Leaderboard

I totally understand. I am learning just how much work it is and how long it takes to do all this the right way. We are meticulously documenting and proceeding stepwise. It some days feels like it will indeed take forever - but it will all be done *right.* I'm working on a project update on my website soon. I am also always grateful for donations to NC State earmarked for this work: https://go.ncsu.edu/science-strange These help speed things along (e.g., support student research labor) as well as cover the costs of lab supplies and the deeper testing of more interesting/unusual samples.

All (eventually) of my results will be made openly available. I have also reached out to investigate every case of alleged "human... or unknown primate results" that I have heard of, over many years. @MIB used above the word "lore" to describe these results - and that is overwhelmingly what such results appear to be. In most cases, I have found that the DNA tests that supposedly had these results were not even conducted. Todd Disotell did conduct many analyses, some with "human" results, but did not retain any data. IIRC, Sykes (at least, for what he published) did not receive any results of this nature. The one thing the Ketchum folks did correctly was finally share their data - which is why we know that their conclusions are completely wrong, as @hvhart did the Herculean task of reanalyzing everything (I independently reanalyzed much of their data and my analyses concur with Hart's species identifications 100%). I know of only two other DNA tests with such "odd" results that appear to have actually been completed on North American samples, but the sequences were never shared for either of them and have not been retained. If *anyone* has sequences or lab reports regarding the genetic analysis of alleged Sasquatch samples, please reach out to me - but I have come to think that we are indeed practically at square one not just for retaining sequences, but for even doing much generating of sequences to begin with (and I'm glad to be working to fill this gap).

Regarding Henner, he is long retired and removed from the field, but in his 90s, still sharp as ever. I hunted him down a couple years ago and we talk from time to time. He has retreated from his claims about Sasquatch hair characteristics (in large part because he was never able to have his model verified via DNA testing). This is not to say that his model is wrong, just that it is conjectural. Both he and I regard the lack of medulla, for example, as perhaps alternatively explained as degradation of a hair that has been exposed to the elements for a long time, with hairs that have decayed medullas are far more likely to remain unidentified potentially not because they are of an unidentified species, but simply because they are degraded. Henner is eagerly anticipating what results may come from my project.

Great questions. What Sykes had to say about DNA recovery from such samples was true when he said it - but it is no longer the case. Ed Green pioneered a remarkable new method of retrieving DNA from hair lacking medulla only a few years ago (which we may use if necessary and/or one of my collaborators has another potential method of doing this).

Bipedalist, thanks for sharing these.

I checked the photos, and I don't see any sasquatch. I am pretty sure those are just people.

The difference between believing and knowing is seeing with your own two eyes rather than relying on someone else's story. I think it is really important (in all things, not just bigfoot, portals, or whatever) to keep that in mind. MIB

part 2 here