My point is that I can't just accept a video/photo as described to me. I can claim to have a video of X event, it doesn't mean that's what you're really looking at. The "video of bigfoot" would look identical to a "video of a guy dressed as bigfoot", so calling it a "video of bigfoot" is already making too many unchallenged assumptions of what that video represents. Same with a video of a guy putting something somewhere.
There's a video of bigfoot.
I believe the Sasquatch video by itself is next to worthless in terms of proving the existence of Sasquatch.
My point is that I can't just accept a video/photo as described to me. I can claim to have a video of X event, it doesn't mean that's what you're really looking at. The "video of bigfoot" would look identical to a "video of a guy dressed as bigfoot", so calling it a "video of bigfoot" is already making too many unchallenged assumptions of what that video represents. Same with a video of a guy putting something somewhere.