Leaderboard

As far as I am concerned newspaper clippings are historical documents. Something does not have to be in a bound book to be historical. If anything the process of writing a book means a lot of word smith and introduces fabrication. Newspaper reports 100 years ago were pretty much documentation of what was observed at the time. Only in modern times do reporters introduce some sort of change the world political agenda and are frequently caught fabricating details.

But how I see it is that thse anecdotes have evidence that back them up in our present time. Evidence in the form of Footprints and that means that not all foot prints can be hoaxed and that is what science is not willing to except. The same goes with DNA and that means once it is able to except it by science then shall science move forward with further research. Look at how far that you have come and you have returned. But you are opening to the possibilities. Thats science ! Your willing ness to be open. This is science and how it should be IMO ( hard core skeptical) question everything until proven wrong. Science does not want to find the answers , so it attacks it. But I am just an amateur who has no buissness in the woods right ! Never seen them right ! So far I have held up with the evidence thats on your servers. (Server) Science is suppose to proggress not stop.

And the typical assertions of "superman of the forest" stuff, superior vision, hearing, sense of smell, ripping any poor human killer of bigfoot asunder, etc. Can I get a "4-footed locomotion" claim? You will be in for a rude awakening. http://www.readex.com/readex-report/tallest-tall-tales-using-historical-newspapers-unearth-secrets-cardiff-giants-success http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3450700241/tall-tales.html So what do you believe then? We cannot trust witness reports, newspapers, books, videos, etc etc. Science itself has foisted some of the largest fables on humanity. Being skeptic is an easy job. You don't believe anything. What a sad way to live your life. I have met witches or people that claim to be them. I am sure they think witches exist. The only way you can say is that witches do not exist is to deny what the witches themselves think they are. Of course denial seems to be a big part of the skeptic methodology. But what is really going on here is we have people who think they know everything there is to know. There is a word for that, delusion. Objective truth is not about trust. Testing evidence using scientific methods has nothing to do with trust. If something cannot be tested to determine its truth (falsifiability) then it has no place in a conversation claiming to adhere to scientific principles. You cannot falsify an anecdote. Even if that anecdote is found in a century old newspaper. You must have missed it. The administrators a few months ago pointed out this is not a science forum. This is a forum dedicated to a discussion about bigfoot. That allows anecdotal evidence, even newspaper reports. I really get tired of the same old diatribe: because some newspaper reporters were fooled, all have been, because some footprints have been hoaxed, all have, because some pictures are faked, they all are, because some witness do not know the difference between a bear and a bigfoot, none of them do. The fallacy of such logic is profound and obvious.

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still.