Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science; DNA and Physical Evidence (An excerpt)

Are footprints enough to prove bigfoot is real? For the weekend-amateur-hour bigfoot researcher, it seems like a bigfoot plaster cast is their claim to having bigfoot evidence. And they fight tooth and nail over it online in the Bigfoot Forums or Facebook groups. But is it evidence? Or is it just a piece of the puzzle? Dr. Jeff Meldrum explains the validity of these footprints and their place as evidence in regards to science.

The following is an excerpt from "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr Jeff Meldrum.

Footprints, with all they imply, constitute no more than trace evidence, and no matter how compelling they may be, no matter how anatomically appropriate and internally consistent they appear, they are merely suggestive of the presence of the sasquatch. Where is the hard evidence? The vexing absence of bones and teeth has already been discussed in light of the nature of soil chemistry in Northwestern forests. Hair provides another physical remnant of the creature itself. Precise hair identification—trichinology—is, however, a challenging process requiring an extensive reference col-lection with which to compare the unknown sample. There can be considerable individual variation in hair length, color, texture, and stage of growth within a species, as well as variation between different regions on the body of a single individual ani-mal. Arriving at a conclusive identification can be a labor-intensive process requiring exhaustive comparisons with known standards.

In the past there have been several independent analyses of hair attributed to sasquatch, more often than not conducted at the request of an amateur investigator. Usually, the hairs were readily identified as belonging to a commonly known animal such as bear, coyote, or human. However, some hair samples were of indeterminate identity. While an indeterminate indentification of an alleged "sasquatch hair" is interpreted by some as indication of an unknown animal, it is more conservatively regarded by others as the lack of a comprehensive collection of hair samples from known species of animals with which to compare the strand in question. Indeed this would be the only reasonable outcome for hair that might in fact have come from a sasquatch. All that could be concluded is what species the hair did not appear to belong to. Conclusive identification depends on a match to a known sample of hair, i.e., an established standard. Without a confirmed sample of sasquatch hair, any hair truly originating from a sasquatch would necessarily languish in the indeterminate category. Such a standard in unlikely to be acknowledged until hair is pulled directly from a sasquatch body by a qualified analyst.


You can purchase this must have bigfoot book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr Jeff Meldrum here.