Leaderboard

Do you believe chimpanzees really do exist? If yes, did you believe that chimpanzees really existed before 2004? If yes again, that would impossible to believe if fossilized remains are the benchmark by which existence is measured. The first fossilized remains of a chimpanzee was not found until September 2004 by Dr. Nina Jablonski in the Rift Valley of Africa. Let's compare the two "creatures". It's estimated that ~250,000 chimpanzees live in Africa, their average lifespan is about 35 years, and they have been in existence ~5-8 million years. Let's be conservative, use 5 million years, and if these estimates are correct, let's do the math. (5,000,000yrs x 250,000 chimps)/40 yr lifespan= 31,250,000,000 billion chimps. So, ~31 billion chimpanzees have lived in Africa yet not one fossilized remain was found until late 2004. Moreover, we all suspect that sasquatches are far more rare than chimpanzees don't we? Armed with this information, in my opinion, that leaves us with the real question which is, "What clear-thinking person would ever expect fossilized remains of a sasquatch to be found?"

^^^ Giant skeletons found and newspaper stories written about them, although good luck tracking down the remains.

Yes. But that does leave out non fossilized remains. What you say is true we had no fossilized remains until 2004. But we had complete specimens dating back to 1641 and the Dutch East Indies company. If an extant species exists in our forests? It would be expected to find non fossilized remains of said species. My personal belief? We have found non fossilized remains before. And they are most likely at the Smithsonian that is strangely exempts from the Indian graves act. They don’t have to cough up the goods. If a Sasquatch skeleton was mistaken for a human giant.

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

^^^ 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.