Searching For Bigfoot: HAND STORY

HAND STORY

THE DNA REPORT AND THE QUESTIONS IT RAISES

The following is a, (poor quality), recording of a phone conversation between the company that did our DNA testing, Don Monroe, and Tom Biscardi. The conversation was recorded by accident. Tom had set up a three way call so that Don might hear the results and understand why we had not yet recieved the written DNA report. Don, who is not familiar with cell phone use, accidently had his phone on record. This is that un-altered recording...

Since this conversation, we (Searching for Bigfoot Inc.) were not allowed to speak to the technicians who actually did the DNA tests, but only to the Director of Public Relations who told us that they would no longer discuss this matter with us and that they would only give us the results of the second test that they ran. The second test was run without any request or consultation with Searching for Bigfoot Inc. and seemingly, only after it became clear to the DNA company that there would be a great deal of controversy surrounding this discovery. We do not know what all of this means, but we can make assumptions. You will have to make up your own minds. The following is a copy of the DNA report we did recieve, (in yellow print). It shows the result of the second test and does not mention anything about the first test?

CENTER FORENSIC REPORT 
To: C. Thomas Biscardi 

Date: 6/06/06 
DDC Case No.: F06-20131 

The following item was analyzed: DDC Item Description Date Received No. 01 Tissue sample 5/23/06 
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Results:

DNA extraction and human quantitation were performed on items 01.A and 01.B (sections of tissue).

CONCLUSION:
No DNA was obtained from items 01.A and 01.13 (sections of tissue).
The item of evidence is stored in the Forensic Department.

Kathryn MOccHenry, B.A. / A. Heinig, Ph.D.
Forensic DNA Analyst Assistant Laboratory Director, Forensics

Page 1 of 1 

DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER 
June 6, 2006 

Dear Mr. Biscardi, 

Our laboratory uses a method called slot blot as our DNA quantitation method. This method uses a human DNA probe 
called D 17Z 1 which allows us to quantitate the amount of DNA from higher primates that is present in a sample. 
Our slot blot result indicates that there is no DNA present in the tissue samples (DDC item # 01.A and 01.B) that 
you submitted to DNA Diagnostics Center on 5/23/06. We also performed a 1% agarose yield gel to determine if the 
DNA from items 01.A and 01.B is degraded. Based on this test the DNA from items 01.A and 01.B is highly degraded 
and, therefore, a DNA profile cannot be obtained. If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to 
contact us at 800-XXX-XXXX. 

Sincerely, 

Kathryn McHenry, B.A. 
Forensic DNA Analyst

Dr. Todd Reese gives his analysis of the hand

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Dr. Todd L. Reese, D.C. and I am a chiropractor in the state of Idaho. I received my bachelor's degree from Idaho State University in Microbiology and went to chiropractic school in California. During my education, we study anatomy and physiology in detail. One study published in the Journal of Alternative Therapies in September 1998 compared chiropractic education to medical school education. Chiropractors have more hours of classroom instruction than do primary care M.D.s and have much more emphasis on anatomy and physiology. My only purpose in stating this fact is to alert the reader that bone structure is very much a part of chiropractic education and that I feel adequate to comment on it.

Now that we have established a thorough background of my educational foundation I am going to explain how I came into contact with the hand of unknown origin. Mr. Donald L. Monroe has been a personal friend of my family for many decades. I am pleased to call him my friend and have always been pleasantly amazed at his understanding of the outdoors and wildlife.

He called me one day in July 2003 and asked me if I could x-ray a hand. I thought that he may have injured his hand and told him that I could. He then brought into my office, on July 24, a severed hand that had been carefully wrapped and placed in a cooler. Frost was visible on the posterior aspect of the hand and it was evident by the coloration that the hand had been skinned and was in a state of decay. My knowledge of the rate of decay of the stratum basale layer below the epidermis is lacking, so no estimated time of death could be calculated. The browning of the tissues, though, did concern me because I felt the rate of decay would soon render much of the specimen worthless. I have included digital pictures of the hand with this document.

I sterilized my x-ray cassettes and proceeded to take an x-ray of the hand and was careful not to contaminate the specimen. I never did touch the hand. The first observation I made was that each of the digits 2-5 had the distal phalanges removed or severed. The first digit appeared to be removed at the metacarpo-phalangeal joint. The metacarpals were all intact and three of the carpal bones are visible. In comparison to the human hand, the carpal bones were similar, but the trapezium and the trapezoid seem to be one bone in the unknown hand. The other two carpals seem to be the capitate and the hamate. The density of the metacarpal bones were quite different from the human hand. The bones were much denser with pearl shaped densities in the distal heads. The metacarpo-phalangeal joint spaces were much wider in the unknown hand when compared to a human hand. The proximal phalanges showed slightly irregular cortices (maybe slightly arthritic) near the interphalangeal joints. These joint spaces also proved irregular with v-shaped joint lines. This would prove to increase the surface area of the joint and could serve to increase strength at the joint. This is only speculation, though.

In comparing the two hands, one could safely say that the unknown hand is not human. There are far more differences than there are similarities. Further DNA testing and study of the hand by those more knowledgeable than I should yield answers to the origin of the hand.

In conclusion, I feel that this specimen needs to be examined by open-minded. individuals who will give it the attention it deserves. I have compared the bone structure to bears, apes and other animals with my limited resources and cannot come up with any tangible answers. I do believe that it is not human, but it seems to be human-like..

Todd L. Reese, D.C.

May 31, 2006

..........................OUR HAND NEXT TO HUMAN......................MAJOR POINTS ON OUR HAND.........................XRAY OF OUR HAND.................

See our original story on the hand at: Possibly The Greatest Bigfoot Find Of The Century and more pictures of the hand at: Pictures of the HAND OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN

See the original press release on this find at: Press Release June 9, 2006

Written and posted by JavaBob

GO TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS or RETURN TO FRONT PAGE or HomePage

Departments

Bigfoot Articles
Bigfoot Headlines - Comprehensive list of news stories about Bigfoot
Bigfoot Webpages - Growing list of various Bigfoot sites around the net
Bigfoot Quotes
Bigfoot State By State
Link To Us

“BIGFOOT LIVE”

(RADIO SHOW)

Listen to Tom live every Wednesday at 7PM pacific time at “www.bigfootliveradioshow.com”

CYBERSIZZLE

Hola!

WANT FREEDOM?