Bigfoot Dna

[Will]

you mean, "they" present masses of convincing data and debunk all the GW skeptics' arguments?

Propaganda

I'll bet you believe every bit of that site don't you.

[Guest ajciani]

It is strange, but I do see a lot of similarity between global warming research and bigfoot research.

I guess the most striking similarity is that, if either bigfoot or global warming exist, they have such a small impact on the environment that we can barely tell if they do exist.

[Guest]

Talk of global warming (political), claims of propoganda, paranoid, weasles, trying to cast doubt and aspertions on others, this is not going to work people.

Go back to the OP, and talk about that. If I hear anymore of the above the thread will get closed for a cooling off period and those that deviate into those areas from here on will get their warning level increased.

[Guest parnassus]

I only know what he has shown us on TV. ( which is no better than what Ketchum showed us) He doesn't mention anything about hair morphology, or the challenges in getting DNA from hairs. I keep asking what he offers for free, That would include whether he gives a report to the person submitting samples or just an email to inform of the results. This would affect my decision to send a sample to him and how much. I do know that DNA testing can destroy a hair and that there are a number of different extraction methods and primers depending on what type of DNA you are after and what genes you want to sequence. If he wants to lay down a challenge to anyone with "credible" data , then he needs to be clear about what he is offering.

From the Talk show I listened to, he sounds as though he doesn't want to be bothered by footers, he needs to make up his mind.

yahoo,

Any lab that is doing hair DNA is going to look at the hair under the microscope to see what they have. I just don't think the microscopic examination of hair is that specific. My understanding is that while you can distinguish a dog hair from a primate hair, you really can't tell one primate hair from another with any reliability. Hair morphology is interesting but not very good evidence. Even within the same lock of hair from the same person you will find hairs with thick or thin cortices and a medulla or no medulla. Hair morphology is also race-dependent. See this PDF, and this forensic site.

What is it about the hair analysis, other than the DNA, that you think is important?

Edited October 25, 2010 by parnassus

[indiefoot]

So if (hypothetically) one has 4 inch primate hair that shows no evidence of ever having been cut you find that interesting but not evidence? Of course there is always the possibility that a young child that has never had a haircut was the donor. There are plenty of kids roaming the woods. L

I'm not suggesting it rises to the level of proof that a Bigfoot is the donor but hair examination is important.

[Drew]

So if (hypothetically) one has 4 inch primate hair that shows no evidence of ever having been cut you find that interesting but not evidence? Of course there is always the possibility that a young child that has never had a haircut was the donor. There are plenty of kids roaming the woods. L

I'm not suggesting it rises to the level of proof that a Bigfoot is the donor but hair examination is important.

Why do you think that 4" long kids hair in the middle of the woods has to be left there by the kid?

Hasn't Bigfoot had it's share of hoaxers that might be willing to bring 4" gorilla hair from a zoo, or from a primate center?

Just because a Bigfooter brings in a hair, from the most remote section of BIGFOOT habitat, does not mean the primate hair came from Bigfoot. There are other much more logical explanations than THE HAIR CAME FROM A BIGFOOT.

[Guest]

He is just saying hair morphology is one part of the puzzle that needs to be considered.

[Guest parnassus]

It is the hair morphology which imho has caused most of the misleading "unknown primate" results..." unknown primate" meaning "it's hair from a primate, but science cannot determine one primate hair from another by looking at it." Not, "this hair is from an uncatalogued primate species."

some might use the term "primate NOS"...not otherwise specified. It doesn't mean it comes from an unclassified animal.

[Guest River]

It is the hair morphology which imho has caused most of the misleading "unknown primate" results..." unknown primate" meaning "it's hair from a primate, but science cannot determine one primate hair from another by looking at it." Not, "this hair is from an uncatalogued primate species."

some might use the term "primate NOS"...not otherwise specified. It doesn't mean it comes from an unclassified animal.

Yes but parnasses, its this sensationalism using ambiguous terms that make for a dramatic presentation. Which = dollars for the bigfoot industry.

[southernyahoo]

yahoo,

Any lab that is doing hair DNA is going to look at the hair under the microscope to see what they have. I just don't think the microscopic examination of hair is that specific. My understanding is that while you can distinguish a dog hair from a primate hair, you really can't tell one primate hair from another with any reliability. Hair morphology is interesting but not very good evidence. Even within the same lock of hair from the same person you will find hairs with thick or thin cortices and a medulla or no medulla. Hair morphology is also race-dependent. See this PDF, and this forensic site.

What is it about the hair analysis, other than the DNA, that you think is important?

I'll, give a hypothetical scenario.

*Bigfoot enthusiast finds a hair sample where sightings have been reported.

*He sends it to Lab X for DNA testing.

*Lab X Finds unique primate DNA and declares the discovery of a lifetime.

* Scientific community asks, well what do these hairs look like "morphologicly" so we can ID these hairs when we find them.

* Lab X says "hell I don't know, I destroyed it".

This is why you want the morphology documented. Granted , that a submitter would be wise not to send all his sample to any particular lab, and to choose one that is particularly good in amplification from hairs. I'll also give you that human hair morphology can be variable, but we wouldn't know that without documentation would we? So you do want documentation, and like Disotell, most labs may not see the need in it when not expecting to find something new. This is a very poor situation if working with only a single hair. We use morphology to confirm and ID many species of animals around the world. To ignore this is "not" good science.

With the potential for BF to have DNA resembling our own, the morphology could be key in finding grounds for further study. I'm not so sure about not being able to tell one primate from another, we can certainly ID and compare primate characteristics, plus, Orangs, Chimpanzees and Gorillas dont seem to be all that variable in hair color, length etc. within their respective species. I suspect that BF hairs will be more variable than say, black bear, and perhaps the other primates and that is why the morphology documentation is an important part of the study of hairs, once you have some unique DNA to justify it.

[indiefoot]

It is the hair morphology which imho has caused most of the misleading "unknown primate" results..." unknown primate" meaning "it's hair from a primate, but science cannot determine one primate hair from another by looking at it." Not, "this hair is from an uncatalogued primate species."

some might use the term "primate NOS"...not otherwise specified. It doesn't mean it comes from an unclassified animal.

Bolding Mine

So you are saying that a qualified forensic scientist could not, with a microscope, differentiate between a gorilla hair and a human hair? Or say a human hair and a baboon hair? How about a caucasian human primate hair from a black african human primate hair?

[Guest parnassus]

I'll, give a hypothetical scenario.

*Bigfoot enthusiast finds a hair sample where sightings have been reported.

*He sends it to Lab X for DNA testing.

*Lab X Finds unique primate DNA and declares the discovery of a lifetime.

* Scientific community asks, well what do these hairs look like "morphologicly" so we can ID these hairs when we find them.

* Lab X says "hell I don't know, I destroyed it".

This is why you want the morphology documented. Granted , that a submitter would be wise not to send all his sample to any particular lab, and to choose one that is particularly good in amplification from hairs. I'll also give you that human hair morphology can be variable, but we wouldn't know that without documentation would we? So you do want documentation, and like Disotell, most labs may not see the need in it when not expecting to find something new. This is a very poor situation if working with only a single hair. We use morphology to confirm and ID many species of animals around the world. To ignore this is "not" good science.

With the potential for BF to have DNA resembling our own, the morphology could be key in finding grounds for further study. I'm not so sure about not being able to tell one primate from another, we can certainly ID and compare primate characteristics, plus, Orangs, Chimpanzees and Gorillas dont seem to be all that variable in hair color, length etc. within their respective species. I suspect that BF hairs will be more variable than say, black bear, and perhaps the other primates and that is why the morphology documentation is an important part of the study of hairs, once you have some unique DNA to justify it.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to contact Disotell and find out if he does a microscopic evaluation of hair. I can do that.

[Guest parnassus]

Bolding Mine

So you are saying that a qualified forensic scientist could not, with a microscope, differentiate between a gorilla hair and a human hair? Or say a human hair and a baboon hair? How about a caucasian human primate hair from a black african human primate hair?

I am not one of those people, so I can't say if they could do those things. But that is not what they are asked to do in the case of possible bigfoot hair.

They are given a hair, without knowing the alternatives, without knowing what part of the body it came from or what physical/chemical agents it has been exposed to. In the usual case and when the hair is uncut and undyed they can't tell you from the microscopic appearance whether that hair came from a human or non-human primate.

And that is the usual area where controversy has occurred.

That is my position, I "boxed" it so it won't be misquoted, and you will find that to be supported by whatever sources you can find.

Edited October 29, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to contact Disotell and find out if he does a microscopic evaluation of hair. I can do that.

yet even the researchers from monsterquest didnt trust diostell's findings, it was analyzed 2 more times after he tested the sample......if he is such a "qualified" scientist, how come his work was retested?......

Both the fellas that retested his work, also found different conclusions claiming that disotells evaluation wasnt tested thoroughly......

Edited October 29, 2010 by driftinmark

[southernyahoo]

I am not one of those people, so I can't say if they could do those things. But that is not what they are asked to do in the case of possible bigfoot hair.

I would.

In the usual case and when the hair is uncut and undyed they can't tell you from the microscopic appearance whether that hair came from a human or non-human primate.

That is my position, I "boxed" it so it won't be misquoted, and you will find that to be supported by whatever sources you can find.

http://www2.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

Human Hair Classifications

Hair evidence examined under a microscope provides investigators with valuable information. Hairs found on a knife or club may support a murder and/or assault weapon claim. A questioned hair specimen can be compared microscopically with hairs from a known individual, when the characteristics are compared side-by-side.

Human hairs can be classified by racial origin such as Caucasian (European origin), Negroid (African origin), and Mongoloid (Asian origin). In some instances, the racial characteristics exhibited are not clearly defined, indicating the hair may be of mixed-racial origin.

The region of the body where a hair originated can be determined with considerable accuracy by its gross appearance and microscopic characteristics. The length and color can be determined. It can also be determined whether the hair was forcibly removed, damaged by burning or crushing, or artificially treated by dyeing or bleaching.

The characteristics and their variations allow an experienced examiner to distinguish between hairs from different individuals. Hair examinations and comparisons, with the aid of a comparison microscope, can be valuable in an investigation of a crime.

It looks to me like an experienced examiner can distinguish hairs from individual humans and where it comes from on the human body, and we also know that biologists Identify all sorts of animal hairs by their morphology. So, why wouldn't they be able to tell human from nonhuman primate hairs?

DNA Examinations

Hairs that have been matched or associated through a microscopic examination should also be examined by mtDNA sequencing. Although it is uncommon to find hairs from two different individuals exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics, it can occur. For this reason, the hairs or portions of the hairs should be forwarded for mtDNA sequencing. The combined procedures add credibility to each.

Although nuclear DNA analysis of hairs may provide an identity match, the microscopic examination should not be disregarded. The time and costs associated with DNA analyses warrant a preliminary microscopic examination. Often it is not possible to extract DNA fully, or there is not enough tissue present to conduct an examination. Hairs with large roots and tissue are promising sources of nuclear DNA. However, DNA examinations destroy hairs, eliminating the possibility of further microscopic examination