If they are a Relict Hominid.....

If Sasquatch are a relict hominid that has survived......


Which one could they be?


Posing this scenario, I would lean toward Homo Heidelbergensis.

Any opinions or thoughts are welcomed:

If you think they could be pongids or the like please feel free to contribute as well!

All of these:
Homo erectus

H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo ergaster

Some scientists classify some African erectus specimens as belonging to a separate species, Homo ergaster, which differs from the Asian H. erectus fossils in some details of the skull (e.g. the brow ridges differ in shape, and erectus would have a larger brain size). Under this scheme, H. ergaster would include fossils such as the Turkana boy and ER 3733.

Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed European hominids. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and browridges are much more primitive. Many scientists are doubtful about the validity of antecessor, partly because its definition is based on a juvenile specimen, and feel it may belong to another species. (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Kunzig 1997, Carbonell et al. 1995)
Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)

Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)

Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)

But go ahead and read the whole site. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

The first thing you will notice is that Paleontologists can't even make up their minds about the fossils. The same competitive cut-throat crap you see in "Bigfoot Research" is exactly the same thing going on in Paleontology. Many of these Ancient Hominids appear to be the same things that were more ancient, but every scientist wants their name contributed to the next great find. Read this for your selves. You get a Hominid that suddenly disappears from fossil record for a million or so years, than re-emerges and suddenly it's a "NEW HOMINID!!!!" but a variation of the old. And mostly they only find fragments. "This bone is slightly larger than the bone of that, so that evolved into this!

To clarify just how stupid such assumptions are, lets use another science more modern.. Sociology. You have three races of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid... (Black, White, Asian) with all other races such as Mestizo, Polynesian, etc.. being hybrid races composed of a mixture of the three primary races. (And even this has it's arguments). But The skull of a Caucasoid and the skull of a Negroid are as different as the skulls of some of these archaic Hominids from each other. But the drive is to push for evolution instead of entertaining the possibility that these could be different races of the same Hominid. Likewise, you can find the same distinctions on even the ethnic level of two modern Negroids or two modern Caucasoids and even a bigger distinction in the skulls of two modern Mongoloids.

(Just something I found funny but off topic, when I was in Thailand for Operation Cobra Gold 97, Thai's considered all Americans white or black as "Round-eye." When Thai's spoke of "White People" they meant Japanese)

Back to my point, Many of these vanished from the fossil record only to reappear again at a later pre-Sapiens-Sapiens time or current sapiens-sapiens time. I feel that this could be due to past migrations caused by period climate changes causing them to travel from a dwindling forest/jungle environment crossing a grassland to enter a more lush one but dying on the way, thus putting their body in a fossil friendly environment.

The first thing you will notice is that Paleontologists can't even make up their minds about the fossils. The same competitive cut-throat crap you see in "Bigfoot Research" is exactly the same thing going on in Paleontology. Many of these Ancient Hominids appear to be the same things that were more ancient, but every scientist wants their name contributed to the next great find. Read this for your selves. You get a Hominid that suddenly disappears from fossil record for a million or so years, than re-emerges and suddenly it's a "NEW HOMINID!!!!" but a variation of the old. And mostly they only find fragments. "This bone is slightly larger than the bone of that, so that evolved into this!

Thank you for posting this.
I think the same way. That when you actually read about other sciences they have supporters of some theories and then skeptics of them.
Digging in the past as well as looking for new species is not EXACT science its not 1+1 =2. Their is plenty of room for discussions and speculations.
Remember when people didn't think Dinosaurs were related to birds. The person who speculated this was considered out there.
Now its swing back the other way in an article i read.
When you actually think about it why can't some dino's have been decedents to modern birds and others not?

I see the Search for Bigfoot in the same way.

I think it is a Hominid of some kind. I actually believe like you said with the " three races of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid" that Bigfoots may be similar to this and why can't it be different Hominids. We can all interbreed because we are on the same family tree. we contain the same base DNA.