FILE DEPT

Field Report Archive

Private Skeptical Evidence Corpus

Case Files Map Source Manifest

← Back to Case Files

Cryptid
Evidence Dossier

FBI Bigfoot Hair Examination, 1976 to 1977

Evidence Dossier: A record proves that a statement, transfer, examination, or result was documented. It does not automatically prove the anomalous interpretation attached to it.
OverviewEvidenceTimelineAnalysisSourcesMedia Context
1976, 1977
Washington, District of Columbia, USA, Oregon, USA
10/10
1/10
A hair and skin specimen associated with Bigfoot research represented an unknown creature and could not be matched to known animals.
Strong for the correspondence, transfer, methods, and reported deer-family result; very weak for any Bigfoot attribution because the pre-submission collection history is absent.

Investigative Assessments

"The reported claim remains worth testing against the record: A hair and skin specimen associated with Bigfoot research represented an unknown creature and could not be matched to known animals. The strongest documented reasons to keep the file open are: Byrne Inquiry About Alleged Prior FBI Tests: Byrne explicitly asked the FBI to verify or reject a circulating claim about earlier hair analysis.; FBI Response: No Prior Examination Record Located: The FBI reported it could not locate records of the alleged prior examinations.. Key unresolved lead: Why did the FBI agree to test the sample in 1976?"
"Evidentiary limitations: Strong for the correspondence, transfer, methods, and reported deer-family result; very weak for any Bigfoot attribution because the pre-submission collection history is absent. Note that: Byrne Inquiry About Alleged Prior FBI Tests fails to support: It does not establish that an earlier FBI test occurred or that any hair came from Bigfoot.; FBI Response: No Prior Examination Record Located fails to support: An unsuccessful file search is not proof that no examination ever occurred outside the searched records.. Documented contradiction: The triggering rumor said FBI analysis had found hair unlike any known North American animal; the September 1976 FBI response said no references to such earlier examinations could be located. Leading conventional hypothesis: The specimen was ordinary deer hair misidentified before submission."

Case Summary

A document-level reconstruction of how a Bigfoot researcher asked the FBI to resolve a rumor, later submitted about 15 hairs attached to skin, and received a deer-family identification. The dossier separates the existence of the correspondence and laboratory result from the unsupported claim that the specimen came from an unknown creature.

Evidence Locker

9 inspectable evidence items. Claims and source findings are kept separate.

Claimant correspondence Local copy hash-verified

Byrne Inquiry About Alleged Prior FBI Tests

Analyst rating: Primary record of the rumor and the question posed to the FBI

“Will you kindly, to set the record straight, once and for all, inform us if the FBI has examined hair which might be that of a Bigfoot.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 4
Evidence classClaimant correspondence
Relationship to claimDocuments the allegation that prompted the file, not proof that the rumored earlier test occurred.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsByrne explicitly asked the FBI to verify or reject a circulating claim about earlier hair analysis.
What it does not supportIt does not establish that an earlier FBI test occurred or that any hair came from Bigfoot.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyPeter Byrne letter -> FBI records file -> FBI Vault scan -> local page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Official response letter Local copy hash-verified

FBI Response: No Prior Examination Record Located

Analyst rating: Strong primary record of the FBI file search result

“However, we have been unable to locate any references to such examinations in our files.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 5
Evidence classAgency correspondence
Relationship to claimDirectly contradicts the rumor that the FBI already had an unmatched Bigfoot-hair result in its files.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsThe FBI reported it could not locate records of the alleged prior examinations.
What it does not supportAn unsuccessful file search is not proof that no examination ever occurred outside the searched records.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyFBI Laboratory Division response -> FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Specimen-submission correspondence Local copy hash-verified

Request to Analyze 15 Hairs and Skin

Analyst rating: Primary record describing the material before delivery

“The hair that we have now, about 15 hairs attached to a tiny piece of skin, is the first that we have obtained in six years which we feel may be of importance.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 2
Evidence classSubmission correspondence
Relationship to claimDefines what Byrne said the proposed specimen contained and why he considered it important.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsByrne represented that he possessed about 15 unidentified hairs attached to skin and requested comparative analysis.
What it does not supportThe letter gives no collection location, collector, date, field documentation, or verified link to a reported animal.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyPeter Byrne letter -> FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Internal administrative memorandum Local copy hash-verified

FBI Internal Authorization Memorandum

Analyst rating: Strong primary record for why the FBI accepted the noncriminal examination

“STS Division recommends request for examination be granted in interest of research and scientific inquiry.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 12 to 15
Evidence classInternal agency record
Relationship to claimShows the decision process and that the examination was treated as research, not as confirmation of Bigfoot.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsThe FBI internally approved analysis of 15 unidentified hairs and tissue as a scientific-inquiry exception.
What it does not supportAdministrative approval does not authenticate the specimen origin or endorse the Bigfoot interpretation.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyInternal FBI memorandum and continuations -> FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Official acceptance letter Local copy hash-verified

FBI Letter Agreeing to Examine the Material

Analyst rating: Strong primary record of the agreed examination and submission instructions

“With this understanding, we will examine the hairs and tissue mentioned in your letter.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 1
Evidence classAgency correspondence
Relationship to claimConfirms the FBI agreed to receive and examine the described material.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsThe FBI made a case-specific exception and instructed that the material be sent to its Scientific Analysis Section.
What it does not supportAgreement to test does not validate the Bigfoot attribution or establish custody before FBI receipt.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyFBI letter to Byrne -> FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Evidence photographs Local copy hash-verified

FBI File Specimen Photographs

Analyst rating: Primary visual record of the submitted hair bundle, with metric scale

“METRIC”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 20 to 21
Evidence classPhysical-evidence imagery
Relationship to claimShows the material photographed within the FBI file and its approximate scale.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsThe file contains two photographs of hair bundles positioned against metric rulers.
What it does not supportThe photographs do not identify species, establish collection provenance, or show that the pictured material is the entire submission.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodySubmitted sample photographed for the FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local two-page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Internal laboratory memorandum Local copy hash-verified

FBI Internal Laboratory Result and Custody Memorandum

Analyst rating: Strong primary record for delivery, result, and planned return

“The hairs were determined to be from a member of the deer family.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 18 to 19
Evidence classInternal laboratory record
Relationship to claimConnects delivery by Curtis, the laboratory conclusion, and the planned return in one contemporaneous record.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsThe memo states Howard Curtis delivered the sample, records the deer-family result, and says Curtis requested return of the hairs.
What it does not supportIt does not provide the pre-FBI collection chain, raw observations, or a species-level identification.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyHoward Curtis delivery -> FBI Laboratory examination -> internal result memo -> FBI Vault scan -> local packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Laboratory result correspondence Local copy hash-verified

FBI Laboratory Result Letter

Analyst rating: Strongest primary record for methods and reported conclusion

“It was concluded as a result of those examinations that the hairs are of deer family origin.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 16 to 17
Evidence classLaboratory result
Relationship to claimDirectly tests and rejects the unknown-animal interpretation for the submitted hairs.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsThe letter lists transmitted and incident light microscopy, morphological study, scale casts, and direct comparison with known-origin hairs; it reports deer-family origin and returns the sample.
What it does not supportIt resolves only the submitted hairs. It does not independently verify where they came from, address every alleged Bigfoot sample, or disprove the existence of an unknown species.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyFBI Laboratory examination -> signed result letter and returned enclosure -> FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record
Recipient correspondence Local copy hash-verified

Academy of Applied Science Acknowledgement

Analyst rating: Primary record confirming receipt of the analysis correspondence

“Thank you very much for sending the analysis of hair and skin which had been sent to us by Mr. Peter Byrne.”
Record locationOriginal FBI Vault PDF, pages 22
Evidence classRecipient acknowledgement
Relationship to claimCloses the documentary loop by acknowledging the FBI analysis and planned communication to Byrne.
Authenticity assessmentHigh for document authenticity: the page is from the FBI Vault scan. The local packet is a page-preserving derivative with its own SHA-256, not a separately issued FBI publication.
What this supportsHoward Curtis acknowledged the analysis and said Byrne would receive copies of the correspondence.
What it does not supportThe wording does not unambiguously confirm the later custody or present survival of the returned physical specimen.
ProvenancePage-preserving extraction from the official FBI Vault Bigfoot file; source and derived packet hashes are registered in the manifest.
Chain of custodyHoward Curtis acknowledgement -> FBI file -> FBI Vault scan -> local page packet.
Open Document (Local PDF Document) Download Copy Canonical Agency Record

Documented Timeline

  • 1976-08-26: Peter Byrne asked the FBI whether it had previously examined alleged Bigfoot hair and requested the record be set straight.
  • 1976-09-10: FBI Laboratory Division replied that it could not locate references to prior such examinations in its files.
  • 1976-11-24: Byrne requested comparative analysis of about 15 hairs attached to a small piece of skin.
  • 1976-12-13: An internal FBI memorandum recommended granting the examination as scientific inquiry.
  • 1976-12-15: Jay Cochran told Byrne the FBI would examine the submitted hairs and tissue as an exception to normal policy.
  • 1977-02-22: An internal FBI memorandum recorded delivery by Howard Curtis and identified the hairs as deer family.
  • 1977-02-24: The FBI result letter described microscopy and comparison methods, concluded deer-family origin, and returned the sample.
  • 1977-03-08: Howard Curtis acknowledged receiving the analysis and stated that Byrne would receive copies of the correspondence.

Named Participants and Roles

  • Peter C. Byrne: Director of the Bigfoot Information Center and Exhibition; requester and asserted source of the submitted material.
  • Jay Cochran, Jr.: FBI Assistant Director associated with the Laboratory and Scientific and Technical Services correspondence.
  • Howard S. Curtis: Academy of Applied Science executive vice president; identified in the FBI memo as the person who delivered the sample to the laboratory.
  • Unidentified FBI laboratory personnel: performed the reported transmitted-light, incident-light, morphological, scale-cast, and comparison-microscope examinations.

Contradictions and Record Conflicts

  • The triggering rumor said FBI analysis had found hair unlike any known North American animal; the September 1976 FBI response said no references to such earlier examinations could be located.
  • The submitted material was described as about 15 hairs attached to skin; the final result specifically identifies the hairs as deer family but does not separately state a result for the skin or tissue.
  • A Bigfoot association motivated the request, but no record in the file documents the specimen collection site, collector, date, field conditions, or a direct link to a reported creature.

Conventional Explanations

  • The specimen was ordinary deer hair misidentified before submission.
  • The specimen was contaminated, mixed, or mislabeled before the FBI received it.
  • The earlier claim about an unmatched FBI specimen was a repeated rumor amplified by the Washington Environmental Atlas rather than a documented laboratory result.

Missing Evidence

  • Original field notes identifying who collected the specimen, where, when, and under what conditions.
  • An unbroken custody log from collection through Byrne and Curtis to the FBI Laboratory.
  • Raw laboratory bench notes, comparison images, reference-sample identifiers, measurements, and species-level determination.
  • A documented independent retest of the same material.
  • Verified present location and condition of the returned hairs and skin.

What Remains Unresolved

  • The FBI file does not identify the deer species.
  • The record does not separately explain what was concluded about the attached skin or tissue.
  • The correspondence documents that a sample was returned, but the surviving file does not establish its later custody or availability.
  • The file resolves this submitted hair sample only and cannot decide whether an unknown North American primate exists.

Investigative Hypotheses

  • The sample belonged to a deer, as determined by the FBI analysis
  • The sample belonged to an unknown hominid but was misidentified or swapped
  • The researchers were misled by an altered sample

Open Questions

  • Why did the FBI agree to test the sample in 1976?
  • What specific test procedures were used to identify the hair as deer hair?
  • Are there other similar tests conducted by federal agencies?

Archival Landing Pages and Evidence Corpus

FBI Vault Bigfoot Records

Archival Landing Page

External URL: https://vault.fbi.gov/bigfoot

Media Context

Editorial context only: These IMDb listings document adaptations, documentaries, or cultural references. They do not constitute evidence, corroboration, or investigative testimony.

Bigfoot (1970)

film thematic similarity only

A Bigfoot exploitation film from the same cultural era; no verified link to the specific FBI hair analysis.

IMDb ID: tt0065470 · Verified 2026-08-05

Open IMDb Page