If this were a criminal investigation being discussed, everything you just mentioned would be submittable as evidence, however, it is only after the examination by qualified individuals, who have the proper knowledge, training and experience to examine the type of evidence at hand, can it be determined if the evidence is of sufficient quality to be usable, and if so, what that evidence reveals.
Dentists have a high degree of scientific training and education for their line of work, but no one would give them shell casings to examine and then ask for their expert analysis.
In the case of this 'anthropology' investigation, the experts who should be examining the evidence are those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields, including but not limited to; anthropology, primatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, and biomechanics. There are people with such experience who have examined, and continue to examine, the evidence; Jeffrey Meldrum, Grover Krantz, Geoffrey Bourne, John Napier and Jimmy Chilcutt to name a few. They tend to agree that there is an undocumented large primate in North America, but of course a specimen is needed to document it.
Individuals who wish to discount their analyses are free to do so, but it does not refute their analyses in anyway. Those interested in refuting them, should review the same evidence, and be someone with at least the same experience and knowledge, and then detail their own analysis. If not, any statement made is really a personal opinion, and does not lend much.
Ironically, this is an example of a large non-human primate, previously undocumented by science, being recently discovered, is it not?
There are reports of Sasquatch passing in front of vehicles, nearly being hit, and at least two reports of vehicles hitting them.
From the North American Bigfoot Search records.
- 1996-08-00; FL, Gadsden; road crossing bigfoot hit by state trooper's car and tourists on a bus watch it go into the woods.
- 1977-08-00; FL, Collier; police car hits a bigfoot, blood, hair found.
I am not certain what you are trying to say here.
While sightings may occur near large population centres, most of them, if any, do not occur within them. Most sightings take place in heavily wooded, or rugged areas, the type of environment most people do not routinely go to. It is not too surprising that many sightings are reported by hunters, campers, or hikers. They are in the right environment.
Contrary to what may be widely believed that everyone owns either a digital camera or some type of mobile device with a built in camera, the fact is, not everyone does.
InfoTrends reported that in 2009, 95% of the cameras purchased were purchased by households that already had one.
Experian reported that in 2011, 227 million people owned a cell phone, but doesn't state if these are devices with cameras or not. If you want to assume they are, then given that the population of the USA was around 311 million in the middle of 2011, that gives about 73% of people owning a cell phone with a camera at the time.
In 2003 only 30% of USA households owned a digital camera.
I do agree that a majority of the population does have either a phone or device capable of imaging, but saying everyone has one is not accurate.
Even when someone has a sighting, not everyone walks around with the device already filming or ready to snap a photo that instant. Sightings that do get captured on film or other imagery, the viewers often had their device out for other reasons.
Have you made a study of these cultural stories and done comparative research, or at least read any comparative research done by other individuals?