[Stirner]

I've also wondered at the apparent superabundance of elements Fe and above. There doesn't seem to have been enough time and enough supernovae. My guess is that we've either misjudged the time scale or, much more speculatively, the early universe was not composed of bare quarks, but already consisted of nuclei, including heavy atoms and that the BB was not really a truly universal origin but a local bubble protruded by a more encompassing process.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I wuz
Born in the Big Bang, I wuz
Born in the Big Bang

Why do the eggheads believe that the creation event (the Bang if you prefer) did not produce heavy elements as well as light?

[Robert A Cook PE]

I have not found a theoretical reason why heavier elements could not have been created in the first BB shock wave and cooling, but many describing the "good fit" that the number of hydrogen and helium nuclei make to the current theories.

But, if as others have pointed out, the current theory means that 99% (75 + 24%) of the current universe can be accounted for, and that 99% is made up of H and He, and these two are all that the astronomers have looked for, then maybe all the missing mass is scattered in a "halo" around the universe, being pushed away from us as individual nuclei, but (literally) at the edge of the visible universe.

But, the missing mass (the mass created when our planet "dust" was created, but which was ejected the wrong directions, isn't radiating or affecting visible light (unlike the galaxy lenses fro gravity) because it is "on the other side" of the visible light and x-rays coming towards us,