The nature of discource and argument Part3

On Ignorance. 

In the previous post of this series. I mentioned the appeal to ignorance.   I would like to expand on the following text from it,

-----Ignorance  (which is a lack of knowledge or information on a subject) and it's admission are important for truth seekers.  This appeal, dismisses ignorance as a credible state or uses it as a wedge.  The basic form is as follows;  "You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist therefore bigfoot exists."   This is often an attempt to flip the burden of proof onto someone requesting evidence.-----

My reply to the appeal to ignorance goes something like this: Just because I admit that I don't know something does not mean that I accept that you do know, or that the subject is unknowable.  These are three distinct states of being the first two being completely independent of each other, and both being dependent on the last.  But I really want to talk about ignorance in a more general sense.