Jump to content
TD-40

from Wyoming Public Media

Recommended Posts

TD-40

A friend sent me this today--it is from 2016. It was an NPR interview with a scientist who is looking for bigfoot. There are two parts in this interview that I found interesting. The first was his description of government bureaucracy and how they won't touch the subject of bigfoot. The other is the hair sample results from the world's foremost primate hair scientist. Enjoy!

 

http://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/humanature-episode-13-bigfoot#stream/0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Got to be John Myoninski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waterman18

After listening to this audio, of a scientists actual first hand experiences, as well as other 1st person reports, could anyone not acknowledge the reality of BF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

The  primate hair expert he names as Walter Burkbe or maybe Burpee???  A quick google search didn’t bring anything up but it’s probably out there.  He names him around the 8 min mark give or take.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

I've also been trying to track down the professor he alluded to in the audio.  Does anyone know how to reach out to John Mionczynski to get that information?  I can't find his email address at the Olympic Project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer

https://www.hcn.org/issues/44.2/john-mionczynski-naturalist-accordionist-bigfoot-expert

 

This article is old (from 2012) and back then he lived near Atlantic City, Wyoming.

The article states that he had emphysema and might end up moving away from that location.

I tried locating his email address this summer but was not successful.

You might just try checking if he has a phone number in Wyoming white pages.  I did not try that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Let's assume what John Mionczyski said is correct and the hair follicle he provided was analyzed by a well-respected expert using a microscope (not using DNA) and it came back as definitely primate, not human, and no known primate match.

 

Are there any other instances we know about where a hair follicle has been submitted and this same type of result has occurred?

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Or..........why wasn't there any fallout from the results? As in science sitting up and saying, "Well, we need to get on this right away!"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
9 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Let's assume what John Mionczyski said is correct and the hair follicle he provided was analyzed by a well-respected expert using a microscope (not using DNA) and it came back as definitely primate, not human, and no known primate match.

 

Are there any other instances we know about where a hair follicle has been submitted and this same type of result has occurred?

 

Dr. Fahrenbach at one time was THE Bigfoot hair guy.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/263904690/Hair-Morphology

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Thanks for that link Norse. I had forgotten the work he did with hair. I always remember him for his footprint-size analysis  and distribution graphs.

 

The end result of hair-follicle analysis is no different than that of DNA analysis. They are both totally useless to some in the sasquatch and scientific communities.  Let's say hair is found, analyzed, there is DNA material, and it comes back no known mammal.  It circles back to where we are already.  For those people, the needle wouldn't be moved at all.

 

What do we know now? If Mionczynski's hair analysis was performed by the foremost authority of primate hair in the world, and his conclusion is as he has described,  we know there is something out there that is primate, not human, and not catalogued.  DNA analysis of a hair resulting in no known mammal would do nothing more than confirm a conclusion we already know.  Without a body on a slab, some will always claim that hair follicle and DNA is useless. The irony it that with a body on a slab, we need neither  thehair-follicle nor DNA analysis because it's staring at us from it's body splayed open on a slab. 

 

For me, the preponderance of the evidence speaks volumes to the point of being deafening.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

The hair thing Fahrenbach discovered and concluded WRT morphology sounds all to familiar when one brings in the Human contamination argument. There are people out there that DO NOT want this creature exposed. Human have hair medullas that are either not present or if it is present has an amorphous medulla- amorphous meaning 'without clear form so single strand of Human hair can have SOME medulla here and there along its length and generally has a cut end. A Sasquatch hair strand has no medulla, its end is not cut, and it is similar in size to a Human's. So the similar morphological nature between the two is enough that Human contamination in a sample cannot be ruled out and maybe NEVER ruled out when just looking at a strand of hair.

 

IMHO, what this boils down to is that ANY suspected Sasquatch hair can then be subjected to the Human contamination accusation. Again, there are people that DO NOT want this creatures exposed. If Dr. Disotell gets a hair sample from the Olympic Project's nesting sight my guess is that it will test Human enough to attract an outcry that it was a Human contaminated sample. It makes me wonder if e-DNA will be foolproof in that regard. I mean e-DNA will show Human DNA. If Sasquatch DNA is also present and it shows a Human maternal side in the mitochondria then would anyone continue any testing testing of the nuclear DNA? We have been down this road before with disastrous results and with people who insisted that they did everything right and by the book. Are we simple just going to repeat the process? Human contamination of samples, to state the minimum, is an extremely powerful argument against a DNA discovery of a new primate in North America. So I am ready for the worst. Human contamination will be the pat answer that gets the tests tossed into the trash- AGAIN.   

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Pretty good points.   I think there is a little more to it, though.   If there's enough DNA to run a full nuclear genome sequence that's going to mean more than just human-looking mitochondrial DNA at the key test points.   It may not draw attention of Joe Public who doesn't understand the buzz words but it is going to turn heads among geneticists who have the background to understand what they're being shown.  

 

One of the puzzles to me, from the sidelines, is why they're bothering with the "go fund me" type approach to the e-DNA.    With Wally Hersom's checkbook behind the Olympic Project, they should be able to just do it .. unless the funding approach is not about money at all, it's about drawing public interest so that if any agency interferes, too many questions will be asked to effectively sweep it under the rug.  

 

Rambling a bit: Thursday I spent a few hours at one of my very favorite fishing spots along the river where I found that first track line back in 1974 looking up the hill at possibly the worst huckleberry jungle I've ever seen.   It is as bad, or worse, than what's depicted in the vids some of the OP folks have shared of the hike in to the nest(s) site ... and that is pretty gruesome.   That's where the tracks were going.   I'm not sure I want proof bad enough to climb in there.  Last time I was there, I made it back out, and if I remember correctly, I made myself a promise not to go there again.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Thanks for that link Norse. I had forgotten the work he did with hair. I always remember him for his footprint-size analysis  and distribution graphs.

 

The end result of hair-follicle analysis is no different than that of DNA analysis. They are both totally useless to some in the sasquatch and scientific communities.  Let's say hair is found, analyzed, there is DNA material, and it comes back no known mammal.  It circles back to where we are already.  For those people, the needle wouldn't be moved at all.

 

What do we know now? If Mionczynski's hair analysis was performed by the foremost authority of primate hair in the world, and his conclusion is as he has described,  we know there is something out there that is primate, not human, and not catalogued.  DNA analysis of a hair resulting in no known mammal would do nothing more than confirm a conclusion we already know.  Without a body on a slab, some will always claim that hair follicle and DNA is useless. The irony it that with a body on a slab, we need neither  thehair-follicle nor DNA analysis because it's staring at us from it's body splayed open on a slab. 

 

For me, the preponderance of the evidence speaks volumes to the point of being deafening.

 

 

 

 

I would prefer a DNA confirmation from a hair? Versus shooting one? But I feel that hairs are fragile and a one and done affair. So a body will eventually be required anyhow. And we know that any DNA sample that comes back conclusive will be questioned. Science will look for a reason to throw it out. It doesn't fit with their understanding of the world.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...