The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Charles “Snake” Stuart says he found an eight-foot, 300-pound creature in New York’s Adirondack region in 2024 and named it Dack. He also says DNA testing identified the remains as 58.5% Neanderthal and 41.5% human. Those figures are Stuart’s claim—not an independently confirmed scientific result.
The central dispute is not simply whether the interpretation is extraordinary. It is whether the specimen, samples, laboratory report and chain of custody can be authenticated. Cornell University says it did not test Stuart’s material or issue the report he posted.
What Stuart says he found
In accounts published by KSWO and WDIV/ClickOnDetroit in 2026, Stuart says he discovered the purported body in the Adirondacks in 2024. He describes Dack as about eight feet tall and 300 pounds, with footprints nearby. He also told KSWO that tooth testing placed the creature in its late teens or early twenties.
Those measurements, the reported age and the discovery itself are attributed to Stuart. The cited reports do not provide independent field measurements, a published biological age assessment or authenticated evidence that the displayed figure is the animal he says he recovered.
#1 Best Overall
What the alleged DNA test supposedly showed
WDIV/ClickOnDetroit reported Stuart’s stated result as 58.5% Neanderthal DNA and 41.5% human DNA. That wording should not be read as a laboratory finding accepted by genetics researchers. No independently authenticated raw sequence data, methods, controls or reproducible analysis for the specimen are established in the available reporting.
A human or archaic-human signal, even if a laboratory found one, would not by itself identify a new species or prove that a sample came from a Bigfoot. Researchers would need to examine how the sample was collected, preserved and handled; rule out contamination; verify the reference databases and analytical methods; and connect the tested material to the displayed body.
Rank #2
Did Cornell test the alleged remains?
No verified Cornell test is established. In an August 2026 report republished by Yahoo News, a Cornell spokesperson said: “Cornell did not conduct any testing for [Mr Stuart] or present a report.” The spokesperson also said documents Stuart posted were not from Cornell.
That statement directly challenges the institutional provenance attributed to the documents. Stuart’s reported DNA percentages therefore remain an unverified claim, rather than a Cornell result.
Why provenance matters more than the headline percentage
For a claim this consequential, independent reviewers would expect a documented chain of custody from discovery to laboratory intake. They would also expect a complete report identifying the laboratory, analysts, sample identifiers, extraction procedures, contamination controls, sequencing technology, reference genomes and statistical interpretation.
- Sample identity: Evidence that the tested tissue came from Dack rather than another source.
- Chain of custody: Dated records showing who collected, stored and transferred each sample.
- Laboratory provenance: Confirmation from the named institution that it performed the work and issued the report.
- Raw and supporting data: Sequence files, quality metrics, controls and methods that qualified researchers can inspect.
- Independent replication: A separate laboratory obtaining consistent results from independently sealed material.
Informing News reported in July 2026 that a complete laboratory report and independent institutional confirmation had not been made public at that time. Cornell’s subsequent denial is the strongest specific evidence available about the alleged university connection, but it does not determine what the displayed figure is. The available evidence shows a disputed claim, not a conclusive hoax finding or a biological identification.
Rank #4
- Cryptid Creatures: A Field Guide to 50 Fascinating Beasts
- ABIS BOOK
- Little Bigfoot
What happened with the New York State Fair exhibit?
Stuart’s July 9, 2025 promotional release advertised a public exhibit at the Great New York State Fair from August 20 through September 1, 2025. Those dates are historical and should not be treated as a current event listing. The release described a complete body with preserved tissues and scat, but it was Stuart’s own promotional material and independently verifies neither the specimen nor its interpretation.
In that release, Stuart wrote: “Dragging a Bigfoot carcass into a research institution is simply not a possibility.” That is his explanation for the lack of conventional institutional handling, not an independent scientific account of the evidence.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to assess the claim without overreaching
- Separate assertion from verification. “Stuart says” applies to the discovery, dimensions, age, DNA percentages and identity.
- Check the named institution directly. Cornell’s statement says it did not perform the claimed testing or issue the posted report.
- Look for complete documentation. A screenshot or partial document cannot substitute for a signed report, sample records and raw data.
- Require independent replication. Extraordinary biological claims need qualified outside laboratories to reproduce the result from controlled samples.
- Avoid treating publicity as evidence. An exhibit, press release or memoir can document what a claimant promotes, but cannot establish species identity.
What is actually established?
| Question | What the available reporting supports |
|---|---|
| Who made the claim? | Charles “Snake” Stuart. |
| Where and when does he say he found it? | New York’s Adirondack region in 2024. |
| What DNA result does he report? | 58.5% Neanderthal and 41.5% human, attributed to Stuart and not independently confirmed. |
| Did Cornell confirm the test? | No. Cornell says it did not test for Stuart or present the report. |
| Has the specimen’s identity been independently established? | No independently authenticated identification is shown in the cited sources. |
Related material from the claimant
KSWO identifies The Bigfoot Bible as Stuart’s memoir. The book documents his perspective, but its existence does not validate the DNA claim, and the available reporting does not establish a current retailer listing or independent confirmation of its contents.
The Bottom Line
Stuart says he found a dead Bigfoot and that testing produced a 58.5% Neanderthal, 41.5% human result. Cornell denies performing the alleged testing or issuing the report, and the available sources do not establish a verified chain of custody, authenticated data or independent biological identification. The claim remains unverified.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
