A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Why Is This Science?


Why are claims of a bigfoot sightings in your science section? Upon cursory review (and I mean all of 10 seconds) a 5th grade science student can determine that this is nothing but a hoax – and a really lame one to boot. Blurry video at 15 feet? The cheapest cameras auto-focus in a few seconds at that range. Shots of the imprint of the footprint in the ground? This is a classic tell-tale of a hoax – the oldest trick, and perhaps the lamest. There is no physical evidence (such as hair, or droppings, or remains) – and anytime anyone claims to have these things they turn out to be the physical pieces of well documented animals indigenous to whatever area the sighting occurs. Perhaps most importantly is the track record of bigfoot sightings in which every case to date has revealed itself to be a hoax or a misidentification. Every case, no exceptions.

So I ask again, MSNBC … why is this in your science section? There is no science here, this story belongs under your hoaxes section. Don’t have one? You should start one.



Leave a Reply