June 5, 2019 at 3:22 pm #151033ChamberlinParticipantJune 5, 2019 at 4:25 pm #151034BirdMamaParticipant
I was reading about another hair sample incident in 2008 from the book “Tribal Bigfoot” where the results were “unknown primate”
December 19, 2008
Mr. Dave Paulides,
Our laboratory has been working on the samples you submitted for species identification over the past few months. The first sample was extracted and when quantified, it also appeared to have viable DNA in the sample. This extraction was our standard mitochondrial hair extraction that normally amplifies fine with all animal hair except feline. When we amplified the sample and tested the amplicon on an agarose gel, there were no results for the sample. We therefore were under the impression that the hair must contain an inhibitor of some type like in felines. With that in mind, we performed a forensic extraction designed to purify any DNA and concentrate it, thus removing any inhibitors. This extraction also failed during testing.
We then sent the hair to the hair expert at the (this part blacked out) to determine if the hair was 1) real hair fro an animal 2) if the hair had been tanned or tampered with and 3) if any type of prospective species ID could be made on the hair. We submitted horse hair mane along as a control as the unknown hair more closely resembled the size of horse mane hair. The analyst did this as a favor for me personally and in no way did this in the capacity of an analyst for the (blacked out)
Using the horse hair and a large set of non-human standards, he was able to determine that the hair was 1) real hair from an animal 2) the hair was not chemically altered and 3) the hair was primate in origin and that no other species of animal resembled the microscopic appearance of the unknown hair other than primate.
With this in mind, we are now of the conclusion that the unknown hair submitted to our laboratory has an inhibitor level much higher than previously seen in hair in other species. We also believe that further testing is warranted in light of the hair analyst’s findings. As a result of these findings, we are in the process of using novel extraction protocols and kits to hopefully achieve an absolutely pure DNA sample from the hair. Once we achieve amplification of the mitochondrial DNA from the hair, we will use several sets of DNA primers to attempt species identification. We also will use human primers to check for any cross amplification as occurs sometimes in primates. Assuming we find an unknown species and are successful with both the amplification and sequencing, then we will attempt to place the mitochondrial sequence into the primate phylogenetic tree. A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species and their relatedness and time of emergence.
If you have any questions or comments concerning our strategy for completing this case, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,June 5, 2019 at 6:21 pm #151036
Birdmama, do you have a link for that?June 5, 2019 at 8:57 pm #151038BirdMamaParticipant
@Knobby sorry I don’t as I just copied it from my book word for word instead of snapping a photo of it. It’s found on page 253.
And here are some additional details that came after that letter, right on the next page to be exact: they were able to see that the owner of the hair sample was possibly female, and they were getting results along the human line. Beforehand though, they were having difficulty with the sample caused by inhibitors within the hair that weren’t allowing DNA extraction.
I found that part curious enough.June 6, 2019 at 1:48 am #151039
I’m assuming Paulides sent the sample to Dr. Ketchum. He’s a big supporter of her.June 6, 2019 at 5:08 am #151040sandy rParticipant
Can you dumb the FBI article down for me, from what I got out of it, they claimed the samples sent in had or were from the ”deer” origin or family. Am I wrong?
DNA is way over my head but fascinating still. Thanks.June 6, 2019 at 5:26 am #151041Thomas WParticipant
Would somebody send deer hair to the FBI? Really? Deer hair is easily recognizable.
I don’t doubt the FBI would report back the sample was “deer hair” whether it was or was not.
Does indicate that the Government has been tracking Sasquatch for a long time……much like UFOs. The government played it down in public but was quite serious in private I would imagine something similar with our hairy hominid.June 6, 2019 at 5:35 am #151042Denise FParticipant
Thank you for posting that out of DP’s book! I have yet to read the set of books and have been telling people the hair I find is ‘between horse hair and human hair’ and this reassures me that my gut was right!
Thanks Deb, great thread.June 6, 2019 at 5:38 am #151043Denise FParticipant
Oh and for the record, this type of hair isn’t all over the place. I think they are pretty careful, if that makes sense.
In 7 yrs. I’ve found it twice and it was used to communicate (my thoughts) and hold a twig type glyph together.June 6, 2019 at 11:51 am #151045
sandy r, in the FBI article they looked at hair samples that Peter Byrne had collected and determined they were deer hair. It was a morphological study (looking at its structure in a microscope) not a DNA study. I suppose the only significance about it is that the FBI examined hair submitted by a bigfoot researcher.
On what birdmama posted from Paulides book they could not get DNA from the hair samples, it too only looked at the structure of the hair in a microscope, but promised to make further attempts to find DNA.June 6, 2019 at 6:45 pm #151054
Good thread topic! DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, it is present in all living organisms. It holds the key to unlocking genetic code.
Here is what I would ask myself:
1. When was DNA first used in USA?
2. What is the post date of the communication pronouncing it to be deer?
3. When did the FBI first begin use of DNA?
If the sample was tested in 1976 or 1977 how praytel was it tested? How was possible to determine a sample to be deer when by DNA if the FBI was not using DNA until 21 or 22 years in the future?June 6, 2019 at 6:48 pm #151056
When was DNA first used in USA?
“1987, DNA evidence was first used in the United States on a Florida rapist man, Tommie Lee Andrews. After using DNA evidence in his case, he was then sentenced to 22 years in prison for the rapes that he had committed.”
When did the FBI first begin use of DNA?
… ”the FBI did not start using DNA testing until 1998, but it can become very helpful to those who need to find out something in that area.”
Source: DNA Profiling and the Different Uses of this Technology, https://easydna.com.au/knowledgebase/history-testing/June 6, 2019 at 7:01 pm #151058
I recall a 1965 case out of Monroe Michigan during the “Monroe Monster” craze. In that case it was alleged that a young pretty 16-year-old girl driving a vehicle with her mother was accosted one night on some lonely road one hot muggy dark summer night.
The young girl was learning to drive panicked and slammed the brakes stalling out the car when a Sasquatch came into her view from the side of road. The two females screamed, and the creature reached through the open drivers door window slammed the face against the door post.
The sheriff’s were called and girls unwilling to wait any longer in the darkness after this drove to a relatives’ house a short distance away. neighbors and relatives noticed some strange hairs caught in the chrome exterior.
State police received the sample and they determined it to be … horse bristles.
(Do you see the pattern yet?)
Newspaper articles claimed there were other sightings and neighbor shot at the animal running through yard.
Furthermore, a state police spokesperson admitted that they tried to keep the incident quiet but word got out, and the two women were subjected to relentless ridicule forever when authorities proclaimed it to be hoax despite the fact reports claim at least 13 (?) other sightings were reported in various locations of the county.June 6, 2019 at 9:57 pm #151061Steve EModerator
At least they didn’t claim it was Swamp Gas…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.