On the problem of sasquatch hair, Dr. Esteban Sarmiento is quoted as saying, “…my comments on Sasquatch hair: all the hair that I have seen that is of organic origin and purported to be of a bigfoot, is degraded hair or one that lacks a distinctive morphology.

Moreover, none of it has yet yielded distinctive DNA.  Although I believe that Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach has examined fresh hair, none of this hair either through morphology or genetics was conclusively associated to Bigfoot. 

The main point being that the distinctive hair morphology described may belong to another unknown animal and does not necessarily belong to bigfoot.  Moreover, because all the different hair types that exist on the body of animals that are known to live in these areas are not all well known, the possibility that some of the purported Bigfoot hair may belong to known animals also has to be considered.  As such, the hair evidence is not conclusive. Regardless of whether it is or isn't bonafide bigfoot hair, one cannot prove that it is.  

In regards to Glickman's calculations, Murphy's book would have been well served by analyses that show where Glickman made his mistakes calculating weight (as you did in your letter to me). While it is considerably more accurate to base weights on relationship to primate proportions, the latter is not necessary to show Glickman's calculations must be erroneous. The relationship between volume and mass (known to be approximately the density of water for most organic beings) is enough to calculate a believable weight. As such it clear to nearly everyone, (especially given John Green's accompanying measures) that Glickman's weight calculations must be wrong.   a correction of Glickman's study* if nothing else would show the public that Bigfoot researchers are willing to question the results and conclusions they reach, and add to Bigfoot research credibility in the public eye.  

Finally, I do not doubt the veracity of the footprint evidence. I believe that given their different localities and sheer numbers found (including the measurement presented), the footprints provide support for the existence of, but not necessarily proof.  Principally, as far as I know it is not possible to distinguish real from fake footprints especially given the fact that most of the ones anyone of us actually see are casts, which are no longer in natural context. Hence the possibilities that all of these may be real or all may be faked must be acknowledged.   

Working these past two years in Mozambique I have found a number of new animal species (birds and mammals) even some for which I have photographs and I am convinced they are new.  Until I can prove they are distinctive, however, no one is going to accept it. They certainly would not do so on the basis of only footprints or track-ways.”

Dr. Esteban E. Sarmiento

*Jeff Glickman's study refers to the 1998 NASI report located here:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

What do we know about Sasquatch hair issues?
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm

Back to Biology?
Back to Stories?
Back to Bigfoot Encounters Main page
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Back to Bigfoot Encounters "What's New" page  

Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards
of this website under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law
as educational material without benefit of financial gain.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
This proviso is applicable throughout the entire Bigfoot Encounters Website