2

Recently on Survivorman, Les Stroud went on a Bigfoot expedition. Towards the end of the episode he showed footage provided by Todd Standing with a very clear picture of what appears to be a juvenile Sasquatch.

Todd Standing with Sasquatch

enter image description here

Is this good evidence of the existence of the sasquatch?

http://lesstroud.ca/news/survivorman-bigfoot

  • 4
    1. My very first comment shows that anyone can fake such a video. 2. Reputation of the person who filmed it has nothing to do with Les Stroud, it is irrelevant. 3. It doesn't matter how good the picture is. The claim is extraordinary, and as such it requires extraordinary evidence (support of several independent witnesses, for start). 4. The burden of proof is on Mr Standing, as this is him who makes the claim. One can do this in the privacy of his house and make very believable footage and there is no way to disprove it without breaking in and conducting a search. – sashkello Apr 22 '14 at 8:56
  • 2
    I am always stunned by how these people can identify something as an entirely new species just by looking at some blurry image half hidden behind plants... They must have some futuristic wireless genotyping technology with them. – nico Apr 22 '14 at 11:29
  • 1
    I don't really see how this could be proven wrong or right. There is probably exactly one person who was there when this was filmed (or produced). Short of him admitting that he faked it, there is no way of saying it's false and short of someone else going there and documenting more and clearer evidence, there's no way of saying it's real. But given the nature of the claim, I agree with the sashkello that the burden of proof lies with Mr. standing – drat Apr 22 '14 at 12:41
  • 1
    @Uhlbelk: I simplified the question because your side-statements are both irrelevant and incorrect. There isn't mounting evidence; there is a mounting absence of expected quality evidence to support the conjecture. This can't be considered "great" evidence as it is too easy to fake. (We don't need a "receipt" to conclude that it isn't persuasive enough to overthrow the absence of expected evidence.) Relying on the reputation of Standing is an ad hominem fallacy. Evolution doesn't predict not preclude a sasquatch, so it isn't a win nor loss. – Oddthinking Apr 22 '14 at 13:35
  • 3
    What makes evidence "good" is subjective. This is evidenced in SGU Episode 26. In that case, both sides agreed about the facts and what the evidence was, but disagreed as to how compelling it was. This is not solvable by scientific skepticism. Voting to close as opinion-based. – user5582 Apr 22 '14 at 15:02

Browse other questions tagged .