Are we looking for Bigfoot in the wrong places? UK sightings debate

So here's something that's been bugging me: Bigfoot/Sasquatch research is basically all North American, yet there are scattered reports of similar creatures in the UK - Bodmin Moor, Scottish Highlands, even the Pennines. Mostly folklore and anecdotal, but are we just not looking properly?

My theory: if large primate-like creatures exist, they'd be nocturnal, cryptic, and drawn to remote woodland rather than moorland. Most UK 'sightings' are on open moorland in daylight. So either (a) we're seeing something else, (b) they don't exist here, or (c) we're not looking in the right habitats.

What does everyone think? And has anyone actually done organised searches in UK woodlands? I'm talking proper scientific approach - camera traps, DNA collection protocols, local knowledge - not just wandering around hoping.

The UK just isn't big enough or remote enough to hide a breeding population of large primates without leaving evidence. North America has vast wilderness areas where animals can hide. The UK? We've got walkers, farmers, hikers everywhere. Something the size of Bigfoot would need to be photographed dozens of times a year, leave tracks, scat, hair samples. We've found evidence of lynx returning to the Scottish Highlands through genetic sampling. If Bigfoot was here, we'd have found it.

The 'we're looking in the wrong place' argument is unfalsifiable though, isn't it? That's the problem. Every time we don't find evidence, someone says 'well we must be looking in the wrong spot'. How do you actually disprove that? Proper science requires testable hypotheses. 'There's a large unknown primate in UK woodlands' is testable. Show me the evidence. Until then, it's just speculation.

I've actually done some woodland camera trapping in the New Forest and Quantock Hills - not specifically for Bigfoot, more general wildlife monitoring. You get incredible footage of everything that moves: badgers, deer, foxes, even nocturnal birds. Nothing even remotely humanoid. The equipment is good enough to catch anything large moving at night. If something that size was out there regularly, we'd have images by now.

You're right that moorland sightings are probably misidentifications - moorland is open, light changes are weird, and people are primed to see 'something strange'. But woodlands? Yeah, I'd be more interested in documented sightings from actual woodland areas with proper witness descriptions. Though I'd still want physical evidence before getting excited. Hair, scat, something DNA-testable. Stories are interesting but they're not evidence.

The folklore angle is interesting though - where do these stories come from originally? Are they based on real sightings of something misidentified, or are they complete fabrications that got embellished? The older moorland legends might point to something genuine that people encountered and misremembered. Or they might just be old stories. Without historical documentation it's impossible to say.