Structure skeptics like to ask, “How can we claim to know that Sasquatch build stick and tree structures until we catch them in the act?” It all comes down to what standards one applies to potential evidence, but it’s possible to have standards that are too high, impractically high. I’ll explain.
For me, finding potential Sasquatch structures is not reason enough to conclude that Sasquatch made them. Finding structures is just Step 1. Step 2 is indispensable: to record and listen to audio in the same forest for many nights (100s of hours), and if wood knocks or obvious vocalizations are captured here at, say, 2:45 AM, then I’m comfortable connecting the two phenomena.
It’s not 100% proof, I agree, but it is a “preponderance of evidence.” That is, I accept that it’s much more likely that the structures in this particular forest were made by Sasquatch than that they were made by people, given a) the audio evidence, b) the fact that most of these structures are not the sort that people tend to make, and c) the fact that they ARE the sort of thing people see throughout North America in the exact areas where Sasquatch are also seen by eyewitnesses. In other words, my process is not 1 + 1 = 2; it’s more like .95 + .95 = 1.9, and I’m okay with rounding up to 2.
Why? Because no other explanation even comes close (are neighborhood children filling the woods with structures AND knocking/screaming in the middle of the night, year after year…or is it that two separate groups of us are responsible?) and because a conservative refusal to round up to 2 means certain stagnation. To raise one’s skepticism to an unrealistically high level stops research progress in its tracks because the odds of achieving, in any given situation, an exhaustive array of incontrovertible proof are vanishingly small if we hold out for such an evidentiary slam dunk. Some think that if, say, wood knocks are heard, they cannot be attributed to Sasquatch unless we see or film the subject producing the sound; if structures are found, we have to catch the subject building them in order to connect the dots; and some even go so far as to say that even enormous, human-shaped, five-toed footprints cannot be linked to Sasquatch unless we observe the prints actually being set down by the very feet in question.
I embrace a healthy skepticism (which is why I always take Step 2: audio), but to insist on an idealistic, purist stance is to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Sasquatch research is not, and will never be, a hard science or even a Goodall-style branch of primatology. Why? Because that’s just not the nature of the beast. They do not allow us to observe them directly, much less to embed within their societies and interview them in the manner of traditional anthropology. They allow us to study them only indirectly (through signals and clues), and so our new anthropology will have to accommodate itself to this reality.