Leaderboard

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.

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?"

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

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.

Gimlin stated in a "Coast to Coast" interview a few years back, that they were planning to "go in" about 35 or 40 miles that day and stay overnight. Seems like a bit of a late start if they didn't leave till sometime after lunch and (according to Gimlin) it starts getting dark around 4 there.