Is this credibile?
I beleive it is.In fact,the BBC with a huge budget and modern costume technology could'nt even come close to reproducing it,but i still can't verify it and say it proves bigfoot exist...Understand?
Thanks again for explaining. Yes, I understand, but I have some doubts.
Bigfoot is an excellent example that explains what you meant: some people genuinely regard it as credible, some genuinely do not, including various experts in film, makeup and paleoanthropology on both sides. The evidence is just not enough to say either way.
Personally I do not think Bigfoot is credible. I believe it is more probable than not that the footage was faked, and the circumstantial evidence from population genetics is that large hominids need a reasonably large breeding population, and it seems very unlikely such could remain virtually completely hidden whilst living so close to modern human societies. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that people could take a different view of the probabilities which would also be quite reasonable, and conclude it is credible. I note that the existence of Bigfoot is not ruled out absolutely by evolutionary theory, nor an professional scientist that I could find who had written on the subject.
All of this kind of makes your point.
My doubts come about when considering your comments as they apply, for example, to Ron Wyatt's Ark research. I do not think this is a case where different people can reasonably come to different conclusions on the probabilities. It seems obvious to me Ron Wyatt and his friends ar simply not credible in an objective sense, thus why would anyone e.g. at AIG regard it as credible? My reasons for thinking this were explained at length in posts above in this thread.
I suppose, in short, we need to look at each case on its merits.