Re: if Bigfoot were real what would it be?

Lorenzo Love (
13 Sep 1996 03:21:31 GMT

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Ronald McVan <> wrote:
>Hello from a newbie. I was just thinking about what a bigfoot might be,
>if there are any outside of the tabloids of course? Could it be an
>unknown type of ape? Or perhaps somthing from the fosil record thought
>to be extinct but is surviving in some remote areas? Are there any books
>that use real science to address this subject?
> I've always wanted to be a MAD-SCIENTIST
> so far I've accomplished the 1st half.
> Boingee, Boingee, Boingee, NARF!

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain

There is a lot of info about Bigfoot on the Internet. Most of it is put out by True Believers in Bigfoots and Sturgeon's Law (90% of=
everything is crap) applies.
The following is an excerpt from a paper I did on missing links that will give you some of the basics.

Lorenzo L. Love

All around the world there are folk tales of large hairy man-beasts. A popular
view of these beings are that they are the surviving remnants of some ancient human
ancestor. Research on these creatures has been hampered by the lack of objectivity on
the part of most qualified experts. Some can not conceive that such a creature could
possibly exist and discount all evidence as misinterpreted data or outright fakes. Others
have the preconceived idea that these things do exist and except all sorts of nonsense as
proof. Impartial researchers with the expertise, the means, the time, and the inclination to
investigate these creatures are few and far between. All of this makes it hard to separate
fact from fancy, genuine eyewitness reports from self serving fraud.
Bigfoot or Sasquatch, the wild man of the Pacific Northwest, is the subject of a
large body of remarkably consistent sightings and footprints castings. Only a few
photographs exist, the best of which is the 1967 Patterson film taken at Bluff Creek near
Eureka, California. This film matches in every detail hundreds of eyewitness reports. No
one has come up with a believable answer as to how or why this film was faked other
then the idea that bigfoot does not exist wherefore the film must be a fake. The problem
with the Patterson film is the unknown degree of influence it has had on subsequent
sightings. The film shows a large (7 foot) fully bipedal female primate. She had very
unape-like erect stature, large breasts, and buttocks, all characteristics of humans but not
of apes.
The best authority on Bigfoot is Dr. Grover Krantz (who is far from impartial) of
Washington State University. He believes that Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus, a giant cousin
of the orangutan that lived in the plains of China and which is generally believed to have
gone extinct at least 500,000 years ago. The theory is that Gigantopithecus evolved from
a plains dwelling form to a forest dwelling form and came over the Beringia land bridge
just like another primate did. As forest animals rarely leave remains for long and as
Krantz estimates that the population is only about 400, this accounts for the lack of hard
evidence for Bigfoot. The main point in favor of this theory (assuming that Bigfoot
exists) is that Gigantopithecus is the only known primate large enough to match Bigfoot's
The problem with this theory is that the standard reconstruction of
Gigantopithecus is of a knuckle walker looking like an oversized gorilla. However this is
based on very limited fossils, mostly teeth and jaws. Krantz maintains that the shape of
the lower jaw indicates that Gigantopithecus was a biped. That still leaves the problem
that Bigfoot just doesn't look like an ape. Convergent evolution is the usual explanation
for Bigfoot's human-like features. In any case this theory leaves Bigfoot as just an odd
ape and a long way from being a missing link.
Another theory is that Bigfoots are the descendants of Australopithecus robustus.
This better accounts for the human-like characteristics of Bigfoot and two million years is
long enough for the enormous increase in size to evolve. Here the problem is that Africa
is a long ways away and two million years is a long time to not leave any remains. Under
this theory Bigfoot would be a cousin of humans, much closer then the apes, and therefore
could be considered a missing link.
Some Bigfoot enthusiasts with more enthusiasm then common sense have claimed
that Bigfoot is Homo erectus. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with H. erectus
would find this too far-fetched to be considered.