Why,

1. Location! Location! Location! Paranthropus fossils have so far been limited to Africa. Giganto fossils are found in an area that contains eyewitness reports of such an animal to this day, and an area that was joined to N. America by a land bridge recently.

2. Behavior/Intelligence. Vast majority of behavioral characteristics of sasquatch appear to describe an animal, not much further developed (and extremely similar to) the mountain gorilla. This is closer to giganto. One would expect more extensive tool use and other traits indicating high intelligence if it was Paranthropus.

3. Height. The height of Paranthropus appears to be under much debate, but common estimates are 4-5 feet.
Sasquatch heights vary from 6-8 feet in general, but always bigger than humans unless juvenile.

With giganto appearing to be the bigger of the two, though, and some sightings, such as Canadian Albertan mountain sightings for example, reporting 8-10 feet, then giganto must win that debate.

It almost looks like you can see the temporal line, where the chewing muscles attach to the skull, and it’s not at the sagittal region but in the same location as in erectus. Here’s a good page that explains the difference between the Sagittal crest and sagittal keel.

Meganthropus Africanus:

Bones of Contention
Roger Lewin, 1987
pg. 297

“The Leakey/Day/Olson argument had to do with the fact that a German scientist, Ludwig Kohl-Larsen, had found a piece of hominid lower jaw at Laetoli in 1939, which was later given the name Meganthropus Africanus by Hans Weinert. When Johanson and White pooled the Hadar and Laetoli fossils in naming them Australopithecus afarensis, they included this little jaw. According to the code, therefore, the Laetoli/Hadar fossil hominid should be called Meganthropus africanus, not Australopithecus afarensis, or anything else for that matter. Had Johanson and White blundered after all?”

Pg. 298

“On afarensis Campbell has this to say: “It would of course be valid to call it Meganthropus africanus, but this doesn’t seem logical. The fossills are so like existing Australopithecus that they should be placed in this genus. Now, because you are supposed to keep the species name constant, this would make them Australopithecus africanus. But you can’t do that, because this species name is already ‘occupied’, and it’s known. So you are now free to create a new name. I think the new name, Australopithecus afarensis, is valid.”

“Encyclopedia of Human Evolution an Prehistory” 2nd Edition
Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John A. Van Couvering, Alison S. Brooks, 2000

Pg. 118
“The first specimens of Australopithecus afarensis were recovered in Tanzania during the 1930s. Because more abundant fossils of Australopithecus africanus were being recovered during the 1920s through 1940s in Southern Africa, most authorities attributed the scanty material, consisting of a maxilla and a molar collected by F. Kohl-Larsen in the headwaters of the Garusi River above Lake Eyasi (near Laetoli, Tanzania) to this taxon. A canine and an incisor recoverted in 1932 by L.B.S. Leakey from nearby exposures of the same strata at Laetoli in the uppermost drainage of the Olduvai Sie Gorge (Tanzania) went unrecognized until the 1970s. In the 1950s, the recognition by H. Weinert and S. Senyurek of primitive characters in the maxillary fragment led them to attribute the Garusi material to Meganthropus africanus and Praeanthropus africanus, respectively. Few agreed with these workers, and the Garusi maxilla, as it was called, continued to be considered a northern representative of Australopithecus africanus.”

“Johanson and White considered that the Hadar and Laetoli hominin should still be placed in the genus Australopithecus, rahter than Homo, because the fossils indicated bipedality but lacked the cranial expansion and facial reduction seen in Homo. This meant that the trivial name africanus, which ha been applied by Weinert and Senyurek to the original Laetoli fossils, was unavailable, beacuse this name had been in use for the South African Austrolpithecus for decades before it was applied to the Garusi maxilla. For this reason, Johanson, White, and Coppens in 1978 named the material from Ethiopia and Tanzania Australopithecus afarensis, after the Afar region of Etiopia where most of the remains had been found.”

As for Meganthropus palaeojavanicus, if this site had an option to post pictures I’d show a few examples of Meganthropus craniums that show they just a sagittal keel, which is a lot different than a sagittal crest, but you can go to such sites as here.

and note here:
“Meganthropus I/Sangiran 27
Tyler described this specimen as being a nearly complete but crushed cranium within the size limit of Meganthropus and outside the (assumed) limit of H. erectus. The specimen was unusual for having a double sagittal crest and a heavily thickened nuchal crest [4]. A.C. Durband challenged the interpretation of the fossil, and showed it to be well within the known range for H. erectus [5].

Meganthropus II/Sangiran 31
This skull fragment was first described by Sartono in 1982. Tyler’s analysis came to the conclusion that it was out of the normal range of H. erectus. The cranium was thicker, lower vaulted, and wider than any specimen previously recovered, had the same double sagittal crest as Meganthropus I, and had a cranial capacity of around 800-1000cc [6]. However, Andrew Kramer analyzed the same fossil and came to the conclusion that the “sagittal crest” was due to damage, and that the specimen showed remarkable similarities with Sangiran 4, a certain H. erectus [7]. Durband’s analysis showed that while Meganthropus II had differences with H. erectus, it was within the range of variation [8]. This fossil was also used in Krantz’s reconstruction.”

Or here.

And see where the skulls were crushed or fragmentary and the sagittal crests were refuted.

Now see Krantz’s reconstruction, the plaster that fills up where the crest is said to be.

What are your sources? Any pictures showing the sagittal crests in Meganthropus I & II?

Meganthropus africanus was later assigned to Paranthropus robustus. Meganthropus africanus is NOT Australopithecus afarensis.

Meganthropus fossils have exhibited a sagittal crest. Indeed, one example in southeastern Asia was found with a double sagittal crest.

The only person who has written about and come forth saying that Meganthropus reached Australia and has been found with large tools is Rex Gilroy. His claims are unverified by paleoanthropologists and are not taken to be supportable. Most hominologists interested in the Meganthropus question do not consider Gilroy’s evidence for Meganthropus tool use as valid.

Meganthropus are assigned to Paranthropus by several mainstream anthropologists, although others assign Meganthropus to Homo erectus.

Meganthropus africanus in the 1950s was later assigned as Praeanthropus Africanus, and later recognized as Australopithecus Afarensis.

Meganthropus palaeojavanicus is known to have more similarities to Homo erectus, therefore thought to be a subspecies of erectus, and does not have a sagittal crest. This is the giant meganthropus used as an example by proponents of the “Sasquatch’s ancestor is other than Giganto” hypothesis, and though it grew large in size it also was found with large tools as well.

But neither of these Meganthropus are a species of Paranthropus.

Krantz’s reconstruction of Gigantopithecus showing the sagittal crest takes into account the relative size of the jaw compared to the hyper megadont teeth of Giganto.

The record shows it lived 300 thousand years ago in China and South East Asia.

All the Ape species are in danger today from habitat loss. Land should be set aside for Sasquatch now. I propose the Big Foot National Park.

Should I share my insights on that via a separate blog posting?

Loren

In De Loy’s account he actually did identify it as a female (it was with a male), and others have confirmed this. I’d recommend Heuvelmans’ On the Track of Unknown animals for more on that. Most coverages of the case on the internet cover it as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_monkey

Breasts are only present constantly in human females, in non-human primates they are only noticable when they are lactating.

Thumbs still should be noticable even if the are held flat against the hand, all I can make out are a few bumps that are the last vestiges of the thumbs, just like a spider monkey.

The picture was unfortunately not taken at an angle where a tail could be visible, and if there was one or wasn’t would depend on how honest De Loy’s was. He claimed there wasn’t a tail, but it would be very unusual for an animal with so many spider monkey-like characteristics to suddenly lose such an important organ. This is an interesting case, and it’s unfortunate that he threw away the carcass.