re: #30 blueraven

So? They didn’t credit someone properly.

Sort of. They’ve changed the article now. I’d have to go back and reread the original but I think they were misleading by claiming they had new proof and new documents when in reality they were recycling old stories which had already been debunked. It might be an honest mistake or sloppy journalism but it does also look like a dishonest attempt to breathe new life into dead stories.