Subscribe: Comments on: Top Ten Creepy Fossil Finds of 2006
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
absence  article  bigfoot  evidence  excellent  finds  fossil  fossils  great  list  loren  man  mystery man  mystery  rare  recently  site 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Top Ten Creepy Fossil Finds of 2006

Comments on: Top Ten Creepy Fossil Finds of 2006

for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

Last Build Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:14:59 +0000


By: Bob Michaels

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:48:29 +0000

Glad I came across this Blog.

By: RockerEm

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:40:19 +0000

very awesome blog!

By: MrInspector

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:34:25 +0000

That Bone Clones site is great isn't it?

By: MattBille

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:26:43 +0000

I'd have to make the list a top 11 to put in the first mammal from New Zealand.

By: vet72

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:42:03 +0000

I live near a fossil bed which I visit on occasion to collect some fossilized ferns, nothing really spectacular. #2 The Two-Headed Aquatic Reptile or anything other than plants would obviously be fantastic finds. Thanks for another wonderful list Loren.

By: totnesmartin

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:51:00 +0000

Just to up the fortean ante, the picture in 9 is a simulacrum - there's a humanoid face looking upwards (forehead at the right, low brow, and a squat nose), with the Australopithecus skull for a mouth.

By: sadisticgreen

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:18:16 +0000

Completely in agreement with Mystery_man. Every skeptic I have discussed "The Bigfoot question" with comes out with the same thing "Where are the fossil remains?" It's infuriating to have to explain over and over that fossilisation is incredibly rare! Great article as always Loren. Cheers.

By: mystery_man

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:11:45 +0000

I also feel compelled to note how fossils can slip under the radar, only to be rediscovered or recognized for what they are long after they have been excavated. It is also worth noting that new fossils pop up all the time and we have far from complete fossil records of all organisms that have ever existed. I urge people to bear this in mind when wondering why no sasquatch fossils have turned up. They could very well still be out there or fragments were actually found and filed away without anyone realizing what they were. Homo floresiensis and Little Foot were only unearthed recently and they are hominids. Debate will still continue on these two finds but the point is that they are two major discoveries made recently which shows the potential for others to be excavated. Fossilization is a rare process that occurs only under ideal conditions. As I've said before, absence of fossil evidence for Bigfoot does not neccesarily equate to evidence of absence.

By: btgoss

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:17:28 +0000

This is why I read this site. Excellent article.

By: mystery_man

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:07:33 +0000

Fascinating article! I always get a laugh out of the way some fossils get labeled with funny nicknames. You have Austrolopithecus, giant camel, then out of the blue "Demon Duck of Doom"! Excellent. If it piques people's interest in fossils, then I'm all for it.