10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's A Bust

[Guest]

Just one example of a recent paper on the fossil record of bison in North America.

According to Storrs Olson's paper from 1972, fossils of Whooping Cranes had been recovered and described from California, North Dakota, Illinois, Idaho, Michigan, Kentucky, Virginia, Arizona, and Florida.

Yes that's right, even birds are well described from the fossil record, and that includes tiny things like sparrows and warblers.

Excuses and hand waving on this are like trying to haul water in a picnic basket. The lack of bigfoot in the fossil record is a glaring omission for an organism of its reputed size, distribution, and presumed length of occupation in North America.

[Guest]

Just one example of a recent paper on the fossil record of bison in North America.

According to Storrs Olson's paper from 1972, fossils of Whooping Cranes had been recovered and described from California, North Dakota, Illinois, Idaho, Michigan, Kentucky, Virginia, Arizona, and Florida.

Yes that's right, even birds are well described from the fossil record, and that includes tiny things like sparrows and warblers.

Excuses and hand waving on this are like trying to haul water in a picnic basket. The lack of bigfoot in the fossil record is a glaring omission for an organism of its reputed size, distribution, and presumed length of occupation in North America.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I agree LAL.

Along the same lines as others, to me it's not about whether or not a bf should have ever fossilized. I would guess that if bf exists, maybe some did. Still just a guess, it might not of ever happened. It's not about that for me. It's about the "never been found" part. Which sounds silly but I'll explain.

Let's hypothetically say we can use some type of futuristic LIDAR/ultrasound thing and software to scan the first few deep layers of Earth in it's entirety and know that there are no bf fossils anywhere. I will then reach my own personal conclusion and even then it could still be wrong. Anything less and a conclusion from "no fossils" cannot be obtained IMO. We just don't have that sort of thing going on right now so it comes down to people finding them. If they are not found now without the fancy scanning gizmo, how can we say that they aren't there, definitively?

How many people are targeting the search for bf fossils? Probably not many. Fossils are found by chance sometimes and some are targeted. Like others in this thread said, specific areas are looked at. Certain types of rocks of a certain age and location are sought out and still a very small percentage of all living things thought to be there specifically are found. It's not as easy as cracking open ten rocks and finding five of whatever you are looking for. (I'm not sure if I heard that quote before. I might have just stole it from a documentary or something. I don't know). Do the fossils obtained from chance complete the catalog of fossils from an area of search? Depending on the area, I doubt it. Has the PNW been completely cataloged? I doubt that too.

ETA

Saskeptic, would you agree that a DNA database does have to be complete (as far as primates) to determine whether or not primate hairs are "unknown" or not? If yes, how does that same logic apply to an incomplete fossil database? Incomplete is now acceptable?

Edited October 19, 2011 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

What I'm getting from this fossil discussion is that while others are searching for a living specimen, perhaps there should be a large scale effort to search for fossil evidence of BF in North America. I don't know of any such expedition taking place before. I'll ask the experts in this thread. Where should such an effort take place? What location gives you the best conditions for finding such fossils?

[Guest 127]

What I'm getting from this fossil discussion is that while others are searching for a living specimen, perhaps there should be a large scale effort to search for fossil evidence of BF in North America. I don't know of any such expedition taking place before. I'll ask the experts in this thread. Where should such an effort take place? What location gives you the best conditions for finding such fossils?

rwridley: People are always looking for fossils in North America. They don't have to be looking specifically for bigfoot fossils to find them. North America is one of the most fossil rich countries in the world.

Saskeptic: I completely agree with you and it is but one of the telling tales of bigfoot that lead myself and others to believe it is a social construct and not a living animal. I will outline what I feel are many other compelling reasons later today (currently busy at work but still browsing lol)

[Guest]

Furious et al.,

The point is not that fossils should be easy to find or that the fossil record is in any way complete. The point is that bigfoot is glaringly absent from that fossil record compared to the other extant terrestrial vertebrates of North America. Deer, moose, musk oxen, pronghorn, bears, weasels, cats, rodents, birds, etc. are all represented but bigfoots are not.

"Because no one is looking for them" is also a red herring. With notable exceptions, most paleontological work involves searching for fossils in strata rather than searching for fossils of "X." So scientists catalog and describe whatever they find, because the point is often to reconstruct the fauna of a region or stratum. The 100+ fossils of short-faced bear were not produced by 100 expeditions to find short-faced bear fossils, they were mostly produced by searching for any fossils, and having short-faced bear be among those that were found.

The same would happen if any bigfoot fossils were recovered.

While bigfoot's absence from the fossil record doesn't mean there are no bigfoots, it certainly doesn't help the case any.

[Guest WIKayaker]

My guess... reverse mis-identification.

Any skeletal remains of BF found were identified as human.

Of course, all the large unusual ones were scuttled away never to be found again.

How come so many are missing? Like those seven footers found in a mound in Theresa, WI in 1900.

They are not just like every other animal. In my opinion of course.

Oops those were just giants, not BF. Nevermind.

Fun to speculate

[GuyInIndiana]

I like my theory better. Makes much more sense.

Not to people who've actually seen one... some of whom had those encounters "face to face".

[BobZenor]

Is the fossil record relevant? Not particularly. It might have more relevance if it was even conclusive that no fossils or bones exist. There are at least three bones off the top of my head that might be bigfoot. One was a tooth that recently had its DNA tested but is part of the NDA? One is a part of a skull that has a brow ridge like an erectus in Mexico and the other was the minaret skull. They are all just dismissed as something from a large native. There wouldn't be necessarily be much difference besides size and that obviously only applies to adult males or possibly very complete females but that would be an exceptionally rare fossil since most are fragmentary. They could easily have grown larger recently so size isn't particularly relevant unless you have the goal of disproving it and only accept fossils hominins substantially larger than modern humans as possible bigfoot ancestors. There is certainly evidence in the fossil record for there being a much more primitive hominid living until recently. Floresiensis seems to be more primitive than erectus and there are no confirmed ancestors that must have lived in Asia in the fossil record. It that case, it likely lived in jungle environments or thick forests and they didn't fossilize well there. Living in jungles is why I think they are small and I don't buy the island dwarfism theory. The tools were probably made by modern humans and possibly close relatives that hunted the pygmy elephants. Niches for very small forest dwellers aren't the only ones possible by the way.

We have several possible fossil candidate ancestors in Asia. There was a theory that erectus was the first to leave Africa. That dubious and largely disproved theory is what caused all of the hominid fossils to be assigned the designation Homo erectus. Even now people use the term erectus as if it implies species. They probably aren't looking at that reasonably considering there were so many hominins living together at various points in history. There is also considerable variation in what is called erectus. You could look at the number of populations/species 30,000 years ago and also about 1.8 million years ago to get an idea of how many "human" species used to exist at the same time. The notion of there being a single lineage of humans leading to modern humans is pretty much an antiquated idea.

~1.8 million years ago: Homo eregastor/erectus (unknown if single species), Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei. I am probably forgetting some and there are others like georgicus that might be a distinct species or lineage. There is certainly no reason to assume we found them all.

30,000 years ago: Modern humans, neanderthals, denisova, floresiensis, heidelbergensis (tentative date much more recent according to Meldrum). Most of those are from the last ten years.

Denisova required DNA to determine that it was different or the fragments would have surely been assumed to be modern human or neanderthal. Of course people that are trying to disprove a bigfoot will have to assume they are close to modern humans as possible but there is no reason from a biological perspective to assume that is necessarily the case. Being closer to neanderthal than modern humans, if true, just means they likely interbred with them more. They don't know how "human" it was. About all they know is that is has very large teeth and a mitochondria that diverged about one million years ago. It isn't proof but that isn't the point. The point is that could just as easily be more distantly related hominids that were assigned erectus that existed as well. In most cases it is impossible to say what the fossils were because they are so fragmentary.

Growing larger isn't much of a consideration when most all of the fossils are more than 100,000 years ago. It could have grown considerably in 10,000 years. There are a lot of modern human populations to use as examples where size apparently changed considerably or you can look at how much dogs changed in much less time.

Obviously, giganto was extremely large and is a potential candidate but that seems unlikely to me depending on how solid the evidence is of them being closer to orangutans. I am definitely not a fan of the convergent ape theory considering how much ambiguity exists in the hominin fossil record.

There is nothing in the Asian fossil record that excludes any of them as ancestors of bigfoot. If you are old enough to be a fossil as opposed to a bone, then you are potentially old enough to have had time for your descendents to have grown that large.

Edited October 19, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

rwridley: People are always looking for fossils in North America. They don't have to be looking specifically for bigfoot fossils to find them. North America is one of the most fossil rich countries in the world.

I should clarify - What are the ideal areas for fossil discovery that are also hot spots for current day BF sightings? I'm thinking of high altitude areas in the PNW or even the swamps of Florida.

[Guest LAL]

Mt. St. Helens. There could be something under the ash or mudflows. I wouldn't bother with the lava beds. Bring a big shovel.

There's strata on Table Mountain in the Columbia Gorge that could be fossil bearing. Oops! That's Mississippian.

ETA: Do we all know the stories of how Lucy was almost not discovered, of the perfect hominid skullcap that was trampled to pieces by Masai cattle, of pieces of priceless finds being washed away by floods, of Mary Leakey just happening to stop near an important find that would have been missed if she'd kept on driving? All this happened where fossils are.

Edited October 19, 2011 by LAL

[Guest]

Here is a map of bigfoot sightings from the History Channel:

Here is a map of just the fossil sites managed by the National Park Service:

Here is a link to fossil sites just in the state of Washington(where "bigfoot density" looks to be highest from the History Channel map).

There is broad overlap in both geographic area and specific habitat types between modern bigfoot sighting reports and geological strata that produce fossils.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Saskeptic

[Guest HairyGreek]

Course it does, to you. That's why you like it.

I like my theory better. Makes more sense to me.

Wow...this whole forum encapsulated in 4 sentences.

[Guest LAL]

Here is a link to fossil sites just in the state of Washington(where "bigfoot density" looks to be highest from the History Channel map).

What a coincidence. I just found that too but I thought it would be too hokey to post. Here's a sample:

What: Chuckanut Drive (SR-11), south of Bellingham, WA

What to see: Eocene plant fossils

What: Museum and Arts Center, Sequim, WA

What to see: Actual bones from the Manis Mastodon, discovered by Sequim resident Emanuel Manis in 1977

What: Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, Seattle WA

What to see: Vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology collections from Washington State

What: Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve, near Little Rock, WA

What to see: open prairies created by retreating glaciers 15,000 years ago

What: Gingko Petrified Forest State Park, near Vantage, WA

What to see: Fossilized ancient forests

What: Stonerose Interpretive Center, Republic, WA

What to see: Eocene fossil beds (and you can dig for your own fossils!)

What: Blue Lake Rhino, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (note: this site has very limited access and is only recommended for experienced climbers)

What to see: The mold of a small Miocene rhinoceros (Diceratherium), preserved in pillow basalt

Good luck finding bigfoot amongst the Eocene plant fossils. Hobnob with mastodons, did they?

On second thought maybe St. Helens lava should be checked for possible natural molds like the one of Diceratherium above. Big shovel - check. Big pickax - check.

[Guest]

Gorillas were thought to be a native myth until they were "discovered" by western science.

Relevant, and today ironic, post on this subject from a recent thread:

"The putative distribution of North American bigfoot is very much relevant to this discussion. If, for example, bigfoots really occur in some remote ranges in British Columbia - and nowhere else - then examples like the discoveries of gorillas, okapis, and saolas actually would make rather sound analogies. If, however, this "bigfoot" we're talking about really does occur where it is broadly reported, then we must acknowledge that it occurs in areas that have been thoroughly explored, such as Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, etc. That doesn't mean that there's a guy in a labcoat with a microscope aimed at every square centimeter of Ohio. It only means that folks like the WWF aren't funding expeditions to the Muskinggum [sic] River Valley because they suspect a treasure trove of undescribed large mammal discoveries awaits them there."

"Gorillas, okapis, and saolas were discovered by western scientists once western scientists began studying the places where they lived. If bigfoot lives in Ohio - or any other place that we can agree has had at least rudimentary study and exploration by western scientists - but is yet to yield discovery, then this is counter to the analogy of the discovery of other recently described large mammals."