It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bigfoot and the fossil record

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:24 AM
First of all, let me tell you that, sometimes, the lack of fossil evidence means very little. But it's nevertheless a very useful tool to know what's the possibilities for a "mysterious creature" to exist and to explain what it is. Bigfoot (or Sasquatch) is a little oddity: this creature has no trace in the fossil record in the Americas. The biggest primate in the fossil record is Protopithecus brasiliensis, a very large spider monkey from late Pleistocene found in Brazil. Despite being about six feet tall, its extimated body weight was about fifty pounds, less than a tenth of Bigfoot's extimated body weight. Moreover, it was a tree-dweller (like today's spider monkeys) coming to ground occasionally and its feet were quite different from a man's or Bigfoot's. The celebrated Eoanthropus (man-of-the-dawn) from North America, has turned to be non-existant: its bones really belongs to an extinct tapir species. This is for America's known fossils. But other fossils from around the world have been considered. Grover Krantz suggested a species related to Gigantopithecus blacki, from South-East Asia. The most recent fossils date from about 500.000 years ago, its estimated weight was about 900-1200 pounds and its height 7-10 feet tall but we only have a few jaw fragments and isolated teeth. Since no weight-bearing bones have been found, its dimensions are only supposed, using humans and apes as models and it is well possible that the animal's teeth and jaws were disproportionate to its body size. Ivan Sanderson considered Giganthropus the best Bigfoot candidate. Gordon Strasenburgh suggested a surviving or evolved Parathropus robustus from South Africa. However, its body size was a little smaller than a modern human, and this makes it a poor Sasquatch candidate. Homo neanderthalensis and H. erectus have also been considered, but their body measures, well known through a wealth of findings, are a poor match for Bigfoot's massive figure. The usual Loren Coleman suggested a Meganthropus, a little known hominid genus described from two partial mandibles found in Java in the late '30s, but he is a late a comer as usual. Many anthropologists now consider Meganthropus an unusually oversized Homo erectus and, despite this, Meganthropus would still be too small to make a credible Bigfoot. The North American fossil record is quite poor: the first known primate there is Purgatorius, which lived about 66-64 million years ago. The last known one is Ekgmowechasala, which lived about 28 million years ago in what it's now Oregon. There are numerous species in between, but all were quite small: their average size was that of a woodchuck, with the biggest ones about the size of a tamarin or marmoset.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Kakugo
First of all, let me tell you that, sometimes, the lack of fossil evidence means very little.

Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense strictly speaking yes.

Excellent research on the north american and other fossil primates by the way.

I would think that if Bigfoot is to exist, then things like the Yeti and other similar creatures would also have to be said to exist, and that it'd be rather unusual to have an organism spread all over the world, but so severly lacking in a fossil record. This 'cosmopolitan' distribution would seem to require very very large populations over a very long time. Of course, its possible that the creature inhabits places where fossil formation is unlikely, but then again so did primitive man and there are skeletons of him.

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:07 AM
It's also possible that they burn their dead, and have done so for a long time...resulting in very little fossil evidence.

Not as plausible perhaps, but something to consider nonetheless...

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:18 PM
If no ape-man remains have ever be found, if this so called beast can allude and outfox all hunters and only vague, faraway photo's can be takem, then I believe the thing out there in woods maybe a MAN-APE.

Think about it, if these creatures can out-manouvre mankind and stay just below the radar, then they can think, deduce and make important decisions as a social animal.
It may reclaim it's dead and hide the remains from man.
It may know or have guessed at the basic agenda of the hunters and uses it's natural senses to slip by and leave us scrambling around in the foilage.

I think this thing maybe watching us.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:23 PM
it could be that they have their own graveyards deep in the jungles.....they could bury their dead, burn them, dump them in the oceans/lakes for all we know.....

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:12 PM

it could be that they have their own graveyards deep in the jungles.....they could bury their dead, burn them, dump them in the oceans/lakes for all we know.....

Not a whole lot of jungle in the area these things are allegedly sighted.

As for the bone record, (wouldn't have to be fosilized if bigfoot is a living creature) I propose 3 explanations why bone evidence has not been discovered.

1. The creatures are a myth. Seems the most logical and if I were a betting man I would go with this option, though we will never be able to prove this conclusively.

2. It is a statistical quirk that we simply haven't happened upon any of their bones in a well populated country with people actively looking for just such evidence. If bones were found accidently, they would be either mistaken as human remains, or people would instantly jump to the bigfoot conclusion. Either way it would be all over the news.

3. The bones are destroyed or hidden. One possible way the bones could be destroyed is if they were made into tools. The breaking, grinding, shaping, and polishing would likely distort the bones into being unrecognizaeble as "bigfoot" bones and also decrease the likelyhood of them being found, as the tools would most likely be carried around. As for the hypothesis of burning the bones, this seems unlikely to me. The temperature required to make bone ash is around 1100 degrees celsius. A fire that big would not only be easily visible, but would also leave a trace long afterwards. Alternatively, if the bones were hidden it would most likely be based on the culture of the creatures. It would stand to reason however that any group significantly large enough to have a culture would have a harder time remaining hidden, which someonewhat lessens the probability of this being a valid explanations.

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:00 AM
Has anyone considered the posssibility that a giant man-ape like bigfoot may consume it's deceased relatives? It wouldn't be the only species to do so. And if the animal is at least as smart as some primemates, it could use simple handtools, like rocks to smash bones and retrieve the soft marrow. Early man did that. If the animal is a carnivour, then it's possible it's also canaballistic, right? Although, I suppose if my theory is right then there would at least be smashed bones in the fossil record. Unless even the bones themselves are consumed. That might keep them out of the fossil record.

What if the bigfoot species, if it exists, is not very old? What if it has only come about in the last several thousand years? Like a new evolution or mutation, or cross-breed? I don't know why people assume primemates and humans only evolve in one direction. Whose to say nature hasn't found a need for a less advanced human, not a primitive man or an advanced ape, but something a little in between. Mankind has always assumed that is the pinnacle of evolution. Seems like a dangerous assumption, especialy since there has'nt been a major change in humans in over 40,000 years, and we are already reaching the limits of what our bodies and minds are capable of. Science is looking for ways to make healthier, smarter, more resilliant, just so we can keep up with our own technologies. Is that what is supposed to happen? A species evolving it's self? Nature works in it's own way. Ok, now I sound crazy!!!!

Also, I'm not sure if spotting these creatures all over the world would require that they be of a very large population. It seems more likely to me that they may just have very long life spans. A very large animal with a slow heartrate and metabolism could reach a very old age, possibly much, much older then a human. So, in theory anyway, several generations of man could spot the same animal(s), verses several generations of them. A small number of bigfoot that live very long life spans could make for a very rare animal that many, many people may encounter in a particular area over a period of time.

Just my thoughts anyway. I'll go take my meds now.

new topics

top topics


log in