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 9 hours ago by wiiawiwb
To correct spelling

[socialBigfoot]

I wrote about the absence of Bigfoot bones back in February. I didn't run the math like @wiiawiwb or address environmental factors like @MIB, though. I mainly speculated on whether Bigfoot deliberately dispose of their dead, making it unlikely to discover any remains. It's a long-standing idea in Bigfoot circles but there's actually some science that supports the notion. I've shared this post before, but if anyone missed it and is curious or just wants a refresh, here it is: https://thesocialbigfoot.substack.com/p/where-are-all-the-bones.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

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?"

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.

[Trogluddite]

^^^

 

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

 

 

 

 

[georgerm]

23 hours ago, MIB said:

Thank you for your reply MIB and what you said is true about acid soils but there still is an exception as to why Bigfoot's fossils have not been found on any continent In alkaline soils as well as acid soils which are found in heavy forest environments. What MIB stated about animal remains in most forest are short lived is true because the acid in the soil dissolves bones, and but there are exceptions to the rule such as ancient tiger fossils that are found in acid soils since tigers prefer jungles to live in. Bigfoot lives in temperate forest and jungles on various continents.      

 

MIB SAID: 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.   

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your reply MIB and what you said is true about acid soils but there still is an exception as to why Bigfoot's fossils have not been found on any continent In alkaline soils as well as acid soils which are found in heavy forest environments. What MIB stated about animal remains in most forest are short lived is true because the acid in the soil dissolves bones and but there are exceptions to the rule such as ancient tiger fossils that are found in acid soils since tigers prefer jungles to live in. Bigfoot lives in temperate forest and jungles on various continents.

 

If we look at tiger remains there are fossil records showing tigers that lived about two million years ago, and they lived in a forest where the soils are acid. Animal remains in acid soils are the exception to the rule but some of these remains survive and show up in the fossil record today such as the tiger remains that are over 2 million years old. Why do we not have bigfoot remains that are millions of years old?  Bigfoot's and tigers are apex predators so their total numbers are down when compared to the prey that they hunt and eat. As few tigers as there are, we still have a fossil record showing tigers. Bigfoot are reported to live on every continent in the world, and they live in temperate forest where the soils are neutral or slightly alkaline, and they also live in forested environments as MIB stated where the soils are acid. As stated before, acid soils dissolve bones and alkaline soil preserve bones and we should find preserved fossil bones of Bigfoot and alkaline soils as well as a few less in acid soils. We don't have a fossil record of bigfoot and the question is why? 

   

 

The fossil record of tigers reveals their evolutionary history, with the oldest known 

fossils dating back approximately two million years, highlighting their

 origins and adaptations over time.

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by georgerm

[georgerm]

4 hours ago, socialBigfoot said:

I wrote about the absence of Bigfoot bones back in February. I didn't run the math like @wiiawiwb or address environmental factors like @MIB, though. I mainly speculated on whether Bigfoot deliberately dispose of their dead, making it unlikely to discover any remains. It's a long-standing idea in Bigfoot circles but there's actually some science that supports the notion. I've shared this post before, but if anyone missed it and is curious or just wants a refresh, here it is: https://thesocialbigfoot.substack.com/p/where-are-all-the-bones.

I agree with socialBigfoot  and Bigfoot's may bury their dead for various reasons. The more we learn about Bigfoots the more we realize that they are closely related to humans, and that they have a language as what was discussed in the Sierra sounds video and by Ron Moorehead. There is a possibility that they bury their dead out of respect for each deceased individual in their clan like structure that can be as small as a parent and a few children or as large as several parents and many children even grandparents. This was discussed in a thread that I recently submitted, but very few responded to. This thread told of a large community of Bigfoots that continually raided a nearby Indian village, and this resulted in a massive annihilation of the Bigfoot tribe that I believe lived in Oklahoma. The thread is still posted. 

 

This picture shows a more peaceful event in the lives of Native Americans and Sasquatch.