re: do you believe in bigfoot, UFO's, or ghosts/demonic spirits?

quote:

---

Under your theory of BOP, every side has the BOP.

Makes sense.

---

I see that you still don't understand. Let me try to help, with the aid of wikipedia (is that acceptable? )

quote:

---

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.

---

This is the burden that falls on the bigfoot folks. Agreed? Agreed.

quote:

---

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

---

This is the burden that falls on the bigfoot deniers. Agreed? Agreed.

quote:

---

Have you had a look in the mirror recently?

---

Im not a bigfoot.

quote:

---

Yeah I get it. That's what I was saying. If Bigfoot actually existed, you would be able to follow him and find him because of the craters he leaves behind called footprints. Instead, people always find one solitary print which is probably because it would take too much effort for them to fake two.

---

Sorry I responded to your post but agreeing with you

quote:

---

Do you really not see how the existence of a bipedal primate is MORE LIKELY than the existence of flying fire-breathing dragons or gods?

---

Your argument is really that one imaginary creature is more likely than two other imaginary creatures?

You are confusing feasible with possible. It is technically possible that Bigfoot exists, but it is extremely unlikely when you consider everything.

quote:

---

Korkstand

---

It's amazing how you can argue with everyone in this thread(the only one at that)and you have not one solid claim to back your argument up.

quote:

---

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not only is there nothing at all extraordinarily sound to back Bigfoot claims, there's really nothing at all! "Eyewitness" accounts from fame-seeking hillbillies and con artists, grainy video footage from the '60s of a guy in a suit, a single "footprint" here or there that could have easily been made by person running a scam... not a single bone, reliable photograph or video, or body of a Bigfoot ever recovered in a world filled with video cameras and crawling with 7 billion humans running roughshod over the wilderness.

---

Just insert the word "yet" after each of those statements. And I hope you don't think 7 billion people is enough to have scoured the entire globe. I also think that you don't quite understand what "the wilderness" really is. If you did, you would know that we aren't "running roughshod" over it.

Let's do a little math. There are about 57million square miles of land on the earth. But a lot of that is desert, and some of it is pretty well populated, so let's assume bigfoot can only hide in the forests and mountainous areas. This leaves 30million square miles for them to hide. But, of course, a lot of that is uninhabitable even to bigfoot (I assume), so let's just cut it in half and call it 15million square miles we have to search. And let's put every single human being in the world on this task. This works out to about 1 acre of land that each person will have to search.

What are the chances that you could locate a bigfoot confined to 1 acre of dense forest? I'm pretty sure he would find you first, and he could probably evade you for quite a while. More realistically, that 7 billion people includes a lot of babies, old people, and others who can't contribute much to this global task. And a lot more people simply wouldn't contribute. How many people would you guess have actually tried to find bigfoot? 10,000? 100,000? Even if it's a million fricking people who have actively gone out in search of bigfoot, each of them would have had to cover 7,000 acres of wilderness in search of a moving target that will see you coming long before you see it.

Now those are of course really rough estimates, but it goes to show just how tall a task it is to find something so rare and elusive.

quote:

---

You are confusing feasible with possible.

---

You're right, I did misuse the word.

quote:

---

It is technically possible that Bigfoot exists, but it is extremely unlikely when you consider everything.

---

I agree 100%. Now if only everyone was as level-headed as you.

quote:

---

It's amazing how you can argue with everyone in this thread(the only one at that)and you have not one solid claim to back your argument up.

---

It's clear by this statement that you STILL don't understand my argument.

I'll say it again: I am not arguing that bigfoot exists. I am arguing that it could exist. I am also arguing that claiming the nonexistence of bigfoot is futile. It is a claim that cannot be proven.