We haven't seen anything about HOW he does his Bigfoot research.
I've had a look at some of his papers, and frankly I can see why the other professors would be a bit leery of him.
He takes all the evidence as being true. He doesn't examine it ... he explains it as though it's all completely true and nobody in the world would
hoax these. This is bad science.
Let me give you a solid example from one of his online published papers:
www.isu.edu...
The first set of tracks (Blue Mountain) -- first row, rightmost image in the composition, we see a track that frankly looks like it was cut out of
plywood and strapped to someone's foot. The sole is as flat as a planed board and there's no roll (from walking) to the print. This is not a
"flat foot" but rather a fake. Those of you who have tracked animals in the wilderness can see from the mud around the track that it was made not
by something walking but by someone setting their "foot" down like you would make a stamp.
The third row of those pictures shows yet another impression that should be dismissed or investigated carefully. Here, the "foot" has a rounded
bottom.
You can't walk well on feet that are round at the bottom. It doesn't distribute your weight properly. The foot shape is also wrong -- the toes
emerge from the foot parallel to each other (or nearly so). Kick off your shoes and look at your feet to see just how different a foot looks from
those tracks.
Nor does he discuss the differences in the feet.
If you absolutely believed the information, then you would have to conclude that there were several species of these.
Instead, he treats them uncritically. These are all "Sasquatch." These are all genuine. Even the ones with the impossible toes ("deformed
toes.")
This is true of all his research. He does some good work on the Oligocene and on foot bone variations in anthropoids. People present him with
bones, and he takes their material and accepts it as true and representative and draws conclusion from them.
The difference is that nobody is trying to fake Oligocene metatarsals.
However, as we all know, there are a number of faked Bigfoot evidences.
His colleagues find him an embarrassment because he accepts all evidence (no matter how bad) as true -- including evidence that was subsequently
debunked. For example, in that paper, there are two sets of footprints that look plausible but the rest have some real problems.
I don't blame them for having problems with his research.
Haselhof, who researches crop circles, is another PhD whose work is on the fringe -- but he doesn't get half the flak BECAUSE he will call hoax if
the evidence clearly warrants it.