Why are there no bigfoot fossils found in the USA?

[georgerm]

 

 

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. 

 

 

[MIB]

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

[wiiawiwb]

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?"

Edited 2 hours ago by wiiawiwb
To correct spelling