re: #9 Blue Fielder

This is what’s known as an “ad hominem” argument. It’s essentially a “shoot the messenger” strategy. You don’t like the source that proves some point, so you attack the source. Don’t bother to dispute the facts, because you can’t. It might make you feel better because others of your ilk also don’t like that source, and you can change the subject from the facts to the source. But you can’t change the facts.

What should disturb you is that so many sources that you and your ilk would love jumped on all those stories until they turned out to be hoaxes. Then, just silence. No “oops, we were wrong.” Just a group prayer that the whole thing would fall down the memory hole. And, in the MSM’s world, it usually does.