Snopes.com

[Ewan]

Quick question about this site (Snopes.com) that many debunkers use as a source for all things definitive.

Are they squeaky clean?

I heard that they'd once been linked to funding from the Koch Bros. but am finding it difficult to pin anything definitive down.

[spacejack]

I think this is more like a urbandictionary site. Probably some cash behind it. Wouldnt doubt koch bros being behind some cash because they will pay for any info or disinfo.

These are just writers, so they could be swayed, or sway either way.

[Matt P]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic but all I care about Snopes is that they support the official lie of 9/11 so I wouldn't consider going there for anything.

Matt

[sirdipswitch]

Back when they first started, they we kicked off of utube for tooo much arguementative posting, so they started their own site. Strickly tongue in cheek, about everything. I caught them in an outright lie about something that I knew. I emailed them on it and to my surprize, they answered. Quickly too I might add. They seemed quite proud of the fact that yes it was most definately a LIE. However they were also quick to explain that "Everything" they write is to be taken strictly tongue in cheek, because they are not in the least bit interested in writting the truth. They love to grab stories they know nothing about and put their own spin on it as though they are an authority.

So... if you ask them now, if they are now publishing truth and they say yes, I would ask them what they're smokin.

They love to argue the opposite of truth on all things, which is why they agree, as mpennery says, with the official 9/11 story. Just-a-nuther-story to argue over and piss people off. And "That" is the name of their game.

[Kryztian]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic but all I care about Snopes is that they support the official lie of 9/11 so I wouldn't consider going there for anything.

I didn't know about that and did a 10 minutes study of Snopes. They have a page pertaining to "the various rumors to come out of the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States of America."
http://snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp

There are some absurd stories about 911 and I assume Snopes has done a justifiable debunking them. I don't seem to see that there is any misinformation here. What I do see is, they don't cover stories about verifiable anomalies that would lead one to question who pulled off 9/11. I think stories about the five Isreali photographers that were photographing the event and high-fiving each other, about the financial transaction and put options, about how the security was handled by Marvin Bush (brother of Dubya and son of H.W. Bush), etc., etc. would all work well in the snopes format.

I think snopes is good for helping to quickly debunk the worlds little hoaxes and frauds. But if you want to understand the big hoaxes, tune in to Project Avalon.

[T Smith]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic but all I care about Snopes is that they support the official lie of 9/11 so I wouldn't consider going there for anything.

Matt

Too simplistic? How about definitive proof that site is 100% a psyop scam? I have no idea what their agenda is or who is behind it; all I know for sure is snopes.com is the last place I'd go to confirm or debunk anything at all.

[Cardillac]

Snopes.com is one of the largest available frauds on the internet; if my read sources are correct this website is perpetrated by two Danish Jews (I have nothing against Jews nor any other religious group who has been forced/heavily indoctrinated to believe in a certain religious belief system, so please don't accuse me of being anti-semitic- am just stating what I've read) by the name of Mikkelson;

over time Snopes.com has been exposed as an absolutely ridiculous/ludicrous source of 'truth'-

anyone who blindly/naively believes what Snopes has to state has absolutely no insight whatsoever into what really makes the world go round-

the problem is: there is just simply not one single beacon of truth on any single website in the internet (including this one); we are all being forced to separate the wheat from the chaff on countless websites; we definitely have a lot more home work on our desks...

please be well all-

Larry

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Snopes "debunked" the fact that aspartame is bad for you by quoting a former director of the FDA.

I wrote this up about Snopes:


While the majority of the content of this website really does address erroneous “facts” commonly passed off as legitimate (such as that hair grows back more quickly after it's been shaved or that one shouldn't swim within an hour after eating if he or she doesn't want to get sick, etc.), it is increasingly involving itself in the controversial realm of politics, health, and conspiracy theories, for which it is often cited on message boards and elsewhere on the Internet as an authority on these subjects. This seems to be the source of suspicion for those suggesting that Snopes is being used as a part of a wider disinformation campaign by groups seeking to suppress information damaging to their agendas, such as international political and social interests, government agencies, the medical industry, etc.

Snopes has posted articles defending the US oil industry, for example, in their article on the Volkswagen XL1, which has been rated at up to 300 mpg, downplaying its fuel efficiency and arguing that its unavailability in the US has nothing to do with the interests of our oil lobby (something which would be virtually impossible to prove even if true, given the widespread influence of such large corporations on various regulatory committees in the US). It has also defended the claim that aspartame is safe to ingest by posting on their website a response which came directly from an FDA director.

On these issues kinds of complex and controversial issues such as the extent of political corruption and the health effects of artificial foods, which needless to say are a completely different beast altogether than whether or not Albert Einstein was on an episode of Gunsmoke, the Snopes editors are entering into subjects which are much deeper than their original ambitions, and it is hard to imagine what would make them a particular authority on such subjects. Whether these editors claim to have done thorough research themselves on these deep issues (which does not appear to be the case), or are simply going along with whatever they are told by authorities (such as when the Snopes website served as a direct mouthpiece for the FDA itself), the information they provide on controversial issues appears to be no different than what one expect from politicians, the oil companies or pharmaceutical companies themselves.

[Carmody]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic but all I care about Snopes is that they support the official lie of 9/11 so I wouldn't consider going there for anything.

I didn't know about that and did a 10 minutes study of Snopes. They have a page pertaining to "the various rumors to come out of the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States of America."
http://snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp

There are some absurd stories about 911 and I assume Snopes has done a justifiable debunking them. I don't seem to see that there is any misinformation here. What I do see is, they don't cover stories about verifiable anomalies that would lead one to question who pulled off 9/11. I think stories about the five Isreali photographers that were photographing the event and high-fiving each other, about the financial transaction and put options, about how the security was handled by Marvin Bush (brother of Dubya and son of H.W. Bush), etc., etc. would all work well in the snopes format.

I think snopes is good for helping to quickly debunk the worlds little hoaxes and frauds. But if you want to understand the big hoaxes, tune in to Project Avalon.

You mean the situation...ok....story.... where Marvin Bush as a 50% or thereabouts owner of the company that ran the security for the WTC, and sold it off 9 months before the buildings went down?

Importantly, the last thing they did before selling the company off and not being contractually involved in the building complex security...is the building was worked on by this given company for 30-40 days, all night, by crews, non stop for those approximate 40 days.

During that time period, the security system was totally shut down. No records of the work done, no video, nothing.

You mean that Marvin Bush?

You mean that data which has been meticulously wiped from the internet?

[Ewan]

Facebook will fact check via Snopes (http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-will-fact-check-label-fake-news-in-news-feed-2016-12?r=US&IR=T&IR=T) Dec. 15, 2016

Bumping due to Snopes recently being mentioned in http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99516-Hurricanes-Harvey...-Irma...-Jos--...-Maria...

http://www.truthwiki.org/snopes-snopes-com/

[Iloveyou]

One more very telling Snopes-example (if needed at all) I came across yesterday while searching for info on the F+D Keller/Oak Hill case (see Pizzagate thread if interested).

They celebrate the exoneration of convicted SRAbusers and promote the idea that all the SRA cases in the 80s and 90s were not real and justa result of "Satanic Panic" and mass hysteria.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/23/satanic-panic/