[ad_1]
Bigfoot.
That's all the F.B.I. say well, tweeted) Wednesday, with the publication of 22 pages of eyebrow documents related to a hair analysis performed in the 1970s at the request of a renowned Bigfoot researcher.
The researcher, Peter Byrne, then director of the Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition in The Dalles, Oregon, had a simple question. Jay Cochran Jr., Deputy Director of F.B.I. laboratory division: Have you tested possible samples of Bigfoot hair? And if not, would you like to start?
The 1970s were a moment of glory for Bigfoot researchers: Patterson-Gimlin's gritty film, which claimed to show one of the creatures strolling in the bed of a California stream, was shot in 1967. The question did not seem too surprising.
The F.B.I. Mr. Cochran has responded several times over the past year that he has tested hair samples on hair samples. "However, we have not found any references to such reviews in our files," he wrote.
Mr. Byrne had a sample, he wanted the F.B.I. examine. It was 15 strands of hair tied to a small piece of skin that was "the first we've got in six years and we feel important," he wrote.
The F.B.I. The lab did not normally look at the tufts of hair looking for their potentially fantastic origins – it focused more on criminal investigations, Cochran said – but for some reason that may be lost in history, he agreed.
"Sometimes, on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of research and scientific investigation, we make exceptions to this general policy," he wrote. "With this understanding, we will examine the hair and fabrics mentioned in your letter."
Today, the idea of a serious Bigfoot search has become the realm of reality shows such as "MonsterQuest" and "Finding Bigfoot". Few people take it seriously. But the 1970s were another era.
The documents published by the F.B.I. Wednesday included a A lengthy June 1976 New York Times report describing Byrne's work, including "a handful" of Bigfoot's observations that "hold firm and receive great credibility".
The article that Mr. Byrne sent to the F.B.I. to illustrate the seriousness of his business, also lamented the derisory state of Bigfoot studies in the United States.
The Times said the interest in the "monster" of the United States "could not take for granted" the growing sums of money "spent" by leading scientists to investigate Loch Ness.
In this case, at least, it seems that the F.B.I. tried to do his part in the Bigfoot hunt.
According to documents released Wednesday, the hair sent by Mr. Byrne was subjected to a battery of tests, including examinations of the root structure, the medullary structure and the thickness of the cuticle.
But when the results came back, they were bad news for Bigfoot hunters.
"It was concluded as a result of these examinations that the hair was of family origin," said Mr. Cochran in February 1977. "The hair sample you submitted is returned as an attachment to this letter. "
Melissa Hovey-Larsen, president and founder of the American Bigfoot Society, said she was not surprised that the hair turned out to be those of a deer.
"What we hear a lot when we collect hair samples is a horse, a deer, a cow or a bear," she said. "We hear everything. But from time to time, you receive one that comes back and says "unknown source", then nothing comes out of it. "
Ms. Hovey-Larsen added that what was more remarkable was that Mr. Byrne turned to the federal government for the truth.
"As the researchers leave, Peter Byrne has drawn more leads to gain respect for this area than anyone else in this period. So I'm not shocked that he went to see the F.B.I. but I am surprised, she said.
She said most Bigfoot researchers avoided this path.
"As I always tell people," What will they tell you? "First of all, we have no proof that this exists," she said. "We can not even get a clear picture. Most of us think we're just going to laugh in the room. "
The documents, which a F.B.I. A qualified spokesperson for "recently released information" appears to be the first time federal forces have admitted to conducting an investigation on Bigfoot.
The spokeswoman said the publication of the documents on Twitter should not be a revealing style "X-Files".
The account that published them, @FBIRecordsVault, automatically tweets documents that have been entered into the agency's Freedom of Information Act library after a successful FOIA request, she said.
Some members of the agency had fun in the public interest aroused by the documents and the encrypted tweet that announced their arrival.
"Oh, my God," a receptionist at F.B.I. Press Office told a reporter who called to ask about Bigfoot. "I can not believe that's why you're calling."
[ad_2]
Source link