you can reduce the $$ needed by analyzing data better. (an area this field to me, seems somewhat lacking in)

its 2012, almost 2013, we have amazing computer capabilities, and with the right person and data, you can, i pretty much guarantee you, find patterns and significant hotspots, times of year, etc.

all that data is there, just waiting to be analyzed.

I also think that Les Stroud does not know any better. I doubt he understands the political relationships involved in sasquatch research, which sadly is only getting worse, and he does not know the information behind many of these people. Like me, he probably just automatically expects people to be forthcoming and honest, and I totally understand that. And people must remember that even a notorious hoaxer can have a legitimate, documented sasquatch encounter.

I doubt Stroud would take part in any form of hoaxing, especially considering his hit show that featured him walking around through the woods. I mean that the show is interesting just because of the character, and not necessarily the content. Sort of like why I liked watching Bob Ross.

One of the problems with your idea is money. Another is dinero; a third, argent; and a fourth…moolah.

Bigfooters who aren’t on TV are paying out of their own pockets for this stuff, with money made from those jobs that eat up, along with family time, 99% of their field time.

Right. The fifth: Time. Which is: greenbacks.

And it helps to know the habits of the target species so you know where to place those cameras. The Bornean race of the Sumatran rhinoceros evaded cameras for ten years…long after we pretty much (thought we) knew everything about it.

I have seen every picture ever published on Bigfoot…and a few from private collections that have not been published. To this day, the ONLY credible pictures I have seen are stills from Patterson/Gimlin and maybe a few stills from Freeman. That’s it.

Pictures do not prove a thing…and Todd Standing’s pictures are proof of that.

EVERY picture Standing has published can be REPLICATED either with mask, fur suit, bad angle, or poor focus. The same can be said for any picture since photoshop came along.

Patterson/Gimlin is the exception as the year the film was made and the camera and film that were used, pre-dates the special effects the digital world has opened to us

But to me, none of that matters…I consider the source. If Todd Standing, Tom Biscardi, Matt Moneymaker, Justin Smeja, all published pictures of Bigfoot tomorrow, no matter how clear they wood be…it would not prove a thing. However, if Jane Goodall published a picture of Bigfoot tomorrow, she would submit it in a paper for peer review with whatever supporting evidence she had, and we would be on our way to determining a new species.

It’s the source Goodfoot. Respect and credibility are earned, not given. You are “giving” Todd Standing credibility he has not “earned” Goodfoot.

In my opinion

i’m still baffled with all the technology today… why not go to one of those spots…. with lots of history, and sightings… and FLOOD the area with camera traps or video cameras.