Robert Lindsay: What does the hair on the steak from the Sierra Kills look like?

Even after 3 weeks, the "body recovery" effort that took place in the Sierra Buttes near Gold Lake, CA involving Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum and other Bigfoot researchers still remains a mystery.

In January, Robert Lindsay wrote that several independent sources informed him that Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum decided that the sample he examined from the Sierra Kills site was not from a Bigfoot due to the presence of guard hairs. According to the article, since Meldrum had suggested it was just a piece of a coyote, Lindsay thought there might be a different reason why Meldrum changed his mind.

"I believe that the Bigfoot sample that Meldrum examined is from a Bigfoot, not a coyote," wrote Lindsay.

"A source felt that Meldrum was wrong in characterizing the Bigfoot sample as a piece of coyote. Multiple sources told us that Meldrum bailed out on the sample because it did not fit his Bigfoot as Ape theory that he has invested many long years and so much of his own and other people’s money in."

Meldrum later responded to Lindsay's article and wrote this on Facebook:

"I returned to the lab with a tiny sliver of the salted specimen (1mm x 5mm) with a couple dozen hairs attached. I cannot discuss the details of the analysis of the hair further due to the NDA. I will say that humans are primates. No primates have underhairs. No human populations adapt to elevation by sprouting underhair."

In a new article posted last night, Robert describes the hair on the Bigfoot steak in much greater detail:

First of all, Meldrum is not correct that primates do not have guard hairs. Some monkeys definitely have guard hairs, especially the smaller ones, and many monkeys have underfur. For instance, the Japanese macaque survives in temperatures all the way down to -4 degrees F.

I have spoken at length with someone who has obtained a photo of a piece of the Sierra Kills steak and has studied it deeply.

Here is what he says:

The steak has hair, not fur. The hair is quite long, about 5-6 inches long. It kinky like pubic hair. While there may be some hair underneath, there is mainly just this kinky pubic hair that you can see well.

There are no guard hairs on the sample as you might expect to see on a dog, a fox or a coyote. That is, there is no second row of hairs under the main hairs where you can push under it and see rows and rows of progressively finer hair. In other words, while there may be some underfur, there do not appear to be any guard hairs. Instead of guard hairs, it looks as if there may be some sort of light underfur.

In places, this kinky pubic hair is thick, but in other places it is not. It looks like “dirty hippie hair.” It’s not greasy or shiny, but it does have a tendency to clump.

It does not resemble coyote hair in any way, shape or form. In fact, the source said that the notion that it is coyote hair is so ridiculous that he can’t believe Meldrum made that comment. The source said that while Meldrum may know anatomy and locomotion, he doesn’t know animal hair very well.

Why can’t it be coyote hair? First of all, the hair is way too long for a coyote. Nevertheless, there are some coyotes that have hair this long. But even in those cases, the consistency and shape of the hair is so different from the hair from the steak that it is “laughable,” in the source’s words.

In color, the sample does not even resemble a pale yote or coyote as many are saying. Instead, it resembles bear hair, specifically hair from the belly of a bear, more than anything else. On the other hand, this is not bear hair. Bears don’t have hair that looks like this.

[via robertlindsay.wordpress.com]