What I meant was, this particular video contains a lack of evidence, therefore it must be dismissed as if it never surfaced. So we’re back to the same score as before, and the skeptics are winning, since (sadly!) the prevailing scientific view holds that there is no Sasquatch.

So I was commenting more on the burden of proof than the amount of evidence. Too often, believers will see the mere existence of this footage as some kind of evidence, even if they admit that it shows nothing special.

ZenBug-

That might follow if the premise that there is a “lack of evidence” were true, but it isn’t. If one removes the atmosphere of ignorance and ridicule created by some of the media and professional skeptics and actually examines the evidence objectively one can easily come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that an unknown species is out there. Some of the more convincing evidence:

- Thousands of plaster casts of large footprints collected for more than five decades from dozens of states and provinces, often in conjunction with eyewitness sightings. Both the lengths and widths of these footprints follow a pronounced Gaussian or bell curve distribution, which would be expected of a population sample of an actual animal. It is highly unlikely that something like this could be hoaxed without discovery for such a long time over such a wide geographic area.

- Hundreds of eyewitness sightings by people from all walks of life, including many who are thought to be more likely to be “credible” - doctors, police, biologists, lawyers, scientists, park rangers, hunters, etc.

- At least one DNA sample, and possibly more, indicating that an unknown species was the source.

- Some footprint casts and other evidence exhibit dermal ridges - like what is shown in fingerprints - and this has been confirmed by at least one law enforcement fingerprint expert.

- Many recordings of vocalizations from remote areas that show marked similarities with vocalization recordings from other areas. These have been analyzed by experts who have stated that the recordings are likely to be authentic - recordings from an unknown species. Also, when these recordings are broadcast in areas with a history of sightings, in many cases more vocalizations are made in answer to the recordings. Eyewitnesses on the scene maintain that the vocalizations made in response to the recordings are unlikely to be made by someone with other electronic recordings.

- Hair evidence analyzed by scientists who maintain that it is not human and most likely from a species of primate.

- Scat evidence.

Etc, etc, etc……

You can attack the evidence, you can attack the eyewitnesses, you can attack the scientists and experts who are convinced by the evidence, but to say that there is a “lack of evidence” is a false statement.

And refusing to be critical of video as silly as this doesn’t help the credibility of cryptozoology as a science.