When I first got interested in this research, I knew that just sorting through the claims was not going to completely reveal the truth and getting out there to see for myself was the only way to the truth. To me it either exists or it doesn't, and if it does, then there would logicly be evidence to be found that follows any other living animal in the wild. The list below may not be all inclusive but , the objective here is to identify where the evidence is weak and whether this is due to a lack in quality or quantity, or if the level of scientific scrutiny is whats lacking.

1. Photo's/ video's = To me the PGF is the clearest visual evidence to date despite the vary capable video equipment available today.Is the old 16mm film cameras actually better than what is available today or in the recent past with handheld camcorders? Photo's from camera traps would be great, if we could get some clear ones.

2.Tracks = Where is all the large five toed tracks that were being found in the late 50's and throughout the 60's and 70's in the PNW? We don't seem to be finding them like that anymore. Anyways, do we need more and better track finds? What more can be done with tracks, and what more can be learned, except to corroborate some other evidence?

3. Hair Samples= To me, there is alot more that can be done with DNA sequencing from hair samples, The testing seems to be incomplete, and inconclusive, in light of what scientists claim can be done and the results from very old hairs. If and when we have a single sample yeilding the result of some hirsuited hominid roaming the forrests then I can see there would need to be other corroborating samples from across the country to really get someones attention (lack of quantity).

4. Vocalizations= Up until recently, and excluding the "Sierra Sounds", many of the audio recordings were very faint, distant and nearly useless in proper evaluation. I think we are making some strides here in quality, but the level of scientific scrutiny has been somewhat of a let down. Not to bash any bioacoustician that has evaluated this evidence, just that I would really like to see an analysis done by a phoneticist on some of these proposed sasquatch speech recordings, I mean really dig into it!

5. body/tissue/bones/teeth= obviously a total lack of quantity and quality (atleast that which is published or released in any way)

I'd be interested in the forum members thoughts on where the evidence is weak, what more can be done to collect quality evidence, and where the scientific scrutiny is really lacking.

Cheers!

SY.

I would have to agree, with my limited knowledge, deeply impressed tracks in the East seem to be a rarity. I would hazard a guess though that there are some out there similar to the Elkins Creek cast that maybe we don't know about until a broader "body" of evidence is presented en masse. That said, in the West, the Jaime Avalos track casts in the Sierra's that seem to be following the same individuals for hundred of miles from east to west and maybe back again within that range are encouraging and suggests that when the substrate and the perseverance is there, it can happen. That said, I live in a zone with poorly impressionable forest duff. Those that research closer to rivers and drainages may have it a little better.

Vocalizations have been problematic but when other animals can be ruled out, their standing over the long haul, seems promising. Sound pollution doesn't seem to be a problem with the likes of the Michigan Recording Project however if fireworks and loud parties can bring out the worst in Sasquatch, another reason there is no need to tiptoe around these things , they don't need any lessons in that department btw

I guess we've got some work to do on the whole tissue thing and dna, but the unknown primate finding if it could be associated with some of this other stuff could be helpful I suppose.

SY
The problem is that all of the evidence listed above except 3 and 5 can be faked or mistaken.
My opinion is that hair evidence should be the main focus since it is obtainable. And your
point about a lot of corroberating samples being needed is also a goal that should be pursued.

I think that there are hundreds of hair samples out there that are wasting away due to the
owners not knowing what to do with them. There is the perception that it is too expensive to
have them analyzed on the gamble that they might or might not be be Sasquatch.
That is only partly true. It is expensive to hire a Lab to do dna, but a hair can be looked at
microscopically for free, and if it looks genuine and there is supporting evidence or circumstances
to go with it, a dna test can also be obtained free.

That does not guarantee that enough dna can be obtained, or that it will return the hoped for
result. But why search for evidence if you're not going to analze it?

I would suggest an online database of microscopic pictures of hair which has a possibility
of being Sasquatch. At present there is only one likely type available online that I have been
able to find in 6 months of searching, and that is the one by H Fahrenbach. The ones on bfro
are worthless due to poor photos and no information. There are probably other types other
than Fahenbach's, but finding someone to show them has so far been about as hard as
climbing up a greased flagpole.

Anyway an online database would allow a researcher to compare his hair finds microscopically
and have some idea of what he had, and whether to pursue it farther.
Mine are at http://bigfoot-evidence.blogspot.com/

I would certainly agree on the hair samples. Their seems to be this process of gaining confidence in a sample that you can't really get around though. You first look at where it was found, what circumstances led to the find, what sort of sign in the area, then the appearance (how long, wavy or straight, color, cut ends or not), then try to eliminate the most probable sources with morphological examinations. If a known isn't found then it is time for DNA analysis. The problem then becomes , " Do you still have some sample left that has not been improperly handled ?" Then, You still need to test for a wide variety of knowns before trying to split the difference between Human and apes. Each step has to fail to find a known before you can go to the next when working on a no cost basis. If you're getting things done for free, and the scientists involved are the adventurous and generous types who want to publish in the wake of their findings, you're in buisness.

PS. Have you found a published micrograph of Chimpanzee or Gorilla hair? I've looked hard for it and just keep coming up short. Whats up with that?

SY.

This interests me. Are people still finding tracks? How often? If there is a stable population of BF, the amount of tracks found should be directly proportional to the number of people out in the woods. And with the increasing likelihood that people are carrying cameras of varying sorts, we should be seeing more tracks captured on film/digitally. Is this the case? It doesn't seem so. And I refuse to believe that BF is evolving quickly enough to keep track with our technologies, and has, since the advent of digital image capture, spent more time avoiding impressionable substrates.

But if track-analysis is hugely advanced (owing to Chilcutt, Meldrew et al), it's able to sift out the vast majority of hoaxes. So you'd expect hoaxers to drop tracks as a viable concern and concentrate on other cheaty endeavours. So if we're seeing significantly fewer tracks, perhaps that's why.

SY "PS. Have you found a published micrograph of Chimpanzee or Gorilla hair? I've looked hard for it and just keep coming up short. Whats up with that?

Type "McCrone associates gorilla" into your web browser, they show Gorilla and Orangutan.
Chimps and more Primates searches always want you to purchase an article for $30 or more
and may or may not have good pictures.

southernyahoo,

In my opinion, better evidence will come with better and more affordable technology, and with getting more people interested in studying the bigfoot phenomenon.

I assume today's camcorders are as good as Patterson's 16 mm camera -- there are certainly more of them out and about than the number of cameras that were out and about four decades ago. As prices drop and more folks get interested, even more cameras will be in the field. Deploying the camera in the short period of time any sighting is likely to last is a problem. Camera traps seem to be a good answer, but evidence suggests animals can sense these cameras due to sound or smell. I was interested to see such cameras deployed on a recent episode of MonsterQuest where they were searching for a monkey man in India -- they used gloved hands to handle the cameras to keep the human smell off them. I understand there's a camera being developed out of materials that give off fewer odors and is quieter. Perhaps better optics would allow cameras to be mounted out of hearing and smelling range (far up in a tree, for example) and to cover more of an area? I'm not sure how you trip the camera, though.

As more people get interested, more folks will be venturing into the woods with casting materials. However, the materials are bulky. I think there are plenty of tracks to be found, and cameras can record them if someone isn't equipped with casting materials. It used to be that folks would look for a nice flat track to cast when they had a choice. But Meldrum's work has shown that it is the less-than-perfect-looking casts that often reveal the most information -- not to most of us, but to a trained footologist.

There should be a fair body of hair and DNA results labeled "Unknown Primate." Perhaps someone should catalog them so interested people could see the degree of similarity among them. It seems to me that a certain consistency would tend to point to the existance of an uncataloged species.

Again, technology is the key to vocalizations. More folks are taking to the woods with better quality sound recording instruments. More recordings will create more evidence to be examined.

As to a body, I'd like to see one dropped and brought into a university or museum. However, I can understand the reluctance to be the one who shoots the critter. It's probably a hominid, so looks enough like a man that one would be wondering if a pull of the trigger would result in murder. Plus, if another bigfoot is around when one is dropped, I don't think I'd want to be in the neighborhood.

One area you missed is night vision, whether it be in the form of light amplification or thermal detection. One's field of vision is so limited at night, it's understandable that sightings of a shy noctural critter are rare. Some form of night vision, however, dramatically increases one's detection radius. If the instrumentation is good enough to be better than a bigfoot's inherent ability to see at night, one should be able to see beyond a bigfoot's comfort range with little cahnce of disturbing them. Prices are outrageous right now, but as technology improves, prices will fall, performance will increase, batteries will last longer, and the chances for obtaining good evidence go up.

G.canadensis

1) DNA - I see a lot of people talking about DNA as if it is the holy grail of evidence. However, with no reference DNA from a known bigfoot...."unknown primate" is the best we can hope for. We need one of these organizations to take the lead and provide standard evidence testing and archiving. This way, multiple samples of "unknown primates" could be analyzed for common characteristics. This is an example of how a better....more organized....scientific approach could elucidate whether there is a common DNA thread among "unknown primate" samples.

2) Bones - With so much emphasis in DNA these days, I get the impression that few people realize how incredible it would be to find skeletal remains of a bigfoot. Forget DNA. A skull, jawbone, or longbone of a bigfoot would be much more helpful in clearly establishing that this creature exists than DNA. Scientists can look at bones and determine whether they are from a new species. Those bones are then used to describe the new species. In fact, bones could provide both a reference for a new species as well as reference DNA for that creature. If archived DNA of unknown primates matches that from such bones, then the hunt for sasquatch is over...there would be no question that it exists....only why we have such trouble finding it.

3) Vocalizations - it seems hard to believe that these will ever provide definitive proof of the existence of sasquatch. However, they provide visceral motivation and probably make a bigger impression on people than DNA or bones. There are ways to analyze sound data to characterize and quantify waves, which are then compared to that of known animals. However, there is so much variability among sounds of creatures that opinions will always differ...similar to those associated with pictures and videos.

4) Ecological modeling - this is the area that will grow more over the next 10 years. I work in the field of spatial habitat analysis and ecological modeling. Associating available habitat conditions with sasquatch can allow you to develop models to predict and explain when and where we might expect them to be found. This method is not necessarily meant to provide perfect answers. Rather it provides direction and guidance...focus of effort...upon which efforts to gather more data, evidence, etc... can be improved. Subsequent data can be used to tweak or improve the model as our understanding of sasquatch ecology and behavior improves.

Science will inevitably become more prevalent in coming years. These are just a few ways I think we should try to improve our use of science to search for and confirm the existence of sasquatch.

franklinspur,

1) DNA - with no reference DNA from a known bigfoot...."unknown primate" is the best we can hope for. We need one of these organizations to take the lead and provide standard evidence testing and archiving. This way, multiple samples of "unknown primates" could be analyzed for common characteristics. This is an example of how a better....more organized....scientific approach could elucidate whether there is a common DNA thread among "unknown primate" samples.

Agreed. I think a finding of "unknown primate" is significant. If it can be shown that many such findings are similar to one another, it helps make the case for an uncataloged ape. The same goes for hair.

2) Bones - With so much emphasis in DNA these days, I get the impression that few people realize how incredible it would be to find skeletal remains of a bigfoot.

But with bigfoots tending to hang around wet habitats, bones won't be persisting long. In addition, I think there's a paucity of food in the Pacific NW -- the Lewis & Clark team darn near starved when they got out here. Thus, any bones laying about are likely to get snapped up and devoured long before they have a chance to decay.

3) Vocalizations - it seems hard to believe that these will ever provide definitive proof of the existence of sasquatch. However, they provide visceral motivation and probably make a bigger impression on people than DNA or bones. There are ways to analyze sound data to characterize and quantify waves, which are then compared to that of known animals. However, there is so much variability among sounds of creatures that opinions will always differ...similar to those associated with pictures and videos.

Some recordings have been analyzed and characterized as coming from no known animal, including man. Such recordings are almost good as "unknown primate" findings for DNA or hair. Suspect vocalizations can put investigators on alert when they might otherwise not be.

4) Ecological modeling - this is the area that will grow more over the next 10 years. I work in the field of spatial habitat analysis and ecological modeling. Associating available habitat conditions with sasquatch can allow you to develop models to predict and explain when and where we might expect them to be found. This method is not necessarily meant to provide perfect answers. Rather it provides direction and guidance...focus of effort...upon which efforts to gather more data, evidence, etc... can be improved. Subsequent data can be used to tweak or improve the model as our understanding of sasquatch ecology and behavior improves.

From what I understand, one just needs to find black bear habitat to have a good chance of finding a bigfoot.

Do you have a good introductory website you can cite that will tell the uninitiated how habitat modeling works?

Thanks,

G. canadensis

GC...I agree with you regarding the persistence of bones in general. They are not commonly found, but they should not be viewed as unimportant. Bones could provide much more definitive proof of a previously unknown primate versus DNA. For instance, there was a report that a guy found a baby bigfoot body in his backyard a while back. He placed the baby back in the woods hoping the mother would take it back. However, he said that she did not. His dogs later brought the skull back into his yard. If such a thing actually occurred, a vertebrate zoologist or anthropologist could have relatively easily determined whether this was a legitimately new species, a human, a monkey, etc... I think he said he sent it to a small lab in TX for DNA analysis...then, after a delay and typical "unknown primate" result, he sent it to a lab in Canada (I believe) that specializes in "ancient DNA" analysis. The skull can provide definitive proof of sasquatch, if it truly is sasquatch. DNA from the skull is secondary in importance.

As for ecological habitat modeling....a recent paper was actually published in a biogeography journal summarizing some of the GIS (geospatial information system) work of P. Aniello featured on MonsterQuest.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

This is basic ecological niche modeling using GIS software and is based on sightings from one of the major databases available online. It has limitations and technical problems (sasquatch sightings only represent where a human SAW a sasquatch...not really the full extent of sasquatch distribution), but this represents a very good start to applying a more scientific approach to analyzing available data.

Another link that I quickly found that provides some very basic ideas behind basic habitat modeling is described here: http://marinebio.org/Oceans/Conservation/Moyle/ch7.asp

As an example, imagine you wanted to develop a simple habitat model for a plant. Habitat needs of plants can be described quantitatively based on 3 main variables: 1) moisture levels, 2) light levels, and 3) nutrient levels. A very simple model would describe the moisture, light, and nutrient levels required for Plant Species A. You could then use GIS maps to see where all three acceptable conditions exist to predict where the plant might be found.

Since moisture, light, and nutrients may vary over time...so might the likelihood that Plant A would persist in certain areas. Therefore you could use GIS data to predict how plant abundance and distribution might change seasonally given average environmental conditions. You also could explain why Plant A is not found where expected if any of these 3 variables fall beneath an acceptable threshold any given year or years (maybe during drought years).

The same type of approach could be used with forage foods to predict where sasquatch might be found or to explain seasonal migration. Bear and sasquatch habitat might be correlated in general. However, bears hibernate in winter, whereas sasquatch is probably out there looking for food and shelter during winter. If sasquatch moves to follow food, then this type of modeling might help explain when and how they do so.

Excellent post franlinspur, welcome to the forum and thanks for enlightening us on your knowledge. Have you introduced yourself in the Training Ground, New Member thread already? If so, I must have missed it. Hope to see your opinions and understanding of this phenomenon alot in the future.

Franklinspur,

You wrote:
"This is basic ecological niche modeling using GIS software and is based on sightings from one of the major databases available online. It has limitations and technical problems (sasquatch sightings only represent where a human SAW a sasquatch...not really the full extent of sasquatch distribution), but this represents a very good start to applying a more scientific approach to analyzing available data."

Is there a method for parsing out the human population density numbers from the reported sighting locations, to see if we can get a map of sightings that is a truer representation of sasquatch distribution? I am thinking that this is somehow analogous to a co-variance analysis.

Regards
Mike Zimmer

There has been a problem in the past of dna analysts being unwilling to go "on the record" to do such work. Sure, they'll "take a look" but try getting a formal report out of them...

In other cases, samples have been sent only to vanish into the proverbial woodwork.

Heck, I'd settle for one .jpg report on letterhead posted online at the BFF about unknown primate anyway. At this point, I'm starting to believe the reports are never done or delivered whether hair or tissue. Or, maybe there is another explanation. Who on this forum has ever viewed a report on hair or tissue dna analysis of suspected sasquatch? Can anyone point me to a location on the web or otherwise of a report on some labs letterhead?

Well in that case I hope I haven't chosen one like that. I have submitted samples and have been
patiently holding my breath for over a month. Last year I had a perfect hair prospect lost "in the mail?"
sent to a different place than the present one.

How about making a .jpg fax/scan of any report you get and show us what one looks like regardless of the results then, olman, it'd be doing us a great service. As to the "lost in the mail", welcome to the world of Bigfoot, if it wasn't that it would have been contaminated sample or sample sequencing not possible for some odd reason. You can't sense my sarcasm can you?

I'm glad we've mostly gotten beyond the "DNA is useless without a reference" dogma and are now at least mostly agreeing on that DNA can prove something, but just want to point out it could do a lot better and generate a much more specific result than "unknown primate." In theory, a good DNA sample will place any unknown critter somewhere in the tree of life, next to or between it's nearest relative(s), within a family or even a genus, but definitely a lot better than just somewhere unknown within the taxonomic order of 300 some odd primates. Reminder that we have a quick and dirty explanation on DNA in the Skwiki, at least as it pertains to the subject.

AS to the original topic- add scat/poop/feces. Terrific possible source of DNA (though potentially complicated in a carnivore that eats other animals), theoretically abundant- so easier to find, relatively easy to handle and harder to contaminate, etc. So for me this is still either a relatively untapped goldmine....or considering that it hasn't generated any worthwhile results, good evidence these animal exist only in our imagination.

-A

If I had a sample to send, I would NOT send it in the mail, not even "certified" mail.

I'd send it UPS/FED EX with a returned copy of the shipping record including signiture on delivery. That way you have a "chain of custody" tha definitively tracks the sample from the time it left your hands to the time the lab got it. I would ask for the return of any UNused portion of the sample via the same method (even if I had to pay the shipping).

That puts the ball squarely in the lab's "court", and takes the possibility of "lost in the mail" (so they don't have to commit to a finding they're squemish about reporting) off the table.

Likewise, I'd be leery of offers to analyze samples "free" or "on own time". I'm sure they're meant well, but I want the lab to be as "on the spot" as possible. Don't give them wiggle room to back out, "lose the sample", etc.

Yes...theoretically. I am certainly no DNA expert. But there are different types of DNA, analyses, studies...based on the question at hand. The "unknown primate" samples...and data...might be very useful in the type of study you describe.

First, how do all those samples compare among each other. Second, of the ones that seem similar (assuming there are any), how so they compare with known primates/mammals. This is the potential value of such samples. However, as Mulder stated above, I get the impression that such results are not documented or archived....maybe not ever reported. I also would like to see pdf's of report these labs supposedly generate. And what happens to sample material after they run a test? Can you get remaining material back (if there is any)? All such reports and material should be archived by some organization/entity. Of course, that would require funding.

Type of DNA study. Population genetic studies that I have been involved with were based on mitochondrial DNA to estimate genetic diversity within and among populations of organisms. Mitochondrial DNA is maternal...passed along from the mother. Nuclear DNA is influenced by contributions from both mother and father, so it is more appropriate for addressing different questions (paternity tests). Sattelite analysis can provided more detailed and different types of information. Since different types of data are needed to address different types of questions, the specific types of analyses and methods used vary.

Systematic studies intended to sort out relationships of organisms on the evolutionary tree....or to demonstrate that what was thought to be one species is really two closely related species....may require different types of analysis. Statistical analyses of data from different samples provides an estimate of reliability, so to speak, in conclusions. So...if we wanted to estimate how closely related bigfoot is to humans...we would want as many samples of bigfoot DNA as possible. This is why it is important to archive samples/data/reports now....so we can gather enough data to statistically demonstrate the accuracy of results when estimating how closely related these "unknown primates" are to humans.

Bottom line is: just as organizations have developed the ability to gather and archive info describing sightings and encounters, we also need someone to step up and somehow find funding to encourage people to submit DNA samples/sample material/results. Right now, few people really know how to collect and preserve tissue samples....much less where to send them for legitimate and standard analysis. This would be a great project for one of the organizations to develop.

Mike...well first let me just state that data describing habitat use by animals/plants usually does come from humans. So one could argue that my statement above is flawed. Given that, what I wanted to point out is that where humans have sighted bigfoot represents...possibly or probably...a subset of where bigfoots actually hang out. So our sightings may not represent the full range of habitat used by bigfoot.

As for your specific question, I am not really sure to be honest. Once again, I think it depends on the specific questions you want to answer. I think what you are asking is could we somehow normalize observations to remove the effect of population (Site X had 100 sightings versus Site Y with 10...but Site X has 10 times as many people roaming around...thus there are relatively 1 sighting per 10 people no matter which site). There are ways to handle this when developing a model. You could for instance develop two models...one including all data and another normalize for human population/traffic....and see which one seemed to perform better (helped you the most) over time. It may very well be that 10 times more bigfoot reside at Site X for some reason DESPITE or BECAUSE humans are also more common.

These types of questions are interesting though and perhaps can make people think about investigating and collecting data with new objectives in mind.

Don't forget even urine can produce DNA now too, probably subject to more contamination though.



I was able to convince Tom Burnette to send his skull sample to Canada by this very method and it is the way to do it if you don't have a lab in town you can take stuff too, and then still you need signature delivery docs to help you re: receipt.



Amen, brother!

This is what I was getting at, but my idea was somewhat inchoate, and you have articulated it.

Mangani's maps ( http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...14228&st=50 ) give some wonderful graphical views of the data he considers worthwhile. How much of the spatial distribution is simply an artifact of the proximity of human travellers, and how much represents the real population distribution?

Dr. John Bindernagel is trying to answer these questions, but I don't know how he is tackling the potential confound of human (recreational, etc.) population density.

Clearly we have other data quality problems as well, but in fact they may be neutral with respect to sasquatch population density distribution. Problems of course include fraud and misperception and other factors. In any case, I am doing little more than thinking out loud here.

Regards

Excellent posts guys, keep em coming!

On the subject of bones being found, and their potential similarity to humans, I have resevations that they might not be interpreted as nonhuman, atleast in the absense of a large pile of hair with them or a skull. Perhaps someone who studies human bones could elaborate on what difference would or should be imediately obvious save for shear size in a bone like a femur.

SY.

I will make known whatever is given to me, at least on my blog. A negative result would probably
bring out the attack dogs on this forum.

I think that results in the past of "contaminated because it's like human" were more from refusal
to believe that these creatures are like Human, rather than from a lack of diligence.

Regarding the failure to ever get an official result from a lab. I have considered sending a
"possible Sasquatch sample" to a lab that does paternity or genetic family historys. And just
tell them it is my hair, and pay for the report. It might be interesting to see what the result would be.

Mulder
Very good advice, and what I will do from now on. In this case it did make it there as confirmed by
email. And I trust this lab since it was recomended to me by Dr Bindernagle. And they did some of
the Monsterquest work.

I wish you luck (and hopefully good results). I'm not accusing the lab YOU are working with of anything. I've just heard too many stories about labs in general that in the past wouldn't "go on record" or "lost the sample" etc to not want to have my CoC iron clad. As I said, it puts the lab on the spot so they can't take the "easy way out".

That would certainly be an interesting tact Olman.....and I'd welcome the result of that experiment, however, I would probably feel compelled to split the sample and keep some form of it just in case the convenient problems discussed above raise their ugly head again. Biggest problem I find is that if you don't use "their" cheek swab sample kit, you might have to find one of the more unique labs to do the work anyway. Wish you good fortune with your current sample and analysis anyway you cut the cake.

That would be interesting, could you imagine them having to tell you your mother was a non human great ape!

I've considered doing the same thing with hairs but with an toxicology study, just to see if the animal had been exposed to an entirely different set of chemicals than what the average human had. I would think the toxicology report would be more consistent with what all the other wild animals are exposed to than what is normally found in humans.

SY.

Wasn't it William Dranginis that had performed just such a hair analysis study through a lab up in Northern Virginia, and the chemical/nutritional/trace metal analysis came back remarkably unlike the typical human? Can't remember where I saw that?

BEIJING, Feb. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- Scientists said variations in hydrogen and oxygen isotopes found in hair could be matched to the regional tap water people drank, providing clues about where a person had been living in U.S., media reported Tuesday.

"In people with very long hair, you could get quite a long history," said University of Utah geologist Thure Cerling. The tool would work best on hair samples taken from the head because hair grows continuously there.

Cerling and University of Utah biology professor James Ehleringer developed an elaborate map that details regional differences in the hydrogen and oxygen isotopes based on tap water samples from 65 cities in the United States.

Cerling said drinking water left an isotope signature in the growing hair. Even people who drink bottled water still use tap water to make coffee or tea or cook pasta, he said. "You really do use a lot of local water in your everyday activities."

Police officers are already using the tool to help identify a possible murder victim.

Todd Park, a sheriff's detective in Salt Lake County, Utah, sent Ehleringer hair samples from a woman whose remains were found near the Great Salt Lake in October 2000.

An isotope analysis of the victim's hair showed she had moved around several states in the Northwest. The researchers planned to do an analysis of her teeth to see if the isotopes can reveal where she grew up when the teeth were forming.

The researchers said the work had generated a lot of interest from police, but Cerling said the tool could also be used in anthropology and archaeology. "I also think it will have some interesting applications in wildlife conservation," he said.

Cool reference, so I guess if you are studying hydrogen and oxygen isotopes is this some kind of spectroscopy that is being done on the hair?
Maybe NMR nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy perhaps?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...582ee49662fa15c

Though just an abstract the above sheds some more light on the baselines of the technology I guess. I'd like to see a better reference for beginners and maybe we could start a new thread with it. Any takers?

Bipedalist - I'm not much more knowledgable about isotopic study than anyone else, but I was able to track down a link to a pdf of that article you linked: http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/zsharp/hair.pdf

Basically anything we ingest is broken down and molecules are assimilated throughout our tissues in various proportions. Isotopic molecules are assimilated just like non-isotopic molecules but are essentially treated as tags particles. So if we know how common isotopic particles are in nature (food and water) then we can look at concentrations in tissue to estimate how much food or water was consumed...when it was consumed...where the subject was when it consumed it...etc. Pretty neat stuff if done appropriately.

Here is a fairly decent "isotopic study 101" write-up: http://archaeology.about.com/od/stableisot.../qt/dummies.htm

Here's an example of a paper describing results of an isotopic study to investigate the diet of "Ice Man" : http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/13/3/559...498b54579c85077

Ancient human diet study using isotopes: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...mp;blobtype=pdf

Bones from a Natural Trap Cave in Wyoming: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1669/0883...ournalCode=palo

And an interesting study where isotopes were used to investigate where cod in one place actually originated in another: http://archaeology.about.com/b/2008/04/21/...l-cod-trade.htm

Sometimes reading these types of articles will leave a "normal" person speaking in tongues for a while, so peruse at your own risk. Anyway, the Introductions, Abstracts, and sometimes Discussions are more to-the-point and tell you what you want to know in a clear enough fashion to think about how this type of study might help improve our knowledge of bigfoot. You might be able to study a) how much plant vs animal tissue does bigfoot consume, does this change seasonally, c) does bigfoot move or migrate seasonally or annually, d) how much does all this vary regionally across the continent (NW vs SE vs OH/Penn). Interesting applications if you had the sample material and funding for analysis.

Thanks for the paper fs that is exactly what I was hoping for.....somebody with a subscription/library card that could get that. I read one study where they computed the isotopic molecules for McDonalds big macs or something and were doing studies on diet based on that......weird. What would be the benefit of somebody using such technology with something other than hair, such as a partial skull bone (you may know where I'm going with this now) of a purported unidentified bipedal primate? What could be determined and what could it be compared to? What would be the impact on future cataloguing of the same data by others that come across such remains? I see what you are saying so it seems that this technology could be as important as DNA to the Bigfoot field researchers armamentarium it seems. Any idea of cost or volume/age of material I assume the cost is high but ancient remains can be examined based on what I've read to date, right?


PS you left out b above, hope it wasn't a really important one?

So I see a mass spectrometer is used and it is a destructive analytical technique. So that answers some of my questions about sampling.

Yeah...mass spec analysis seems to be the most standard test, although there are other things they can do to these types of samples to get other types of similar data. I really am not familiar with specifics of these studies.

Tests are destructive, but that does not mean that all sample material has to be used. I'm not sure how much material (i.e., grams of samples material) are required to get a reliable result or how sensitive mass spec are these days.

As for, say, a skull sample....this would just be a bone test. One of those papers I linked is a bone study. These types of tests can be run on bone, hair, nails, etc... However I'm pretty sure uptake of isotopic molecules may vary among tissue types...not sure though. So it would seem that similar tests could be run on any of these tissue types. Hair would seem to be a neat sample because you can test and analyze results to indicate changes over time.

If human hair grows 2.5 cm per month, you could take a few 10 cm strands (~4") and maybe see if I ate more plants in August than I did in November. This would be very important for understanding seasonal shifts in Bigfoot nutrition, caloric budgets, metabolism (maybe correlated with activity/movement), and distribution/sighting trends.

I'm impressed with it, but not sold on it. Photos and videos should be more prevalent in my opinion. Evidence is lacking. We have more researchers, the topic is more widely accepted, and we have fewer photos/videos of quality than PGF. By quality I mean of length.



I think trackways are continual found. I think the problem is they aren't as big of a deal. I found a trackway myself, with a witness, but so what? Was I supposed to call out the local news and is it likely they would drive a 4x4 vehicle with a camera crew into the woods with two yahoos that found a trackway. Problem is it's not sensationalized. A trackway is more likely looked at as a hoax at this point. With the advent of technology people demand more, and as such a trackway is almost meaningless except to the people that find it.



I think CSI is just a show.



I don't think there are as many experts in the field as one might think, and further, I think there are fewer experts is "unknown" vocalizations still. If you were to give your audio to a scientist he/she is likely to rule some things out, but he/she is probably not an expert on all animals in the forest. Then, if it's a sound you can't explain does it necessarily point to an unknown animal, or just an auditory example of something you haven't yet heard.



Needle in a haystack. I found a tooth a couple days ago, in a one inch portion of skull. Where do I send it? How many people that can determine what it is want to spend their time determining what it is? I just think that there has to be a significant find, and people that don't send "unknown" hairs, deer teeth, elk femurs, and bear paws in for analysis.



I think all areas are weak. I think "we" have a clear lack of skill and understanding in the woods and forests around us. I think there are far fewer researchers than need be, and I think those that try to research lack the ability to analyze what they find with their five senses. If BF exists, as does any other forest animal, they have a much better skill set in the woods. I don't mean to attribute any intelligence in that statement, but rather, you know what you live, and if they are real they know their surroundings. We don't. I'd say the most important aspect of research, or the most important "lack" is our own understanding of the outdoors, the forest, the insects, the trees, the plants. Just my $.02 of course, but I can't imagine any one of us being able to live in the place we think a BF could. First we should try to learn the skills to do that, then we'll see them all the time. By the way, I've been drinking again.

yep



I tend to agree with that for the most part, but we keep talking about thorough documentaion of what we find. It's still better to photo and cast a few than to just tell stories about it.




Depends on the recording, but the objective is to find what does defy identification, make those known to others, and perhaps they will recognize it when heard, and perhaps someday someone will see that thing that makes that sound and we will all learn something.




Could you imagine the tragedy of finding a gigantopithecus tooth in the US and just putting it in your top dresser drawer and forgetting about it? We cant learn a thing unless we do test what we find.




Yes , the animals have the edge on senses, but they dont have the reasoning that we do save perhaps a squatch. I think we do have the ability to analyze with our senses, we cant produce evidence with them though, thats why some of us know a thing or two that science doesn't I don't mind your drinking

SY.

The trick with that tactic is to make sure you get a copy of the results WHATEVER they may be. . In the case of familial genetic testing, if they were geting NON human dna results, contamination would be the first thing they'd think of. Don't let the lab tell you that the sample is "contaminated" and not do a report.



CSI vastly oversimplifies the process and shortens the amount of time it takes to do the work BUT forensics (including DNA analysis) is one of the most valuable tools in the crime lab's arsenal. Crime lab results are used every day by LE all around the WORLD. The science is VERY real, even if it's portrayal is broad brush.

touché

edited to add accent

Not sure if I've heard of anyone doing the toxicology test, but I think it should definately be part of a complete analysis on a hair find, particularly if the DNA is suggesting something human or nearly human.

SY.

Above from an article one year ago, Hot for Creature in Washington City Paper online: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=35887

Very interesting, maybe we will see if this happens again.

SY.

I am not clear whether the mineral analysis quoted above by Dranginis was performed using mass spec. analysis or not. Somebody knowing the process of deriving chemical/mineral content from hair might weigh in here. Also, would like to know how costly that particular process might be per hair?

iv'e seen string, stems of grass, weeds, horse hair, and feathers in bird nests. I'm wondering if one or some of these hairs belonged to a bigfoot would the hair sample be to contaminated to test for DNA?

I have seen dryer lint, thread, several of my late dogs hairs and hummingbirds use moss and spider webs even.

There are two letters from a lab regarding analysis of hair samples in David Paulides's Tribal Bigfoot. What do people think about those?

Haven't seen them/read them, book out of stock last I looked. What do you think about them? Tell us more!

The first sample of hair doesn't have roots, so DNA extraction is much more difficult and evidently still in progress. A law enforcement hair expert concluded that it's from an unknown primate. As for the second sample, which does have roots, DNA extraction has been easier. The lab found that "at this time it cannot be ruled out that this could be DNA from an undocumented species." I just listened to Mr. Paulides on Nite Callers via blogtalkradio this afternoon and he predicted that the hair DNA analysis should be complete in around six months.

I highly encourage you and others to read Tribal Bigfoot for greater context and some fascinating witness interviews