In a court of law the evidence that has so far have been collected by researchers and the testimony of credible eye witnesses would lead to a conviction.  Much of what has been collected by researchers would be considered circumstantial evidence.  It is valid in our court system.  Why should our  circumstantial evidence not be considered by the science community?  Prints and hair samples are physical evidence that should have at least have the science community study the possibilities of a bipedal primate here in North America.  Testimony of credible eye witnesses such as biologists, rangers and law enforcement should have the science community take notice.  It doesn't matter if the media or hoaxers have made this mystery sensational.

It will only be a matter of time before the "discovery" of Big Foot happen.  Groups such as Sasquatch Investigations of the Rockies and others have been modifying and adapting their research to what they have been finding.  I think the main reason why they have not be formally discovered in the past is because people have preconceived ideas of them.  Just by the sheer lack of success shows that this is correct.  When there is something highly intelligent, resourceful and elusive evading almost with ease from people for 400+ years, then it must be different.  How and why it is different needs to be analyzed to find out the possibilities.   Using the same techniques and research is not working. 

I am trying not to let my research be narrowed down to my preconceived idea of what is Big Foot.  Already that perception has changed and it continues to be modified on a consistent basis.  I have decided to use my evidence in a broad way and let it lead me where to I need to go.

The challenge to you and others is to look at all possibilities and not to let others make your decisions.  There is enough out there to warrant a real investigation into the possibility of a bipedal primate in our woods and forests.  I know they are there and it is time for you find out too.