On the 6th June, 2019 (my birthday but as I am not a 'Fortean' I will not assume a cosmic significance to this!) Live Science posted an article by Rafi Letzter titled Bigfoot's FBI File Reveals Strange Story of a Monster Hunter and 15 Mysterious Hairs
This article interested me for a number of reasons that I will come to but first the item in question:
The U.S. government released Bigfoot's FBI file yesterday (June 5). It contains a few news clippings, and some formal letters to and from a monster hunter in the 1970s — leading to an examination of 15 hairs and some skin the hunter believed came from "a Bigfoot."
It appears that Peter Byrne, that monster hunter, first wrote to the FBI on Aug. 26, 1976. His note, printed on fancy letterhead reading "The Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition," suggested that the FBI was in possession of flesh and hair belonging to a mysterious creature, possibly belonging to a "Bigfoot."
"Gentlemen," Byrne wrote, "Will you kindly, to set the record straight, once and for all, inform us if the FBI, has examined hair which might be that of a Bigfoot; when this took place, if it did take place; what the results of the analysis were." [Titanosaur Photos: Meet the Largest Dinosaur on Record]
He didn't indicate why he suspected that the FBI might have done such an analysis, only that, "from time to time we have been informed that hair, supposedly of a Bigfoot… has been examined by the FBI., and with the conclusion, as a report of the examination, that it was not possible to compare the hair with that of any known creature on this continent."
Byrne appears to have been concerned that the agency wouldn't take The Bigfoot Information Center seriously.
"Please understand that our research here is serious," he wrote, "That this is a serious question that needs answering."
He also assured the agency that they needn't worry about his implying their involvement in his work.
"An examination of hair, or the opposite, but the FBI., does not in any way, as far as we are concerned, suggest that the FBI., is associated with our project or confirms in any way the possibility of the existence of the creature(s) known as Bigfoot," he wrote.
Assistant FBI Director of the agency's laboratory division Jay Cochran Jr. replied two weeks later, on Sept. 10, 1976.
"Since the publication of the 'Washington Environmental Atlas' in 1975, which referred to such examinations, we have received several inquiries similar to yours," he wrote. "However, we have been unable to locate any references to such examinations in our files."
"Briefly, we do not often come across hair which we are unable to identify, and the hair that we have now, about 15 hairs attached to a tiny piece of skin, is the first that we have obtained in six years which we feel may be of importance," he wrote.
He asked if Cochran "could possibly arrange for a comparative analysis" of the tissue to determine its origin.
At the time all this was going on, Bigfoot was in the news. Byrne had been searching for the creature for five years, supported by the Academy of Applied Science (AAS), a small institution in Boston that, according to a document in the file, also sponsored hunts for the Loch Ness monster.
The New York Times had profiled the 50-year-old Byrne's adventures in June of 1976, calling him a "former professional hunter in Nepal who switched from tiger shooting and yeti hunting to tiger conservation and Bigfoot hunting."
"Most [Bigfoot sightings] are eventually discounted as insubstantial or faked," The New York Times wrote. "But a handful hold up and are given high credibility. So far Mr. Byrne, though he has never seen a Bigfoot himself, has collected the details of 94 reported sightings that seem believable. There are many more reports of tracks."
The paper recounted several of those supposedly more credible sightings, and a clipping of that article was included in the FBI file. The next document in the file, in chronological order, was Cochran's instruction to examine the hairs Byrne passed along.
"This does not represent a change in Bureau policy," a memorandum included in the file states, in an apparent effort to justify the decision. "The … Laboratory Branch has a history of making its unique services and expertise available to the Smithsonian Institution, other museums, universities and government agencies in archeological matters and in the interest of research and legitimate scientific inquiry." [The 25 Most Mysterious Archaeological Finds on Earth]
Unfortunately for Bigfoot hunters, the results weren't what they may have hoped. In 1977, the lab examined the 15 hairs. A final letter from Cochran, addressed to Howard S. Curtis, Executive Vice President of the AAS, read like this:
"Dear Mr. Curtis,
The hairs which you recently delivered to the FBI Laboratory on behalf of the Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition have been examined by transmitted and incident light microscopy. The examination included a study of morphological characteristics such as root structure, medullary structure and cuticle thickness in addition to scale casts. Also the hairs were compared directly with hairs of known origin under a comparison microscope.
It was concluded as a result of these examinations that the hairs are of deer family origin.
The hair sample you submitted is being returned as an enclosure to this letter,
Sincerely yours,
Jay Cochran, Jr.
Assistant Director FBI
Scientific and Technical Services Division."
Curtis replied March 8, thanking Cochran and saying he'd pass the news on to Byrne when the monster hunter returned from Nepal.
You can read the full FBI Bigfoot file here.
Live Science has reached out to Byrne for additional comment, and will update this article if he replies.
end
"Gentleman" Byrne seems almost sarcastic in its use but with Millennial writers not brought up with correct manners and who think rudeness in carrying out interviews is the norm what can you expect. Byrne had dealt with authorities around the world and he no doubt understood that stamping your foot and making demands did not work. In this case, despite the tone of the article, Byrne did manage to get the FBI to analyse the material he sent in. DNA testing today costs thousands of £/$ and to have a lab in pre-DNA days examine material was still expensive. No one could argue with the FBI test results.
The Academy of Applied Science did exactly what scientists are supposed to do: take a subject, investigate, research and produce finding results -pro or con. Roy Mackal was involved with the AAS and the search for the Loch Ness Monster (how 'quaint', right?) and he theorised that some type of giant eel might be involved -as I noted in Some Things Strange and Sinister and Live Science may pour implied laughter on that, however, recent investigation into DNA in the waters of the Loch ---see my previous post: https://terryhooper.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-loch-ness-monster-might-be.html --- have suggested, fifty years on, that there may be giant eels in the loch.
And it should be called the Loch Ness Creature not "monster"! I do not expect better from journalists but serious researchers continually using the term "monster" seems to indicate more fantasy prone minds.
In the 1990s the lab and a very famous DNA scientist offered to analyse any hairs found and believed to be from non native UK cats. Tests would cost thousands of pounds but they could be carried out free of charge by using paid for free time so to speak. There were guidelines sent out to those involved in the 'search'. These I applied rigorously and most sent to myself at the Exotic Animals Register (EAR, f 1977) were clearly cow or bull and even sheep and fox hairs. Unless there was strong evidence that the hairs were unusual or seen at a spot where a large cat was seen they were mostly recorded but not sent for analysis.
One evening I was contacted by a Police Wildlife Crimes Officer in Leicestershire. He told me that the local cat expert had shown him droppings from a panther and he went to the site in question and found more. I asked him to describe the scat and then tell me what the area was like -lots of fruit bushes, all sorts of berries and so on. I then asked him to break open the scat (though by his description I had a good idea what it was): there was a lot of fruit within it. It was a fox -puma and leopards are not known for their fruit eating but, as I can attest to, foxes do eat fruit. The officer was flummoxed and did take the droppings to the cat experts who identified it again as leopard scat. I understand that despite the officer and myself explaining it was fox scat the samples were still sent for DNA testing.
99.9% of samples sent for testing consisted of sheep droppings and sheep wool -taken from a sheep field- as well as cow, bull and horse hair taken from wire surrounding fields in which were...cows, horses or bulls. Dog scat from local dog walking areas in woods as well as hair were sent in.
The backlash against negative results was at times nasty. The lab and I tried to explain to everyone how expensive testing was and time consuming but no. The flood gates had been opened. Having watched far too much TV, these cat experts received confirmation from the lab that their samples had arrived. Some 24 hours later they were asking -occasionally demanding- to know the results. The lab eventually pulled out of the whole mess.
We all saw the aftermath of Prof Bryan Sykes of Oxford University analysed -for free- alleged Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Almasti hairs. Bigfooters were simply grabbing any hairs near to a reported sighting and sending them in for testing and when the testing did not come back as "Bigfoot" or "Unknown" it was all a cover up.
You do not give a blind man a flying licence.
What Byrne was doing with his correspondence was being polite and respectful and making it clear that he or his group were not going to start shouting "We're endorsed by the FBI -they work with us!" That has happened since and not just with the FBI.
"Mystery giant canids" in the United States sighted and occasionally killed by US wildlife services. I read over and over again how the "authorities" had put secrecy clamps on everything and were giving out silly explanations but hiding facts. Do you know what I did, being somewhat interested in wild canids? I contacted the official bodies concerned who supplied me with background on the reports and testing results as well as the probable explanation. In only one case did I get scuppered in my attempts to get facts -that turned out to be very probably due to the main person involved not affording any importance to the event.
In the early days of "flying saucers" civilian investigators often adopted the respectful approach and got results. However, the sensationalism needed for more press coverage or to push book sales took over. After that it all went downhill fast.
So, Live Science may treat the whole matter tongue-in-cheek but what it shows is that cooperation and politeness gets results.
