World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
No doubt it was bigfoot. Believe people I'm begging you believe. The burden is to much for me to live with. If you don't think it was bigfoot then what else could it be?Joe
I just pulled down my pants and my giant slong hit the snow forming these prints. It's just that simple Joe. How stupid are you to believe in this crap. You have serious issues and anybody that agrees with you is retarded.TGM
^ move along cement head!
^look it's the site Asshole
LOL - that covers just about everyone here including me.
"Burden of proof", a mantra used by psuedosceptics, is for them a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument (intelligence). This merely allows pseudosceptics who proclaim this argument to specify what they would accept as evidence and ultimately proof. Arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown, and a way to move the goal posts endlessly.The reality is, that in science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.