Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread
Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Wed, Dec 7 2005, 5:49pm
Many people have written me recently to inquire about my hypothesis that Bigfoot "suffers" from a condition known as congenital generalized hypertrichosis.

Hair growth is controlled by a complex interaction of genetic and endocrine factors. Most forms of excess hairiness are associated with hormone imbalances involving sites under androgen control and are known as hirsutism.

Hypertrichosis, in contrast, can involve any area of the body and can have an acquired or genetic cause.

Little is known in general about autosomal or X-linked genes that control hair growth. The fact that non-human primates have considerably more hair coverage suggests that these genes have undergone important structural or regulatory changes during evolution in that resulted in Homo sapiens.

My idea is that the gene is dominant and not passive (a position that current research is now supporting) thus, the clean shaven reconstruction of human ancestors normally constructed by physical anthropologists is mistaken. Human species up to Homo Sapiens would have been very hairy -- and therefore -- appear to be Bigfoot-like.
272 views
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Wed, Dec 7 2005, 7:15pm
So do you think Bigfoot is actually a human with hypertrichosis? Or that Bigfoot suffers from hypertrichosis as you explicitly stated? I'm a little confused with what you're trying to suggest, I must've missed earlier threads pertaining to this subject....
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 12:24am
I'm saying that "Bigfoot" is likely to be some form of "early" hominin in which the excessively hairy condition is normal.

Assuming this to be so, the "inconclusive" results we often get when a "Bigfoot" hair sample is submitted for testing (other than when it's from a bear, bison, or other animal) is only inconclusive or determined to be "human" because it actually IS human.

According to the experts I've discussed this with, it would be just about impossible for someone to distinguish between human species hair from the strand itself. It HAS to have a folicule attached to the strand to make a conclusive DNA analysis as to specific human species origin.

Electron microscopy of the hair protein "scales" alone won't be able to reveal anything more than family or, perhaps, genus.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 8:08am
So does that mean that all those illustrations in the 19th century were actually closer to the truth than the ones made today?

That is a very interesting conclusion Professor.

I see I can learn alot from you.

I hope I get a chance to learn from you on an actual expedition someday.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 9:07am
It probably does. There are a number of frescos and frizes in European countries -- like the one below -- where "wildmen" are depicted. They may have been people afflicted with hypertrichosis, or European versions of Bigfoot (there are such creatures known in parts of Europe).
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 11:13am
Incidently, it is proper to refer to me as a "professor" in the European custom as the term is applied to any instructor at a college or university. However, in America the term "Professor" is properly used when addressing a faculty member who holds a doctorate -- which I do not have.

I appreciate the respect, but so as not to annoy my academic colleagues, I prefer that the term "professor" not be used to address me since I am a US citizen and work for a college in America.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 9:14pm
Wow! Scott, that's a very humble thing to do. I'm impressed. Not many egos would allow that. Just as I thought, you're a man of integrity Scott. And no, I'm not being facetious. In my opinion, your credibility quotient, which was already high, has shot up a few more notches.

Gerry
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 3:07am
Thank you Gerry!
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 12:40am
Sorry Sir, I meant no disrespect to your colleagues. I only used that term to try and convey the amount of deep respect that I have for you. I shall alter my phrasing in the future.

Being the legend freak that I am this new information makes me reflect on old legends and tales of "Wildmen". The epic of Gilgamesh came immediately to mind when I read your post and saw that relief. It could be that Inkeedu(SP?)(I know I spelled that wrong) was a person with this condition.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 3:21am
Again, thank you!

Yes, there are a number of "wildman" legends that fit the mold. Gildamesh is a good one. The spelling, by the way, is "Enkidu". Here's the quotation. Bigfoot fans will appreciate it:

Aruru washed her hands, she pinched off some clay, and threw it into the wilderness. In the wildness she created valiant Enkidu, born of Silence, endowed with strength by Ninurta. His whole body was shaggy with hair, he had a full head of hair like a woman, his locks billowed in profusion like Ashnan. He knew neither people nor settled living, but wore a garment like Sumukan. He ate grasses with the gazelles, and jostled at the watering hole with the animals; as with animals, his thirst was slaked with mere water.

There is another coloquial story that comes from Northern Italy (not too far from Linz, Austria by the by) that tells of a hairy wildman that villagers encounter coming out of the woods one day.

The wildman is compassionate and good at tending cattle -- living alone not unlike Enkidu. He ultimately becomes a sort of confidant of the village people and helps them using his woodland skills.

There remains a fresco painting on the wall of a farm in the town commemorating him. There is a photo of the fresco in the Pangea Institute Photo Gallery for your edification.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 8:47am
Hair growth is controlled by a complex interaction of genetic and endocrine factors. Most forms of excess hairiness are associated with hormone imbalances involving sites under androgen control and are known as hirsutism.

Hypertrichosis, in contrast, can involve any area of the body and can have an acquired or genetic cause.

Little is known in general about autosomal or X-linked genes that control hair growth. The fact that non-human primates have considerably more hair coverage suggests that these genes have undergone important structural or regulatory changes during evolution in that resulted in Homo sapiens.



Scott, I'm really disappointed.
Yet again I've caught you directly copying other people's work and posting it here as your own.

The above italicized part of Scott's post can be found here:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA05/wolfman.html

You never use quotes or sources, instead trying to make it sound like you were the originator, when you are not. And this is definitely not the first time you have done this. I would expect this from some of the kids around here, but for an educator to be plagarizing is disheartening. I understand your 'need' to sound smart, but no one will care if you cite or quote something. Citing might be a bit overboard, so quoting something is definitely not too hard now is it?
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 9:01am
True. My appologies.

It's easier to cut and paste than to try to choose words already designed to explain complex material to the masses. It would be proper to include an attribution.

However, the comment "need to sound smart" is out of line. That was never the intent. The intent is to inform -- and cut down on the time I spend on posting information pieces for everyone's benefit.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 11:16am
Would anyone like to see other examples of individuals and artwork who resemble "Bigfoot" and are afflicted with hypertrichosis?

I have already posted a few to the Pangea Institute Photo Gallery, but have some others that I have collected through my research that I have not yet posted there. I am happy to share!
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 11:25am
I'm not trying to rip on you or anything, I just have a thing about plagarizing. There is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting. But putting some quotes "....." or italicizing the copied text does not take any extra time. Or even a link at the end of text copied does not take any extra time.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 7:12pm
True, with the new system it's easier to italicize or quote -- it's just a click away. Sometimes, I get pulled in different directions by my responsibilities or a phone call and I neglect to proof before posting.

Of course, the information is the critical point here. This isn't an academic or strictly scientific environment and most people here are familiar enough to know someone's intent. So, since "form follows function" (Walter Gropius, Bauhaus, 1919) I'm sure the readers are more concerned with the data provided than citations since they are perfectly capable of doing their own "homework" as you did.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 7:28pm
By the way, the link to the Pangea Institute website is:

Pangea Institute

Just click on the "Gallery" hotlink at the top of the home page to go to the photo gallery and select the "Cryptozoology" photo album to review the artwork and photos relating to "cryptid bipeds" with hypertrichosis I mentioned before.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 10:04pm
Interestingly enough, Janice Coy came up with the notion that BF is some sort of human with hypertrichosis several years ago on her own. She was going to the library trying to make sense of what she says she was seeing on her farm. I tend to agree with Scott that depictions of non-sapiens homins as hairless have little to support them. I would also note, though, that Dr. Fahrenbach's hair studies do show significant morphological variations in supposed BF hair from H. sapiens hair, although the closest match is H. sapiens.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 10:38pm
Thanks Will. Did Janice Coy ever publish anything with her idea? If so, I'd like to read it and more importantly, contact her about the concept. If she is the originator of thought, she would deserve credit as the first to propose it.

I'd also like to review Dr. Fahrenbach's research. I've spoken to Candace McCaffrey in the Zoology department at U of F about the hair issue (among others) and the people I've spoken to agree that, assuming Bigfoot is a hominin directly related to H. sapiens, the protein configuration of the hair would be so similar as to be nearly, if not impossible, to distinguish species.

If Bigfoot is not a member of the genus Homo, then its hair would contain some variants that would show it to be from another family or genus.

Something conclusive here in terms of a sample might point the research in the right direction.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Thu, Dec 8 2005, 10:41pm
By the way, Will, is there any chance that management would consider setting up another thread category about methologies?

A number of people are sending me e-mail about issues like slide preparation, aerial photography, nynhydrin and luminol use and so forth. These topics don't really fit in existing categories, but seem to be of interest to the site viewers.

I have posted some of this material on the S.E.B.R.A. forum, but it would get general exposure here.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 5:10am
Jan Coy discussed the idea of hypertrichosis in the book she co-wrote with Mary Green, "Fifty Years with Bigfoot". Yes, it IS a controversial book. Isn't all of this? Fahrenbach's hair analysis has been discussed in numerous places, including the BFRO website and in Chris Murphy's book, "Meet the Sasquatch". I have hair samples which Fahrenbach suggests may be from a BF. Email me for additional information.

I'll bring up your idea of a "methods" forum with the other Committee members. Thanks for the suggestion!
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 5:57am
Excellent! I must get a copy of her book and read it. Hope it's available on e-Bay.

Has anyone mounted one of the hair samples and examined it under an electron microscope or in blue-field?

If not, I'll volunteer!
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 1:07am
"I'm sure the readers are more concerned with the data provided than citations since they are perfectly capable of doing their own "homework" as you did."

Not necessarily. Brad is right, I thought those were your words. It never occurred to me to check and see if someone else had written it.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 3:23am
My appologies then. I'll do better in the future and avoid posting when I get rushed for time.
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 9:05pm
wow... i've generally been a total non-believer as far as bigfoot goes, but that picture of the chinese guy brings me a step closer. my main problem with the patterson/gimlin video was always that the face looked like a ski mask to me. but this guy has exactly the same hair pattern! a stripe of hairlessness right across the eyes and nose. that right there makes me less skeptical about the video. anyone else think it's kind of an uncanny match?

-dan
Re: Bigfoot and Hypertrichosis
posted Sat, Dec 10 2005, 12:31am
The condition tends to run in families -- passing from father to son(s) and sometimes daughter(s). The famed Jojo the circus wolf-boy had the affliction and so did his dad -- who, interestingly enough, hailed from the same geographic area as the famed Zana.

Here's a photo of two recent occurances of the condition.


Close Window