The Kill Club

[SWWASAS]

Most fossils found in mountainous areas are those that were laid down in the flatlands, inland seas, or inland oceans covered with sediment,  then when up thrusting built the mountains,  pushed up the layers to weather away and be exposed.    I was just to an area in the Eastern Rockies in Colorado and saw many of the fossils common to the countries interior.     The last area I hiked was the Horsetooth area West of Ft Collins Colorado and the rock layers have been pushed nearly vertical and now are weathering down and look like giant horses teeth sticking out of the ground.      The Rocky Mountains are fairly recent geologically.      For much of North American geological history, during the warm global periods,  when there was little or no polar ice or mountain glaciation, the entire mid section of the country well North into the mid continent was a huge extension of the Gulf of Mexico, a vast sea covering the interior of the continent.    Most of the fossils in the country are associated with this area.   Most of the oil in the interior of the continent down into the Gulf of Mexico is associated with sediment deposits made from these inland seas.      During ice ages the waters drained and what was inland seas in the continents interiors became vast grasslands, grazing animals including camels roamed,  predators like Sabertooth Tigers thrived, then during the next warm period the sea advanced again covering it all and the fossil formation began again.     These cycles repeated over and over forming layer after layer of new fossils.  .   We are just out of the last ice age geologically.     All of this fossil formation was well before the last ice age when humans and probably BF ancestors migrated across the land bridge into Alaska and into the North American continent.        There are no known human ancestor fossils in North America.   But the fact that camels and horses originated in North America and migrated to Eurasia who really knows?     So it is unlikely that ancient ancestors of BF would be found on the continent either.     There are small primate skeletal finds in Southern North America but it is unlikely they extended into the Northern parts of the continent.    The common skeptic mantra that no primates have ever existed in North America is wrong.    They may not have extended very far into North America but none the less North America has had primates. 

 

Anyway sorry about the geology lesson but it is very much associated with lack of fossils in certain areas.      That said,  there could be fossils associated with volcanic eruptions and heavy ash fall or pyroclastic flows.   BF caught in volcanic eruptions could have been suffocated by ash, buried, and their skeletons preserved just like the humans found in  Pompeii,  from the volcanic eruption frozen in the positions they died.     They were basically instantly cooked by hot ash then covered to preserve them.    A BF in the same position in such a flow from one of the many volcanoes in the West could be reserved the same way.     In the spring I go East of Mt St Helens,   when the springs are running full, and washing away the ash banks. hoping to find something washing out.    Million in one chance but most fossil finds are extreme luck anyway.    I only live about 25 miles from Mt St Helens so it is an easy day trip for me.  

Edited September 25, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[FarArcher]

No, the 20,000 year old excavation near Hardin would be considered fossils.

So would be our skulls that we dug out of the badlands.

Do not know why eastern MT and ND seem to be such a hotspot.

 

Would that be the link you provided above?

 

If so, the headline indicates 2,000 years ago, not 20,000 years ago.

[FarArcher]

It would probably help if we got our definitions of what a fossil is.  "the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism in petrified form, or as a mold or cast in rock."  Operative word there, "in petrified form."

 

Mineralization from bone to rock was the common characteristic of a proper fossil, but as with many words - gay - for example - some folks play fast and loose with the definition.

 

Entire mammoth remains are found frozen in tundra - exceeding 20,000 years - but they're not proper fossils, but just preserved remains.  We all know that teeth and horn are much harder than bones, so during the process of decay, they'll usually be the last to remain.

[norseman]

You said this;

Millions. And not one ever did, or ever will become a fossil. Not one. They'll just deteriorate and powder - and in fact, most of them have disappeared already.

---------------------------------------

I was just letting you know through personal experience that I have held a skull dug up from the ground, it wasnt powder.

Take it for what you will.

[FarArcher]

You said this;

Millions. And not one ever did, or ever will become a fossil. Not one. They'll just deteriorate and powder - and in fact, most of them have disappeared already.

---------------------------------------

I was just letting you know through personal experience that I have held a skull dug up from the ground, it wasnt powder.

Take it for what you will.

Great.  You dug up a skull.

 

Was it mineralized?

 

Left alone, it would have powdered.

[norseman]

http://www.texasrockshop.com/fossils/vertebrates/bone/fo_bison_thumb01.html

I can buy Bison fossils for like 65 bucks.

Your statement that ALL Bison bones turn to powder and never fossilize is flat wrong...... sorry.

[Guest]

The geology of the PNW should be prime for fossils with muddy river flats not only preserving bones but also foot prints and other castings. Lake beds, streams and other areas of deposition can be found everywhere along with plenty of fossils in the region including a human from 9200 years ago called the "kennewick Man" from Kennewick WA.  Deposition of sediment in flash floods and other events will create the possibilities of fossil development.  Creating a fossil is very rare no doubt no matter what part of the world you are in. Everything has to be perfect for it to occur. But over thousands of years stuff happens. Also fossils are created in small areas conducive to deposition like a lake bed.  You cant say an entire region like the PNW is not good for fossils that makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

I am sorry but the geology of the region is not why they are not found. I do have a Geology bachelor of Science from Stephen F Austin but I am not familiar with the PNW and its region but I do know that this area is not special in any way to the lack of production for fossils throughout geologic time. 

 

The geology of the PNW also doesnt explain why the are are no fossils found here in Texas or other areas where BF's are reported. 

 

This thing is crazy and tough trying to explain. That is why we need a body! And I have only been thinking about this for 6 months! You guys have been racking your brains for years. Its like drugs!

 

 

Thank you Fararcher for your description.  I always thought that "Patty" was a term everyone used for the BF in the Pat Gim Film on this site. 

 

There is a possibility that there are some unknown bones in the smithsonian.  Anything is possible but no evidence is no evidence.

 But I do appreciate your thoughts and your wisdom on the matter. I am hoping to learn as much as I can from those that are in the know.

 

Come February I will be spending a lot of time in Bigfoot territory by myself. I am hoping to pick up us much info as I can between now and then and this has been a very interesting thread so far.

[FarArcher]

http://www.texasrockshop.com/fossils/vertebrates/bone/fo_bison_thumb01.html

I can buy Bison fossils for like 65 bucks.

Your statement that ALL Bison bones turn to powder and never fossilize is flat wrong...... sorry.

 

 

 

Mighty bold statement for something that's not that old in the geologic grand scheme.

 

They won't fossilize unless they're suddenly buried under much different circumstances rather than just being covered with soil.

 

There's a reason DNA can't be extracted from remains after a period of time - everything has degraded and been replaced with the local minerals.

 

Your timeline runs a bit short the actual fossilzation process.  They've just been well preserved, slowing the natural decay - but they'll decay just the same.

 

So.  Sorry.  You're flat wrong.

Edited September 27, 2015 by FarArcher

[FarArcher]

The geology of the PNW should be prime for fossils with muddy river flats not only preserving bones but also foot prints and other castings. Lake beds, streams and other areas of deposition can be found everywhere along with plenty of fossils in the region including a human from 9200 years ago called the "kennewick Man" from Kennewick WA.  Deposition of sediment in flash floods and other events will create the possibilities of fossil development.  Creating a fossil is very rare no doubt no matter what part of the world you are in. Everything has to be perfect for it to occur. But over thousands of years stuff happens. Also fossils are created in small areas conducive to deposition like a lake bed.  You cant say an entire region like the PNW is not good for fossils that makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

I am sorry but the geology of the region is not why they are not found. I do have a Geology bachelor of Science from Stephen F Austin but I am not familiar with the PNW and its region but I do know that this area is not special in any way to the lack of production for fossils throughout geologic time. 

 

The geology of the PNW also doesnt explain why the are are no fossils found here in Texas or other areas where BF's are reported. 

 

This thing is crazy and tough trying to explain. That is why we need a body! And I have only been thinking about this for 6 months! You guys have been racking your brains for years. Its like drugs!

 

 

Thank you Fararcher for your description.  I always thought that "Patty" was a term everyone used for the BF in the Pat Gim Film on this site. 

 

There is a possibility that there are some unknown bones in the smithsonian.  Anything is possible but no evidence is no evidence.

 But I do appreciate your thoughts and your wisdom on the matter. I am hoping to learn as much as I can from those that are in the know.

 

Come February I will be spending a lot of time in Bigfoot territory by myself. I am hoping to pick up us much info as I can between now and then and this has been a very interesting thread so far.

 

Excellent.  A geologist.

 

I'm pretty sure that fossils, especially those of hominoids, are dated not after the strata they have been found in, but after a prejudiced idea of the strata they should have been found in according to the classical scheme of human evolution.

 

The Java man.  Found on the surface, these skull fragments were dated the Middle Pleistocene by the potassium-argon method - used to date the volcanic ash they're found in - not the bones themselves.  To date them so, they should have been found lying beneath an undisturbed layer of volcanic ash.  Didn't happen.  Some were found on the surface, many others turned in by farmers in unspecified locations as they became aware there was some money to be had for specimens.

 

As you said, fossilization is a very rare circumstance, and the limited fossil record cannot give us an exact image of life on earth during past geological eras (defined by catastrophic extermination events).  The fossil record of primates in particular is poor because the very intelligent and cautious animals can more adeptly avoid the very conditions required for fossilization.  Sinking in mud, having tons of earth fall on their burrow, or sinking into peat, for example.

[Yuchi1]

 

Those that say BF/UHS is not a homo sapien variety, how do you know such?

 

I do not know precisely what classification they would ultimately become however, once most "shooters" had the opportunity to look into the face of one, pulling the trigger was not an option. I surmise it's dependent upon the level of basic human decency that each individual carries with themselves as the determining factor of behavior in that regard.

 

 

Fair question.  I would ask you the reverse: how do you know that it IS a homo sapien variety?

 

 

I believe your counter question was answered in the second sentence of my original post.

 

On another note, in the latest issue of American Hunter ( a NRA publication) there's an article titled, "Deer Stand Burnout" describing the results of a five year study conducted by Penn State University and another conducted at Auburn University wherein ~80 buck deer were fitted with GPS tracking collars to ascertain (among other things) their reactions to hunter activity.

 

While there were many interesting items that came out of these studies, one that stood out was buck deer immediately altered their activity (went into a sort of survival mode) with the first day of hunters entering into the field with firearms and did so until a few days after such activity ceased.

 

The takeaway for the OP topic is that if an animal with the intelligence level of a whitetail deer is so attuned to its environment so as to react accordingly, how would a being of a suspected much higher intelligence level not be even more so attuned? Compelling information and gathered via a scientific format.

[SWWASAS]

The geology of the PNW should be prime for fossils with muddy river flats not only preserving bones but also foot prints and other castings. Lake beds, streams and other areas of deposition can be found everywhere along with plenty of fossils in the region including a human from 9200 years ago called the "kennewick Man" from Kennewick WA.  Deposition of sediment in flash floods and other events will create the possibilities of fossil development.  Creating a fossil is very rare no doubt no matter what part of the world you are in. Everything has to be perfect for it to occur. But over thousands of years stuff happens. Also fossils are created in small areas conducive to deposition like a lake bed.  You cant say an entire region like the PNW is not good for fossils that makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

I am sorry but the geology of the region is not why they are not found. I do have a Geology bachelor of Science from Stephen F Austin but I am not familiar with the PNW and its region but I do know that this area is not special in any way to the lack of production for fossils throughout geologic time. 

 

\

You may have a degree in geology but my geology courses (I have a degree too) were taught  in Oregon and we did field work in the PNW.    Muddy river flats are rare in the forested areas that are associated with BF habitat.   Unless you are a volcanologist Western Oregon and Washington is a very boring place geologically.    It is all basalt or soils derived from basalt.    Most river canyons are carved out of basalt and have steep sides and very narrow banks.    Thick columnar basalt banks are very common.      The entire region is volcanic and most surface is covered with basalt, and soils derived from basalt and ash.   As I mentioned there may be fossils but the 2000+ foot thick Columbia Basalt flows buried much of the region under those flows.  The subsequent volcanic eruptions as frequent as every few hundred years, geologically most of the forested region is very new geologically.    It is the newest surface in the entire NA continent.        I had a 4 inch layer of ash in my own yard when I trenched to put in my sprinkler system that was from a past Mt St Helens eruption.  I live 25 miles south of the mountain.    The soils of the Willamette valley are rich and deep but are the result of deposits from the Missoula Floods.   While those floods may have trapped and covered BF, the layers are so thick that it is very unlikey they could ever be found.   The Missoula Floods would have scoured any skeletons or fossils from the Columbia River banks and cleaned the river channel right down to basalt bed rock.     400 ft walls of water tend to do that.    The draconian land use laws limit construction so there is very little excavation in the rural agricultural areas.   Unless some construction site in a city uncovers a buried BF they will never be found.      We have huge areas in Skamania County WA, (prime BF habitat) that are surface basalt flows that are as recent as a few hundred years old.    So recent there is little or no vegetation growing on them.  Dark Divide mentioned in Meldrums book is one of them.  The river beds in the forested areas are mostly rock with very little sand.  Mountain soils are thin, associated with volcanic eruptions ash, and decaying forest vegetation.  Very acidic.        Flash floods are very rare.     Thunderstorms are rare in Western Oregon and Washington.      People from the Mid West are amazed that it can rain without thunderstorms.     I have lived where I do now for 20 years and I cannot think of a single reported flash flood in western Washington and Oregon.       The only event that produced massive flash flooding was the eruption of Mt St Helens.    The Kennewick man was not fossilized and there is indication that he was buried.   Kennewick is in the arid region of Eastern Washington that is mostly grassland and has few trees.   Not BF habitat.     The only reason I mentioned that was that the soil there is not acidic but is alkaline.     Bones do not break down in alkaline soil like they do in acidic forest soil.      As I mentioned, the only fossils in the region are associated with uplifted pacific coast marine life and the fossil beds out on the John Day areas of eastern Oregon and similar areas in Eastern Washingon.     The John Day fossil beds are in an arid intermountain basin and were formed in now dry lake beds.     Few or no trees and not BF habitat.    You have to have events in BF habitat to get BF fossils.  

 

So I strongly disagree that fossil formation in the mountainous areas of the PNW that is BF habitat is likely.    If it were, plant or other animal fossils would be found in these areas.    They are not.   Volcanic ash flows may have trapped and preserved BF,  but volcanoes are dynamic and those of the PNW may not be presently active, but they have been active enough to continue to grow in heights near or above 10,000 Feet.    If they had been long dormant, they would have weathered away instead of build in height.    Between the larger mountains are cindercones,  smaller volcanic flows,   etc.     And BF here lives right in the middle of all of this.        

Edited September 28, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

http://www.texasrockshop.com/fossils/vertebrates/bone/fo_bison_thumb01.html

I can buy Bison fossils for like 65 bucks.

Your statement that ALL Bison bones turn to powder and never fossilize is flat wrong...... sorry.

 

 

 

Mighty bold statement for something that's not that old in the geologic grand scheme.

 

They won't fossilize unless they're suddenly buried under much different circumstances rather than just being covered with soil.

 

There's a reason DNA can't be extracted from remains after a period of time - everything has degraded and been replaced with the local minerals.

 

Your timeline runs a bit short the actual fossilzation process.  They've just been well preserved, slowing the natural decay - but they'll decay just the same.

 

So.  Sorry.  You're flat wrong.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIaTQWr0lY

The geology of the PNW should be prime for fossils with muddy river flats not only preserving bones but also foot prints and other castings. Lake beds, streams and other areas of deposition can be found everywhere along with plenty of fossils in the region including a human from 9200 years ago called the "kennewick Man" from Kennewick WA.  Deposition of sediment in flash floods and other events will create the possibilities of fossil development.  Creating a fossil is very rare no doubt no matter what part of the world you are in. Everything has to be perfect for it to occur. But over thousands of years stuff happens. Also fossils are created in small areas conducive to deposition like a lake bed.  You cant say an entire region like the PNW is not good for fossils that makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

I am sorry but the geology of the region is not why they are not found. I do have a Geology bachelor of Science from Stephen F Austin but I am not familiar with the PNW and its region but I do know that this area is not special in any way to the lack of production for fossils throughout geologic time. 

 

\

You may have a degree in geology but my geology courses (I have a degree too) were taught  in Oregon and we did field work in the PNW.    Muddy river flats are rare in the forested areas that are associated with BF habitat.   Unless you are a volcanologist Western Oregon and Washington is a very boring place geologically.    It is all basalt or soils derived from basalt.    Most river canyons are carved out of basalt and have steep sides and very narrow banks.    Thick columnar basalt banks are very common.      The entire region is volcanic and most surface is covered with basalt, and soils derived from basalt and ash.   As I mentioned there may be fossils but the 2000+ foot thick Columbia Basalt flows buried much of the region under those flows.  The subsequent volcanic eruptions as frequent as every few hundred years, geologically most of the forested region is very new geologically.    It is the newest surface in the entire NA continent.        I had a 4 inch layer of ash in my own yard when I trenched to put in my sprinkler system that was from a past Mt St Helens eruption.  I live 25 miles south of the mountain.    The soils of the Willamette valley are rich and deep but are the result of deposits from the Missoula Floods.   While those floods may have trapped and covered BF, the layers are so thick that it is very unlikey they could ever be found.   The Missoula Floods would have scoured any skeletons or fossils from the Columbia River banks and cleaned the river channel right down to basalt bed rock.     400 ft walls of water tend to do that.    The draconian land use laws limit construction so there is very little excavation in the rural agricultural areas.   Unless some construction site in a city uncovers a buried BF they will never be found.      We have huge areas in Skamania County WA, (prime BF habitat) that are surface basalt flows that are as recent as a few hundred years old.    So recent there is little or no vegetation growing on them.  Dark Divide mentioned in Meldrums book is one of them.  The river beds in the forested areas are mostly rock with very little sand.  Mountain soils are thin, associated with volcanic eruptions ash, and decaying forest vegetation.  Very acidic.        Flash floods are very rare.     Thunderstorms are rare in Western Oregon and Washington.      People from the Mid West are amazed that it can rain without thunderstorms.     I have lived where I do now for 20 years and I cannot think of a single reported flash flood in western Washington and Oregon.       The only event that produced massive flash flooding was the eruption of Mt St Helens.    The Kennewick man was not fossilized and there is indication that he was buried.   Kennewick is in the arid region of Eastern Washington that is mostly grassland and has few trees.   Not BF habitat.     The only reason I mentioned that was that the soil there is not acidic but is alkaline.     Bones do not break down in alkaline soil like they do in acidic forest soil.      As I mentioned, the only fossils in the region are associated with uplifted pacific coast marine life and the fossil beds out on the John Day areas of eastern Oregon and similar areas in Eastern Washingon.     The John Day fossil beds are in an arid intermountain basin and were formed in now dry lake beds.     Few or no trees and not BF habitat.    You have to have events in BF habitat to get BF fossils.  

 

So I strongly disagree that fossil formation in the mountainous areas of the PNW that is BF habitat is likely.    If it were, plant or other animal fossils would be found in these areas.    They are not.   Volcanic ash flows may have trapped and preserved BF,  but volcanoes are dynamic and those of the PNW may not be presently active, but they have been active enough to continue to grow in heights near or above 10,000 Feet.    If they had been long dormant, they would have weathered away instead of build in height.    Between the larger mountains are cindercones,  smaller volcanic flows,   etc.     And BF here lives right in the middle of all of this.

Add to that rising coastlines since the last ice age. It doesnt bother me that we dont have Squatch fossils as we have darn few Gorilla and Chimp and Orang fossils......Jungles and Forests are not very conducsive in creating fossils.

[Guest]

 Whatever your climate or soils are like now will have nothing to do with how it was a few thousand years ago.  Contrary to what some believe the Earths climate is constantly changing. That area (pnw) may have not been conducive to a living population of squatches then like it is now. That makes sense for sure. But somewhere in this world there should be a fossil record.  Maybe the numbers of squatches were nil compared to today and the species has broken out in recent history. I can buy that theory a heck of a lot more than the fact that the area somehow doesnt produce environments capable of fossilization and that is the reason they are not in the fossil record.  Sorry sswa but there are plenty of fossils of wooly mammoths and others found all over the PNW so I am not sure why you think that fossil creation is impossible or nil in your area because that is just flat wrong. You cant link todays environment and climate to the geologic past. It changes big time! The Willamette valley in Oregon is supposed to be famous for producing pleistocene fossils such as wooly mammoths and others. How does that area produce such fine specimens if the area doesnt produce? 

 

Just make a quick google search and there are all kinds of areas to find some fantastic fossils including Pleistocene fossils all over the PNW. In the 30 seconds I browsed it over there were several pages of different areas with Pleistocene fossils. You guys have a fantastic area for discovering fossils.  You just didnt know where to look. 

 

However, we are not talking about why BF fossils are not found in the PNW but why arent they found anywhere?

 

 

 

All of this is just smoke.  WE NEED A BODY!!!!

[norseman]

Nothing is impossible but its a well known fact that high acidic soils in jungle or forest regions makes fossilation improbable.

mammoths were plentiful, bison were plentiful, that ups the odds along with their preference to plains.

We know the Denisovians existed by a single finger bone find. Gigantopethicus? Some teeth and partial jaw bone.....

We recently had a fossil giant tooth disappear recently from the Bluff creek museum before it could be tested.

[Guest]

With man not so encroaching on environments like we are in modern times who knows what type of environment they preferred back then or what type of creature like possibly gigantopithecus that they evolved from.  So many factors of change can take place when you add a few thousand years of evolution. They could have been mountain creatures. Without any concrete evidence the questions are endless.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Size16