There is competition between professional scientists too. But the competition between self appointed BF experts and organisations is childish, in fact it is more like competition between religions and religious factions.

I concur with your opinion of Todd Standing/Sylvanic. I am fully aware of the controversy around Todd. But the reason, I find him credible (in fact probably the currently most credible) is that he is one of the few who is actually seriously trying to answer the Question and collect good quality evidence by going out into the Canadian forests and spending significant time there. I feel this is the right approach and he is being scientific about it. What i dont like is BFRO, who i think are nitwits, and the crackpots and fruitcakes that Mod and frequent All Things Bigfoot on Reddit (which in reality is All Things Bullshit). BFRO collects reports, like some people collect stamps or train numbers. It is not research. It is more like collecting trophies. I was a member of All Things Bigfoot/Bullshit, but they banned me because i was asking too many questions. I was being too scientific, objective, questioning and analytical of so-called evidence/encounters presented there. The mods did not like this. I also stood up for TS, both against the attempts at character assassination and over his videos. Apparently ad hominem attacks are not allowed, except that is against Todd Standing. The approach of the Mods and many of the contributors there, is so wrong. If you wish to study something scientifically, to prove its existence, you dont take as your starting position that its existence must be true and then attempt to dismiss any evidence and arguments that it is not. This is like religious fundamentalism or a cult. It is like Creationists attcking you because you accept the geological evidence that the Earth was not created in seven days and there was no Great Flood. Thy have this idea that someone who is sceptical, is somehow irrational because they do not believe like they do. As someone who has a scientific background, being open-minded but objective is exactly where you should be until there is unequivocal evidence for or against a hypothesis. It is the safe position. BFRO think collecting truckloads of questionable eye-witness accounts is evidence. Ditto low resolution blurry video and images. This is junk, not evidence. I could invent a dozen fake eyewitness accounts a day if i wished. It wont convince anyone rational and certainly not the scientific community. As the saying goes, video or it did not happen. Where i profoundly disagree with you, is the conflation of an interest in wildlife, BF and hunting. I find hunting for kicks or food, especially using modern weaponry, unethical and frankly disgusting. There is no need to hunt wildlife in North America for food. It is simply a lifestyle choice and being used by those that do, to justify their lust for killing things. People who have an interest in wildlife and BF, because they hunt, have severe personality disorders and need to get psychiatric help. For this reason I have a dislike of websites/videos on the subject of BF by those who profess to hunt. There approach and intentions are wrong.

"Mindspeaking" Oh, come on! This is wu-wu nonsense. It is not even pseudo-scientific nonsense.

"What it really boils down to is we still don't know crap. " We certainly do not know everyhting, in fact it is mathematically proven we can not. But that does not mean we know nothing! This is a classical logical fallacy in philosophy.

"If there is a higher being, and that's debatable,..." Just one? Which one(s)? Thor, Zeus, or perhaps, Shiva? Seriously, It is not even debatable. There is no evidence for a omnipotent higher being(s) controlling the Universe, so why believe there is. To believe in something when there is no evidence for it is irrational. No ifs, no buts. It is is just superstition.

I was not trying to browbeat you. But i see these kinds of statements a lot, often from scientists, who should know better. Things happen or a created at a point in time and space within the Universe, because the ingredients (matter and physics) are present at that location and time. This is a very powerful concept and when it is appreciated, it is very enlightening. It makes you question why something happened, leading to an understanding of why it happened, rather than accepting it as an accident of nature. If sasquatch and like any other lifeform, has a purpose it is only to be a vessel or vehicle that hosts its genes and to perpetuate these genes by passing them on to the next generation, as it is genetically programmed to do.

" Do i think all things living have a purpose? I sure do!!! Whats Sasquatch purpose? " I fundamentally disagree. This is dangerously close to the belief in "intelligent design" and creationism You might as well ask what is the purpose of the Moon. Living things, inanimate natural things, the Universe generally, do not have "purpose". Unless designed by an intelligence to be used as a tool. Otherwise things do not have purpose. Instead things just "is". They exist and come into existence when and where the ingredients for their existence are present and are then acted on by the laws of physics.

Yes, I share your view on photos and video. But lets not make seeking perfection the enemy of the good. There will always be those the claim a video or image is a hoax. In some cases, in fact many cases IMHO, it is a justifiable claim if the quality of the video or image is poor, which for some reason so often seems to be the case . Poor quality video or pictures can be used to hide a multitude of sins. This is why TS's videos are different and very convincing. The flip side is that others, especially die-hard believers, wont accept Todd's videos because a modern digital camera was used and so the images are very good. So good they would claim, that they must have been hoaxed. You cannot win in this respect. If Todd has shot video of bears hiding among the trees, no one would be arguing he videoed bears. The problem with DNA evidence is this. Chimpanzee and human DNA is very similar. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that sasquatch DNA and human DNA would also be very similar. Therefore you have to demonstrate that the DNA sample was actually collected from a sasquatch. If you cannot there would be claims that it is not sasquatch DNA but human DNA that has naturally degraded.

I agree, DNA would be nice to have, but failing this, good photographics/video evidence will suffice. However, if the latter can be/ has been recorded, it would be relastively straightforward to collect DNA samples in the form of hairs from where the animals were standing/moving etc.

I too am looking forward to the DBF sequel. I hope it will nail those doubters who think Todd's friends are elaborate hoaxes. However, I just want to make one point and it is a very important one. If new and remarkable footage has been indeed been collected of sasquatch by Todd, it would be far better to announce the new findings to the world by first getting a peer-reviewed scientific paper on the findings published in a reputable scientific journal. Not by first announcing it as a documentary. Unarguable footage, including action, full body and head shots of sasquatch would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries ever. More than worthy of a paper or papers submitted to Nature and Science. Once the findings have been scientifically scrutinised and the scientific community convinced, then you can release videos to show on Discovery Channel etc. The scientific community does not view kindly those that release their research to the media in a fanfare of publicity, before it can be scrutinised. It is viewed as an attempt to by-pass peer-review and as crass publicity seeking. It reduces the credibility of the researcher and the research findings. It suggests the research is not confident about the veracity of what they have discovered and/or perhaps has something to hide. I am sure Prof. Geoff Meldrum would agree.

OK, not everyone has the necassary resources to make audio ansd video reordings. But from your posts here, it seems your neighbourhood is quite the hotspot. So why dont you invite some others to make the recordings and video.

Sorry, this is being silly. There are absolutely no sasquatch in Scotland. There are many reasons for saying this, but one of the mains one is that there is no historical record of any such animal living in the British Isles. The second reason is that there is literally nowhere for it to live. It is all densely populated by North American wilderness standards and even the remotest most mountainous parts are frequently visited by hikers and climbers, sheep farmers and deer stalkers. What is more, almost all of Scotland was deforested. Apart from a few small remnants of the original Caledonian forest, all forest in Scotland has been planted for timber, mostly since WW1. The Scottish Wild cat is barely surviving, so how do you think a 8ft tall archaic hairy hominid could?

Hi Robert, I saw this posted on Reddit All things bigfoot. To me this video shows nothing more than a XC-skier diagonally traversing the snow slope. You get a sense of this from watching the motion of the figure. It also explains the lack of disturbance to the snow pack that would have been made by an animal or person walking through it.

Hi, very interesting. Did you ever make any audio recordings or video of these sounds and behaviour?

It is not beyond the possibility that they eat their dead, especially if winter weather is severe and they have not eater anything else for a long time as a result.

Next opportunity, Todd should offer carrots.

What is the report referred to and where can i see a copy if it is online?