Ray Pinker Hair Analysis

[Guest parnassus]

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.

I know you weren't trying to derail the thread.

Microscopic analysis of hair is actually rather complex as best I can tell, and not very specific. Hairs from different parts of the same person may look dissimilar. Racial differences are pronounced. In a nutshell, I think that Paulides/Ketchum have some "atypical" (for lack of a better word) human hairs and some "atypical" human DNA that they are going to try to weave into a story. It will be not unlike the infamous Ontario Snelgrove Lake fiasco, but with hair.

If I'm wrong I'll buy the drinks.

Edited January 20, 2011 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

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.

I splurged a little for mine but is well worth it to have the ability to take photo's of what you observe with it.

[Guest]

I say you splurged a little! Despite the nay saying, I think it's a great little skill to cultivate, if you are serious about bigfoot researcher. You don't have to be an expert at it, but it would be handy just to be able to differentiate what to send to a lab or what to throw away.

[Guest]

I know you weren't trying to derail the thread.

Microscopic analysis of hair is actually rather complex as best I can tell, and not very specific. Hairs from different parts of the same person may look dissimilar. Racial differences are pronounced. In a nutshell, I think that Paulides/Ketchum have some "atypical" (for lack of a better word) human hairs and some "atypical" human DNA that they are going to try to weave into a story. It will be not unlike the infamous Ontario Snelgrove Lake fiasco, but with hair.

If I'm wrong I'll buy the drinks.

parn, why dont we just wait for this to come out instead of commenting on it now?

[Guest]

I splurged a little for mine but is well worth it to have the ability to take photo's of what you observe with it.

NICE setup SY, I wish i had one just like it!!

[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

I'll start another thread.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Woodenbong

[kitakaze]

Fantastic work, RayG. This is the kind of quality research and fact finding you are best at. Another example of the wheels of Bigfootery turning out the myths.

[Guest RayG]

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

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

And I think it's a case of the fallacy of loaded words.

As Madsen Pirie says in his How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, page 106:

• It is possible to influence the outcome of a judgement by the deliberate use of prejudiced terms. When the words used are calculated to conjure up an attitude more favourable or more hostile than the unadorned facts would elicit, the fallacy used is that of loaded words.
  HITLER SUMMONS WAR LORDS!
  M.DALADIER CONSULTS DEFENCE CHIEFS
  (The two headlines tell us the same thing: that the leaders of Germany and France had seen the heads of their armed forces. In Germany these are 'war lords', but in France they are 'defence chiefs'. The German leader is simply 'Hitler', without title, and he summons his men imperiously. Daladier, however, is a monsieur, and being a good democrat, 'consults'.)

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. ?

If it were known by some, they should have been able to use a source other than John Green's On the Track of the Sasquatch, but they didn't. If one is using the same original source, why would the wording change to something more favorable?

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.

I'm only reporting the embellishments of John Green's writeup.

RayG

[southernyahoo]

I'm only reporting the embellishments of John Green's writeup.

RayG

Which reads like a page right out of David J. Daegling's Book......

Take our survey New!

http://books.google.com/books?id=G3z5VVbGfbgC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=Ray+pinker+hair+analysis&source=bl&ots=jDa5_5I1Pz&sig=QSY07BGdadHyQtSN5Y0CLhenaV4&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Ray%20pinker%20hair%20analysis&f=false

What is the nature of the unique combination of human and animal traits...

To be continued................

[Guest RayG]

Which reads like a page right out of David J. Daegling's Book......

Which I already referenced in the OP -- page 206, where he points out the misrepresentation of the Pinker analysis, and tries to promote fact instead of hype.

Is that a bad thing?

RayG

[southernyahoo]

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 - hair is brought to Pinker for examination.
• 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."
• 1973 - In The Sasquatch File, 1973, page 49, John Green writes about strands of hair being found, "which were later found to be unidentifiable and to have a mixture of human and animal characteristics."
• 1978 - John Green releases his bigfoot masterpiece, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. On pages 284-285 he writes that, "hairs showed both animal and human characteristics...didn't match any samples that he had..."

This is all fine and dandy, agreed.

So far John is being pretty consistent, the hairs don't match any of the samples available to Pinker, and they still have human/animal characteristics. He did however, drop any mention of the hairs having the characteristics of some sheep and goats.

So he fails to make mention that some sheep and goat hairs lack a medulla ( which is in fact a human characteristic). Big whoop. Pinker obviously ruled them out or they would have been indentified correct.?

1980 - Halpin and Ames release Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence, a collection of articles presented at a conference on 'manlike monsters', held at the University of British Columbia in May 1978. In this collection is an article by Vaughn Bryant and Burleigh Trevor-Deutsch which references the Pinker hair analysis (page 296). They now put a more favorable spin on the report by saying that, "the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and non-humans." (my bolding, but the sample database for comparison purposes has now grown from animal samples that were directly available to Pinker to ANY known animal. A huge leap. The terminology has changed too, from 'animals' to 'non-humans'. While technically correct, it will eventually lead to further word mismanagement.)

Any known animal species , is likely an embelishment here ..Agreed. Non-Humans simply means animal which would not be a change in meaning or an attempt at embellishment.

• 2004 - Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend, by David Daegling is published, and on page 206 he calls the article by Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch a misrepresentation, and states: "Pinker never said the hair did not match any known species, he only stated it did not correspond to anything he had access to." He also points out the original assertion in 1968 that "some of the 'human' features could be ascribed to sheep or goats."
• 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.

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

RayG

Daegling never referenced Pinker directly , he references Green. Did Green state everything Pinker had to say about the hairs?

The funny thing to me here, Ray, is that human hairs are said to have a combination of characteristics that are like a cross between animal gaurd hairs and undercoat hairs. They in fact have characteristics in common with animal hairs. Human hairs have even more in common with other great ape hairs, so Meldrums quote could easily be fact, even if not personally verified by him. This would seem to deflate the assertion that the unidentified hair samples out there have "Human and Animal characteristics" and that this has any meaning. The key is understanding which characteristics or combinations are unique to humans / great apes and what constitutes a new combination or characteristic while maintaining a high degree of comparability.

To me, moving forward from here on the Pinker analysis would be to find out if Pinker had reference data on other great apes to compare them to. I hink he would have made mention to that if he did, and not likely overlooked by advocates.

Edited January 21, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest RayG]

So he fails to make mention that some sheep and goat hairs lack a medulla ( which is in fact a human characteristic). Big whoop. Pinker obviously ruled them out or they would have been indentified correct.?

Yeah, it is a big whoop. Green makes no mention of Pinker ruling out sheep or goat hair, so what appears obvious to you is lacking any supportive evidence to me.

Daegling never referenced Pinker directly , he references Green.

In re-reading what I wrote, I see it can be interpreted in a manner which I had not intended. (no embellishment on my part, I swear). Yes, Daegling used Green as his original source for the Pinker info, but then so did Vaughn Bryant and Burleigh Trevor-Deutsch. They make no mention of any direct contact with Pinker, nor do they use Pinker as a source.

Did Green state everything Pinker had to say about the hairs?

Green goes into considerable detail in his followup book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. He visited with Pinker, brought him mounted hairs, and comments on Pinker's tedious method of comparing samples. Every footer should try to get a copy of Green's book, it's a treasure trove of gems.

The funny thing to me here, Ray, is that human hairs are said to have a combination of characteristics that are like a cross between animal gaurd hairs and undercoat hairs. They in fact have characteristics in common with animal hairs. Human hairs have even more in common with other great ape hairs, so Meldrums quote could easily be fact, even if not personally verified by him. This would seem to deflate the assertion that the unidentified hair samples out there have "Human and Animal characteristics" and that this has any meaning. The key is understanding which characteristics or combinations are unique to humans / great apes and what constitutes a new combination or characteristic while maintaining a high degree of comparability.

I still have no idea if nonhuman primates lack a medulla or not; it's been alluded to but never demonstrated or proven.

To me, moving forward from here on the Pinker analysis would be to find out if Pinker had reference data on other great apes to compare them to. I hink he would have made mention to that if he did, and not likely overlooked by advocates.

That's exactly why I think John Green would have been all over that like Pooh on honey. I still think Pinker's actual report would be rather unimpressive, and it's been hyped into something it isn't.

RayG

[southernyahoo]

John Greens Apes among Us is a very recent aquisition for me, so haven't been though the whole book yet. I did go and read what Green had to say about his dealings with Pinker. I can't really tell from what he said how skilled Pinker was or how much reference information on animal hairs he had. He did have Green go back out to where the Idaho sample was collected to try and find similar light colored hairs from the local fauna in an attempt to get a positive ID. It wouldn't seem logical that if he knew that goat and sheep hair could have the distinction of no medulla that he would need more hairs from other animals to confirm sheep or goat. Analysis of hair at that time seems primitive by comparison to today, so I personally aren't giving this alot of weight. The one sample out of the many Green brought to Pinker that appears remotely interesting is the Idaho sample which was described as a mix of longer gaurd type hairs and fine undercoat hairs but also had a scale pattern like humans and the absence of the medulla. So there is the Human and animal characteristics of that sample and givien that primates don't have undercoat hairs it's probably a wash out, though this could be where the attention to the absence of a medulla started.

Green goes on to make some good points about the state of affairs regarding hair analysis at that time and describes his want for better data and criteria so as to be able to assign hairs to various animal family groups, instead of relying on direct side by side comparison alone and endeavoring to try and work through every type of hair from every type of animal. I think the data and criteria are far better and accessable today, so the unidentified status should be more compelling than from this era when they hadn't even heard of DNA.

[Guest parnassus]

parn, why dont we just wait for this to come out instead of commenting on it now?

Jodie asked for clarification about what I thought, when I had posted only the briefest of comments. She da boss.

Jodie, on 18 January 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

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?

Edited January 22, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

HITLER SUMMONS WAR LORDS!

M.DALADIER CONSULTS DEFENCE CHIEFS

(The two headlines tell us the same thing: that the leaders of Germany and France had seen the heads of their armed forces. In Germany these are 'war lords', but in France they are 'defence chiefs'. The German leader is simply 'Hitler', without title, and he summons his men imperiously. Daladier, however, is a monsieur, and being a good democrat, 'consults'.)

RayG

Come on RayG, you really think that Hitler could have consulted with his defense chiefs? (I spelt it correctly for ya...lol.) I imagine Hitler as one of those types of people who didn't consult, he ordered, he coerced his people into doing what he thought.

Yes people can and do play with wording on purpose and unconsciously. I just don't think this particular example is up to your standards.