Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon

J. Glickman

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Historical Anecdotes

European settler records and Native American mythology comprise the historical anecdotes. Newspapers of fifty to one-hundred and fifty years ago contain accounts of what today are purported to be Bigfoot observations. There are also the personal journals of trading company employees who explored and settled what is today western Canada and the United States that also contain accounts of purported Bigfoot observations. These accounts pre-date the contemporary name "Bigfoot" which entered use in 1958 [Green 1981]. These anecdotes will not be reviewed in this paper and the reader is directed to John Green's book, Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us for an informal survey of these accounts.

Several members of the Bigfoot research community, including Henry Franzoni and Gayle Highpine, have attempted to relate the contemporary Bigfoot phenomenon to Native American mythology [Franzoni 1996]. It is challenging to accommodate these inquiries in a scientific investigation for several reasons. The first is the understanding gap between European culture and Native American culture. For example, the use of the label "mythology" is really a misnomer. Native American culture is based upon verbal rather than written communication. These verbal communications are used for many purposes including what European culture calls parables, stories, myths, spirituality and explanations. We simply do not have a word in English that defines the relationship of these verbal communications to the Native American culture. For lack of a better word, the author will call them "stories." The major hurdle for the European culture in understanding Native American culture is the concept of "truth." The European culture seeks truth through scientific explanation, whereas Native American stories are truth in the Native American culture. In the context of European culture, Native American stories are mixtures of what we call reality and mythology and are used by Native Americans to explain and define the world. This makes the examination of the Native American stories for information concerning Bigfoot especially difficult, particularly because of the natural human tendency to create Big Hairy Monster (BHM) stories. This mixture of myth and reality makes it challenging to use objective western methods to evaluate story content.

Native American Stories

Henry Franzoni has surveyed Native American mythology in search of a link to the Bigfoot phenomenon [Franzoni 1996]. Most cultures have BHM myths and the Native American culture is not an exception. Because of the mixture of mythology and reality in Native American stories, the author found that most of these myths, with varying degrees of ambiguity, overlap with BHM myths. The author could not determine a way to quantify Franzoni's survey, however in an effort to follow through on Franzoni's idea, the author located a dictionary of Native American myths [Gill 1992].

This dictionary, the result of a national compilation of Native American myths, defines each myth and also lists the tribe and region of origin. Because of the large number of myths in the book, the author elected to perform a frequency analysis, by region, of Native American BHM myths contained in the dictionary.

BHM is not the only "universal" myth — for instance dwarf myths can be found in most cultures of the world as well. As a "control," the author performed a frequency analysis of Native American dwarf myths. Table 7 summarizes the frequency by region, of dwarf and giant myths in the Dictionary of Native American Mythology.

This analysis is subjective, and there are many criticisms that may be made of it. For one, the author "judged" whether a particular myth was a dwarf or a giant myth and did so without a formal methodology. Undoubtedly, someone repeating this experiment might omit a particular myth or include one that the author did not. Nonetheless, the frequency of dwarf myths is relatively evenly distributed by region. The frequency of giant myths is highest in the Northwest and Arctic regions, and with the exception of the Northeast, closely approximates the frequency of the dwarf myth. Whereas the frequency of dwarf myths may be interpreted as a basal rate, the giant myth frequency bears a resemblance to the distribution of Green's sightings data.

The higher Northwest density may be an expression of a more deeply ingrained regional cultural myth. Why then does Green's data parallel this? Are there documented cases of a myth crossing from one culture to another in a few decades? If this myth crossed from the Native Americans to the European settlers, are there others that did as well?

Henry Franzoni located a Native American, Gayle Highpine, who was also studying the relationship between the Bigfoot phenomenon and Native American mythology. She observed regional differentiation in Native American mythology — Northwest myths having physical and tangible content, whereas regions distant from the Northwest coast having more spiritual and supernatural content. The following is a quote of Highpine's writing taken from Franzoni's paper:

...I have never heard anyone from a Northwestern tribe suggest that Bigfoot is anything other than a physical being, living in the same physical dimensions as humans and other animals. He eats, he sleeps, he poops, he cares for his family members. However, among many Indians elsewhere in North America... as widely separated at[sic] the Hopi, the Sioux, the Iroquois, and the Northern Athabascan — Bigfoot is seen more as a sort of supernatural or spirit being, whose appearance to humans is always meant to convey some kind of message. [Franzoni 1996]

Table 7: Frequency of Native American Giant and Dwarf Myths

Cultural Region	Dwarfs	Giants
Northwest	2	7
Subarctic	2	5
East Arctic	0	4
Northeast	2	4
Plains	2	3
Southeast	1	2
Great Basin	0	1
Arctic	1	1
Southwest	0	0
California	0	0
Plateau	0	0

The meaning of Native American myths can change in translation. Nonetheless, it is useful to illustrate Highpine's point with two myths, one from the Northeast and one from the Northwest.

In the Northeast the Iroquois and Onandaga tribes have a myth about a being called Dehotgohsgayeh:

This giant lives in the south along the margin of the earth in total darkness. One side of his body is red, the other black...

As translated, there are several aspects of this myth that deviate from our western understanding of the world. One can read meaning into the myth, but this is rather like fortune telling due to the ambiguity of the description — many meanings can be found depending upon what one is seeking. This then, is a good example of the difficulty of analyzing Native American myths.

In the Pacific Northwest the Coos tribe has a myth about a being called Geldegwests:

Benign giants who live near streams and eat fish.

This translation of this myth is a declarative, with what seems little "mythological" content.

Franzoni located Oregon Geographic Names in which its author, Mr. Lewis A. MacArthur, observed a faint geographic pattern between Native American and European legends [Franzoni 1996]:

Devils Lake Fork takes it's name from the fact that it drains a small body of water called Devils Lake, so called as a result of Indian nomenclature. The Indians, particularly of the Coast Range region, were fearful of a number of lakes and localities that were supposed to be inhabited by skookums, or evil wood-spirits. Some of the lakes are still called Skookum lakes, others are called Devils lakes...

Franzoni used MacArthur's hypothesis as a spring-board to develop one of his own, that contemporary geographic names might be a record of the Native American memory of Bigfoot. To pursue this inquiry, Franzoni employed the Geographic Names Information System [US Department of the Interior 1994] computer software. Franzoni developed the following search term consisting of English, Spanish and Native American names related to the Bigfoot phenomenon:

Specific geographic features were excluded. Franzoni used the following exclusion term:

698 geographic locations matched the search parameters. Table 8 presents the frequency of geographic locations grouped by state in descending order.

Table 8: GNIS Search Results

State	Frequency	State	Frequency	State	Frequency
Oregon	89	South Dakota	12	New York	5
Washington	70	Georgia	11	Ohio	5
California	62	Maine	11	Virginia	5
Idaho	41	Michigan	11	Massachusetts	4
Arizona	39	Missouri	11	Pennsylvania	4
Alaska	29	Kentucky	10	Wyoming	4
New Mexico	27	Arizona	9	Puerto Rico	4
Minnesota	26	Florida	9	Indiana	3
Nevada	23	Iowa	7	Maryland	3
Utah	22	Louisiana	7	Kansas	2
Wisconsin	22	Tennessee	7	Oklahoma	2
Montana	21	West Virginia	7	Wash. DC	1
Texas	21	Alabama	6	Hawaii	1
Colorado	17	South Carolina	6	Illinois	1
N. Carolina	14	Mississippi	5	New Jersey	1

Discussion

The GNIS search results parallel the Native American mythology distribution and Green's sightings data.

As suggested by MacArthur, the geographic place names identified by the GNIS search may be a reflection of Native American mythology, and therefore the parallel to Native American myth distribution is expected. While the parallel may be intriguing, it can be independent of the Bigfoot phenomenon and therefore does not contribute to identifying whether the phenomenon is of social or physical origin.

Understanding the relationship between the GNIS results and Green's data, is more difficult. Most of Green's data is from after 1958, when the American public was slowly becoming aware of the Bigfoot phenomenon, which suggests there is probably little influence from Native American culture. Because the original claims of sightings were in the Pacific Northwest, expectations may have been set that sightings should occur in the Northwest skewing the geographic distribution of "sighting" reports to the present day. Thus, the parallels seen between the GNIS results and Green's data may be coincidence.

Certainly the European settlers had no expectation of encountering the Bigfoot phenomenon, yet within the first few decades of their North American arrival reports originate from the first trade company representatives. During the late 1700s and the 1800s there are similar reports, principally west of the Rockies. It is important for us to remember that Bigfoot was not generally known back then as there was no large scale media for distribution as we have today, however, we must keep in mind that BHM as an anthropological phenomenon should have been as common then as it is now. The reports from the 1700s and 1800s have only recently been found, after 1958 when Bigfoot became popularized in North America.

Historical Physical Record

The lack of a type specimen and a fossil record may defeat the continuity argument. The proper conclusion is that the phenomenon does not originate from an uncataloged animal.

Several individuals have speculated that the existing fossil record of Gigantopithecus may be the related to the Bigfoot phenomenon — that perhaps an uncataloged descendant of Gigantopithecus is the source of the Bigfoot phenomenon.

Such an assertion is highly speculative, the plausibility of which is examined by reviewing the fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus and its presumed ecology and relating them to the anecdotal observations.

Paleontology

The continuity argument is derived from the expectation that there may be a continuous record of an organisms existence: fossils during human pre-history, written and verbal records for as long as humans have had language, and for extant species, live specimens.

Of the existing fossil record, Gigantopithecus is the only candidate fossil that approximates the size of the reported anecdotal observations. Gigantopithecus is known only by four mandibles and approximately one-thousand teeth — no post-cranial material has been found. Three of the four mandibles, known as Gigantopithecus blacki, are approximately 300,000 to 400,000 years and are from the Kwangsi Province of southern China. The fourth mandible, known as Gigantopithecus giganteus, is from the Siwalik Hills of Bilaspur, north of Delhi in India and is approximately 6.3 million years old. It is smaller than the three Chinese mandibles and is believed to be an older species of the same genus. The Gigantopithecus teeth were discovered in Liucheng, Kwangsi, Wuming, Bama, Daxin, and Jianshi of southern China. Because of the lack of post-cranial material, the posture and locomotion of Gigantopithecus is unknown.

Anthropologists believe that Gigantopithecus became extinct in the middle Pleistocene, at the latest between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago.

The taxonomy of Gigantopithecus has been controversial — originally thought to be hominid, then pongid, later ramapithecene. Recently, the consensus that Ramapithecus is a female Sivapithecus suggests that Gigantopithecus is related to pongo via a common ancestor, Sivapithecus. The contemporaneous discovery of pongo fossils at Gigantopithecus sites may support this. Today, the majority of anthropologists believe Gigantopithecus was pongid and not hominid:

If synapomorphies are correctly identified, the orangutan is the sole living descendant of the once successful Sivapithecus group, which was not ancestral to later African hominoids. The enigmatic Chinese Pleistocene hominoid Gigantopithecus blacki may be similarly derived... [Delson 1985]

Discussion

Some species leave behind records in the form of fossils, although few individual animals are converted to fossils. There are several possible reasons why fossils of Bigfoot have not been found:

• Non-existence. The phenomenon does not originate from an uncataloged animal.
• Environment. Certain environments are more likely to support fossil formation than others.
• Misclassification. Existing fossils attributed to an inappropriate genus or species.
• Undiscovered. Fossils exist but have not been unearthed.

The process of fossilization does not convert all deceased animals to fossils — most decompose before they can be fossilized because specific environmental conditions are required to create a fossil. Fortey explains fossil formation:

All fossils are found in rocks that were originally unconsolidated sediments... Certain environments which today support a rich and varied plant and animal life have no sediments forming in them, and the organisms living there have virtually no chance of being preserved in the fossil record. Mountainous regions, for example, are dominated by the erosion of the rock forming the ranges, and therefore no permanent sediment is formed there. Torrential rain and rapid weathering, aided in some climates by the action of frost, rapidly destroys much of the organic material: the chances of any preservable remains reaching a lowland river where permanent sediment is accumulating are remote. The faunas and floras of mountainous regions of the past are most unlikely to be represented in the fossil record. The fossilization potential of a mountainous environment is low. [Fortey 1991]

Thus, where the deposition of undisturbed sediment dominates, fossils may form. Where erosion dominates, such as the montane, fossils rarely form. Suspending disbelief momentarily, of the sightings deemed credible by TBRP, most are in the montane environment. Asian reports, such as the so-called Yeti of the Himalayas, are from a similar environment. If these are sightings of an uncataloged animal, then such an environment would rarely produce a fossil.

When the environment of an animal is restricted to a sufficiently small region, and if this region does not support fossil formation, a gap in the fossil record of an animal may form.

The fossil record of ape evolution is confined almost entirely to the Miocene epoch, from 23 million to 5 million years ago... Ape lineages did persist into the Plio-Pleistocene, although some subsequently became extinct. All these surviving lineages were probably more widespread than they were today. However, their record after about 8 million years ago includes only scanty remains of a recently extinct giant ape (Gigantopithecus) and Pliocene fossils of uncertain affinity, all from southeastern Asia. There is no fossil record of chimpanzees or gorillas at all. [Jones 1992]

Science accepts the existence of the gorilla and chimpanzee through the observation of type specimens even though there is no fossil record. As a single dimension, the lack of fossil evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of an animal's non-existence.

Paleontologists believe Gigantopithecus became extinct between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, in part because this is the age of the youngest Gigantopithecus fossil. Gigantopithecus however has a scant fossil record that contains a gap of approximately 5 million years between the Indian mandible and the oldest Chinese tooth. Such gaps are typical of the fossil record. Even the intensely investigated hominid record has a 3 million year gap [Tattersall 1993]. Given the 5 million year gap in the Gigantopithecus fossil record, it seems presumptive to interpret a 400,000 year absence of fossils as conclusive proof of the species being extinct. Nonetheless, it is proper scientific procedure to do so until new hard evidence becomes available.

Misclassification of a fossil may occur through the premature introduction of a new taxonomic class, by the introduction of a taxonomic class too late, or through the misattribution of a fossil of one taxonomic class to another. An example is the 1915 discovery of a lower molar by Pilgrim (GSI D-175) that was attributed to Dryopithecus giganteus. Von Koenigswald discovered a large tooth in 1935 in an apothecary shop in China and suggested the genus Gigantopithecus. It was only later that GSI D-175 was properly attributed to Gigantopithecus.

Paleoclimatology

Animals adapt to ecological change which is driven, in part, by changes in climate.

During the Pleistocene, when climates oscillated over many thousands of years between warm and cold, marine and land organisms migrated backwards and forwards with the climatic shifts to keep living in the conditions to which they were adapted. [Fortey 1991]

If synapomorphies are correctly identified, the orangutan is the sole living descendant of the once successful Sivapithecus group, which was not ancestral to later African hominoids. The enigmatic Chinese Pleistocene hominoid Gigantopithecus blacki may be similarly derived... [Delson 1985]

Climate is defined by the superposition of cycles, some of which may have astrophysical origins. During the 1930s Milankovitch hypothesized that fluctuations in climate are driven by variations in the earth's orbit and rotational axis. Dansgaard at the University of Copenhagen has deduced mean temperature changes by analyzing the proportion of heavy oxygen in ice core samples with a mass spectrometer. His methods, and others, have demonstrated that some aspects of Milankovitch's hypothesis, that orbital perturbations affect climate, may be true [Turekian 1971].

During the last 160,000 years, or since roughly the most recent time Ciochon believes that Gigantopithecus became extinct, the climate consisted of:

Table 9: Climate

Time (Years Ago)	Climate (Description)
160,000	Deep Ice Age
140,000	Rapid warming over 10,000 years to an even warmer temperature than it is today
120,000	Cooling into an ice age...
100,000	... fluctuating ...
80,000	... but gradually ...
60,000	... deepening ...
40,000	... over 100,000 years
20,000	Rapid warming over 5,000 to 10,000 years, warming to present temperatures

Discussion

Several have postulated that Gigantopithecus could not have made the crossing from Eurasia to the New World across the Bering Land Bridge because such a crossing was too arduous for a species unless it possessed a social structure and culture to facilitate cooperation. There is, however, evidence that other mammals made this crossing, presumably without such cooperation:

Additional material for the determination of climatic changes during the Late Cenozoic is provided by the intercontinental migrations of mammals between Eurasia and America (Repenning 1967). At least four periods of intense exchange between faunas of the Old and New World can be distinguished in the interval between the present day and the middle Pliocene (Hemphillian in the American stratigraphy). Without going into the paleontological details one can say that the first wave of migration indicates the occurrence of a moist and warm forest environment in the Bering Land Bridge region. The migration wave corresponding to the Villafranchian (or the Blancan in the New World) suggests the presence of a forest vegetation on the route, but with open areas and a temperate climate. The deterioration of the climate on the migration route of the mammals continued, and the great wave of migration in the late Pleistocene included only arctic species, inhabitants of steppes, tundra and, at the most, the northern zone of taiga. As time lapsed, the faunal exchange was more and more limited to one direction only. The peak was reached in the late Pleistocene; in this period 23 mammalian species passed from Eurasia to North America and none migrated from the opposite direction. [Turekian 1971]

Turekian's inference that the Bering Land Bridge region of this period was a forest environment contradicts the expectation that a period generally colder than today could support a forest rather than tundra. His inference suggests this environment was at one time similar to the environment of present day anecdotal observations. South of the Bering Land Bridge, approximately 18,000 years ago during the last ice age, a north-south corridor between the Laurentide ice sheet and the ice on the western mountains ran from what is today northern Alaska via the Canadian Rockies into the Cascades and US Rockies [Calder 1974]. This is consistent with North American sighting distributions of which there were some reports from the Rocky Mountains during the 1700s and 1800s. Nearly all current sightings in TBRP's database originate in the Cascades.

There are theories that Neanderthals were physically adapted for the colder conditions that existed at the beginning of the last glaciation. As the last glaciation ended, Neanderthals may have, as did most organisms, migrate with the climatic shift. As Homo erectus became successful in the warming climate, Neanderthals may have been assimilated into the population through interbreeding. There is some evidence to support this in the form of transitional fossils between Neanderthal and Homo erectus that are approximately 300,000 years in age. Gigantopithecus was also affected by the warming climate and may have migrated to higher altitudes or latitudes seeking the cooler conditions to which it was previously adapted.

While there have been several intervening climatic shifts, it is, nonetheless, warmer today than it was 300,000 years ago. If, as a result of this warming, Gigantopithecus migrated to a cooler and perhaps montane environment, there is little expectation of recent fossil formation.

Paleoecology

Understanding the presumed ecology of Gigantopithecus can contribute to demonstrating the plausibility or implausibility that it is related to the Bigfoot phenomenon. There is differing and conflicting opinions and evidence. Paleoecological evidence indicates that a similar ecology existed in India 6.3 million years ago and in China 400,000 to 300,000 years ago, the age of G. giganteous and G. blacki fossils:

The habitat of the Indian specimen of Gigantopithecus (named Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis), which flourished at least four million and possibly more than eight million years earlier, seems to have been somewhat like the habitat in Kwangsi. The fauna found in the early Dhok Pathan sediments... suggests that the environment consisted largely of dry grasslands. Thus both the Indian and the Chinese faunas lend support to the hypothesis that the giant apes had adapted to an open environment quite unlike the forest habitat of their fruit-and-leaf eating pongid ancestors. [Simons]

Fossilized plant remains embedded in fossilized tooth enamel lends clues as to the composition of the Gigantopithecus diet. Albeit derived from a small sample, electron microscopy has found the presence of grass and fruit phytoliths during the examination of Gigantopithecus teeth. Ciochon speculates that the grass phytoliths are from bamboo. The fruit phytoliths are believed to be from the Moraceae or a closely related family which includes the sugar maple, fig, jackfruit and durian. Since the Moraceae do not grow in the savanna or its fringe, this habitat is ruled out as the habitat of Gigantopithecus [Piperno 1990].

The evidence now emerging is that Gigantopithecus was an eclectic feeder that concentrated on fruits as well as tough, fibrous vegetation. As White (19) has aptly noted, Gigantopithecus "seems to be adapted to a diet both high in carbos or starches, and requiring heavy mastification (p. 231). [Ciochon 1990]

The dentition and jaw of Gigantopithecus suggest powerful chewing [Yinyun 1982]. Some have hypothesized that powerful chewing was an adaptation for specialized diets such as gravinominous feeding, however there is no proof of this.

Jones summarizes his opinion of the ecology of Gigantopithecus:

The diet and habitats of late Miocene Eurasian hominoids were probably quite diverse. Sivapithecus, Ouranopithecus and Gigantopithecus had thick-enamelled cheek teeth, and may have had diets similar to that of Kenyapithecus, with hard and tough food items... By the end of the Miocene, all these Eurasian lineages were extinct in the areas from which they are known as fossils, except China. Their extinction might have been caused by a cooler, drier and more seasonal world climate, which emerged as the Miocene progressed, and by the resulting decline in evergreen forest and woodland and its partial replacement with deciduous forest, scrub and, perhaps, the first extensive wooded grasslands... The lineages leading to gibbons and the orang-utan persisted, but were confined to the forests of Southeast Asia. The enormous and enigmatic Gigantopithecus was probably a ground-dweller in more open habitats before its extinction in the later Pleistocene. [Jones 1992]

Discussion

Both orangutan (pongo) and giant panda (Ailuropoda) fossils have been found contemporaneously at Gigantopithecus sites which suggests a possible similarity in ecologies among these species.

Fossil Pongo is the only higher primate usually discovered with Gigantopithecus blacki. That does not mean the ecological environments for fossil Pongo and Gigantopithecus are the same, but at least they may not be considerably different. [Yinyun 1982]

Thus, it has been suggested that Gigantopithecus might have a diet similar to the giant panda [White 1975]. Piperno's identification of phytoliths has provided the first hard evidence as to the diet of Gigantopithecus, consisting of at least grasses and fruits.

The giant panda, presumed extinct until their discovery by the west in the 1920s, have migrated from the ecology of Gigantopithecus to the montane environment.

Today the giant panda is confined to the uplands of central China, in montane forests where dense stands of Bamboo grow. [Ciochon 1990]

The giant panda's typical altitude range is 5,000 to 7,000 feet although they have been seen at altitudes up to 16,000 feet. Orangutans have adapted to varied ecologies such as the lowland and swamp forests and the montane environments of Borneo and Sumatra. The giant panda has a specialized diet with more than 99% of their food consisting of bamboo when in their natural habitat:

The koala and panda are often cited as examples of extreme food specialization. Indeed, the koala's physiology appears so adapted to a diet of Eucalyptus leaves that the animal cannot change readily to another food supply (Eberhard 1978). Pandas have obviously specialized on bamboo in various ways, but they remain essentially omnivores; their dependence on bamboo reflects mainly the lack of a large alternative food supply, especially in winter, rather than the inability to assimilate other foods. [Schaller 1985]

Pandas are now known to eat meat as well as more than 25 species of plant. When presented with meat, many pandas will immediately eat it [Schaller 1985]. This is not too surprising, considering the panda is believed to have evolved from carnivorous ancestors. The fact that they eat little meat in their natural habitat may be the result of a lack of opportunity rather than one of preference. When faced with a shortage of bamboo, pandas will eat other foods. When in captivity, pandas readily adapt to a diet of porridge [Schaller 1985]. Because of the high-bulk and low nutritional content of bamboo, and thus the need to consume large quantities of it, the giant panda spends more than 40 percent of the day at rest and is never seen running.

An outstanding characteristic of giant herbivores is their extreme slowness. They have no particular need of speed; their size and thick skins protect them from predators, and of course their feeding habits require no more of them than that they move from place to place as they systematically denude the landscape of vegetation. Furthermore, they are usually stuffed full of bulky food to digest, which tends to produce inertia. Gigantopithecus probably followed this pattern. [Ciochon 1991]

The flexibility retained in their diet may be the result of recent specialization:

Chinese paleontologists are now speculating that the specialized bamboo diet of the living giant panda evolved rather recently in panda evolution, perhaps at the end of the Pliocene. [Ciochon 1990]

Bamboo belongs to the Gramineae family and consists of approximately 1,200 species of grass. It is long-lived, an evergreen woody grass, and varies greatly in size [Ciochon 1990]. Bamboo may have been part of the diet of Gigantopithecus [Ciochon 1990]. Bamboo has some unusual characteristics that can impact an animals ecology such as periodic die-offs. The last die-off during the 1970s was particularly hard on the giant panda as three major species of bamboo died-off simultaneously. During this period the giant panda turned to other food sources such as other plants and meat. Bamboo is found at altitudes of up to 11,500 feet in the Himalayas [Ciochon 1990].

The presence of fruit and grass phytoliths embedded in Gigantopithecus teeth suggests that the diet of Gigantopithecus may not have been as specialized as the giant panda's. We know that the giant panda, even with its specialized diet, will substitute alternate foods when bamboo is not available. Thus, since the giant panda has not yet become extinct as a result of the periodic die-off of bamboo, this probably did not play a significant role in the extinction of Gigantopithecus. Today anthropologists assert:

Gigantopithecus is the only ape known to have become extinct during the Pleistocene epoch. [Ciochon 1990]

Identifying the forces that drove Gigantopithecus to extinction can remove the attribution of Gigantopithecus as the fossil record of an uncataloged animal, thereby reducing the plausibility of an uncataloged animal.

Ecology

Examining the tenuous supposition that a descendant of Gigantopithecus is the source of the Bigfoot phenomenon requires the temporary suspension of disbelief.

This process is valuable in establishing the plausibility or implausibility of this supposition. The anecdotal reports are facts, as they tangibly exist — the supposition in question is whether the reports originate from the manifestation of an uncataloged animal, or if they should be attributed to a sociological phenomenon.

Habitat

The following information is extracted by subjective examination of the TBRP database of anecdotal observations and other anecdotal sources.

• Observations by westerners in the Rocky Mountains are principally from the 1800s with some 1700s observations.
• Observations by westerners in the Cascades are principally from the 1900s with some 1800s observations.
• Observations from the Himalayas and Asia are from three regions: Tibet, China and Russia.

Anecdotal observations similar to those of the Pacific Northwest also come from Canada, Alaska, Russia and China, all of which have a similar montane environment.

There is evidence that the giant panda, a contemporary of Gigantopithecus, migrated to the montane. Most anecdotal observations are in the higher and cooler montane environment such as the Cascades and Himalayas. One TBRP anecdotal report is from a glacier in the Cascades at approximately 9,000 feet.

It is estimated that the range of the giant panda has been cut in half during the last 140 years due to human encroachment. Two-hundred years ago, anecdotal observations originated from both the Pacific Northwest and the Rocky Mountains, which correlates with the position of the land gap between the North American ice sheets during the last ice age. Today, anecdotal observations originate principally from a narrow band in the Northwest, possibly the result of North American human encroachment.

Assuming an uncataloged animal exists, one reason why a type specimen has not yet been obtained may be the wide area of cover provided by large tracts of forested land in the Pacific Northwest. The US Forest Service, a division of the US Department of Agriculture, manages 141 million acres of national forest, 41 million of which are in Oregon, Washington and Idaho and account for more than 27% of the land mass of these states. Wilderness areas are contained within the national forests and their use is restricted: a use permit is required, there are no roads, there are no permanent man-made structures, all mechanized devices are prohibited. Five-percent of the combined land mass of Oregon, Washington and Idaho has this designation, which is an area larger than Massachusetts. There are also hundreds of thousands of acres of fully restricted land, such as watersheds, that no one may enter. The terrain in these areas is as rugged and inaccessible as areas in the Amazon and Himalayas. The population density of an animal (number per square kilometer) has been found to be allometrically related to body length (meters) [MacMahon 1983]:

(Eq. 9)

An alternative way of stating this is that population density is allometrically related to the amount of food consumed by an animal [MacMahon 1983]:

(Eq. 10)

The mean body length (stature) of the US office workers is 1.68 meters [Weimer 1993]. The Patterson-Gimlin film subject body length is approximately 2.2 meters. Sighting reports have estimated male stature as 2.7+ meters which when averaged yields an estimated mean of 2.45 meters, assuming an equal distribution of males and females in the population.

Diet

While unusual, anecdotal observations sometimes includes foraging information. TBRP reports include:

• Observation of foraging on cattails.
• Observation of foraging on bear grass, an evergreen grass that grows in clumps.
• Observation of stream fishing for steelhead (trout).

Ciochon believes Gigantopithecus may have eaten bamboo, which is found in the Himalayas up to 11,500 feet. The Himalayas are one source of contemporary anecdotal observations.

Bamboo and the Moraceae family, which may have been part of the diet of Gigantopithecus, are not native to the Pacific Northwest [USFS 1996]. Moraceae, commonly known as Mulberry, belongs to the Urticales. Also in the Urticale order and therefore closely related to Mulberry are: Elm (Ulmaceae), Hemp (Cannabaceae), and Nettle (Urticaceae). Nettle is native to the Pacific Northwest. While bamboo is not native, other grasses such as cattails and bear grass might substitute. There is also an abundance of fruits in the Cascades which might substitute for the Moraceae family.

Native forbs identified in early-seral vegetation plots on the Mt. Hood National Forest and Gifford Pinchot that are suitable for foraging include: Woodland beardtongue (Nothochelone nemorosa), Sitka burnet (Sanguisorba stichensis), Lupine (Lupinus latifolius), Cascade penstemon (Penstemon serrulatus), Bear grass (Xerophyllum tenax), Skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), Cardwell's penstemon (Penstemon cardwellii), Great betony (Stachys cooleyae) and Sticky chickweed (Cerastium viscosum) [USFS 1996].

Kleiber's law expresses the relationship between mammalian body weight and energy requirements by an allometric relationship:

(Eq. 11)

where:
BMR is the basal metabolic rate,
k is a constant, and
WB is body weight [Jones 1992].

An exponent of 0.75 is appropriate for inter-species comparison, whereas 0.67 is appropriate for intra-species comparison.

Substituting the estimated body weight of the Patterson-Gimlin film subject of 887 kilograms, the BMR is 705 Watts. For comparison for the average world human weight of 57 kilograms the BMR is approximately 90 Watts.

Behavior

TBRP anecdotal reports of daytime sightings are at a maximum during the Pacific Northwest hunting season. There are many similar reports which enable the extraction of some common characteristics. A typical report is from hunters who, upon entering an area, or discharging their weapon, claims to see a Bigfoot stand up near them and walk away. Presumably, the noise of the approaching hunter, or from the weapon discharge, disturbs the subject. The giant panda spends approximately 40% of the day on it's back resting and eating. By ecological parallelism, resting and eating may be the source of the observed behavior in the anecdotal reports. Also, there are no TBRP anecdotal reports of a subject running. Also by ecological analogy, this is consistent with giant panda behavior which has never been seen running.

There are also similarities among TBRP anecdotal reports of night time sightings. A typical report is from a driver of a vehicle who claims to see a Bigfoot while driving on a road. Sometimes the subject crosses in front of the vehicle, sometimes it stands at the side of the road, and occasionally it crosses behind the vehicle. Often there are multiple people in the vehicle, and in at least one instance the incident involved a bus driver and a bus full of students. Night time sightings have led to speculation that the subject is nocturnal, but this is unlikely because all known nocturnal primates, except the aye-aye of Madagascar (Daubentonia madagascariensis) weigh less than 1 kilogram. Further, Delson argues that it is possible to judge if a primate is nocturnal or diurnal based upon orbit size and there are no TBRP anecdotal reports of a large orbit size [Delson 1985]. Nocturnalism may have separately evolved, but there would need to be a reason for the adaptation. No such reason has been identified at this time.

TBRP daytime and nighttime anecdotal reports, Green's Sighting Data, European settler records and Native American mythology indicate the subject is bipedal. There is no information in the fossil record to either support or contradict this. If the subject is pongid, and not hominid, the bipedalism may be the result of convergent evolution. If true, the reason for such an adaptation is unknown.

Cryptozoology

Conventional wisdom is that there are no new animals to be discovered, however there is a history of uncataloged animals. Linneaus began the process of formally cataloging the species in 1758. Figure 31 shows the trend of increasing numbers of cataloged species over time (birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles only) [Heuvelmans 1958].

The 1817 survey is by Cuvier, 1886 by Leunis and Ludwig, 1898 by Mobius, and the 1939 survey is by Arndt [Heuvelmans 1958]. The 1960 data is an extrapolation made by Heuvelmans in 1958.

Examples of "undiscovered animals" include:

• The 1869 discovery by the west of the giant panda which could not be located again for another 50 years. The first living specimen was obtained in 1936.
• The 1912 discovery of a type specimen of the Komodo dragon was which was thought to be mythical.
• The 1939 discovery of a live specimen of the coelacanth which was believed to be extinct for 70 million years.
• At one time it was generally accepted that the Precambrian was void of fossils. Today, paleontologists recognize fossilized stromatolites from the Precambrian as the remains of cyanobacteria, the oldest of which are from 3,000 million years ago. Recently, living stromatolites were discovered in Shark's Bay in western Australia [Fortey 1991].

The most strongly related example of an undiscovered animal is the lowland gorilla which parallels the Bigfoot phenomenon (Gorilla gorilla gorilla, Gorilla gorilla graueri). As early as 470 BC colonists from Carthage, who traveled to the West African coast, reported encountering hair-covered, stone-throwing animals. Other accounts are from 1774 and 1846. In 1847 the discovery of the gorilla is attributed to Savage and an observation from 1856 reports that gorilla are "never running from man..." [Kogod 1993]. Some of these accounts convey fearsome creatures and sound more mythical than observed. In the case of Chaillu, the exaggerations were introduced by his publisher. The resulting skewed perceptions were accepted as fact.

Humankind projects onto animals its desires and fears and in the end observes mainly the fiction it has created. In the black countenance and tremendous strength of the gorilla it sees less an animal than a myth, a mysterious and monstrous image of itself. [Richardson 1989]

After the discovery of the lowland gorilla reports persisted of yet another fearsome creature and were discredited. Then in 1902, the mountain gorilla was discovered (Gorilla gorilla berengi). Capable of living at both high and low elevations, they are often found between 7,800 and 11,000 feet in the Virunga Volcanoes located at the border of Zaire, Uganda and Rwanda. An important parallel between the gorilla and the Bigfoot phenomenon is:

There is no fossil record of chimpanzees or gorillas at all. [Jones 1992]

These parallels exist between the gorilla and the Bigfoot phenomenon:

Table 10: Gorilla and "Bigfoot" Parallels

	Mountain Gorilla	Bigfoot
Mythology	Thought to be myth until discovery	Thought to be a myth
Morphology	Standard for comparison	Features similar to gorilla, but larger
Fossil Record	None	Limited (Gigantopithecus) or none
Ecology: Behavior	Never runs	No reports of running
	Object throwing	Reports of object throwing
Diet	Omnivorous	Reports of omnivorous diet
Habitat	Montane	Reported montane environment

BHM

Encounters with big hairy monsters have been reported continually, for millennia, from around the world. Reports come from credible and uncredible individuals alike, and may be reported immediately to authorities or, due to fear of ridicule, may be kept quiet for extended periods. While one "BHM" has been captured, the gorilla, the remainder are relegated to mythology.

BHM myths are thought to have existed for as long as humans have had language. Pliny reports an encounter with a BHM in 0 AD. There is no reason for us to expect that a universal myth that transcends cultures and time should disappear from use in modern times.

Carl Jung suggested that phenomenon such as BHMs are encounters with archetypal images derived from the collective unconscious, which are believed to be understood by all humans at a primitive level [Guiley 1995]. Our need for the BHM archetypal image may arise from a primal fear of the loss of control — a fear of encountering a force so overwhelming that the greatest of warriors could not overcome. The existence of such a primal fear may be an evolved survival strategy.

Brenda Sutherland, a graduate student of Ciochon who investigated anthropomorphic legends, addressed in her research the length of time myths survive. In some cases, tribal memory may extend tens-of-thousands of years. The bunyip, a mythical creature of the Aboriginal dreamtime may be a thirty-thousand year old tribal memory of the fossil Palorchestes that became extinct toward the end of the last Ice Age. There are similar records from other cultures.

Conclusion

The implausibility of an uncataloged animal may be demonstrated by the absence of a continuous record, since evolution theory generates an expectation of a continuous record of an organisms existence. The implausibility of an uncataloged animal may also be demonstrated through the implausibility of one or more dimensions of its ecology.

G. blacki is the only fossil record that approximates the size of anecdotal reports of Bigfoot. Four mandibles and approximately one-thousand teeth comprise the fossil record of Gigantopithecus, the youngest of which is from 400,000 to 200,000 years ago. The lack of G. blacki fossils in the intervening period, is partly why anthropologists believe G. blacki is extinct. There is however a 5 million year gap in the fossil record of Gigantopithecus and it seems presumptive to the author to interpret a 400,000 to 200,000 year gap in the fossil record as proof of the extinction of G. blacki.

Bamboo die-offs have been postulated as contributing to the extinction of G. blacki — this seems implausible given that its diet was probably more varied than the giant panda which survives to this day and which shared the ecology of Gigantopithecus.

There was a suitable environment for Gigantopithecus to migrate across the Bering Strait Land Bridge, and as evidenced by at least twenty-three other land mammals, cooperation and social structure were not required to make this crossing. Approximately 18,000 years ago a corridor of montane environment existed from the Bering Strait Land Bridge, between the Laurentian Ice Sheet and the western mountain ice, providing a montane conduit to the Rocky Mountains and Cascades.

G. blacki may be the fossil record of the Bigfoot phenomenon. It is also possible that like the gorilla, Bigfoot does not have a fossil record, as anecdotal reports come from the montane environment which does not support fossil formation. By itself, the lack of a fossil record is insufficient to demonstrate implausibility because of the example of a lack of a fossil record for the gorilla. There is no evidence that contradicts the possibility that G. blacki is the fossil record of the Bigfoot phenomenon. If it is extinct, "Gigantopithecus is the only ape known to have become extinct during the Pleistocene epoch." [Ciochon 1990]

Analysis of Native American stories and the GNIS search both show a bias toward the Pacific Northwest, paralleling Green's sighting data. The Native American stories may show a differentiation between a basal myth rate derived from stories of dwarfs, versus stories of big hairy monsters, indicating a higher frequency of Native American BHM myths than expected in the Pacific Northwest. Highpine demonstrated differences in Native American BHM myths, with Pacific Northwest myths sounding "observed" and the remainder more "mythical." Both the Native American stories and the GNIS search results could represent a regional memory or expectation of the phenomenon.

The analysis of observational data suggests it is the result of the superposition of multiple phenomenon. The analysis of Green's data suggests there may be willful manufacture by those reporting sightings. However, Green's data also shows two clusters, one in the Pacific Northwest which is differentiated from the remainder of the country. Willful manufacture is expressed as a basal rate of the population count and also accounts for some of the Pacific Northwest anecdotal reports.

Comparative morphology places the Patterson-Gimlin film subject between a mountain gorilla and a human. Analysis of the knee delta suggests locomotion differentiated from that of a human, although it is yet to be demonstrated that a human could not replicate the locomotion employed. Subsequent analysis of the knee range-of-motion data may be able to exclude the human archetype as a derivation for the film subject. As a single dimension, the Patterson-Gimlin film could be dismissed as a fake. However, forensic imaging analysis has been unable to relate the subject to the human archetype.

Perceptual failure accounts for a portion of the Bigfoot phenomenon, as there are documented instances where an individual identifies a tree trunk as a Bigfoot, or footprints as the result of double registration in bear prints, though there are only a small number of such occurrences in the TBRP database. There is probably a sociological basis for increased perceptual failure in the Pacific Northwest based upon the regional expectation of the phenomenon. The TBRP database also has instances of willful manufacture. However, there is no evidence that it is widespread.

Proof of the source of the Bigfoot phenomenon that is acceptable to the scientific community is the objective of this research. This may come from social science or psychological research into manufacturing and perceptual failure. In the event the phenomenon originates from an uncataloged animal, it is unfortunate, but nonetheless true, that anthropologists will demand a type specimen. By definition, the taxonomy of an uncataloged animal is unknown, which raises complex ethical and moral questions. To date, no type specimen of Bigfoot has been discovered, perhaps because it does not exist, but possibly because of the millions of acres of habitat and the natural disposal system in the montane environment — carcasses of known animals, such as bear, are rarely found. The continuity argument was unable to contradict the null hypothesis as there is at least one plausible model of continuity:

It seems reasonable to attribute the Bigfoot phenomenon to anthropomorphic legend — perhaps Jungian in origin, derived from the collective unconscious, or perhaps a tribal memory of a now extinct animal. The aborigines do not, however, claim to have recently seen a bunyip whereas judges, sheriffs, police officers, and forest service employees claim to have recently seen a Bigfoot. In the opinion of the author, some of these individuals are credible, and are therefore less likely to fabricate a story or perpetrate a hoax. These people may have been a victim of a wide-spread hoax, or there may be wide-spread failure of perceptual mechanisms, but no evidence of this has been identified.

Willful manufacture, perceptual failure and sociological factors such as regional expectations are contributing sources to the Bigfoot phenomenon. Regional differences in anecdotal report frequencies and content differentiate the Pacific Northwest phenomenon from a North American basal BHM phenomenon. The origin of the Pacific Northwest phenomenon is as yet unidentified and may be of unknown social origin or perceptual failure, or it may be plausible that there is an uncataloged bipedal animal in the Pacific Northwest.

There is no hard evidence that proves the existence of Bigfoot, however, the quantity and distribution of anecdotal reports in the Cascades can not be readily discounted. Particularly compelling is the simultaneous presence of multiple dimensions of circumstantial evidence:

• plausible continuity,
• plausible ecology,
• Green's data,
• TBRP's data,
• GNIS data,
• Native American mythology,
• historical and contemporary anecdotal accounts, and
• the Patterson-Gimlin film,

which together, while coincidence has not yet been ruled out, suggest the presence of an underlying phenomenon. The lack of hard evidence supports the conclusion of anthropologists that Bigfoot does not exist and that Gigantopithecus is extinct. However, in the opinion of this author, the compelling circumstantial evidence warrants the dedication of additional resources to resolve the origin of the Bigfoot phenomenon.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to many people who helped make this paper a reality. First and foremost, the staff of The Bigfoot Research Project: Peter Byrne, Tod Deery and Deborah Wolman, who on more than one occasion got me into trouble in the field, but more importantly, got me out alive. I would like to thank Tod and Deborah for their assistance preparing the TBRP data for this research, and Tod in particular for his tireless review of, and insightful comments on the early drafts of this paper.

My thanks to Pat Patterson1 for entrusting us with the Patterson-Gimlin Film, to Oxberry ATI for the fine digitization job they did, and to René Dahinden2 for granting us the right to incorporate the still images of the Patterson-Gimlin Film in this paper.

My sincere thanks to Henry Franzoni for his insights about Native American culture, and his willingness to contribute his Native American mythology and GNIS research to this paper.

Grover Krantz, whom I have never met, is the pioneer of the scientific investigation of this phenomenon and I thank him for laying much of the ground work upon which this research is based. John Green and John Napier have both performed work from which this paper has benefited. Robert Pyle observed "...the phenomenon of Bigfoot exists," which is the foundation for the framework upon which this paper is based. Dr. Richard Howe contributed many ideas to this paper including assisting with the formulation of the null hypothesis.

I would like to thank Dr. Robert Rines for his insatiable curiosity and his capacity to make the unknown, known. He has shown unswerving determination to find an answer to the mystery of this phenomenon.

Many people contributed to the content of this paper. I would also like to thank Henry Franzoni, Dr. William Saxe Wihr, Dr. Martin Lees, Melinda Scheuneman, Dr. Franklin Glickman, Peter Byrne, Dr. Robert Pyle, Dr. Howe for their assistance in editing this paper. Several people over several years assisted with the preparation of materials and processing of image data including: Dan Putnam, Stephanie Alsberg, James Deckert, James Barlow and David Pointer. My thanks to Henner Fahrenbach for his assistance with primatology research. My thanks to Chris Murphy for several interesting and useful conversations. My thanks also to Pasquale and Jacquie Barone and the entire staff of the Hood River Hotel who are warm and gracious hosts and always made me feel at home during my many visits to Hood River, Oregon.

My special thanks to Melinda Scheuneman who, for several weeks, was my eyes and ears performing research in the library, and who somehow managed at the same time to keep the office running in my absence.

1. Mrs. Patterson was compensated for granting this research project access to the film.
2. René Dahinden was compensated for granting this research project access to his still images.

Appendix A

Speculation

A tenuous string of suppositions derived from the anecdotal observations and from the ecological analogy with the giant panda and the orangutan might narrow a search for those wishing to try. For an uncataloged animal to be plausible, each dimension of its ecology must also be plausible.

The following are based upon a combination of fossil evidence and anecdotal observations and is based upon current knowledge and information. The subject, if it exists, may be (or have):

• Pongid
• Diurnal
• Bipedal
• Montane habitat
• Omnivorous diet consisting of grass, fruit, fish
• Slow, probably never running
• Shy, walking away upon encountering a human
• Spends most of the day resting and eating
• Seven to nine feet in stature
• Possibly 1,900 lb.+ mass (estimated)

The current interpretation of the fossil evidence suggests Gigantopithecus was pongid, which, if it is the fossil record of the Bigfoot phenomenon, suggests that Bigfoot is pongid. Morphological comparisons derived from the Patterson-Gimlin film are in agreement with this and suggest that Bigfoot is related to the mountain gorilla and is therefore pongid.

Appendix B

Recommendations for future study

The following are recommendations for research into the Bigfoot phenomenon:

• Independent verification of results
• Study of human attempting gait observed in Patterson-Gimlin film
• Extraction of jaw and tooth size from Patterson-Gimlin film for comparison with Gigantopithecus fossils
• Test anecdotal observations with theory of testimony
• Studies to test for sociological origin
• Studies to test for perceptual failure
• Statistical analysis of sighting data integrated with ecological data (flora, etc.)
• Integration of all available observational data into a single database (Green, TBRP, etc.)
• Deployment of advanced technology for automated wildlife surveys

Appendix C

Names of big hairy monsters

Table 11: World-Wide Names (Excluding North America)

Name	Country
Abominable Snowman	Tibet
Agogue	East Africa
Alma	Mongolia
Almas	Mongolia
Almasty	Russia
Cigouve	Haiti
Duendi	Columbia
Dzestarnacks	China
Homo ferus	Sweden
Homo nocturnus	Sweden
Homo sylvestris	Sweden
Homo troglodytes	Sweden
Metah Kangmi	Nepal
Orang-Dalam	Malaysia
Orang-Pendek	Borneo
Quidili	Russia
Sedapa	Borneo
Shookpa	Nepal
The Big Grey Man	Scotland
Yeh Ren	China
Yeti	Nepal, Tibet
Yowie	Australia

Table 12: Native American Names (North America)

Name	Tribe	Description
A-hoo-la-huk	Yup'ik Apotamkin Maliseet-Passama-quoddy	A bogey monster with long hair and huge teeth. Fear of him keeps small children from straying onto thin, newly frozen ice in the winter and unguarded beaches in the summer
Asin	Alsea	A fearful monster-girl who lives in the woods and carries people off, especially unattended children
At'at'ahila	Chinookan
Atahsaia	Zuni
Big Figure	Kwakwaka'wakw
Big Hairy Man	Hopi
Boqs	Bella Coola
Bukwas	Kwakwaka'wakw	Wild Man of the Woods
Bushmen	Hare
Chahnameed	Pequot	The great eater, the glutton. A giant who lives alone on an island and lusts after a beautiful women walking along the beach of the mainland
Chiha-tanka	Dakota Sioux	big elder brother
Chiye-tanka	Lakota Sioux	big elder brother
Dehotgohsgayeh	Onondaga, Iroquois	This giant lives in the south along the margin of the earth in total darkness. One side of his body is red, the other black
Desini	Chilcotin	Strangers, rarely seen who steal women. Desini are found in the vicinity of camping places
Dzonoqua, Tsonaqua	Kwakwaka'wakw	Wild Woman of the Woods, An ugly giantess who steals children
Free-man		various modern Native American tribes
Fsti capcaki	Seminole	A giant covered with gray hair who smells like a stagnant muddy pond
Gagixit	Haida	Wild men. Men who were made wild by the Land of the Otter people
Geldegwests	Coos	Benign giants who live near streams and eat fish
Get'qun	Lake Iliamna Athabas-can
Gilyuk	Nelchina Plateau	The big man with the little hat
Goo-tee-khl	Tinglit, Chilkat
Hairy Man	Tanaina	A large, harmless, hair covered creature who lives in mountain villages. The eyes of this grayish, two-legged being have no pupils. He is helpful to a human unless injured
Indacinga	Ponca	Beings with great physical strength who live the forests and hoot like owls. Mothers use the threat of being caught by Indacinga to influence the behavior of their children
nugpasugssuk	Eskimo	A giant who catches fish and seals with his bare hands
Iya	Lakota	The malevolent giant created by Inyan after Skan and Maka
Kala'litabiqw	Skagit Valley
Kashehotapolo	Choctaw	A beast-man with a shriveled head
Katyutayuuq	Eskimo	A female monster with no body and whose large head is attached directly to her feet
Kauget	Coast Salish
Kiwahkw	Maliseet-Passama-quoddy	Cannibal ice giants. The corpse of one witch killed by another
Kushtaka	Tlingit
Loo-poo-oi'yes	Miwuk
Miitiipi	Kawaiisu
Nahgane	Slavey	Bush giants who steal careless young children
Nant'ina	Dena'ina Athabascan
Nantiinaq	Kenai Penisula Native Americans
Neginla-eh	Alutiiq, Yukon	Wood Man
Nulayuuiniq	Eskimo	A newborn female who suddenly grows to be a giant
Olayome	Native Americans near Clear Lake California
Omah	Yurok
Ot-ne-yar-heh, Stonish Giants	Iroquois
Qah-lin-me	Yakama, Klickitat
Qaxdascidi	Tanaina	A malevolent being known by the mysterious noises it makes
Qui-yihahs	Yakama, Klickitat	The five brothers
Rugaru	Ojibway
Saskehavas	Coast Salish
Sasquatch
Seahtik, Selatik, Seeaht-kch	Clallam
Seat-ka	Yakama
Seatco	Puyallup, Nisqually	A malevolent, larger-than-human figure known for his stealth and quickness
See'atco	Coast Salish	One who runs and hides
Shadow Indians	Yakama
Skookum, Scoocum	Chinook	Evil God of the Woods
Sne-nah	Okanogan	Owl Women
So'yoko, Si'Yoko	Hopi, Lakota Sioux
Spirit, Spirit of the Woods	many Native American tribes
Ste-ye-hah, Ste-ye-mah	Yakama	Spirit hidden under the cover of the woods
Steta'l	Puyallup, Nisqually	Spirit Spear
Stick-Shower, Stick Indians	Yakama, Klickitat, Puyallup, Puget-Sound, Colville
T'oylona	Taos	person big
Tah-tah-kle'-ah	Yakama, Shasta	Owl Woman Monster
Tammatuyuq	Eskimo	An infant-killing monster who lives in the time of the first people
The Big Man	Oglala Lakota Sioux
The Hairy Man	Alaskan Athabascan
The Stone Giants, Stone Coats, Ge-no-sqwa	Seneca
Tsavoojok	Paviotso	An old giant who challenges husbands to fight one another so he can steal their wives
Tsiatko	Puyallup, Nisqually
Tso-apittse	Shoshone
Tuurnngaq	Eskimo	Ancient giant humans who live in solid rock houses. They kill people and cause hunters to disappear
Urayuli	Southwest Alaskan Eskimo
Wakandagi	Omaha, Ponca	Long-bodied, horned monsters
Wetiko	Cree
Winalagilis	Kwakiutl	A giant who travels the world in a canoe he never leaves
Windago	Eastern Athabascan
Witiko		non-human giant, filthy, mean appearance
Xi'lgo	Nahalem Tillamook	Wild Woman
Yahyahaas	Modoc
Yi'dyi'tay	Nehalem Tillamook	Wild Man
Wild Man, Wild Man of the Woods	Arkansas
Yeahoh	Kentucky

Table 13: European Settler Names (North American)

Name	Location/Description
Bigfoot	California
Boogers
Cape Apes	Oregon Coastline
Devil Demon, Mountain Devil	Western United States
Diablo	Western United States (Spanish)
Grey Man	North Carolina, South Carolina
Mo-Mo	Kansas, Missouri
Old Sheff	Kansas, Missouri
Skunk Apes	Washington, Florida
Splintercat	Oregon
Swamp Monsters
The Old Man of the Crater	Washington
The Snow Walker	Roosevelt, Theodore (story)
Wampus, Wampus Cat	North Carolina, Oregon
Wild Man, Wild Man of the Woods	Arkansas
Yeahoh	Kentucky

Appendix D

Human segment dimensions

Table 14: Human Segment Dimensions

Segment	Segment Length as Percentage of Height
Head Length	0.130H
Shoulder-to-Shoulder Width	0.259H
Upper Arm Length	0.186H
Forearm Length	0.146H
Hand Length	0.108H
Chest Width, Frontal (not circumference)	0.174H
Hip Width	0.191H
Foot Width	0.055H
Foot Length	0.152H
Ankle Height (from ground)	0.039H
Knee Height	0.285H
Hip Height	0.530H
Chest Height	0.720H
Fingertip Height	0.377H
Wrist Height	0.485H
Elbow Height	0.630H
Shoulder Height	0.818H
Chin Height	0.870H

Bibliography

• Barnes-Svarney, Patricia Ed., The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, Macmillan, New York, New York, 1995.
• Bloem, Doug, Telephone call, Dalles Watershed, Oregon, 1996.
• Bronstein, Daniel A., Law For the Expert Witness, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1993.
• Burenhult, Goran, Ed., The First Humans: Human Origins and History to 10,000 B.C., HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York, 1993.
• Bryant, Page, Native American Mythology, Aquarian HarperCollins Publishers, London, England, 1991.
• Byrne, Peter, Personal Conversations, Telephone Calls and Correspondence.
• Byrne, Peter, The Search for Bigfoot: Monster, Myth or Man?, Acropolis Books, Ltd., Washington, D.C. 1975.
• Byrne, Peter, Hodgson, Michael, et. al., Research Photography of the Bluff Creek Site, 1972.
• Calder, Nigel, The Weather Machine, The Viking Press, New York, New York, 1974.
• Carr, Joseph J., The Art of Science, Hightext Publications, Inc., San Diego, California, 1992.
• Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Menozzi, Paolo and Piazza, Alberto, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994.
• Chellappa, Rama, Ed., Digital Image Processing, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, 1992.
• Chivers, David J., Wood, Bernard A. and Bilsborough Alan, Eds., Food Acquisition and Processing in Primates, Plenum Press, New York, New York, 1984.
• Chui, Charles K., Montefusco, Laura and Puccio, Luigia, Editors, Wavelets Theory, Algorithms and Applications,Academic Press, San Diego, California, 1994.
• Ciochon, R. L., Hominoid Cladistics and the Ancestry of Modern Apes and Humans: A Summary Statement, New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, Plenum Press, pp. 783-843, 1983.
• Ciochon, Russel, Telephone Call, 1995.
• Ciochon, Russell, Olsen, John and James, Jamie, Other Origins, Bantam Books, New York, New York, 1990.
• Ciochon, Russell L., The Ape That Was, Natural History, pp 54-62, Nov. 1991.
• Ciochon, Russell and Piperno, Dolores, Scratching the surface of evolution, New Scientist, pp 47-49, Nov. 1990.
• Ciochon, Russell, Piperno, Dolores R. and Thompson, Robert G., Opal phytoliths found on the teeth of the extinct ape Gigantopithecus blacki: Implications for paleodietary studies, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 87, pp 8120-8124, 1990.
• Clutton-Brock, T. H., Ed., Primate Ecology: Studies of feeding and ranging behaviour in lemurs, monkeys and apes, Academic Press, London, England, 1977.
• Cook, Thomas D. and Campbell, Donald T., Quasi-Experimentation, Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachussetts, 1979.
• De Boer, Leobert E.M., Ed., The Orang Utan: Its Biology and Conservation, Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands, 1982.
• Delson, Eric, Ed., Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, New York, 1985.
• Embree, Paul M., C Algorithms for Real-Time DSP, Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1995.
• Embree, Paul M. and Kimble, Bruce, C Language Algorithms for Digital Signal Processing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991.
• Evans, Charlotte Ed., The Kingfisher Illustrated History of the World, Kingfisher Books, New York, New York, 1992.
• Famighetti, Robert, Ed., The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1996, Funk & Wagnalls Corp., Mahwah, New Jersey, 1995.
• Farhenbach, Henner, Personal Correspondence, Conversations and Telephone Calls, 1995-1996.
• Fortey, Richard, Fossils: The Key to the Past, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991.
• Franzoni, Henry, Legends Beyond Psychology, Revision 4.4, unpublished, 1996.
• Franzoni, Henry, GNIS Search, unpublished, 1996.
• Franzoni, Henry, Personal Correspondence, 1995-1996.
• Galdikas, Birute M. F., Reflections of Eden: My years with the Orangutans of Borneo, Little Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1995.
• Gill, Sam D. and Sullivan, Irene F., Dictionary of Native American Mythology, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, 1992.
• Glickman, Jeff, NASI: Patterson-Gimlin Film Research Results, Internal Report of the North American Science Institute, 1997.
• Godwin, Sara, Gorillas, Friedman/Fairfax Publishers, New York, New York, 1994.
• Gonzalez, Rafael C, and Wintz, Paul, Digital Image Processing, 2nd Ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1987.
• Green, John, Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us, Hancock House Publishers, Inc., Blaine, Washington, 1981.
• Green, John, Telephone Calls, 1996.
• Guiley, Rosemary Ellen, Atlas of the Mysterious in North America, Facts on File, Inc., New York, New York, 1995.
• Hamburg, David A. and McCown, Elizabeth R., Eds., The Great Apes, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California, 1979.
• Harrison, Barbara, Orang-utan, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1963.
• Heuvelmans, Bernard, On the Track of Unknown Animals, Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk, Great Britain, 1955.
• Hodgson, Michael, Telephone Call with Peter Byrne, 1995.
• Hudson, Ralph, The Engineer's Manual, 2nd. Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1917.
• James, Jamie, Stalking the Giant Ape, Discover, pp. 43-50, Feb. 1989.
• Johnson, Jr., A. E., Skeletal Estimates of Gigantopithecus Based on Gorilla Analogy, Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 8, pp. 585-587, 1979.
• Jones, Steve, Martin, Robert and Pilbeam, David Eds., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• Kodak Archives, Telephone Call, Rochester, New York, 1995.
• Kogod, Charles Ed., The Great Apes, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 1993.
• Krantz, Grover S., Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot, Northwest Anthropological Notes, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 91-104.
• Krantz, Grover S., Big Footprints, Johnson Books, Boulder, Colorado, 1992.
• Lankford, Nancy, Telephone call, Bull Run Watershed, Oregon, 1996.
• Leakey, Richard, The Origin of Humankind, BasicBooks HaperCollins Publishers, New York, New York, 1994.
• Lindley, Craig A., Practical Image Processing in C, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1991.
• Maple, Terry L., Orang-utan Behavior, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York, 1980.
• Martin, R. D., Primate Origins and Evolution: A phylogenetic reconstruction, Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London, England, 1990.
• Matson, Jack V., Effective Expert Witnessing 2nd Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1994.
• Mattison, Phillip E., Practical Digital Video With Programming Examples in C, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1994.
• McMahon, Thomas A. and Bonner, John Tyler, On Size and Life, Scientific American Books, Inc., 1983.
• Morris, Ramona and Morris, Desmond, The Giant Panda, Kogan Page, Ltd., London, England, 1981.
• Napier, J. R. and Napier, P. H., A Handbook of Living Primates: Morphology, Ecology and Behavior of Non-human Primates, Academic Press, London, England, 1967.
• Napier, John, Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, The Trinity Press, London, England, 1972.
• Neufeldt, Victoria Ed., Webster's New World College Dictionary 3rd Ed., Macmillan, New York, New York, 1996.
• New York Times (1994) "Tests Show Giant Deer is a New Species", AP Wire Service, April 26, 1994.
• Nichols, Michael and Schaller, George B., Gorilla, Apeture, New York, New York, 1989.
• Nigg, Benno M. and Herzog, Walter, Eds., Biomechanics of the Musculo-skeletal System, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
• Patterson, Roger and Gimlin, Bob, "1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film", 16mm motion picture, Bluff Creek, California, 1967.
• Parker, J. R., Practical Computer Vision Using C, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1994.
• Pavlidis, Theo, Algorithms for Graphics and Image Processing, Computer Science Press, Rockville, Maryland, 1982.
• Phillips, Dwayne, Image Processing, R&D Publications, Inc., Lawrence Kansas, 1994.
• Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Inevitable Illusions, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1994.
• Pilbeam, David, Gigantopithecus and the Origins of Hominidae, Nature, Vol. 225, pp. 516-519, 1970.
• Pitas, Ioannis, Digital Image Processing Algorithms, Prentice Hall, New York, New York, 1993.
• Pratt, William K., Digital Image Processing, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1991.
• Pyle, Robert Michael, Where Bigfoot Walks, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York, 1995.
• Redsicker, David R., The Practical Methodology of Forensic Photography, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1994.
• Reid, Cristopher E. and Passin, Thomas B., Signal Processing in C, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1992.
• Richardson, Nan, Ed., Gorilla, Struggle for Survival in the Virungas, Aperture Foundation, Inc., New York, New York, 1989.
• Robbins, Louise E., Footprints, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, Illinois, 1985.
• Rorabaugh, C. Britton, Digital Filter Designer's Handbook, TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania, 1993.
• Russ, John C., The Image Processing Handbook, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1992.
• Sapunov, Valentin B., A Mathematical Analysis of "Snowman" Eyewitness Reports, Cryptozoology, Vol. 7, pp 61-65, 1988.
• Scarre, Chris, Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient World, Dorling Kindersley, London, England, 1993.
• Schaller, George B., The Mountain Gorilla: Ecology and Behavior, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1963.
• Schaller, George B., Jinchu, Hu, Wenshi, Pan and Jing, Zhu, The Giant Pandas of Wolong, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1985.
• Schwartz, Jeffrey H., The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origins, Houghton Miffline Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1987.
• Sheldon, William G., The Wilderness Home of the Giant Panda, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1975.
• Sid-Ahmed, Maher A., Image Processing, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1995.
• Simons, Elwyn L. and Ettel, Peter C., Gigantopithecus.
• Smuts, Barbara B. and Cheney, Dorothy L, et. al., Eds., Primate Societies, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1986.
• Soumekh, Mehrdad, Fourier Array Imaging, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1994.
• Sussman, Robert W., Primate Ecology: Problem-oriented field studies, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1979.
• Sprague, Roderick and Krantz, Grover S., Eds., The Scientist Looks at Sasquatch II, The University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1979.
• Tattersall, Ian, The Human Odyssey: Four Million Years of Human Evolution, Prentice Hall General Reference, New York, New York, 1993.
• Turekian, Karl K., Ed., The Late Cenozoic Glacial Ages, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1971.
• Unknown, Sixes Wild Man Again, The Lane Country Leader, Cottage Grove, Oregon, Vol XV., No. 51, 1904.
• U.S. Department of the Interior, Geographic Names Information System (GNIS CD-ROM), 1994.
• Weimer, Jon, Handbook of Ergonomic and Human Factors Tables, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1993.
• Winter, David A., Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1990.
• YinYun, Zhang, Variability and Evolutionary Trends in Tooth Size of Gigantopithecus blacki, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 59, pp 21-32, 1982.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3