Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^ Yep, no big surprise there. It would have been nice if Patterson and Gimlin had of made the fatal error of saving some hair from the costume and touring around with it as bona fide Bigfoot hair not imagining things like DNA testing in the future to put an end to their hoax. But even with something like that, there is simply no arguing with the "I seen one!" crowd no matter what may ever happen.
 
Last edited:
^^ Yep, no big surprise there. It would have been nice if Patterson and Gimlin had of made the fatal error of saving some hair from the costume and touring around with it as bona fide Bigfoot hair not imaging things like DNA testing in the future to put an end to their hoax. But even with something like that, there is simply no arguing with the "I seen one!" crowd no matter what may ever happen.
What's sort of amusing with that crowd is that in asserting common human cognitive errors = crazy, their stubborn refusal to admit being human, and prone to such error makes them look, well, a bit crazy.
 
Last edited:
^^ Yep, no big surprise there. It would have been nice if Patterson and Gimlin had of made the fatal error of saving some hair from the costume and touring around with it as bona fide Bigfoot hair not imagining things like DNA testing in the future to put an end to their hoax. But even with something like that, there is simply no arguing with the "I seen one!" crowd no matter what may ever happen.

I don't think that would have worked for them, because even back then, anyone with a microscope could tell the difference between an animal hair and a synthetic fibre, unless of course, the monkey suit was made with real animal hair.

Apparently, hair from horses tails was commonly used to make hollywood monkey suits. It could have been interesting had they tried it on.
 
I don't think that would have worked for them, because even back then, anyone with a microscope could tell the difference between an animal hair and a synthetic fibre........

Except that one of the "almasty" hairs that Bourtsev produced from their museum/ archive for Sykes to test turned out to be fibreglass.
 
That's amusing.

The whole programme was amusing in a tragic way. How Mark Evans didn't crack and slide into hysterical laughter I don't know. There was stunning evidence by way of a sighting though. Three kids followed some footprints in the Snow ending with a sighting of a figure off in the Bushes, Blurry and indistinct of course.
The sighting was taken seriously by a couple of dullards, owing to the kids running away scared.
How could they possibly fake that?
The possibility that the Kids had been scammed was one thought too far.

Like me playing chess and thinking three moves ahead, It just doesn't work.
 
Fear not!
Despair not!

Les Stroud bigfoot show is yet to come!
Oh, also that "soon" DVD with evidence skeptics can't deny!

Keep the flame of belief alive!
 
Fear not!
Despair not!

Les Stroud bigfoot show is yet to come!
Oh, also that "soon" DVD with evidence skeptics can't deny!

Keep the flame of belief alive!

Plus, Sykes is saving the best revelations for his paper: He knows, he knows.
 
I don't think that would have worked for them, because even back then, anyone with a microscope could tell the difference between an animal hair and a synthetic fibre, unless of course, the monkey suit was made with real animal hair.

Apparently, hair from horses tails was commonly used to make hollywood monkey suits. It could have been interesting had they tried it on.

I can't recall the exact circumstances, but I believe a Dynel fiber did get past an examination to be declared unknown.
 
I can't recall the exact circumstances, but I believe a Dynel fiber did get past an examination to be declared unknown.

Do you mean this ?

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/09/07/02/transcript/

Ben: Well actually there’s a couple of them. The one I was referring to turned out to be Dynel fiber, which is used in carpets and wigs. That was found, as I recall, by Mr. Freeman who is of course a known hoaxer. That’s actually an interesting case because in that case it was touted as Bigfoot hair for several years, where people thought it was, it was claimed to be unidentified and it actually took, as I recall, several years before a physicist by the name of E.B. Winn, who finally identified what it was. Some people had said it was human hair, some people said it was nonhuman, unidentified hair, some people said it was man-made and finally this chemist said he figured it out it was in fact Dynel fiber, which is made by Union Carbide. That to me is instructive, because again, here was Bigfoot evidence that was claimed to be hair, and it was unknown, it was mysterious, it was unidentified. And in the end it was completely identified, but that didn’t mean that for months and years it wasn’t “unidentified”.

Blake: …interesting.

Karen: …and that’s what people remember.
 

Yeah, that's probably the one I couldn't quite remember.

Here's another account of Dynel fibers fooling examiners:
4. Somatic Samples

Hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have inevitably turned out to be from prosaic sources — "Bigfoot hair" turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected "Bigfoot blood" is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.

On his book Big Footprints, Grover Krantz (1992) discusses evidence for Bigfoot other than footprints, including hair, feces, skin scrapings, and blood: "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made" (125). He continues, "A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to Barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber.

A scientists at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decide it was real hair of an unknown type…. Final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and it's exact composition was determined: it is a product known as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair." In his analysis, Winn (1991) noted that another alleged Bigfoot sign found at the site, tree splintering, had also been faked.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bfat50.htm
 
......Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available........

I know these aren't your words. Quote of a quote, if you like......

This is no longer true, of course. Sykes is rather good at extracting DNA from hair......not from its roots or blood attached to them, but from the core of the shaft.
 

This has to make the Ketchum DNA Project go away for good, right?
From the link posted above said:
This supposed evidence that Melba Ketchum’s manuscript, passed peer review at JAMEZ is a fake, as it did not come from the Scholastica platform as is implied by the email address.

We don’t know who perpetrated it, and would certainly welcome any additional information on this matter.

So now we are once again without any tangible evidence to support Ketchum’s peer review claim. That isn’t science.
 
I know these aren't your words. Quote of a quote, if you like......

This is no longer true, of course. Sykes is rather good at extracting DNA from hair......not from its roots or blood attached to them, but from the core of the shaft.

One would need to be specific. Nuclear or Mitochodrial, with those statements.
 
I'm not actually sure you DO need to be specific about that. Each individual cell contains both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. One can't exist without the other, I don't think. However, I am only a layman on this, and we probably need a biologist to help us out.
 
I'm not actually sure you DO need to be specific about that. Each individual cell contains both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. One can't exist without the other, I don't think. However, I am only a layman on this, and we probably need a biologist to help us out.

So, why is Sykes reporting on mtDNA with the hairs?

IIRC, mtDNA is all you can get from a hair sans follicle or follicle cells.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom