Let’s contribute to debunking the misinformation contained herein, point-by-point... then let’s share the hell out of it!
But if we find ourselves wrong on any assertions or assumptions, let’s use it to tighten our arguments.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
Setting out "to debunk" something is thoroughly unscientific.
You should set out to examine the evidence, which may or may not support the "fact-checkers'" arguments. An educated guess would be that it won't, but our goal shouldn't be to find the truth we want to find, but to find the truth, period.
Sure. Let’s get to the bottom of each claim with the intent to debunk it should it be false or otherwise deceptive.
Truth is, Mike knowingly straight-up-in-your face LIED about the nature of the data that was on the screen. In the 9-0 video he didn't say "data like this" or "if only you could see the real data you'd be convinced" or something like that.
Instead he used up every remaining ounce of his charisma, looked you directly in the eye and shouted, "WOW!" as the fake data rolled past.
He should have said “this is a simulation of the data.”