Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Two men film alleged 'Bigfoot' in Ohio woods

130 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
4 hours ago, Overdueleaf said:

I have been to Salt fork many many times, it is not what I would call rural in the least, I have been to more remote places backpacking. I find it laughable that there could be a bigfoot roaming around (and it NOT be seen on a daily basis, multiple times). It is just miles from interstate 77 to the west and 70 to the south, with rinky dink towns inbetween (ok they are more like collections of houses). Route 22 sits at its main entrance and is lined with houses, some with lake front property. Old Twenty One road runs parallel to I-77 and again, is lined with houses, freedom road also has many many houses that sit all along it as well as all the side roads that shoot off of Freedom Rd. The town of Cambridge is approximately 7-8 miles down US22 from the main entrance(22 runs through the heart of Cambridge) and has a population of about 12,000. I worked at a state run facility for the mentally disabled which is just a stones throw from Salt fork ( we took our residents there quite often). There are a scattering of farms surrounding the park, but there are far more houses, and the area is more heavily populated than you might imagine with it being a "State Park", many state parks (at least in SE Ohio) are where the army corp of engineers came in and put in dams creating man made lakes (Burr Oak, Salt Fork, Dillon, to name a few). Did I mention that there is hunting allowed in the state park? and that the park itself is not all that big? 

Like I said... very very laughable that bigfoot calls this place home. 

I appreciate your comments. I have looked several times at the park and it appears to me if there is a BF on the park grounds then evidence for it could be collected in a few days by a small crew of dedicated BF believers. 

It looks like a nice state park for people to enjoy but not a place for a reclusive creature to hide.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overdueleaf
33 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I appreciate your comments. I have looked several times at the park and it appears to me if there is a BF on the park grounds then evidence for it could be collected in a few days by a small crew of dedicated BF believers. 

It looks like a nice state park for people to enjoy but not a place for a reclusive creature to hide.

Oh absolutely it could! 

If I remember correctly, the Salt fork lodge actually hosted a bigfoot event not to long ago, and upon looking it up is hosting a bigfoot conference this year. Perhaps ticket sales were low and they needed something to draw the people in this year? Why not create a video, surely it will work..lol

http://ohiobigfootconference.org/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
11 minutes ago, Overdueleaf said:

Oh absolutely it could! 

If I remember correctly, the Salt fork lodge actually hosted a bigfoot event not to long ago, and upon looking it up is hosting a bigfoot conference this year. Perhaps ticket sales were low and they needed something to draw the people in this year? Why not create a video, surely it will work..lol

http://ohiobigfootconference.org/

 

Park lands are valuable as long as people value them. If it takes a BF hunt then so be it. Nearby towns often make money off these events as people drop in and need lodging meals and other entertainment.

I wonder if they will organize a BF hunt? That would be interesting. Imagine if they lined up participants to scour the entire park and locate scat, or bring in anything for the staff to identify - a bag 'em and tag 'em event. People might learn a lot about what actually lives in the woods of Ohio.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbondo
21 hours ago, Myles said:

The whole thing seems very scripted.   Bigfoot didn't hear 2 guys stomping around with a drone?   Really?   He's been able to stay hidden all around the globe for hundreds or thousands of years, but let's 2 schmucks get this close.   Nope, not believable.

Hoax - 99.99%      

Right? You hear them crunching thru the leaves like they are wearing snow shoes. Any animal within 1000 yds is going to hear them. Not to mention, aren't they watching the drone video live as it flies along? This is the first red flag. Instead of looping the drone back and dropping altitude to investigate the two dark spots, they just keep flying past. Then on the ground, the actions of the "bigfoot" seem like someone who is trying to act like they think one would act, but are apprehensive and odd looking. Like an actor who hasn't been given any direction and just told to walk thru this area like a bigfoot. You mean, like this dude?

There is nothing in this video that gives me any confidence that we are seeing the "Grass Man" creature. In fact, if there are bigfoot, why would they be in Ohio? PNW, Canada, Alaska. Extremely remote areas make far more sense. Not a half mile from the interstate in Ohio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
59 minutes ago, jbondo said:

 

if there are bigfoot, why would they be in Ohio? PNW, Canada, Alaska. Extremely remote areas make far more sense. Not a half mile from the interstate in Ohio.

Being in a highly populated state like Ohio does make the chances very slim that a creature could avoid being found.   However, I also argue that the very remote places are just an easy excuse for believers to use.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbondo
7 minutes ago, Myles said:

Being in a highly populated state like Ohio does make the chances very slim that a creature could avoid being found.   However, I also argue that the very remote places are just an easy excuse for believers to use.  

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the number of people, maintaining a population of such creatures and the amount of nourishment it would take to support that population. Logic says that if one is there, then it stands to reason that more would be there. Unless we have one bigfoot that's 150 years old and goes on a North American tour every year.

Honestly, I know a number of people in the field and have several articles under my belt on the subject. Even with that, I'm 50% at best. One of my friends produced and directed the movie Dead Bigfoot, but IMO Justin Smeja FOS and the only good part of the film was how well made it was (subject aside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
1 hour ago, jbondo said:

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the number of people, maintaining a population of such creatures and the amount of nourishment it would take to support that population. Logic says that if one is there, then it stands to reason that more would be there. Unless we have one bigfoot that's 150 years old and goes on a North American tour every year.

Honestly, I know a number of people in the field and have several articles under my belt on the subject. Even with that, I'm 50% at best. One of my friends produced and directed the movie Dead Bigfoot, but IMO Justin Smeja FOS and the only good part of the film was how well made it was (subject aside).

There was a member her awhile ago who claimed bigfoots would hop on trains and travel out west to mate, then take a train back east.   

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
9 hours ago, Myles said:

There was a member her awhile ago who claimed bigfoots would hop on trains and travel out west to mate, then take a train back east.   

Boxcar Footie.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 hours ago, Myles said:

There was a member her awhile ago who claimed bigfoots would hop on trains and travel out west to mate, then take a train back east.   

When they start driving the train is when the trouble will start.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gilbert Syndrome
On 2/12/2020 at 5:20 PM, papageorge1 said:

Very interesting. I watched the entire video. Either a hoax or a Grassman for sure with not many other possibilities. This Salt Fork park is one I have heard others making similar claims. At one point the drone sees two. With the level of skepticism nowadays hoaxes don't seem to be worth much effort.

Papameter

Grassman 55%  Hoax 45%

Pass the joint, mate. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gilbert Syndrome
On 2/13/2020 at 7:56 PM, Myles said:

There was a member her awhile ago who claimed bigfoots would hop on trains and travel out west to mate, then take a train back east.   

Seems about as credible as literally any story about Bigfoot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov

@joc that's awesome. Blair witch style! 

Bigfoot should run off with her and the cameraman follow until he reaches a clearing surrounded by them. Release it as park ranger found go pro laying in the woods and this was on it....

This is the era of remakes!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
3 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

Pass the joint, mate. 

Well, I watched and evaluated the video non-jointed. Real mysteries can appear to the sober too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
6 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

Pass the joint, mate. 

More like 'shrooms.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing

This was fairly well directed. The brief closeup was well obscured by thick trees while the distant shots give us a good look (but not good enough) at the actor. The "searching" shots built tension very well as we strain to find the actor in the shot again. The edits could have been smoother though and it could have used an exciting "chase" shot when they decide to pursue the creature with no luck.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Candor

WOW, FINALLY  PROOF OF ... fake bigfoot.

What a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Candor
17 hours ago, astrobeing said:

This was fairly well directed. The brief closeup was well obscured by thick trees while the distant shots give us a good look (but not good enough) at the actor. The "searching" shots built tension very well as we strain to find the actor in the shot again. The edits could have been smoother though and it could have used an exciting "chase" shot when they decide to pursue the creature with no luck.

Well, this bigfoot was only trained to go around in circles doing nothing but be on camera. He wasn't told to give a CLEAR cam shot. More training required, that's all. It'll come...  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SKINWALKER19

NASA , the industrial military complex etc must have tech that could track heat signature / image  from satellites .The fact the majority of sightings are taking place on American/ Canadian soil begs the question why no Cryptoids haven’t been shot by hunters  in the decades of reports .

I’m open minded enough to embrace the fact these Bigfoot may be paranormal entities as where is the poo evidence , obviously that could be lab tested and reviewed if found .

The Florida skunk ape cases seem to have great footage and pictures , alas nothing more .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
53 minutes ago, SKINWALKER19 said:

NASA , the industrial military complex etc must have tech that could track heat signature / image  from satellites .The fact the majority of sightings are taking place on American/ Canadian soil begs the question why no Cryptoids haven’t been shot by hunters  in the decades of reports .

I’m open minded enough to embrace the fact these Bigfoot may be paranormal entities as where is the poo evidence , obviously that could be lab tested and reviewed if found .

The Florida skunk ape cases seem to have great footage and pictures , alas nothing more .

I am agnostic on bigfoot myself, but I don't see it as being all that far fetched that they are out there. We are still discovering new large mammals in the wild. A new species of Tapir was found in the amazon in 2013.

As far as satellite tracking, I wouldn't be surprised if we had satellites capable of picking up heat signatures, but you would still need coordinates to focus in on or else it would be much like a "where's waldo?" scenario trying to spot one single bigfoot shaped heat signature moving among a sea of stationary and moving heat signatures from an overhead position.

As, for why hunters haven't shot one, I would say it depends on what species bigfoot actually is and that could effect it's intelligence and it's ability to remain undetected. Even if it was just a large ape, I think it could be intelligent enough to avoid man and hide, but if it possibly is another branch of hominid, it may actually be far more intelligent than the other primates. It could very well be the second most intelligent primate on the planet, next to us. And I would say it would only have to be intelligent enough to know bad things happen when humans are around and then avoid them every time they smell or hear them. Humans are also difficult to find if they don't want to be found. There are of course the stories of Japanese soldiers that after world war 2 remained hidden and undetected in the jungles of the phillipines and other nations for decades. I would also say that we don't really know how large and varied the early hominid family was. We are still discovering new species of hominid and genetically it seems there are other branches that were, that we still haven't found fossils for.

It could also be that they really only expose themselves to seek a mate, which is when people claim to hear their calls and encounter them, it may be because they are looking for others of their kind, but other times they may remain solitary or in small groups and stay quiet.

These things are all speculation of course, but I could reasonably see a way that a large primate could be roaming mostly undetected right in our forests around us.

Edited by WanderingFool0
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
25 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I am agnostic on bigfoot myself, but I don't see it as being all that far fetched that they are out there. We are still discovering new large mammals in the wild. A new species of Tapir was found in the amazon in 2013.

As far as satellite tracking, I wouldn't be surprised if we had satellites capable of picking up heat signatures, but you would still need coordinates to focus in on or else it would be much like a "where's waldo?" scenario trying to spot one single bigfoot shaped heat signature moving among a sea of stationary and moving heat signatures from an overhead position.

As, for why hunters haven't shot one, I would say it depends on what species bigfoot actually is and that could effect it's intelligence and it's ability to remain undetected. Even if it was just a large ape, I think it could be intelligent enough to avoid man and hide, but if it possibly is another branch of hominid, it may actually be far more intelligent than the other primates. It could very well be the second most intelligent primate on the planet, next to us. And I would say it would only have to be intelligent enough to know bad things happen when humans are around and then avoid them every time they smell or hear them. Humans are also difficult to find if they don't want to be found. There are of course the stories of Japanese soldiers that after world war 2 remained hidden and undetected in the jungles of the phillipines and other nations for decades. I would also say that we don't really know how large and varied the early hominid family was. We are still discovering new species of hominid and genetically it seems there are other branches that were, that we still haven't found fossils for.

It could also be that they really only expose themselves to seek a mate, which is when people claim to hear their calls and encounter them, it may be because they are looking for others of their kind, but other times they may remain solitary or in small groups and stay quiet.

These things are all speculation of course, but I could reasonably see a way that a large primate could be roaming mostly undetected right in our forests around us.

People often point to newly identified species as some sort of suggestion that bigfoot might be out there. In this case it is a tapir from the Amazon, but that suggestion does not fit well.

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/new-species-tapir-found-amazon

Quote

A newly described species of tapir, Tapirus kabomani, was hiding in plain sight in the Amazon. Local people, who have long known that the animal exists, helped researchers identify the new species in camera trap photos like this one.

  1. People know it is there
  2. It is quickly identified in camera traps

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/new-species-tapir-discovered

Quote

"[Indigenous people] traditionally reported seeing what they called 'a different kind of anta [tapir in Portuguese].' However, the scientific community has never paid much attention to the fact, stating that it was always the same Tapirus terrestris," explains lead author Mario Cozzuol, the paleontologist who first started investigating the new species ten years ago. "They did not give value to local knowledge and thought the locals were wrong. Knowledge of the local community needs to be taken into account and that's what we did in our study, which culminated in the discovery of a new species to science."

Had the search taken 60 years you'd have a better fit to BF searches. Had this animal not been a regular meal for the locals then you'd have something.

As far as hiding from man. People suggest that BF is intelligent. Okay, then why does this intelligent creature not use tools? Why doesn't this intelligent build lairs?

The issue is never hiding one person such as a Japanese soldier or a criminal on the run. The issue is hiding every individual of a breeding population. How is that done? No bones. No scat. No hairs. No teeth. Nothing at all. Often the Japanese soldiers were known about and they went on to join other military groups. They were not out there raising families. There should be baby BFs out there. There should be young out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout

I really can't see how a breeding population of large primates can exist in the US and Canada without being detected. Places in the East where they are reported such as this park in Ohio is simply not a good hide out even for an individual.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
21 minutes ago, stereologist said:

People often point to newly identified species as some sort of suggestion that bigfoot might be out there. In this case it is a tapir from the Amazon, but that suggestion does not fit well.

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/new-species-tapir-found-amazon

  1. People know it is there
  2. It is quickly identified in camera traps

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/new-species-tapir-discovered

Had the search taken 60 years you'd have a better fit to BF searches. Had this animal not been a regular meal for the locals then you'd have something.

As far as hiding from man. People suggest that BF is intelligent. Okay, then why does this intelligent creature not use tools? Why doesn't this intelligent build lairs?

The issue is never hiding one person such as a Japanese soldier or a criminal on the run. The issue is hiding every individual of a breeding population. How is that done? No bones. No scat. No hairs. No teeth. Nothing at all. Often the Japanese soldiers were known about and they went on to join other military groups. They were not out there raising families. There should be baby BFs out there. There should be young out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout

I really can't see how a breeding population of large primates can exist in the US and Canada without being detected. Places in the East where they are reported such as this park in Ohio is simply not a good hide out even for an individual.

 

Thanks for the reply.

I would say the tapir is still a good example, because there are people who claim they have encountered bigfoot and it's there, much like those tribes men knew the tapir was there. It took academia the camera proof to catch up.

As far as a breeding population, that depends on how far bigfoot might roam, the range of their territories. You might think this is a bad comparison as well, but I remember reading a story about a wolf that was part of re population program and was tagged, that traveled I believe it was like three or four states, to find a female wolf to mate with and form a pack. Big foot like that may be in small family units much like other primates and then only solitary mate less males would roam to find mates and may actually be responsible for most of the claimed sightings and encounters. I would say there would be children, but much like bears the cubs usually stay pretty close to the mother and the mother could very well teach them to be quiet when humans are near.

And as far as bones, if they are another branch of hominid, we don't know that they don't have burial customs. The neanderthal also had burial customs, I am not sure how many of the other hominids did, but it would not be out of the realm of possibility that bigfoot might have burial customs. And if they live in small familial groups, than there would more then likely be someone to bury them when they die, except for possibly lone solitary males seeking mates and a new family. But for their bones, we may just not have been lucky to find them yet, much like we don't find every bear that dies in the woods either.

Like I said it's just my speculation, but the possibility of it being a hominid, could make it harder for us to find and locate them than other large mammals.

 

Edited by WanderingFool0
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Only

Uploader 'Nate Grey' (X-Men moniker?) aside from having an ad like every 10 seconds in video, also has pinned a comment 4 days ago asking people for money, with a $100,000 goal.

Quote

We need your help! This process is way more expensive than we could have imagined.

Satisfyingly, he hasn't received a penny on that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Thanks for the reply.

I would say the tapir is still a good example, because there are people who claim they have encountered bigfoot and it's there, much like those tribes men knew the tapir was there. It took academia the camera proof to catch up.

As far as a breeding population, that depends on how far bigfoot might roam, the range of their territories. You might think this is a bad comparison as well, but I remember reading a story about a wolf that was part of re population program and was tagged, that traveled I believe it was like three or four states, to find a female wolf to mate with and form a pack. Big foot like that may be in small family units much like other primates and then only solitary mate less males would roam to find mates and may actually be responsible for most of the claimed sightings and encounters. I would say there would be children, but much like bears the cubs usually stay pretty close to the mother and the mother could very well teach them to be quiet when humans are near.

And as far as bones, if they are another branch of hominid, we don't know that they don't have burial customs. The neanderthal also had burial customs, I am not sure how many of the other hominids did, but it would not be out of the realm of possibility that bigfoot might have burial customs. And if they live in small familial groups, than there would more then likely be someone to bury them when they die, except for possibly lone solitary males seeking mates and a new family. But for their bones, we may just not have been lucky to find them yet, much like we don't find every bear that dies in the woods either.

Like I said it's just my speculation, but the possibility of it being a hominid, could make it harder for us to find and locate them than other large mammals.

 

But the people had the tapir. Academia saw the tapir. It was just not considered a new species. BF has not been caught or killed by anyone. BF has not been seen by academia. There is nothing at all to show for BF. The tapir was dinner. The tapir was hides. All that academia did was taken a known, captured, and seen animal and accept it as a new species. There was never a question as to whether or not the tapir even existed. 

From the second link I posted.

Quote

However, the scientific community has never paid much attention to the fact, stating that it was always the same Tapirus terrestris," explains lead author Mario Cozzuol, the paleontologist who first started investigating the new species ten years ago. "They did not give value to local knowledge and thought the locals were wrong.

Bolding mine. 

A breeding population requires hundreds of animals to avoid genetic issues. There simply can't be so few of these BF to allow a breeding population that escapes complete notice. The solitary males we see in wild animals tend to be males that will no longer find a mate. They have been kicked out of the herd/family units and are on their own for the rest of their lives. You suggest that young are with their mothers. They are not seen or rarely if ever in BF sightings. Why would we see males only? Are these smart super intelligent (or so the claim goes) solitary individuals more likely to be seen than a youngster?

The notion of burial customs doesn't work if you have lone males romping in the woods. Either there is an individual there to bury or not. And there never seems to be a BF found from a natural disaster. There are no drowned BF, no burn in a forest fire BF, no storm, wind, tree fall, blizzard, etc. remains to encounter.

This is always a bad claim: "like we don't find every bear that dies in the woods". People do find dead bears in the woods. All you have to do is find one. And it happens more often than people think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/a-human-foot-found-in-a-fairfax-county-backyard-turns-out-to-be-a-bear-paw/2018/01/26/beda67c4-028a-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html

And lots not forget the fossil record. No large apes in North America. Are they busy out there cleaning up the fossil record?

 

It's no bones, no scat, no hair, nothing. There is no evidence that BF exists. We have tons of stories and if you want to get some amazing stories check out the Shaver Mysteries. After a mentally ill person told stories from voices he heard in his head hundreds if not thousands wrote to Amazing Stories to tell how they too had dealt with the sinister deros from inside the Earth.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
27 minutes ago, stereologist said:

But the people had the tapir. Academia saw the tapir. It was just not considered a new species. BF has not been caught or killed by anyone. BF has not been seen by academia. There is nothing at all to show for BF. The tapir was dinner. The tapir was hides. All that academia did was taken a known, captured, and seen animal and accept it as a new species. There was never a question as to whether or not the tapir even existed. 

From the second link I posted.

Bolding mine. 

A breeding population requires hundreds of animals to avoid genetic issues. There simply can't be so few of these BF to allow a breeding population that escapes complete notice. The solitary males we see in wild animals tend to be males that will no longer find a mate. They have been kicked out of the herd/family units and are on their own for the rest of their lives. You suggest that young are with their mothers. They are not seen or rarely if ever in BF sightings. Why would we see males only? Are these smart super intelligent (or so the claim goes) solitary individuals more likely to be seen than a youngster?

The notion of burial customs doesn't work if you have lone males romping in the woods. Either there is an individual there to bury or not. And there never seems to be a BF found from a natural disaster. There are no drowned BF, no burn in a forest fire BF, no storm, wind, tree fall, blizzard, etc. remains to encounter.

This is always a bad claim: "like we don't find every bear that dies in the woods". People do find dead bears in the woods. All you have to do is find one. And it happens more often than people think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/a-human-foot-found-in-a-fairfax-county-backyard-turns-out-to-be-a-bear-paw/2018/01/26/beda67c4-028a-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html

And lots not forget the fossil record. No large apes in North America. Are they busy out there cleaning up the fossil record?

 

It's no bones, no scat, no hair, nothing. There is no evidence that BF exists. We have tons of stories and if you want to get some amazing stories check out the Shaver Mysteries. After a mentally ill person told stories from voices he heard in his head hundreds if not thousands wrote to Amazing Stories to tell how they too had dealt with the sinister deros from inside the Earth.

But, you know as well as I do that fossils are hit and miss and only a tiny fractional snapshot of the animals alive in any given period. Often the fossils we have found were animals that were submerged in flooding incidents and other disasters.

Quote

The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete. Here's one major reason why: Sediment has to cover an organism's remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen. Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population.

Plus, fossils may be set in stone, but they're far from impervious. Like all rocks, they erode, melt and fragment. Factor in all the fossils we haven't uncovered with the ones we can't decipher properly (due to partial fossilization or insufficient technology), and the fossil record gets even spottier.

So like the mineralized bones themselves, the fossil record is an incomplete framework that scientists flesh out through additional methods. While cladistics, molecular sequencing and the fossil record all present different data sets, systematic biologists generally find similar patterns of diversification in all three. In other words, the three methods complement each other and paint a congruous picture of what the tree of life should look like.

The fossil record grows more incomplete the further back in time we attempt to look. Organisms that are more recent don't appear either. For example, freshwater mollusks of the class Bivalvia suffer up to 45 percent incompletion in some subclasses [source: Valentine et al.]. Important links in the fossil record also remain unaccounted for, such as the ancient last common ancestors connecting entire phyla. Research into the fossilization process continues to illuminate just how much of the record we're missing.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/incomplete-fossil-record.htm

Edited by WanderingFool0
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0

I would also add that with some of the genetic research going on with humans, shows there is at least one currently unknown hominid that was able to leave it's dna fingerprint on humanity, but also as of yet we have no fossils for. How many other species of unknown hominids were in the past? We don't know. It suggests maybe humanity needs to do more calculated and random digging to find more currently undiscovered fossils to add to our record and thus continue to fine tune it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.