Regarding following statement: "Not one Bigfoot person has ever gathered any thing other than contaminated hair samples."
[This statement] prompted me to reply. Many false statements are made concerning collected evidence, and is indeed damaging to our cause. But just as damaging are blanket statements such as that.
Many dna tests have been classified as contaminated because of their close similarity to Human. But when proper cleaning methods are used by testers, there is no contamination. Dna has been extracted from extinct animal hair which has been handled many times by Humans.
The physical characteristics of hair, however, can not be contaminated, and can not be explained away by skeptics. I would like to send one such example. This is one of many hairs that I have found which do not match any known animal sample that I have. The interesting point of this one is that a body hair and a fur strand were caught on the same hair trap together, and Modern Humans do not have fur.
If anyone can prove this hair is anything other than bigfoot, I would welcome that information. The top two images are the unknown hair and fur or underhair, and the others are available animals which are large enough to reach the hair trap.
The biggest problem that individual collectors have is the high cost of dna testing. I believe if the cost became low, then the hundreds of hair samples now in the hands of researchers would reveal some good results. It is very difficult to even find a lab to do the test.
L. Surface
____________
Linda Grayson, Biologist has left a new comment on your post ""...prove this hair ...other than bigfoot,..."":
If its presumed Sasquatch hair it ain't proof of nothing. You have to have a known control sample to identify hair follicles. The lab that did this analysis was not on their feet at all. As I understand it no discernible DNA or material was gotten from this sample.
____________
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ""...prove this hair ...other than bigfoot,..."":
If you want to bad enough you can make anything unknown. This unknown sample was found to be a hair from a orangutan collected at a zoo. I was one of many that the sender tried to hoodwink the lab. Further testing proved the hair sample was collected In a controlled zoo not in the wild of BC.
Posts
6 comments:
If its presumed Sasquatch hair it ain't proof of nothing. You have to have a known control sample to identify hair follicles. The lab that did this analysis was not on their feet at all. As I understand it no discernible DNA or material was gotten from this sample.
Wheres the Beef here. this isn't proof of anything. Unless you know what a Bigfoot hair is made up of then it just another hair sample that cannot be identified as over 5,000 a year are.
I understand that without a control sample of Bigfoot hair the hairs that match no known North American animal are unknown. What I'd like to know is how many of these unknown hairs match each other and the locations where they were obtained.
Great questions. My first thought is that there is no way to find this out, since this is not a known animal. Probably no such records have been kept.
Has anyone thought that maybe the so called contaminated samples are not contaminated at all but from a human related origin. Or in other words that bigfoot is much closer to us than previously thought. I have heard that they have some viable samples now that all point to a homo sapien origin.
Linda Grayson and and anonymous.
There are two ways to identify
any type of sample. One is to
match it with something, the other is to show that it is not anything
else.
This sample is not from any zoo,
I collected it in the Ohio woods,it
has not been tested for dna only
because I cannot afford it. I took
the microphotos myself and compared
it with my database. It is here
for anyone to look at and decide.
L Surface
Post a Comment