Thanks for the links.
Let's look at everything we find with a skeptical eye.
I'm going to simply ignore the "historical" accounts since there are way too many ways for those to be mistaken/mistranslated/mythology.
The evidence breaks down into:
Unassociated Fossils - Those that have no context with other related fossils or with material evidence. (Gigantopithicus lone molar is a good example)
Associated Fossils - Those that have some context
Footprints - No real definition needed here
Tools without Fossils - Shaped rocks found unassociated with fossils.
Let's take a look at each:
Unassociated Fossils - I believe that many of the ones listed here are absolutely fossils. Fossils of what is the question. That there was a gigantopithicus, or a meganthropus, I have no doubt. Whether these were in line with modern descent? A close cousin? A distant cousin but still human? Dunno.
The problem with finding a single thumb bone, for example, is that we can calculate many things. But, as you so frequently point out, simply finding a thumb bone doesn't tell us the whole story. We can't really infer information about the jaw based on the thumb, etc.
Additionally, I believe that some of the fossils which, on their face, look like giant human femurs may in fact be the femurs of other known animals. The femur is a remarkably similiar looking bone in many larger animals.
Associate Fossils - This is (or would be) much better evidence, but there is a problem here as well.
One of the site, I don't remember which, talked about finding giant bones in a tomb in Turkey.
Here's the problem. In the early Mediterrainian the discover of fossil bones of extinct large animals were often interpruted to be the fossil remains of mythological heroes. The Heroes (Hercules for example) were powerful, and therefore believed to be larger than life. Often bones which were uncovered were brought from their original location to a nearby town where they were collected and reintered. A number of sites have been found in the area where a handful of fossils from a couple of different species have been laid out in the general shape of a human and buried.
Now, this wouldn't account for the "tools" listed, or for that matter, for sites where giant tools and giant bones were found together.
The problem with the tool images I've seen is that they are not very close up. Very hard to make out the edges. It's easy to find oddly shaped rocks and believe that they were used by someone or something. The key is finding either elaborate evidence of shaping (bifracated edges, bulb of precussion) or evidence of wear (microgrooves, polishing). Simply finding a big rock that looks like it has a handle isn't quite enough, even in context with bones.
Tools out of context, obviously have a much higher standard to live up to.
Footprints - These are highly suspect. First because a number of "footprints" have been shown to be nothing more than a lone unusual shape in a rock surface where we wouldn't expect to find footprints anyway. (ie even giants don't leave footprints in granite). Secondly, it's entirely possible that people mistaking the footprints of various dinosaur/megafaunal species for giants. There is a river in (Virginia?) that has a great example of this. Many of the ultra creationist sights claim it has human footprints, but clearly they are not.
But, even setting my standards as high as I have, let's give these people the benefit of the doubt and say that they have turned up one or two (or more) sites of Meganthropus and tools.
What does this mean? Is Meganthropus a descendant of H.E.? I doubt it, I think that's a classification based on the presence of tools.
I would suggest that Megan and Gigo are a branch onto themselves. And, I wouldn't be suprised if either/both are related to the various large bipedal animals like Bigfoot, Yeti, Yaro, etc.
As I said earlier, I'm an inclusivist. I see biologists/anthropologists/philosophers/religious types frequently moving the bar on "what is human". First it was tools. Then when animals were shown to use tools, it was language. Then it was abstract thought, but uh oh, that's proving to be a blurry one as well.
In my book, H.H., H.E., H.Sn, H.Sscr, H.Ss - all human.
And I frankly don't put chimps and bonobos that far off.
So, if Megan is a large bipedal/quasi-bipedal tool using primate - I say we call her human. And, if they are calculating her to be 8+, I'd say that's giant. (Though "Giant" seems to convey some folktale like size, it might be smart for us to find a better term).
Not much of a debate here, but keep posting info. I find it interesting. I'll post what I can dig up.
™ Version 4.2