Ray Pinker Hair Analysis

[Guest RayG]

If other nonhuman primates, besides purported bigfoots, have hair with no medulla, then Meldrum's conclusion is correct.

Just curious, what other nonhuman primates have hair with no medulla?

RayG

[Guest]

Let's get off of Meldrum and others, and address RayG's re-direct on the thread topic please, thank you RayG.

[Guest]

Just curious, what other nonhuman primates have hair with no medulla?

RayG

Excerpts from http://blog.makezine.com/science_room/forensics/laboratory_64_study_the_morphology/:

"As you might expect, hair from non-human mammals can be difficult or impossible to discriminate from human hair under macroscopic examination. Fortunately, under microscopic examination, it's relatively easy to discriminate most non-human animal hair from human hair. (Hair from some non-human primates is the major exception.)"

"Human hair differs noticeably from animal hair in the following respects:

...

• The medulla in human hair, if present, is generally amorphous, often broken or fragmented, and occupies a third or less the width of the hair shaft, while the medulla in animal hair is generally present, continuous, sharply defined and structured, and occupies one third or more (sometimes nearly the entire) width of the shaft ...."

If it can be difficult to distinguish human hair from some non-human primate hair, and if an amorphous medulla is a general characteristic of human hair, it makes sense that some non-human primate hair, other than purported bigfoot, also has an amorphous medulla.

Pteronarcyd

[Huntster]

......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.

Yeah, I suppose that might be considered "annoying" by some, but what I find even more annoying is the complete lack of information on just what samples were available to Pinker.

For example, did he compare the hair to all known North American animals? To all animals known to exist in that area?

What?

So, once again, science (in it's seemingly unending capacity to **** up a wet dream) does it again (to the ultimate glee of the denialist community, which appears to be one-in-the-same as the scientific community)..........

And some people wonder why I'm so effing skeptical.

I don't.

Do you wonder why I'm so critical of science?

[Guest RayG]

Excerpts from http://blog.makezine.com/science_room/forensics/laboratory_64_study_the_morphology/:

Thanks, but I saw nothing at that link that addressed or even mentioned the lack of a medulla in nonhuman primate hair.

We can strike the Western Lowland Gorilla off the list.

• Next, hair from Gorilla gorilla gorilla, otherwise known as the Western Lowland Gorilla was analyzed...
  In Meltmountâ„¢ 1.662, notice the wide continuous medulla in both transmitted light and fully-crossed polarizers; both images were taken at X300 (Figure 6 & 7). With the polarizers crossed, the gorilla hair shows relatively high birefringence (Figure 7).

(my bolding). Check out the images at http://www.modernmicroscopy.com/main.asp?article=51&print=true&pix=true

Anyone able to access this?

SEDL / Journals / Journal of Forensic Sciences (JOFS) / Table of Contents

1974 - Volume 19, Issue 1

http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/TOC/1911974.htm

Identification of Primate Hair

Rosen S.

Page Count: 4

Published: 01 January 1974

Abstract

Download PDF PDF (120K)

Paper ID: JFS10077J

DOI: 10.1520/JFS10077J

Also found here:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=12752

NCJ Number: NCJ 012752

Title: IDENTIFICATION OF PRIMATE HAIR

Journal: JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES Volume:19 Issue:1 Dated:(JANUARY 1974) Pages:109-112

Author: S I ROSEN

Note: PAPER PRESENTED AT 25TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES, LAS VEGAS, FEB 21, 1973

Annotation: RESULTS OF A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE HEAD HAIR OF MAN AND OVER 200 NONHUMAN PRIMATES REPRESENTING 25 GENERA AND 42 SPECIES.

Abstract: THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT IN TERMS OF METRICAL FEATURES, THE HEAD HAIR OF MAN IS NOT PARTICULARLY UNIQUE COMPARED TO THAT OF OTHER PRIMATES. THE FORENSIC SCIENTIST IS ON UNSTABLE GROUND WHEN ATTEMPTING TO IDENTIFY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FROM ONE OR A FEW HAIRS. EVEN THOUGH A SOPHISTICATED TECHNIQUE SUCH AS NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS EXISTS, THERE IS NO COMPLETELY RELIABLE HAIR IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUE. THE MOST POTENTIALLY FRUITFUL APPROACH IS THE USE OF MICROANATOMICAL, MICROMETRICAL, AND PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TECHNIQUES IN FORENSIC CASES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)

RayG

[Guest parnassus]

Ray,

The argument is now stood on its head. It used to be, if it is different from human and animal then it is bigfoot hair. Now the argument is that if it looks like human hair it's bigfoot hair, because any hair that looks like human hair could be bigfoot hair. The argument will eventually be that bigfoot is human and so any hair that looks like human is bigfoot hair. We will see the same rationale with the Native American DNA that Paulides and Ketchum are attempting to publish. Those who think of bigfoot as non-human will just have to get with the program; the only way to keep bigfoot alive in the long run is to find biological evidence, and that will be easy to find once everyone decides that bigfoot is human. Suddenly there's evidence everywhere. Bones, fossils, DNA, hair, poop.....

[southernyahoo]

Actually Parn, their are hairs in Ketchums study that are definately not human hair, atleast not by the morphological characteristics established by science IMO.

[Guest]

Why would having hair like a human's hair make bigfoot human? Is there some kind genetic relationship to your hair type and brain capacity that I don't know about?

[southernyahoo]

So we've seen a progression from animal, to non-human,

These two are one and the same. A non-issue / non-starter for me.

to nonhuman primate,

This requires a tight set of morphological features consistent with primate, but still differs by some characteristic exclusive to each known.

and a database that magically grew from 'samples available to him [Pinker]' to 'any animal'.

Perhaps it is known by some that Pinkers available data was rather comprehensive of the known possible donors of the hair based on their obvious attributes ie; length color, texture ect. ?

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.

And some people wonder why I'm so effing skeptical.

RayG

It can't be known exactly what embellishment has taken place since his report is unavailable. So it is fair game to complain about it.

[Guest parnassus]

Actually Parn, their are hairs in Ketchums study that are definately not human hair, atleast not by the morphological characteristics established by science IMO.

hmmm, I think what you mean is that Ketchum says there are features that don't look human to her.

But since you seem to be an expert on her statements, can you quote her on the subject?

btw, "science" only speaks after a paper is peer reviewed and then reviewed critically by its readers. And even then science hardly ever speaks with a single voice.

[Guest parnassus]

Why would having hair like a human's hair make bigfoot human? Is there some kind genetic relationship to your hair type and brain capacity that I don't know about?

I'm not vouching for the validity, the rationale or the science of it.

I have laid out my Paulides/Ketchum scenario before and I don't want to derail this thread. You are certainly aware of the faction which believes bigfoot to be human. Perhaps someone will start a thread on that.

Suffice to say at this point that imho we are going to see human hair and DNA passed off as belonging to bigfoot. My guess is that the major scientific journal reviewers will see the flaw in the paper and reject it. So I expect that publication will be delayed and will occur in some veterinary journal or in a non-peer reviewed journal. But I could be wrong.

Edited January 19, 2011 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

hmmm, I think what you mean is that Ketchum says there are features that don't look human to her.

But since you seem to be an expert on her statements, can you quote her on the subject?

btw, "science" only speaks after a paper is peer reviewed and then reviewed critically by its readers. And even then science hardly ever speaks with a single voice.

No Parn, those are my statements (opinion) made about a hair sample I am aware of and sent to Ketchum, and is based on published science concerning what human hairs look like (their characteristics) and my own experience in comparing the sent sample to human hairs under the microscope. The Medulla has a straight uniform margin and occupies atleast 1/2 the cross section of the hair, while human hair is 1/3 or less and is amorphous.

[Guest Woodenbong]

Are there any researchers on this forum that have a hair report from Dr Fahrenbach, that is hair collected by themselves. I'd like to compare the reports with the ones I received from him

[southernyahoo]

Fahrenbach thought that the above hair sample I spoke of was Black Bear, which he seems to conclude too often for my taste, though I can't conclusively prove him wrong yet. He was the only one confident enough to try and give any positive ID on them based on morphology.

[Guest]

I'm not vouching for the validity, the rationale or the science of it.

I have laid out my Paulides/Ketchum scenario before and I don't want to derail this thread. You are certainly aware of the faction which believes bigfoot to be human. Perhaps someone will start a thread on that.

Suffice to say at this point that imho we are going to see human hair and DNA passed off as belonging to bigfoot. My guess is that the major scientific journal reviewers will see the flaw in the paper and reject it. So I expect that publication will be delayed and will occur in some veterinary journal or in a non-peer reviewed journal. But I could be wrong.

Well I wasn't meaning to derail the thread. The point I was trying to make was that just because a bigfoot might have hair like a human's doesn't mean anything one way or the other about his possible humanity. As far as trying to identify bigfoot through hair analysis, it seems like it would be easier to do if it doesn't resemble a human's hair morphology. That way , you could proceed with trying to get some kind of DNA out of it. I wouldn't bother if I was told it was a human hair. If the hair doesn't look human, then what does it look like? That really doesn't tell me much either. Saying hair is non human is just another way of saying "I know what it isn't". It would be good to get more than one pair of eyes to try to ID the hair through a microscope since it is subjective. If it helps any, that's easy to learn to do. Get a microscope and practice on your own hair, your family and friends, and your pet's or livestock. Look at dyed hair and synthetic fibers too so you can get a feel for what that looks like. A nice little portable microscope costs $65.00. If you can't identify the hair sample that you collect, send it on to a vet who can possibly help you. Having that skill would save you a lot of time and trouble.