I do have some suggestions as to research techniques which address why I think they have been only marginally successful and they inturn have to do with my feelings as to how these creatures have been characterized in the sense of their being naturally behaving creatures with some superior adaptations and intelligences which put them outside the mainstream of smart predators like wolves, wolverines and mountain lions, but the commonly held perceptons are understandable ( and might actually work if pursued persistently) considering how our generally correct understanding of our natural history’s past and present is percieved by most people who are informed by the current accepted explaination of the way it is here and now.
I’m a bit of a geek on this…but I think it’s based on some unique perspective and experiences, untainted by orthodoxy, so to speak.
So, Paleobrute, what say you?

Your complaint can be answered in one sentence: amateurs are the only ones looking for the sasquatch, and when they are asked questions, they come up with funny answers.

OK, two sentences. If you have seen a sas, no matter who you are, you are suddenly either a liar, or a nut.

Truth is, LOTS of people are seeing these animals. As I always say to folks here: RSR! (That is: read sighting reports.) They are not “flimsy” evidence, as I’ve explained many times in many ways on this site. (I’m all over Cryptomundo; just do a search on “sasquatch evidence.”)

Sasquatch, like wolverines, wolves, grizzlies and bighorn sheep, tend to live in places people don’t go. But they frequently go to places people DO go. Which is why they are seen, not so rarely, but so often. Many sightings – contrary to what bleevers will tell you – are of sas looking into people’s windows. MANY – in fact most – are by hunters and motorists. What I call the urban-ignoramus arguments against – why no body? Why no photo? Why no hunter etc.? – tend to be, well, ignorant and naive. And scientists – who should really know better – use them.

Ask yourself this question: if you saw one – even if you got a clear photo – who would you come running back and blatt to? Hmmmm? (Before you answer, think of what happened to the Patterson-Gimlin film – a film that shows the subject, contrary to what seems popular belief, pretty damn clearly.)

Exactly.

Which is why I say the sas could be bigger, dumber, and more numerous than whatever the hell its numbers are, and still be unconfirmed by science.

Which is not the same thing as LOTS of people seeing them.

How many wildlife biologists, photographers, loggers, motorists, etc. do YOU think are keeping their lips pretty tightly sealed about what they’ve seen – some about what they’ve seen in the course of doing scientific research? (Heck. How many of them put a mask on, and make posts like yours on sites like this?)

My bet? More than any of us would estimate.

How many wild wolves or wolverines have you seen? Just checking.

Ask John Mionczynski. If you don’t know who he is, or think I’m BSing you, you need to read more. Because most of the people who have filed sighting reports were just like you – until they saw one.

Here’s a good place to start. I found this article a useful litmus test for scientific open-mindedness:

http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/additional-resources/79

Read at your own risk.

Yes, exactly- especially since that species is also KNOWN to have existed fairly recently (with the last century). There is no proof that Bigfoot EVER existed and only very flimsy ‘evidence’ Bigfoot exists now.

Exactly. That’s why it’s so bemusing to see Bigfoot Bleevers mew about “Well, Bigfoot lives in places where nobody goes!” to which I reply Well then- how does anyone ever see these Bigfoot? Then the Lack Of Bigfoot Proof apologists stutter and stammer and explain: “Well…well…there are no SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS working in Bigfoot area because science refuses to send researchers and so there’s a lack of scientifically acceptable proof (or even evidence)!” to which I reply: Well now…why does it have to a “Bigfoot Expedition” per se -? There are PLENTY of scientific studies going on in alleged Bigfoot territory which if Bigfoot existed would almost certainly have afforded opportunities for wildlife researchers and photographers to capture definitive proof even if only ‘coincidentally’. In other words, I don’t have to be specifically hunting Bigfoot to see Bigfoot. If I’m a wildlife photographer in the Cascades up in the Pacific Northwest sitting in a blind waiting to get a shot of ‘known’ wildlife and a Bigfoot saunters by, I’d certainly take his photo. The response from the Bleever ranks?…………….

Motion sensitive cameras and “fur grabbers”? These guys are getting all the cool toys. Best of luck to them. Maybe those sort of fur grabbers could be employed with sasquatch research as well.

Today, I understand the term more frequently used is heterosis (instead of “hybrid vigor” or “outbreeding enhancement”) to describe the increased strength of different characteristics in hybrids; the possibility to obtain a “better” individual by combining the virtues of its parents.

Still, I like “hybrid vigor.”

I’ve seen it in action, and it does occur.