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.
Well yeah, but that still doesn't prove it 100%. What if they tried to build a craft but it didn't really work? It would certainly look real, and there would be dozens of engineers who could testify that they worked on it, and there'd be receipts for the materials used, and manuals and logs and everything else.
That type of approach to evaluating the plausibility of something is riddled with unknown holes, and it's arbitrary to boot i.e. everyone has a different threshold for how much of that type of evidence is enough. That means this type of evidence really isn't conclusive.
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.
Well yeah, but that still doesn't prove it 100%. What if they tried to build a craft but it didn't really work? It would certainly look real, and there would be dozens of engineers who could testify that they worked on it, and there'd be receipts for the materials used, and manuals and logs and everything else.
That type of approach to evaluating the plausibility of something is riddled with unknown holes, and it's arbitrary to boot i.e. everyone has a different threshold for how much of that type of evidence is enough. That means this type of evidence really isn't conclusive.