Eveon, you are absolutely, monumentally illogical. You bring up the concept of a null hypothesis, but you completely fail to understand its purpose. A null hypothesis is a general or default position when doing testing. It is always the exact opposite of what we are testing. For example, if we were to test that I have 10 fingers, the null hypothesis would be that I do not have 10 fingers. If we are testing to see if I can type properly, the null hypothesis is that I cannot type properly. If we are testing to see if something exists (bigfoot), the null hypothesis is that it does not exist. We must start assuming the null hypothesis to be true and move to prove the hypothesis (what we are testing) is true. In my first claim (dealing with fingers), the null hypothesis is very unlikely, but we must start with that and move towards proving the actual hypothesis (that I have 10 fingers).
Next, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When hypothesis testing in statistics, we use an alpha value for our degree of certainty that we want. Typically, we want to be at least 95% sure of something before we can accept it. This alpha value changes depending on what the claim is. For example, if we are 95% sure that airplanes are safe, that isn't very good -- 1/20 airplanes are theoretically unsafe based on our test. Even if we are 94% sure of something, if our testing value is 95%, we must reject the hypothesis until we can acquire more proof. Big apes existing is a fair claim and does not require a lot of evidence, but having a species of giant apes that have not been caught that basically live all over the US (or the world depending on who you are asking) would require a lot of evidence. Catching one of them and doing DNA testing would suffice... sadly, we don't have that. The margin of evidence that we have is so minute that you would be a moron to believe that such a thing exists without having to put serious "ifs" on the belief. As a result, we must all believe the null hypothesis, big foot does not exist, until we acquire more proof. That being said, if people are truly interested, they would search for such a creature and find proof of its existence. Until sufficient proof is found, though, we cannot assume that bigfoot exists.
Your post has some serious logic flaws. "Until somebody finds proof that he is real, we don't know if he is or not. We can believe". That can apply to ANYTHING! There are these pink fairies that are too small for the human eye to see, but they talk to you while you are asleep and they are what give you dreams at night. There is no proof that these exists, so we really don't know! They don't defy our present understanding of sleep because they evolved that way to be able to give people dreams. They cannot be observed because they fly away from magnifiers so that they can avoid being seen. If you want proof of them, talk to them in your dreams. I don't see why you non-believers want to be so damn skeptical about all this. You have no proof against these fairies, so you should believe in them anyways. If no proof is found, I guess we'll never know, but you should believe in them anyways so that you can have good dreams.
