disapproval may explain the reluctance of some zoologists to consider the subject without hard evidence: it does not explain the alleged action of any scientist to hide or destroy physical evidence which would put him or her in the pantheon of heroes with Goodall, Darwin, Simpson, et. al.

  34. DWA responds:

    Maybe Dryopithecus. :-D No, Proconsul. On steroids. :-DDD

    Sometimes it’s more fun to get off track. I mean, I think Matt said this: we need to find the extant animal. Fossil speculation will get us no closer to proof than another plaster cast.

    Have to agree with Matt. (I think, but wait here.)

    I can see a scientist not reporting a sighting. (And I am all but certain that many are remaining mum. But in fact some have filed reports, most of them, yes, anonymously.) I’m not sure what one would do with a video after what happened to Patterson. But if you are getting one of these critters to visit you regularly, I simply have trouble with the assertion that you can’t photograph it. Habituated animals say cheese. And if my experience made me reasonably certain that science would pick up on my evidence, I think I’d present it, and it would seem odd not to – even if, and I think this is the case with me, I wouldn’t report a personal sighting (except maybe anonymously to a website).

    Now. As I have said earlier that I believe that a number what skeptics might consider “proof” situations – e.g., killing one or finding a carcass – have certainly occurred if the animals are real, I have to posit a caveat here. I believe it is quite likely that someone killing one, or finding a carcass, might simply leave it and keep the discovery personal for fear of any one of a number of things: the messy business of getting that evidence out of the woods; the even trickier business of enlisting a partner and having to share – or even risk losing – the discovery; the possibility of being charged with a crime; I could go on here. “Proof in hand” and a carcass way in the backcountry are NOT the same thing. Find a carcass way out there if you doubt me. lol

    I have also said here that many – including scientists – don’t seem to think this such a big deal. I could see many a scientist saying: why rock the boat? I have my proof. Getting discovery credit is NOT a slam dunk; and some people may NOT WANT THE ATTENTION. Knowing may be enough for them. Oh yes, I could definitely, easily, see a lifelong professional biologist being totally satisfied with knowing, and not wanting to run the Patterson gantlet.

    But again, however one slices this, anecdotes aren’t proof. Regardless how real they are to the person experiencing them, society can’t make the move from an individual’s experience to societal acceptance without proof.

  35. MattBille responds:

    DWA writes:
    “Now. As I have said earlier that I believe that a number what skeptics might consider “proof” situations – e.g., killing one or finding a carcass – have certainly occurred if the animals are real, I have to posit a caveat here. I believe it is quite likely that someone killing one, or finding a carcass, might simply leave it and keep the discovery personal for fear of any one of a number of things: the messy business of getting that evidence out of the woods; the even trickier business of enlisting a partner and having to share – or even risk losing – the discovery; the possibility of being charged with a crime; I could go on here. “Proof in hand” and a carcass way in the backcountry are NOT the same thing. Find a carcass way out there if you doubt me. lol”

    I hate to seem dogmatic, but none of those reasons hold up. Any reasonably well-read person these says knows that all he has to bring back is a fingertip, or even less, for scientific testing. (Now I would definitely go for something more demonstrative: a head, or, if that was too hard to detach or too heavy to pack out, then a hand or both hands… I would be paranoid and bring back two pieces, one of which would never leave my sight). The person who establishes the animal will become rich and famous. Stories of “proof events” without evidence are no more valuable than any other sighting story: indeed, they may be less compelling, since in some scenarios the witness SHOULD have some evidence to back it up and does not. (If you had an encounter and did NOT bring back a piece of the animal you shot, ran over, or whatever, why then would you ever tell the story at all?)
    Yes, the idiots from Georgia have messed up the whole business: it will be harder than it was before to get a lab and a sponsor to ensure the evidence is looked at properly. But “shoot and shovel?” Not when you could bring reputable people like Loren or Jeff Meldrum or John Bindernagel a sasquatch hand and let them take it from there. Even if you did not know who these people were, a minute on Google would tell you “there are reputable people I could bring this to.”

  36. DWA responds:

    Matt Bille: I hate to sound dogmatic. So I won’t.

    What you said doesn’t hold up.

    If you guaranteed me world control for personally detaching a sasquatch fingertip, you could have the world control, and the fingertip; I’d walk. And I bet most people are like me, or there would be no televeision show called CSI. We’d all be carving bodies up.

    Why would a hunter kill a sas and bring nothing back? The story of the guy who accidentally killed one in Manitoba in 1941 holds up, to me, as well as any story I ever heard (and can’t prove). Grover Krantz got the story of a hunter in northeastern Washington who DESCRIBED THE FOOT, IN DETAIL, of the sasquatch he shot. The description – from someone who could have known nothing of what Krantz knew about locomotor adaptations – confirmed, to a T, what Krantz suspected of what the foot of such an animal would look like to perform the way it would have to perform.

    Why did he bring nothing back? He’s a HUNTER, ferpetesake. All I can say is what skeptics say when they reiterate their unlikely-to-the-vanishing-point tall tale of how all those footprints and the P/G film were faked: people do the damndest things for the damndest reasons. He might have felt the way you might feel skinning out a vagrant; he couldn’t do it. I don’t know, because Krantz either didn’t ask or didn’t tell or both. (Or told, and I never saw it anywhere.) But that doesn’t make me value that story any less – or any more – than any other unsubstantiated report. I agree with you there. You can do nothing with a report, other than follow it up, if you feel it warranted, to see if there is something behind it. If that hunter’s story were the only one I would laugh; it’s the volume – told by people who had nothing to gain but a reputation as a nut – that counts here. That, and the consistency of what they are reporting, uncanny for something that is a figment of their imaginations.

    Many have said that the animal looked so human it made them distinctly uncomfortable. YOU detach a fingertip from that. Many, many people don’t work that way – even hunters, when they’ve seen one, said they couldn’t shoot something like that – and I know for sure that many, many sas carcasses haven’t been found. I could easily – easily as flicking an eyelash – see a hunter, no ten, no a dozen, actually pulling the trigger, THEN being faced with the ugliness of the thing they’d done and being unable to proceed further. (The total number of murders, executions and other killings after which such revulsion happened would probably exceed the grand total of all hairy non-Homo that have ever existed.) If the animal exists that HAD to have happened; and as Sherlock said, when you’ve ruled out the hoax, I mean, the impossible, what’s left is the truth, as unlikely as it might seem.

    Fame is no slam dunk. Look at Patterson, who got a movie of one! It is virtually inconceivable that P/G was faked; I consider it irrational to a distinct degree that I don’t consider that film itself proof. “If a hunter killed one he would bring back a piece” is a line I have heard before. But here’s how I have heard it: If P/G were faked 40 years ago, the faker would have – WOULD HAVE – admitted same, no less than 35 years ago, with the irresistable urge to take credit – and become rich and almost unimaginably famous – for history’s most incredible hoax making his skin crawl every minute of that time.

    No, I am RIGHT.

    And if I’m not – well, maybe you aren’t either. ;-)

  37. DWA responds:

    Matt Bille:

    On reading yours again I thought of something else – two things actually – I should add.

    With regard to “Any reasonably well-read person these says knows that all he has to bring back is a fingertip, or even less, for scientific testing” all I can say is: your definition of “reasonably well-read” might exclude the great majority of our population. I would bet you’d be surprised if you took a survey. And: have you ever wondered what’s happened to all that evidence that HAS been submitted for testing? If I had a nickel for all the stuff I’ve read was submitted, and went from there to oblivion, no reported result of any kind, shoot, I’d be able to afford the equipment to do the tests myself! OK, not, but boy it feels that way. You’re also forgetting (but you wouldn’t if you read reports) the borderline-unhinging that happens to many people’s minds when they see something like this; while the sighting is permanently branded in their brains, in detail that makes innocent misidentification a laughable proposition, the sighting itself so knocked them off balance that cameras stayed on laps or around necks, hairs got ignored, and …well, bringing something back was – by the admission of virtually all of them who failed to get anything – the last thing on their minds. I read reports, is how I know.

    Plus, of course, the way I reacted when I saw tracks in Northern CA in 1986. No one will believe this; my photos will get tossed. I have it in my brain; don’t need photos, don’t need proof. Shoot. If I didn’t take a picture, who’s gonna pull out a game saw to go to work on something that looks like there might be one in your family somewhere?

    Oh. The other thing I wanted to bring up. You seem to be saying that there is no way that anyone with an opportunity to bring back evidence would fail. Or at least that it would almost certainly happen, at some point. Not only has it happened – numerous times, with zero results worth reporting and many results not being recorded at all – but your saying that “there’s no way they don’t at least get a fingertip” is your personal opinion, which is no more valuable than a single sighting report.

    Just sayin’. Remember: if your slant – or mine – were gospel, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We’d be wondering whether there were several species or “just” several subspecies.

    And my bet is that a prospector in Canada or Alaska – or maybe even a hunter in CA or WA – somewhere has a real interesting doorstop.

    (Paranthropus boisei. It has the looks. Back on topic.)

  38. yetimead responds:

    Bigfoot is a mistaken bear



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.