Forums

Conditions that preserve fossils are extremely rare.     It is commonly agreed by professional and academic biologists that less than 1% of the species which have ever lived have left fossils that we have found.   Never mind individuals, we're talking about 99% of all species did not leave fossils for us to discover.    Contemplate that.   Contemplate the implications.   Many of those fossils we do have which were land-based lived in flash flood country, they did not live in forests.   Flash floods occur in dry climates with infrequent but catastrophic rainfall and cover dead animals then dry them, maybe for decades, in soil that absorbs the deal animal's moisture when the flood ends.    Forests have regular rainfall so that fallen dead things don't dry adequately for preservation and have acidic soils that dissolve bones rather than preserving them.   The main exception would be in volcanic ash beds .. we can see that in the John Day / Clarno fossil beds in eastern Oregon for instance.   So while we might find recent bigfoot remains, given what we know about where bigfoot reports come from, few are in places that are likely to create fossils to discover later.   Edit to add .. so if I were looking for fossils, I'd look in the ash beds near the Cascade volcanoes or in the dry washes on the east slope of the Cascades, maybe east slope of the Rockies.   I think most other places in the continental US get too much rainfall for preservation needed to produce fossils.      MIB

An interesting fact that we should consider when we are studying and talking about Bigfoot is what's known as the fossil record of Bigfoot. Now for the sake of comparison we're going to look at the fossil record of horses in the United States that have been recovered. Now the picture to the left shows a skeleton of a fossil horse that lived during the Pliocene epoch that dates back from 5.3 to 1.8 million years ago. That means a long long time ago we had horses roaming what is now the United States of America. These ancient horses lived 5.3 to 1.8 million years ago and when this horse to the left died, its fossil remains were preserved.    Now let's look at the fossil record of Bigfoot. Bigfoot is known today to live in practically every state of the Union and if we study the fossil record of Bigfoot, we find that there are no fossil records showing that Bigfoot lived many many years ago in any part of the United States of America. Horses date back to 5.3 million years ago according to the fossil record so why does the fossil record of bigfoot show no fossils of bigfoot anywhere to be found in the USA? How can this be since Bigfoot's fossils show up nowhere in any state.     

^^^ Don't disagree with any of this.  And based on Bill Munns' work, I have a pretty high degree of confidence that Roger Patterson did indeed film a Bigfoot, not a man in a suit.  However, "curing" the timeline issues would have the benefit of taking that topic away from those who argue that Roger and Bob were two hoaxers and part of the proof that they are lying about everything is that they can't keep they're story straight.  At least, that's why I puzzle over it. 

I think that is true, however, judging the shadows is tricky because slight differences in position of the observer can change the perception of angle a great deal with no real way to remove the error that introduces.    An analogy from algebra .. this is a situation of two variables, one equation.    To get a precise answer you have to nail one of the variables down so it's a constant.    To do that, you have to locate the observer's position precisely, within inches, else the ground slope, etc create uncertainty which means you cannot nail the time down precisely even if you know where the shadow is and what direction, relative to the observer (photo) it seems to be pointing.   The timing does matter .. an hour and a half difference matters regarding whether all of the things reported could have occurred in daylight vs dark, how much time was available to get the film to wherever it was flown out of, and so on.    BUT .. and "but" matters a lot, none of that changes what is on the film.   What matters ultimately is whether or not the PGF shows a living creature, some sort of phantasm, or a man in a suit.   The accuracy of the timeline is totally irrelevant to that.    The timeline is merely something for people to talk about when they can't address the content in any meaningful way.

Very good point, although the "gets dark around 4[:00 PM] there" part varies as well.  In 2020, Bob G told Les Stroud that it gets dark around 5:00 in that area.  I'm actually not too bothered by that because the encounter (purportedly) took place on 20 October 1967 and the US switches to Daylight Savings Time in the end of the October, so if one is talking casually, one might not factor in whether the clocks had fallen back yet.  In any event, according to Naval Observatory data for that day the sun set at 5:30 and there was still enough daylight to see/work by at almost 6:00 PM.  I will agree that being down on the valley floor, it probably got darker sooner rather than later.   However the bigger problem is whether "it was good and dark" when Roger and Bob got to Al Hodgson's store (Green interview of BG) or still daylight when they arrived (Bill Miller interview of Al Hodgson).        At this point, that is absolutely correct.