Bigfoot AND Wildman?
Jay, Ohio Bigfoot Group Founder
It has always been bothersome to me while thumbing through reports the varying differences in descriptions of Bigfoot. I’m not talking about reddish hair versus black hair, I’m more interested in the fact that some witnesses describe a creature that is more ape-like, while others describe something that is more human-like.
We all know better, but let’s assume for all intents and purposes that there are no mistaken identities, all witnesses are describing what they are seeing accurately, everyone is telling the truth, and there are no hoaxers. (Wouldn’t that be lovely?) Wouldn’t the answer simply be that witnesses are seeing different creatures entirely?
It may be unlikely, but you cannot rule out the possibility that Bigfoots and Wildmen are two separate cryptids. You need not look further than a lot of the current reports from days past to present. Some reported behaviors are more ape-like activity… chest beating, roaring, throwing sticks, etc. Some behaviors are more human-like (or what you would expect early human behavior to be like) such as use of tools and clubs, grunting, etc. Sure it is not out of the realm of possibility that the combination of these traits could be attributed to something between man and ape, but then you have examine descriptions of Bigfoot. You hear everything from something that resembles a modern day gorilla that walks upright on two legs to the opposite end of the spectrum where you have descriptions of what looks like a caveman or human being that is very simply put, just covered in long, shaggy hair.
Personally, I have always been a fan of the Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus or a descendant of Giganto theory and I’m having a hard time letting go of that, a lot of Bigfoot reports that you come across sound strikingly similar to what Giganto is described to have looked like. Then, as you continue to research, you come across more descriptions and some of these will sound more like what you would expect Neanderthal or Homo Hiedelbergensis to look like. Can you accurately lump the two into one single cryptid? Looking at it logically, how can you? Frankly, I can accept that someone would see a Bigfoot with brown hair while another witness sees one with white hair, but how can we accept the difference in appearance of ape and man without them being two separate entities?
More to think about is the height issue. Assuming again that witnesses can accurately depict height, Bigfoot reports vary in ranges from 6 foot to 10 foot roughly with most being between 7 to 9 feet. Gigantopithecus was said to reach heights over 9 foot tall. Neanderthal man averaged 5 foot 6 inches for adult males, while Heidelbergensis averaged 6 foot tall with some specimens reaching as much as 7 foot tall. It would be interesting I'm sure to compile all the varying reports and see what the height looks like for reports that seem more human-like versus reports that seem more ape-like.
Based on the assumption that both examples are 100% legit, examine the Patterson/Gimlin film. Does the subject in the film have a human look to it? Not to me, it looks more ape-like than human. Now research the story of Zana, the Russian “wildwoman” captured in the 1850s. Since no photos exist of Zana, you have to read the description of her from witnesses at the time. She was described as “having thick arms, legs, and fingers. A massive chest and large hips”. Her skin was “black or dark gray in color”. Her hair was “reddish black in color and covered most of her body”. Her facial features included “high cheekbones, a flat broad nose with turned out nostrils, a ‘muzzle-like’ jaw, wide mouth, and large teeth”. She had a “low forehead” and her eyes had a “reddish tint”. Zana “showed signs of intelligence but was never able to adopt social skills or the ability to speak”. During her time in the village, Zana was reported to have 4 human children with various unidentified males. According to the reports I've read, Zana still has descendants that are alive today. Does this sound like an ape to you or a primitive human being like a Neanderthal or other? Patterson's Bigfoot is estimated to be female based on the body shape, Zana was said to have been female as well. The difference is at first glance you cannot tell that Patterson's Bigfoot is female but when Zana was captured, they knew immediately she was female based on visible parts of her anatomy despite her being covered in hair. When you compare these examples side by side, what makes sense to you? That Bigfoot is one single species or that reported Bigfoot sightings can be attributed to two separate species?
I’m not presenting this so that everyone will run out and change every Bigfoot book ever written, I’m presenting this to show you that there may be another option when conducting your research. I’m simply saying that in the field of Cryptozoology in order to seek pure truth, you must examine ALL possibilities to draw conclusions from.