Bigfoot Dna

[Guest parnassus]

I would.

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

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?

If you read to the bottom of that reference you will see that hair evidence really isn't very definitive. No one is disputing that many animal hairs can be identified. Most importantly, nothing in that article addresses the issue of distinguishing human hair from some other primates.

it's relatively easy to discriminate most non-human animal hair from human hair. (Hair from some non-human primates is the major exception.)

In other words, "unknown primate." Edited October 30, 2010 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

it's relatively easy to discriminate most non-human animal hair from human hair. (Hair from some non-human primates is the major exception.)

Where did this quote come from Parnasus? My link?

It may be true that distinguishing human from other human is quite challenging, but where is it said that human and nonhuman great ape hairs are indistinguishable? which ones?

[indiefoot]

Part two of that FBI primer is no longer posted on the web to my knowledge. It deals with animal hairs and can be downloaded as a web archive and displayed on your browser. Enjoy.

http://shadowfolk.com/fbi_hair02.html

Edit to add this link

http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(96)02036-1/abstract

Edited October 30, 2010 by indiefoot

[Guest parnassus]

Where did this quote come from Parnasus? My link?

It may be true that distinguishing human from other human is quite challenging, but where is it said that human and nonhuman great ape hairs are indistinguishable? which ones?

yahoo, that came from my link. Link Wars!!

Edited October 30, 2010 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

yahoo, that came from my link. Link Wars!!

Ok, I found the statement in the first paragraph here...,

http://blog.makezine...the_morphology/

but I would like to see the published paper that supports it. The article says that the material comes from an yet to be published reference guide.

This article incorporates, in modified form, material from the not-yet-published Illustrated Guide to Forensics Investigations: Uncover Evidence in Your Home, Lab, or Basement.

Edited October 30, 2010 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

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.

This arguement is as BS now as it always was.

1) In many of the best cases we are not talking about primate hair from any known source, as the forensic examiners have said time and time and time again. We are talking about primate hairs from UNKNOWN primates.

2) Assuming for purposes of the arguement that the hairs are NOT explicitly ruled out as being from a known primate, please explain to me WHY a putative hoaxer would go to the time and expense of sending off for primate hairs from a primate center/zoo (the taking, sale, and transportation of which would be a violation of multiple wildlife laws), go out into some remote part of the woods somewhere, and scatter them about HOPING that by some 1 in some ungodly number chance they MIGHT be found.

Why is a hoaxer going to all that time, expense, and risk of legal entanglement for no reliable result more logical than saying that the primate hairs came FROM a primate living (or at least passing through) the area where the hairs were found?

[Guest]

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.

Unfortunately for you, on multiple occasions, the examiners have said EXACTLY what you say they didn't say: that they excluded all catalogued primate species, making it from an UNcatalogued species.

[Guest vilnoori]

As I understand it the hair was, under microscope, as large in diameter as horsehair, that is, outside human parameters, yet the DNA tested out as human.

"horsehair, animal fibre obtained from the manes and tails of horses and ranging in length from 8 inches (20 cm) to 3 feet (90 cm) and most often of black colour. It is coarse, strong, lustrous, and resilient and usually has a hollow central canal, or medulla, making it fairly low in density. Hair taken from the mane is softest and ranges from 50 to 150 microns (a micron is about 0.00004 inch) in diameter. Hair from the tail, coarser and with greater resilience, ranges from 75 to 280 microns in diameter and is marketed separately."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/272367/horsehair

vs. human hair,

"the diameter of human hair varies from about 40 microns to 120 microns. A micron or micrometer is a millionth of a meter. Copy paper thickness is about 100 microns (or 0.1 millimeter)."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_size_of_a_human_hair

So if it piqued her interest it was because it exceeded the human possible diameter. Be very interested to see her results on paper. If it was not outside those parameters it would not have been a significant finding.

[Guest Spectre]

This has been an interesting thread. I would like throw in a DNA event timeline to help keep everything tied together. I have been able to identify 3 DNA cases where the results were positive(in favor of bigfoot).

*2001: A British team searching for the Yeti in Bhutan is lead by local tracker Sonam Dhendup to a hollow tree trunk where he claimed to have seen a yeti. Team members find a hair in the tree, and send it to professor Bryan Sykes at Oxford University for a DNA test.

After the analysis, Sykes states that, "It's not a human, it's not a bear, nor anything else that we've so far been able to identify".

*2009: Josh Gates and the Destination Truth team travel to Bhutan to look for the Yeti. The team finds hair samples in an area where yeti are said to frequent. The hair is then brought to Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics Inc.

Dr. Ketchum concludes that the hairs recovered from Bhutan are from a primate which is not found in the international DNA database.

*2010, August: Dr. Ketchum appears on Coast to Coast AM along with David Paulides. Ketchum indicates that an alleged bigfoot hair sample, obtained in California and provided by Paulides, shows results in favor of the existence of bigfoot, and that more details will soon be released to the media.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Spectre

[Guest]

First off Spectre, welcome to the BFF. Nice first post friend!!!

[Guest parnassus]

This has been an interesting thread. I would like throw in a DNA event timeline to help keep everything tied together. I have been able to identify 3 DNA cases where the results were positive(in favor of bigfoot).

*2001: A British team searching for the Yeti in Bhutan is lead by local tracker Sonam Dhendup to a hollow tree trunk where he claimed to have seen a yeti. Team members find a hair in the tree, and send it to professor Bryan Sykes at Oxford University for a DNA test.

After the analysis, Sykes states that, "It's not a human, it's not a bear, nor anything else that we've so far been able to identify".

*2009: Josh Gates and the Destination Truth team travel to Bhutan to look for the Yeti. The team finds hair samples in an area where yeti are said to frequent. The hair is then brought to Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics Inc.

Dr. Ketchum concludes that the hairs recovered from Bhutan are from a primate which is not found in the international DNA database.

*2010, August: Dr. Ketchum appears on Coast to Coast AM along with David Paulides. Ketchum indicates that an alleged bigfoot hair sample, obtained in California and provided by Paulides, shows results in favor of the existence of bigfoot, and that more details will soon be released to the media.

The Sykes fiasco continues to be quoted, but a simple google would be enough to dispel the rumors:

One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Professor Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal.Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus).(ref: Chandler, H.C. (2003). Using Ancient DNA to Link Culture and Biology in Human Populations. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.)

Dr. Ketchum has yet to expose her findings to the light of scientific scrutiny. Based in part on what I have seen of her comments, and in part on the people involved, and in part on the science, I have suggested previously what I think will come of it.

Edited October 31, 2010 by parnassus

[bipedalist]

According to Ketchum's current statements on bf busters show tonight, Paulides, Erickson and others have shared various forms of biological material to her along with many others across the country, her paper is being drafted and should progress through peer review. Bone, blood and hair (in particular) has been meticulously analyzed according to the show transcript. Adrian says his project is on schedule and results/media in a format not yet determined will be released simultaneous with Ketchum's article timing (if and when accepted). Ketchum stated she believes there is such an animal based on her preliminary findings to date. Erickson says BF is omnipresent in the East, within 45 minutes of cities of 3 million people in some cases based on his evidence. He says those with sightings will be vindicated when this combined work comes out. Skin is the preferred DNA source, blood is good, hair is last choice (have to have the roots, clump with roots preferred). They have a major hair expert from a major lab involved in their analyses that will be published as well. The BF Busters show was very informative and the Adrian Erickson appearance was a true bonus. I'll let others add more here or in the BF Buster's show thread. Also, if others are holding suspected DNA in any form from this animal, now is the time to share it if you wish inclusion in this round of analyses. Possible Spring date looked at for peer review.

Edited November 1, 2010 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Bipedalist, I could not have summed up the show any better. This truely was one of the best episodes of any of the BF podcasts I have listened to. I am skeptical of Paulides because of some of his views on the PGF but all in all he may be part of something big?

The only disapointing part of the show was, it looks like it may now be Spring before any release of information.

I will never get use to the waiting part of this interest.

[Guest River]

The Sykes fiasco continues to be quoted, but a simple google would be enough to dispel the rumors:

Dr. Ketchum has yet to expose her findings to the light of scientific scrutiny. Based in part on what I have seen of her comments, and in part on the people involved, and in part on the science, I have suggested previously what I think will come of it.

I'm curious to see what comes of Dr Ketchums tests. I think if she provides a good chain of custody and has some complete results (not "unidentified") then it would generate a lot of interest from other scientists. So if these results are being released on a for sale DVD and not in some type of journal first (which would validate it, or not) it makes me scratch my head and wonder why it was handled that way. Seems like the DVD would be worth more with the results being confirmed via peer review process also.

[bipedalist]

She clearly says they are gunning for the peer-reviewed article by Spring 2011 if all goes well and "science" can handle it!