Ray Pinker Hair Analysis

[Guest Vincent]

Why would bigfoot have different hair colours from eachother? The only primates that live in close proximity to eachother that exhibit this trait would be europeans. No other humans have a wide variety of hair colour. primates that live isolated from the outside world, and only mate with eachother historically tend to be homogenic, i.e they all share the same basic characteristics. The japanese, for example, a historically homigenic folk, exclusively have black hair and dark eyes.

So why would a primate, a extremely rare one... Lets say... 5000?(enough for a breeding population) have multi coloured hair, drastic differences in sizes, shapes etc????? From my laymens understanding, this makes no sense.

If bigfoot exists, they must all look alike, since they are breeding within a certain gene pool for thousands of years. Like orangatangues. Or chimps. Or gorillas. You dont see blond chimps or red headed gorillas, nor will you find any notable variation in monkeys that live in asia(colder).

i would however concede, that one possible way multi coloured bigfoots would exist, is if they are somehow related specifically to europeans, i.e neanderthals (yup thats been proven we do share dna) or if they are some weird human-ape offspring, which as far as i know isnt possible. But who knows.

So, in closing, if youve ever seen a real live bigfoot, then you can be 98 percent(my figure) certain that all bigfoots will look almost exactly like the one you saw.

[Xion Comrade]

Why would bigfoot have different hair colours from eachother? The only primates that live in close proximity to eachother that exhibit this trait would be europeans. No other humans have a wide variety of hair colour. primates that live isolated from the outside world, and only mate with eachother historically tend to be homogenic, i.e they all share the same basic characteristics. The japanese, for example, a historically homigenic folk, exclusively have black hair and dark eyes.

So why would a primate, a extremely rare one... Lets say... 5000?(enough for a breeding population) have multi coloured hair, drastic differences in sizes, shapes etc????? From my laymens understanding, this makes no sense.

If bigfoot exists, they must all look alike, since they are breeding within a certain gene pool for thousands of years. Like orangatangues. Or chimps. Or gorillas. You dont see blond chimps or red headed gorillas, nor will you find any notable variation in monkeys that live in asia(colder).

i would however concede, that one possible way multi coloured bigfoots would exist, is if they are somehow related specifically to europeans, i.e neanderthals (yup thats been proven we do share dna) or if they are some weird human-ape offspring, which as far as i know isnt possible. But who knows.

So, in closing, if youve ever seen a real live bigfoot, then you can be 98 percent(my figure) certain that all bigfoots will look almost exactly like the one you saw.

Seems like this may be another chalk of evidence to help throw this from Ape to Hominid to me. If they are human, they could have mixed with us and any other hominid from eons ago. Seeing as how they are part of the "Older" caste of man, and somehow escaped genocide, plague, and the environment, it is a safe bet that they and all other forms of man before we took control, had much fresher/deeper/more diverse/ and just darn plain better genetics. We have wore ours down, as is the course of a species/nature, over countless generations, seen all of our superior "Brothers" wiped off the face of the planet, and by mere luck and happenstance we are what is left, with horrible little injury prone bodies. Basically the entire history of man has been nothing but a continuous progress towards the point that we are completely removed from the world and cannot survive in it without technology. In other words the gene pool that we started out with from the beginning has been continuously decaying, a process sped up monumentally by genocide, disease, and freak environmental causes.

They have actually benefited from whatever inbreeding they have done, and simply carry their diversity with them so long as they are not killed off and are allowed to pass it on.

From what I have gathered, they are extremely varied in appearance, even much moreso than Modern Man. Ranging from Humanish, Apeish, and just down right Monsterish. Apparently it is the same with their hair, all sorts of colors including a mixed coat.

[Guest Vincent]

Hi xion,

Whilst i respect your opinion, and it may be correct, i fail to see how a north american upright ape that is extremely low in numbers could have such different gene pools from

Eachother.

Even if you are correct, and they are a leftover ancient human (very possible), and, they did have different shapes and sizes and colours, after 12,000 to 35,000 years of living in north america and of having an extremely limited choice of breeding partner, you can gaurantee that those features they might have ince had would after inly several hundred years, be all but gone due to admixture within themselves.

If a blond bigfoot mated with a brown bigfoot for instance, that blond bigoots children would most probsbly be brown or light brown. After 30,000 someodd years of this it would simply be impossible to maintain the recessive traits (blond, red) over the more dominant darker traits. Even more so if theres only a few thousand.

Just my opinion, because its bigfoot we are talkin about so who knows, but bf falls within regular laws of primate nature im fairly certain they are brown or black haired exclusively.

[southernyahoo]

Why would bigfoot have different hair colours from eachother? The only primates that live in close proximity to eachother that exhibit this trait would be europeans. No other humans have a wide variety of hair colour. primates that live isolated from the outside world, and only mate with eachother historically tend to be homogenic, i.e they all share the same basic characteristics. The japanese, for example, a historically homigenic folk, exclusively have black hair and dark eyes.

So why would a primate, a extremely rare one... Lets say... 5000?(enough for a breeding population) have multi coloured hair, drastic differences in sizes, shapes etc????? From my laymens understanding, this makes no sense.

If bigfoot exists, they must all look alike, since they are breeding within a certain gene pool for thousands of years. Like orangatangues. Or chimps. Or gorillas. You dont see blond chimps or red headed gorillas, nor will you find any notable variation in monkeys that live in asia(colder).

i would however concede, that one possible way multi coloured bigfoots would exist, is if they are somehow related specifically to europeans, i.e neanderthals (yup thats been proven we do share dna) or if they are some weird human-ape offspring, which as far as i know isnt possible. But who knows.

So, in closing, if youve ever seen a real live bigfoot, then you can be 98 percent(my figure) certain that all bigfoots will look almost exactly like the one you saw.

Gibbons can be blond or black.

[southernyahoo]

Ray, I'm not sure if it was Pinker's analysis but there was a comparison to Gorilla hair mentioned in one of these old analyses.

[Guest Vincent]

Gibbons can be blond or black.

True i hadnt thought of that. But gibbons if im

Not mistaken are "barely" apes. They arent high apes unless im mistaken (high apes meaning chimps gorillas orangatanges....bigfoot etc)

And theres alot more gibbons then there are BFs hence bugger gene pool.

I always use the english red squirell example. the americans brought 3 or 4 grey squirells to england, and i think within only several years of that all the squirells in england were gray;)

[Guest Vincent]

I stand corrected gibbons are pretty apeish. I mixed up up with those ones in india that look more like dogs lol.

[Branco]

Why would bigfoot have different hair colours from eachother? The only primates that live in close proximity to eachother that exhibit this trait would be europeans. No other humans have a wide variety of hair colour. primates that live isolated from the outside world, and only mate with eachother historically tend to be homogenic, i.e they all share the same basic characteristics. The japanese, for example, a historically homigenic folk, exclusively have black hair and dark eyes.

So why would a primate, a extremely rare one... Lets say... 5000?(enough for a breeding population) have multi coloured hair, drastic differences in sizes, shapes etc????? From my laymens understanding, this makes no sense.

If bigfoot exists, they must all look alike, since they are breeding within a certain gene pool for thousands of years. Like orangatangues. Or chimps. Or gorillas. You dont see blond chimps or red headed gorillas, nor will you find any notable variation in monkeys that live in asia(colder).

i would however concede, that one possible way multi coloured bigfoots would exist, is if they are somehow related specifically to europeans, i.e neanderthals (yup thats been proven we do share dna) or if they are some weird human-ape offspring, which as far as i know isnt possible. But who knows.

So, in closing, if youve ever seen a real live bigfoot, then you can be 98 percent(my figure) certain that all bigfoots will look almost exactly like the one you saw.

But, they don't all "look alike", nor do humans. They have been around at least as long as humans and have lived, and are living, in diverse areas of the world just as humans have done. The primates you mentioned are confined to certain areas and have not spread over numerous countries.

I agree with your thinking in the second paragraph, but your closing one is a little bit off base. The first one I saw was, for a short while, within two or three feet at 2:00am on a pitch black night, and I was looking at it through a glass that was covered with condensation on both sides. I don't have a clue as to his hair color. (And if it was not a full grown "him", I NEVER want to meet his Daddy), but his hair was lighter than the bark on the trees just behind him. The second one was seen in the daylight, a hundred or so yards from me. Her (no doubt about that) hair was the color of the foliage still clinging to a long dead eastern cedar tree. That's what I thought she was for several seconds, until she saw me staring at her and turned and stepped back into a holly thicket. So at that point, I was convinced their hair was reddish brown. But at 3:30pm, July 27, 2010, one slipped in behind to check me out when I was making a bunch of half-axxed BF calls by mouth. I didn't know he was there, gave up getting a vocal response, started back right toward him, he crouched to hide and I didn't know it. I got too close for his comfort, he stood up, stared at me for a second, and bolted across about 75 yards of pretty open woods into a dense, spring-fed branch bottom. His hair was shiny black as he hit spots of sunshine. He was slim, trim and less than 7' tall, closer to 6.

Of the hundreds of reports I have recieved (and investigated) from credible witnesses in the SE, over 90% of those witnesses described the hair as red, reddish brown or reddish blond. In the rest of the cases, most described the hair as black, but the others described the color as grey or white or streaked.

[Guest]

I know when the topic of hair color came up before awhile back I did some reading on the topic. This is the real simplified version. In mammals there are several allels that work together to determine hair color. There are some that control eumelanin(black/brown tint)and pheomelanin(red tint). The less melanin you have overall will make the hair,like skin, darker or lighter. This seems to be true in other animals that show a variety of fur color. Other mammals also tend to have varying areas of the body with different shades/colors of fur. The occasional man will have a red beard but with dark hair on his head.

[Guest]

I can only go by what I personally saw, and it had black (dark brown) fur and skin. No red tint to it.

[Guest]

Back in 1968, some hair retrieved in Idaho was brought to Ray Pinker, a police science instructor in Los Angeles, for examination. The wording of his conclusions are no longer being accurately reported (by at least one well-known scientist/major bigfoot proponent), and the misrepresentation of Pinker's findings have begun to see more support than the truth. It's already happening, right here on this board. Pinker's name, along with his re-worded findings are being touted as supportive evidence for bigfoot hair identification.

Here's the actual timeline showing how re-wording has crept into the report:

• 1968 - John Green hears of Pinker's involvement and contacts him for further info. In On The Track of the Sasquatch, 1968, page 71, Green writes that Pinker concluded, "they did not match any of the hair samples available to him...they resembled animal hairs...most strands had no medulla in the centre, which was characteristic of human hair, but also of some sheep and goats...scales on the outside...resembled the characteristic scales of human hairs."
  ...

• 2006 - Dr. Jeff Meldrum takes us back down the road to sensational, when he reports in his Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, (page 262), that the examination of the hairs by Pinker, "showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates." (my bolding again. I can only conclude that Dr. Meldrum has made the dramatic and sensational leap from sheep and goats to nonhuman primates after reading the Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch analysis, which he includes in his bibliography.)

So we've seen a progression from animal, to non-human, to nonhuman primate, and a database that magically grew from 'samples available to him [Pinker]' to 'any animal'. This gradual embellishment of something original into something that amounts to little more than bigfoot wishful thinking is rather annoying. A word change here and there and a rather unimpressive 40-year-old analysis is turned into to something that proponents hold up as solid evidence for 'unknown primate' bigfoot hair analysis.

I'd like to see what Pinker wrote. RayG appears to be assuming that Green's initial description of Pinker's findings are accurate, but transcription errors do occur.

Also, I have to question whether Pinker knows what he's talking about. Per http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=585:

******

Hair

The sasquatch is covered with hair, not fur. Fur has guard hairs and an undercoat, while primate hair consists of one type of hair alone. The sasquatch, being a primate, does not molt its hair, but it is replaced one hair at a time, hence is not found in wooly batches.

Color of the hair ranges from black or dark (50%), through various shades of reddish-brown and gray to white. The body can have varicolored patches of hair. Older animals have increasingly grey hair, though color does not appear to change from childhood to adulthood. Hair is variously glossy clean and shiny, fluffy, or dirty, matted and unkempt ("angora goat dreadlocks"), probably a function of native curliness, age, or of recent immersion in water or lack thereof. Females have been reported to be cleaner than males.

Hair length ranges from 3" to around 2’ (15" longest measured in hand, longer observed in the wild). There is no taper or color banding other than graying with age. Long hair covers the head and, almost invariably, the ears; very short hair on the face; occasional reports of heavy hairiness in male faces ("mustache" and "beard") vs. no facial hair in females; long hair across the top of the shoulders (once described as "bouncing like a cape" ); long hair on the forearms ("like a spaniel"); different orientations of hair on back; breasts in females hair covered (contrary to a mistaken claim in the literature); long hair on buttocks, sometimes overhanging them; groin with enough hair to obscure genitalia; and long hair on the calves (like "bellbottom pants" in a sasquatch observed standing in snow). The hair stood visibly on end in situations where the sasquatch appeared frightened.

Under the microscope (Fig. 2), the average diameter of hair is 65 µm (40-90 µm), these values derived from 15 separately collected samples in four States. The cortex has a uniform reddish tinge plus fine pigment granule distribution, whereas the medulla is absent. Intense efforts at DNA analysis of the hair have been uniformly negative, possibly a function of the lacking medulla. Most human hair (Fig. 3) has a medulla, if only fragmentary, but fine blond hair occasionally looks similar to sasquatch hair. Hence, there is no absolute distinction that can be made. Hair from other forest species, like rodents, carnivores, and ungulates can be differentiated without question.

******

The bolding above is mine. The figure shown is Fig. 2.

Per the BFRO purported bigfoot hair has no medulla, while human hair usually does (except occasionally for fine blond hairs). Thus, a finding by Pinker of no medulla is characteristic of purported bigfoot hair (i.e., a nonhuman primate), as well as some humans, and apparently some goats and sheep. I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, Meldrum is alleged to have said is incorrect. And, why is Pinker's report omitted from the timeline?

Pteronarcyd

P.S.: As to the consistent reddish color characteristic of purported bigfoot hair, it applies to the color of the cortex as seen under a microscope. Note that the gross appearance of the hair on the animal itself can range widely. I assume JC did not have his encounter through a microscope.

[Guest Woodenbong]

The majority of sights in Australia are a reddish colour, I have 4 samples axamined by Dr Fahrenbach that were all reddish/orange.

I'm of the opinion that they are all the reddish colour throughout the planet, but the shades may be different, depending on the age of the animal.

The black animals that are reported could be a dark red, take a look at the Orangatangs, they do ahve darker shades through there hair, and I very much doubt the BF would be any different.

[Guest Woodenbong]

there is no evidence to support that there are black haired animals roaming the planet, where there is evidence to support the reddish haired version

[Guest RayG]

I'd like to see what Pinker wrote. RayG appears to be assuming that Green's initial description of Pinker's findings are accurate, but transcription errors do occur.

I'd like to see what Pinker wrote as well. Green may well have transcribed incorrectly, but at least he was able to keep it consistent after three retellings. The same cannot be said about subsequent authors/publications, which was my whole point.

Also, I have to question whether Pinker knows what he's talking about.

Green also seemed to think Pinker wasn't quite certain of his findings. Page 285 of Green's book goes into more detail about that.

Thus, a finding by Pinker of no medulla is characteristic of purported bigfoot hair (i.e., a nonhuman primate), as well as some humans, and apparently some goats and sheep.

And so far, no one has shown that purported bigfoot (nonhuman primate) hair is anything other than human or sheep/goat hair. The point I'm making however, is that there's no evidence Pinker ever told John Green that the hairs were possible nonhuman primate hairs, and I'm pretty sure John wouldn't have let something that monumental go unreported.

I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, Meldrum is alleged to have said is incorrect.

Meldrum freely substituted wording that would put a far more positive bigfoot spin on the whole incident. Green never uses the words "nonhuman primates" in any of the three publications he mentions the Pinker analysis in, and I suspect Pinker himself never used those words either.

This is how Meldrum presented it:

• "Nearly a decade later, suspect hairs collected in central Idaho, in 1968, were sent to Ray Pinker, an instructor of police science at California State College in Los Angeles. He likewise determined that the specimens did not match any sample of known animal that he had in his collection, but showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates. The hairs were light, showing variation in color and thickness along their length unlike human hair, but exhibited a humanlike scale pattern and lacked a continuous medullary core. The sample contained both coarse guard hairs and fine underhairs, uncharacteristic of primates. As suggestive as these observations might appear, Pinker reiterated that he could not identify the hairs as sasqauatch until he had a sample of authentic sasquatch hair to match it to."

Meldrum makes it sound like the 'nonhuman primates' determination was from Pinker, when it was not.

And, why is Pinker's report omitted from the timeline?

I can't omit what I don't have. If anyone ever finds it, and it includes the phrase 'nonhuman primates', then I would withdraw my argument that his findings were misrepresented.

RayG

[southernyahoo]

Patty looks black to me, about the color of a black bear or chimpanzee. Color is a weak gage for authenticity concerning squatch.