Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sidhe
I'm sure QS will find that ironic.. but you've got to explain the physical evidence we do have. It isn't fair to raise the bar every time something new comes in.
|
This is what me and QS were talking about before. The burden of proof. "We" (the general skeptic and unbeliever population) don't have to prove or explain anything. "You" (the general collectors of evidence and the claiments) are the ones who hold the burden of proof.
You have a bunch of evidence that suggests "something" is out there. Whether it be Bigfoot, "mountain men", hoaxers, something more "animal" than Bigfoot, etc. (or any combination of the above). You have evidence. What that evidence is of is undetermined. You even say it yourself. The hair comes back human, uncut and free of toxins. The crap has human and animal DNA in it. The footprints are of a large animal (possibly bipedal). You have video and photos but many people who have taken video and photos of bigfoot have admitted that they were hoaxes. Even if you don't believe they are telling the truth that they were hoaxes, they are saying as much. So it leaves that evidence as unreliable. (You'd be suprised. I've seen hoaxers do some pretty amazing things.)
It is all, at the very best, circumstantial evidence. Until there is a body, or some bones are found, and they are independantly verified, or certain technologies allow us to take the DNA and reconstruct the animal in a simulation or some thing like (pretty far off I'd imagine.
), all of the evidence still pretty much remains evidence of just "something".