The problem with Bigfoot hair vs Human Hair

[BiggJimm]

fig63.jpg (8.96 KiB) Viewed 4605 times

So its a human-like hair without a medulla. So its a possible sasquatch right? No. Not hardly.
This is a hair taken from a perfectly normal human forensics expert, who then posed it on the FBI's
guide to hair studies in forensics. I posted this here to illustrate a real issue which hair morphology's
use in identification.

As it turns out. Humans (and other primates) have medullas (the center portion of the hair shaft, forming
a line down the hair.) about often as they don't. numerous factors affect this. The location of the hair, the
age of the hair, even the race of the individual. But for sometime now the bigfoot community has got it
in their collective mind that bigfoot doesn't have a medulla but a human does. This can be attributed to Dr.
Faranbach trying to come up with a set of standards to gauge it by. However he himself will admit that his
criteria may be inaccurate. But this has led to bigfooters throwing out hair samples with medulla's which as it
turns out may be akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Here are some suspected sasquatch
samples from Faranbach.

Notice they look identical to the human's medulla less hair. Further more the discarded Medulla samples
should have mDNA in them. So if some human hair has medulla's; then we should certainly consider the
possibility that sasquatch like us, (and other primates) does as well. This makes a lot more sense. Our
friends at TexLA collected samples in a Oklahoma hot spot that proved unidentifiable, and it clearly had
a medulla. In fact the genetic testing of the sample revealed that the owner was not a known species. It
matched nothing. Bear was ruled out as well. Faranbach declared it bear hair because of the medulla, but
all other scientists who examined the sample stated it was not bear, nor was its genetics.

The TexLA Oklahoma sample compared with a medulla bearing chimp hair and a black bear sample

Here is the kicker. I have several samples that I have collected myself, as well as some of the TexLA sample.
The only real difference between the two is the color. They are the morphologically the same. The scale pattern
and even the medulla's width is the same. Whatever their unknown is, mine is the same species. My analysis is
they are VERY similar to human pubic hair in structure, but much longer (5-6 inches).

It seems to me that no longer should we use the No-Medulla rule as it is a highly fallible criteria.