Everyone seems to think that humanoid life entered the Americas through the frozen north. There was however human life in this continent long before the indians which came from the south, and is still found in some argentine islands, thats right the aboriginals.

If they travelled from Australia or more northerly to get there then is it impossible that large primates could have also used this path to enter the america’s.

Maybe people are looking in the wrong place.

Anyway, back to the model. Superb, and it is surprising what they can conclude from small amounts of evidence, I’m not so sure that this is or has anything to do with sas though, just a hunch.

Still only teeth; a jawbone (or three); and part of another bone.

A little of an animal - and a lot of a guess.

But then, we KNOW virtually nothing about the dinosaurs either.

“We only have a few teeth.”

China has yielded three Gigantopithecus blacki jawbones and over a thousand teeth.

Part of a distal humerus was discovered in Jianping County, Liaoning, China, which has been tentatively assigned to Gigantopithecus blacki.

India has been the source of Gigantopithecus giganteus (= bilaspurensis) teeth and a jawbone.

Vietnam’s new findings show that Gigantopithecus teeth are being discovered there too.

How exactly big it actually was.
Whether it was bipedal or quadrupedal.
What color fur it had.
How much sexual dimorphism it had.
And pretty much anything else.

As a result of guesses based upon house-of-cards of guesses, yes, it is a fantastic (and very lifelike) model.

Sightings of the Yeren may mean that a few are still around. One can hope.

Since we now know that none of the australopithicines, or ardipithicus, kenyapithicus, etc, were any more bipedal than modern bononos, we don’t have a good clear ancester for sasquatch. Erectus, Heidelbergensis and Neandertal were identical to us below the neck (and once you hook the jaw on the hinge instead of setting it way forward, even the skulls fall within modern human known ranges). So, we are lacking understanding. And we’ve long known that we have nothing known like the double-jointed foot that Dr. Meldrum hypothesizes from the footprints.

Orang Pendek is very interesting, and I hope we find it and preserve it before it is too late. More bipedalism than the bonono, but still has the big toe sticking out and arm-waving behavior typical of a brachiator. Is there a connection with the bipdedal Napes of the west and north-west?

It is hard to imagine any one of the genus (or just species?) homo to have lost the use of fire and tools. So what is bigfoot? Some third option we don’t know about yet?

I think that if we had any “professional” cryptos we’d have the sas by now. (If they’d existed in 1968, P/G would have been verified within the year.)

Scientists love to pigeonhole into what is known. No surprise; they’re people, after all. I think that many of the theories about the sas have come from cryptos who just came up with POSSIBILITIES that might stem from the “lack of evidence.”

I used to think that the sas was a very very rare animal that migrated over ranges that would dwarf those of any other known mammal.

Now I see that there’s so very much evidence that neither of those “explanations” is necessary.

Gigantopithecus is considered closer to an orangutan than a gorilla. The frontal photo seems to reflect aspects of the orangutan. Yet, the profile photos seem to be more gorilla like.

Posts above suggest doubts that giganto is related to bigfoot. This is interesting because most of the professional cryptozoologists argue for a relational connection between the ancient ape and the contemporary “great American ape”.

Personally, I think we should harbor doubts
about the reality of bigfoot. But, for the sake of argument, let’s take for granted as true the following two statements:

1. Conventional science is correct and giganto and all proto-humans died out ages ago, leaving no ancestral types (except humans, of course).

2. Bigfoot, as generally conceived, exists.

What then, is bigfoot?

Must we link Bigfoot to giganto or homo erectus (for instance), for it to make sense? Do we rethink what bigfoot might be? Is bigfoot what the natives always said it was: a giant form of human? Is it a hybrid of some sort? (I think the hybrid idea used to be more prevalent, before the pros began to link bigfoot to evolutionary science). If it is a hybrid, a hybrid what?

1) inferring THAT monster from a handful of teeth and a jawbone;
2) the pretty-much-standard presumption that Giganto is an ancestor or related to the sas, both of which I consider kind of unlikely.

Scientists - mainstream and non - make all kinds of mistakes and unfounded assumptions. (Grover Krantz was a virtual fountain of them. One of my favorites: that the sas is unsteadier on its feet than we are, when not only the copious sightings but the film that Krantz himself studied paint a far different picture.) We have this insatiable need to state a conclusion whether we have one or not.

You would think someone would want to find this thing, and know.