If You Were A Sasquatch How Would You Do It ?

[Guest]

DaveB: GREAT comparison with a guy working to keep away from people. Thanks for the imput..

Sasfooty, your comments remind me of some reports I remember where unidentified black things were on four legs and moving fast. They had size and the observers (stemming from several reports) seemed confused over what they were looking at. In one case one of them was the size of a cow but it was more predator like and was black. I was told why they thought there was no way that was a bear. ?? In another case I know of.. the observer thought maybe it is a cow (late night, misty, a lot of moonlight..).. whatever it was appeared running right next to the car, then bolted and ran directly into a cornfield. Probably could have been a dog or even a bear. Interesting behavior though.

Jody, I remember another report from Colorado (BFRO) where some guy was on a highschool track on the edge of town near woods. He noticed a figure standing more out in the open and then realized that was one really big guy. A car comes along and this guy bends over with its gluts(rear) facing the car. I dont recall what happened after that but it made me think, ha! Another interesting claim regarding blending in.

fenris: I like to take pictures. One time in so. IL my friend and I were in a wetland area where we heard a lot of people coming down the path. (A fav location for highschools and universities to do pond studies I am sure) So we decided to get off the trail to see how observant the students were. We were not too far off maybe 25 feet or so. We even stood BESIDE vegetation where they could see us. Motionless. I suppose there were 20 students. Anyway, interesting that neither one of us thought more than perhaps a couple even noticed us. We were just standing there. We did have drab clothing on mostly because we didnt want bright colors to reflect into the pictures we were taking and to not call attention to ourselves.

UPs: Thanks for sharing that.. kind of a mystery there..

Also, there is a comment by Dr. Jeff Meldrum in his book about how he worked with a captive chimpanzee. What was interesting was the individual apparently found out that he was out of the enclosure when Doc wanted to get tracks from him. So to extend time out it started wiping out its tracks in the sand. Makes you wonder if BF might do that. It is interesting how sometimes there is a long line of tracks where the maker does not seem to care and others where its hard to just find a couple.. or none at all.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Excellent topic Treeknocker. I would just like to add, if you are physically on the hunt for these creatures, you're asking the right questions. Chris B.

[Guest ajciani]

totally different take on this but has anyone ever experimented with simplying trying to avoid hikers or just known you were sharing the woods with hunters yet never seen them while out there?

I have "avoided" people, not just in the woods, but around offices and stores as well. I would be that "creepy guy who just appears out of nowhere." I have actually scared coworkers and even complete strangers on several occasions, rarely intentionally.

I once did intentionally sneak up on a friend and scared him. He is an Arab, but he is not particularly beholden to the literal Koran, and often gets into arguments on message boards about the meanings of various verses. Because of this, he is worried that some fanatic will track him down and take his head. Now, the layout of his office is like this, with his desk right beside the door:

|                  |               
----------    ------    -------
|           Hallway          
----------------     ---------
|         DESK       |
                          |
|                          |
--------------------

The office floor is carpet. Anyway, I was coming down the hall to see him, but he was on the phone, and hadn't noticed me, so I stopped before entering his office. As you can see from the diagram, his desk is right beside the door, and flush against the wall, so the doorway should be in his field of view. I backed off down the hall a little, and waited a bit, until he turned to look out the window (opposite the door from his desk), at which point I quietly walked into the office and stood in the corner behind him. As he talked on the phone, he would turned back and forth between looking out the window and looking at his monitor, and I managed to keep myself behind his head. After he ended the call, I quietly waited behind him for a couple more minutes, and then I slowly approached him from behind, placed my hands firmly on his shoulders, and half-screamed, "Allahu Akbar!" He changed from an Arab into an albino. Once he regained his breath, he said, "I thought they found me."

As for things in the woods, I once saw some high school students doing a nature photography project. They walked within 20 feet of a deer, and didn't even notice it. I walked past them, and as I did, asked if they had noticed the deer (it was not in cover), and they expressed surprise that they missed it. I continued down the "trail" a little bit more, and then it kind of petered out. I do not think they noticed me walk back past them. I walked back up to the deer, about 10 feet was its comfort zone. After the deer put some distance between me and itself, I decided to see if I could "lay low" and watch the students pass me by without them noticing me. I did, only 5 feet off the trail, and they didn't notice. I just crouched behind a stump and some brush, and there was no cover if they had looked behind after passing by me (or even if they glanced to the side while passing).

I also got within about 5 feet of a buck once. He was a good sized one, probably 3 or 4 years old, and had 4 or 5 points in mid August. He would have probably been about 130 or 140 lbs gutted. I had chased him out of an area while looking for bigfoot sign. Most animals will move in a clockwise circle (viewed from above) when disturbed, and he ended up moving toward a gravel bike trail. I wanted to go further down that trail, and ended up moving in a counter-clockwise path to get there. After moving down the trail a bit I came around a bush and we were face-to-face. I had been wondering how easy it would be to kill a deer bare handed, and almost tried it. I was just thinking, I can lunge and grab its head and give it a twist, or grab a leg and twist, or ... oh wait, that would be poaching. So I took a step back and the deer just stood there. I thought it might even attack (oh, self defense excuse, it's not like I stalked it...), so I took a step toward it, and it turned and bolted off.

I also surprised a buck at another location while it was resting. Got within about 15 feet before it realized I was there, jolted to its feet, snorted, and ran off. Actually, I hadn't noticed the deer either, until it jolted up and snorted (I was trying to keep track of a landmark behind me and to the side as I walked down the trail). The area was a state hunting land, BTW. If I had a bow, I wouldn't have even needed to aim.

[Guest tracker]

[

Also, there is a comment by Dr. Jeff Meldrum in his book about how he worked with a captive chimpanzee. What was interesting was the individual apparently found out that he was out of the enclosure when Doc wanted to get tracks from him. So to extend time out it started wiping out its tracks in the sand. Makes you wonder if BF might do that. It is interesting how sometimes there is a long line of tracks where the maker does not seem to care and others where its hard to just find a couple.. or none at all.

Hey treeknocker, thats called antitracking, I am pretty sure the more seasoned BF's use some form of it. Whether erasing their own tracks with a fir branch or selecting where they put their feet or cutting across water. Or just standing very still trying to blend in with the trees. Makes you wonder how they learned some of that?(their smart). I often wonder if they might be watching me when I am on their spoor. It can make you feel foolish and vulnerable, then the gut feeling hits you when everything goes quiet.

They may of observed hunters tracking them and adapted maybe they even teach their young? Geez it's hard enough just trying to catch up to them. So it must be good fun for them to mess with us like that then watch.

Most animals use some kind of natural instinctive defense. Tracking them is like tracking a SF snipper, that can also move three times as fast as you. As good as I was I've almost stepped on a snipper wearing his ghillie suit before nailing him. It's no wonder to me why we have little video proof of them.

[Guest Bullfrog]

I think those are good questions to ask treeknocker. If someone is going to presume their existance for the sake of argument, one has to explain their apparent super stealth abilities in a way that is realistic, or else deny a good number of sightings.

Are they so rare that 90 percent of the reports or MORE are bogus ?

That's what makes sense to me. If one presumes validity on most sightings nationwide then it opens up a whole can of worms as to how bigfoots can realistically be so elusive. Sure an individual human could possibly spend years in the wild and only rarely be seen. But when talking about bigfoot, we aren't just asking how can an individual bigfoot can avoid detection, but how can an entire population that ranges throughout the entire continent do so. I don't think several thousand human "super hermits" spread throughout the woods in the entire county (who presumably reproduce in the wild and live in small groups at least some of the time) would be able to avoid leaving conclusive proof of their existance in all places at all times. I don't think bigfoots could either. I do think that a population teatering on the edge of extinction, which maybe less than 100 individuals in all of NA, could remain hidden if they are primarily nocturnal, living in the most remote areas, and naturally shy of people. But then that rules out most sightings today, many of which don't come from truely remote areas and are so far flung it suggests a widespread and large population.

In terms of intellegence, I've seen studies that indicate that some whitetail bucks will change their home ranges in response to the opening of hunting season down to the weekend it opens, and during the season remain in one small thicket all day and only travel at night and will keep up this behavior for the duration of the hunting season. Of course, those who hunt will recognize through their own informal observations that deer will quickly learn and adopt hunter-avoidance behaviors and adjust them to roll with changing hunting tactics. Bucks who hold to such behaviors can survive several huntings season without being sighted by a hunter in daylight hours. I have no problems accepting an ape could learn similar behavior and go above and beyond it in regards to learning how to avoid unwanted human attention. But the comparison fails so far as even the stealthiest buck can't avoid leaving the obvious sign of his existance through tracks, poop, rubs, pawings, ect. And although they can learn to avoid trail cameras, they have to have bad experiences with them (which almost always results in a least a few pictures of them) before they can learn the behavior. There aren't enough bigfoot tracks or other conclusive sign to justify them living in some places they are alleged to live. If they are constantly hiding their sign through erasing tracks, then the animals themselves should be more visible. Erasing tracks would be a time-consuming job that would sacrifice their own stealth. An 8 foot tall ape that is feverishly erasing its tracks every time it steps isn't going to be hard to spot.

[Guest]

Great stuff here. Thanks for the contributions. My goal was to open up some ideas and perhaps get some experiences people have had that they didnt mind sharing.

Chris, thanks for the comments. Luckily there is some reasonable literature that has both experiences and ideas from various authors and investigators. Many questions about technical aspects.

ajciani : Really appreciate the time you took to weigh in some personal experiences. I too have surprised some wildlife in the field (but not peers in the office ) but never a deer so close. IF you can do it.. I dont think I need to finish the rest of that.

Bullfrog.. great points. Thanks. Your comments bring up a lot to chew on.

Regarding your point below & the 90 percent idea:

If one presumes validity on most sightings nationwide then it opens up a whole can of worms as to how bigfoots can realistically be so elusive. Sure an individual human could possibly spend years in the wild and only rarely be seen. But when talking about bigfoot, we aren't just asking how can an individual bigfoot can avoid detection, but how can an entire population that ranges throughout the entire continent do so.

That seems to be a difficult point to accept. From a biological standpoint is it possible ? It certainly does not seem to be emotionally. It may also be a reflection on how many reports do not get dismissed through the filters (which vary with people involved). Another Q: How many reports stem from one individual sasquatch over the years ? Could the report# be magnified because of repeated reports of the same individual ?

BFpt2: I do think that a population teatering on the edge of extinction, which maybe less than 100 individuals in all of NA, could remain hidden if they are primarily nocturnal, living in the most remote areas, and naturally shy of people. But then that rules out most sightings today, many of which don't come from truely remote areas and are so far flung it suggests a widespread and large population.

I think that the good reports come from areas called wildlife corridors OR habitats that support a diversity of wildlife particularly deer and bear. If there is an area that is regularly used by an accompanying series of other species.. such as black bear, cougar, bobcat, canids like wolves or even coyotes, then to me, that increases the chances. Especially in reports with other secondary evidence. I also wonder, if the cougar reports that stem true in the eastern states are not an indicator of what may be happening with sasquatch.. IF wildlife populations are on the increase in some places, where do they go and how do they get there ? Are there some common denominators that the big guys use to stay away from people ? It seems so. Are there correlations in when they are seen ? What are they ? Is it possible that the individuals that leave a core population(however small or distributed) and strike out on their own are younger and more likely to get into trouble doing things the wiser experienced individuals do not do ? Just a few questions regarding some of the reports I have read about.

BFpts: Of course, those who hunt will recognize through their own informal observations that deer will quickly learn and adopt hunter-avoidance behaviors and adjust them to roll with changing hunting tactics. Bucks who hold to such behaviors can survive several huntings season without being sighted by a hunter in daylight hours. I have no problems accepting an ape could learn similar behavior and go above and beyond it in regards to learning how to avoid unwanted human attention. But the comparison fails so far as even the stealthiest buck can't avoid leaving the obvious sign of his existance through tracks, poop, rubs, pawings, ect. And although they can learn to avoid trail cameras, they have to have bad experiences with them (which almost always results in a least a few pictures of them) before they can learn the behavior.

More excellent points some of which are likely difficult to explain or understand. Here is a few ideas I have picked up from my literature searches and communications with others that I can reflect on: I know that animals and sometimes species as a whole have what is referred to as flight circles. In other words you cross the line and step inside the circle and the animal reacts. (True with people too) For different species it might be a near universal reaction.. run or camouflage or vocalize or etc. For different individuals it might vary as well.. say a sow black bear with cubs.. most say never get between mom and kids.. I know people who have done it (including myself accidentally) and we came away with no problem. But others have not always been so lucky. Regarding trail sign great point. But I do wonder how many can tell dog poo from coyote or wolf, specific rubs from a deer or a rabbit or even bear. I think there are questions there with many people, some who might not even recognize it as animal sign depending on what it is. Just a thought. Scat seems to usually be an arguable point and most people (not field specialists.. or all hunters, researchers, students, etc) tend to want to NOT inspect that kind of thing too closely . Regarding the trail cams.. THAT is a very notable concern.. because we should be getting decent results with that because after all.. wait a minute.. dont we have pictures ? THAT has been a debate longterm since forums on this subject began. My only comment here is from what I hear, there are a few behind the scenes images (and those that have them often keep it that way) and resolution and overexposure from the flash tend to obscure shots which would otherwise possibly lend a clue. Photography is very subjective so viewers hold a wide array of interpretation. This is demonstrated on the internet regularly. Hopefully as more people continue this aspect of fieldwork more potential evidence comes our way. Pretty controversial area I agree.

BFpt: There aren't enough bigfoot tracks or other conclusive sign to justify them living in some places they are alleged to live. If they are constantly hiding their sign through erasing tracks, then the animals themselves should be more visible. Erasing tracks would be a time-consuming job that would sacrifice their own stealth. An 8 foot tall ape that is feverishly erasing its tracks every time it steps isn't going to be hard to spot.

That is another great point. But I wonder if others have some insight to this. Maybe the individual(s) are just passing through and do not live there ? Does it have to do with the substrate they exist on ? In other words, can you get from point a to point b by not stepping in areas that show obvious tracks? Tracker comments on this. What kind of habitats are they utilizing exactly? To my recollection I suspect its areas where many people do not go. Or if they do, not many of them. Mountains, thick vegetation, wetlands that are really hard to maneuver through. If you have ever spent time in a peat bog or wetland area where you are constantly punching through the surface and getting your waders or other clothing wet and saturated, its not fun. Do they regularly utilize this kind of terrain where we are slowed down because of the physical exhaustion it takes to trek through it? My guess is yes. Regarding places where they are found that makes no sense.. how regular is that? Maybe the reports slipped trough the filters. Or maybe it happened and it was one of the youth that messed up? As usual these points bring up more questions than answers..

[Guest]

Tracker.. thanks for that. Reminds me of a report I read about in Apes Among Us by J Green years ago. It stemmed from an Argosy Magazine article (I believe this is correct, let me know if any of my recollection is off here please) I believe written by Ivan T Sanderson. Anyway JG and or others, interviewed the person with the claim by finding him in the phone book. He first agreed with them that yeah it had to be a grizzly (this occurred in Montana). Then after they got through the formalities of exchanging with him on the phone they went back to the question of what did you see. And he agreed with them no, it was not a grizzly. He said it looked a LOT more like an ape and did not have the bear ears.. The scenario was this:

Hunting in winter, he came across some big tracks which he took for a giant grizz. So he follows them. And goes and goes and goes.. finally he ends up in a place where he feels he is getting close (that was my interpretation from memory) and he hears this God awful scream behind him that really shakes him up. He turns around and sees this thing standing up with its forearms crossing on a log. Its head was roundish and it like vibrated before it vocalized. I dont recall how close he was but very uncomfortably. His response regarding his reaction was something like.. I did what anyone in my situation would do.. I got the H out of there... I thought that behavior at the time i read it first described a very apey like critter.. and was one of the early reasons why I decided to devote more time to this subject.

[Guest Maggie]

I would agree with Sasfooty on the whole misconceptions thing, so many people DONT believe that one would almost have to go up and slap them in the face to change their perceptions....

I think their stealth is as natural to them as breathing and they just get better at that as they get older. That and keeping to the places humans usually are not.

I dont believe the population is huge, but enough that they ARE seen, heard etc. And I believe most of the sightings are of younger ones, either out of curiousity or someone else I knew speculated that the young males are chased off and trying to find their own territory.

And maybe sometimes they WANT to be seen.(shrug) Just a few ideas.

[Guest tracker]

It's all possible? to tell the truth I've only read a couple of older books on the subject one was Rene's. And the other was that mysterious creatures when I was a kid(not really a book). I miss Rene, he's was the type of guy you could rely on not to run. Same goes for Bob Jackson YNP, you know they got your back when things get hairy.

The info or my personal comments I post are all from learned field experience and training. But thats cool if some of what I say is confirmed by more educated persons that researched both in the field and in the library. Maybe during hell month (may=blackflies) I should read another?

Anyways not sure if they would antitrack other than select where to step. But that could be also attributed to learned experiences with dealing with their size and weight. They wouldn't need to worry about being followed very much. They can move as fast as elk over rough terrain and threw thick bush. And their hair colour is great camo. If they only knew their smell gives them away before they get too close, we might have some trouble. Maybe that also a planned defense?

[Guest]

Erasing tracks would be a time-consuming job that would sacrifice their own stealth. An 8 foot tall ape that is feverishly erasing its tracks every time it steps isn't going to be hard to spot.

What about making false trails that are obvious and then doubling back in a more stealthy mode? Do you think that is a possibility?

[Guest tracker]

False trails ? maybe lead someone away from a den like a killdear does. Doubling back forsure, even zig zagging and crossing threw water. They may try to hide their tracks near water or their scent when hunting.

Not sure how many know this but your scent is also left behind in your tracks, even with boots on for humans. So it may not be about the actual print but rather about hiding their scent within. Scents can tell a pred like a wolf everything about its competition / prey. Size, age, sex, health, & how old the track is. etc. And Sasq hate all canines, so maybe it's the only creature they have to worry about. A strong pack of wolves can kill or run off anything. I rather run into a solo Grizzly, then have a pack after me.

Edited December 3, 2010 by tracker

[Sasfooty]

This animal never ran and was on 4 legs (as far as I could tell). My clearest view was of the rear half of the animal and there was no obvious tail. Base on color alone, I concluded this was a deer, but why did my mind immediately tell me it was a Rottweiler? As a hunter, I look for shapes of animals or parts of animals and that helps me identify them when they blend into their surroundings.

UPs, my cousin saw (what I think) was one & thought it was a Rottweiler, too. He was staying on my uncle's place about two miles from here when it happened. The property is almost a half mile long, & kind of narrow, & the house is at the lower end of it. He liked to sit out in the evening with binoculars, & watch for hogs, coyotes, deer, etc, going across the side of the hill on the other end of the place. It was mostly open, but had a few scattered cedar trees, & clumps of tall grass.

One day, I told him about a pack of wild dogs that had been around, & he said he thought he had seen one of them. I asked what it looked like & he said he thought it was a Rottweiler, but it was so far away that he couldn't tell for sure. He said it acted really strange for a dog but it couldn't have been anything else.

I asked how it was acting, & he said that it acted like it "didn't want to be seen". Apparently it was running faster than any dog he had ever seen, & would run between small patches of cover, & stop for a few seconds at each one.

I asked if he had seen any details, & he said it had the most massive shoulders he had ever seen on a dog. He also thought it might have had some long hair behind it's head, like a lion's mane.

I told him I had seen BFs run exactly the same way, & wondered if that could have been what he saw. He said, "No. It couldn't have been one, because I don't believe in them".

[Guest]

Cool on the double back idea Jodie. If they are good at it could that explain why some trails just stop ?

How about walking in a river.. tracks tough to see... food source handy..and when they scat its like disolved. Plus food sources handy. When they leave if they move on all fours its like what Sasfooty said : They are like dogs (Rotts mentioned). Lots of people cannot identify some wildlife anyway and if the light is poor and they ARE fast not an easy thing to see with a flash of hair and then into the brush. Another point Maggie made: If you see one maybe the only options it can be that are acceptable is a bear or a person (distant silhouette with a hooded sweatshirt). You wont see one and if you do it has to be a bear or person or some other option ? (since they cannot exist). Thats not to say a bear or a person in a ghilie suit could not be responsible for some of the reports. Almost certainly so. The question is how often? 25 percent 50 percent or more than 90 percent? Seems as if they can make any sound they want, run on all fours, stick to the brush and literally stay out of the way more than often. They blend in and might be they do not have to hide.. I have talked to a few people and between terror fear and other emotions one of the first concerns seems to be DO NOT TELL MY WIFE (or husband). So another thing they might have going for them is the code of silence. Nobody dares talk about them (the concern being friendship loss or if it gets out people will think you are nuts so.. credibility concerns)or in some place where sightings are commonplace and accepted the attitude could be : so just acknowledge it, have a cold one and lets talk sports. Just one of those things...??

[Guest]

Cool on the double back idea Jodie. If they are good at it could that explain why some trails just stop ?

How about walking in a river.. tracks tough to see... food source handy..and when they scat its like disolved. Plus food sources handy. When they leave if they move on all fours its like what Sasfooty said : They are like dogs (Rotts mentioned). Lots of people cannot identify some wildlife anyway and if the light is poor and they ARE fast not an easy thing to see with a flash of hair and then into the brush. Another point Maggie made: If you see one maybe the only options it can be that are acceptable is a bear or a person (distant silhouette with a hooded sweatshirt). You wont see one and if you do it has to be a bear or person or some other option ? (since they cannot exist). Thats not to say a bear or a person in a ghilie suit could not be responsible for some of the reports. Almost certainly so. The question is how often? 25 percent 50 percent or more than 90 percent? Seems as if they can make any sound they want, run on all fours, stick to the brush and literally stay out of the way more than often. They blend in and might be they do not have to hide.. I have talked to a few people and between terror fear and other emotions one of the first concerns seems to be DO NOT TELL MY WIFE (or husband). So another thing they might have going for them is the code of silence. Nobody dares talk about them (the concern being friendship loss or if it gets out people will think you are nuts so.. credibility concerns)or in some place where sightings are commonplace and accepted the attitude could be : so just acknowledge it, have a cold one and lets talk sports. Just one of those things...??

I think all of the above, especially travel by water. It would explain a lot of why they aren't seen often if this their main way of getting from point A to point B. I also think there are many more sightings that aren't reported or are misidentifications for something known. I have no way of guessing the percentage but because I favor this idea I don't think they are as scarce as people think they are. I mentioned this along time ago on another forum but if you have ever read "The Art of War" bigfoot seems to use many of the same tactics. I think those are things that primates use instinctively when in survival mode, which I would assume would be bigfoot's point of reference. When you read the book, it occurs to you that the techniques should be immediately obvious and not need to be retaught.

[Guest ajciani]

If one presumes validity on most sightings nationwide then it opens up a whole can of worms as to how bigfoots can realistically be so elusive. Sure an individual human could possibly spend years in the wild and only rarely be seen. But when talking about bigfoot, we aren't just asking how can an individual bigfoot can avoid detection, but how can an entire population that ranges throughout the entire continent do so.

If you consider the validity of most sightings nationwide, then it becomes quite clear that bigfoots are really not all that elusive.

I think you are really discussing several separate questions:

1. Why is there little scientific acceptance?
   
2. Why is it so hard to get consistent interaction?
   
3. Why is it so hard to collect convincing physical evidence?
   
4. Where is the body on the slab?

Question 1 is primarily answered by the lack of publications pertaining to numbers 2, 3 and 4. If biologists don't know that you can call or bait the things in and collect some reasonably good physical evidence, then the scientific acceptance will be as absent as the publications. There is also something else at work though, and I would describe it as a lack of scientific appetite. When the Patterson-Gimlin film was first shot, several biology departments at leading universities and well known primatologists were contacted, and almost universally, they had no interest in seeing the film of the brand spanking newly discovered North American ape species.

There also exists preexisting and contrary "knowledge", that all large animals in N.A. have been discovered, except for large black cats, bigfoots, and brown-polar bear hybrids. Actually, the natural cross breeding of brown and polar bears was only recently "discovered", but just like all naturalist know-it-alls, they seem to think the cross breeding is a brand new activity that just started because of human impact, completely ignoring the fact that brown and polar bears have had overlapping territories for as long as there have been brown and polar bears. So why do they think cross breeding is brand new? Because a hybrid offspring didn't end up on a slab until 2006, at least, one that the naturalists are definitely aware of.

Question 2 is complicated to answer. In simplest terms, you might say that researchers are really just starting to figure out where to find them, and what kind of things bring them to us, because it seems that trying to approach them on their turf is completely futile. That said, I have heard of some very successful expeditions, where some thermal footage was actually obtained, and the bigfoots did come near or even enter the camp. The problem is the reproducibility.

Collecting physical evidence seems to be another problem. What kind of evidence is a terrestrial animal going to leave? Foot prints. We have those, lots and lots of those. There have even been footprints found near expedition campsites. Imagine that, we call them in, they come in, and they leave footprints. That is pretty solid evidence. What else is there? Impact on nature. Animals have to eat, they need shelter, and so they leave behind physical traces of their presence. Feeding activity can be hard to identify, and even harder to link to a specific species. Bedding sights can be identified. Breaking small trees at right angles, forming tee-pees by pushing over mature trees, and bending young trees into arches are all things that have been observed in areas with activity, and are very difficult to attribute to "natural" causes or other animals.

The holy grail of all evidence seems to be a very clear video or photograph of the animals. Problem is, approaching them on their turf is completely futile. So we are left with game camera traps set in active areas, and night vision and thermal imaging used on expeditions after calling them in. Have game camera traps obtained pictures? Maybe. Have they obtained good pictures? No. Can a game camera trap get a good picture? It depends on the camera. Any thermal camera that costs less than $50,000 is horrible for getting good images of wild animals (or even human activity). Night vision has some severe limitations, and so do near IR video cameras (which can usually only illuminate out to about 30 feet). Fact of the matter is, the night time imaging options available to the civilian consumer market are barely up to the task.

As for getting one on a slab, there have been some claims of people shooting them, but the bodies where either never collected, or they were hidden away. Trying to put one on a slab seems rather difficult because approaching them on their turf is completely futile. Also, there seem to be several issues surrounding shooting them, in law and principle. Happening upon a body in the woods would be the lucky find of the millennium. Bodies don't last long in the forest, and it would likely be nowhere near a trail, so the temporal and spatial window for finding a body is extremely small, and makes for a very low probability.