Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team!

[Guest guest]

Everyone has an angle...everyone

 

, " M.M. " <MedResearch121

wrote:

>

> Hello,

> I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of

this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when

reading the Snopes material, I often wondered " who watches the

watchers? " Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion

on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which

were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up

their statements.

>

> I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.

>

> p.s. I put a question mark after the exclamation point (only in

the Subject line) to indicate my doubt on this whole subject.

> Pauljs

>

>

> Nov. 19, 2008

>

> Snopes.com is a Scam

> For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or

others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,

claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who

exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to

the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding.

Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's

right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of

lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

>

> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California

started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal

background or experience in investigative research. After a few

years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral,

but over the past couple of years people started asking questions

who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The

reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com

claiming to have

> the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact

they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the

Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true'

bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.

>

> A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville

hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big

splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to

have researched this issue before posting their findings on

snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of

State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact

nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.

>

> I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me)

thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him

Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him

phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would

have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud.

In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever

contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement

as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their

homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

>

> Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very

Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from

this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to

discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been

much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the

Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings..

Gee, what a shock?

>

> So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www..snopes.com to get

what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.'

Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to

lead you to their references where you can link to and read the

sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do

the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the

Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own

experience for their 'not'

> fully looking into things.

> FROM: rremelin

>

> _________

>

> Paranormal_Research - Scientific Data,

> Health Conspiracies & Anything Strange

>

> Paranormal_Research

> Subscribe:... Paranormal_Research-

>

[Guest guest]

A couple of years ago, I posted a scam to Snopes. I said that the idea

that 19 hijackers had captured 4 airliners, and flown two of thwm into

the WTC knocking down two buidings, was a hoax! My message was removed

from the site within two hours,and my membership terminated.

That immediately told me where the opinions of the management of

Snopes lie.

 

They still believe that the government story on 9/11 is true. This

must align them with a group of publicly known people who are so naive

that they are not worth listening to.

 

Best regards

 

David

 

, " M.M. " <MedResearch121

wrote:

>

> Hello,

> I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com,

[Guest guest]

Snopes has also been written continually about

saying aspartame toxicity is a hoax. Even if you

send them information they never change their web

site. Further, attorney Ed Johnson who is in

Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, and myself have

written him and reported him to the Justice

Department. Over the years when victims of

aspartame toxicity write him, Dave Snopes

actually tells them they must e working for the

sugar industry or the Stevia people. They are in

violation of Title 8 Section 1001 for giving

false information and stumbling the public. One

lady read his lies and got back on aspartame,

then had a grand mal seizures. Some have told me

they have been paid industry to do this. One

thing for sure they don't want the facts, so they

are putting out the propaganda for reason.

 

Too much of the public think what he says is

gospel and he researches. This is not true, its

one man's opinion because of his own agenda.

 

Regards,

Betty

www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center,

www.holisticmed.com/aspartame At 06:06 PM 11/30/2008, David West wrote:

 

>A couple of years ago, I posted a scam to Snopes. I said that the idea

>that 19 hijackers had captured 4 airliners, and flown two of thwm into

>the WTC knocking down two buidings, was a hoax! My message was removed

>from the site within two hours,and my membership terminated.

>That immediately told me where the opinions of the management of

>Snopes lie.

>

>They still believe that the government story on 9/11 is true. This

>must align them with a group of publicly known people who are so naive

>that they are not worth listening to.

>

>Best regards

>

>David

>

>--- In

><%40> \

,

> " M.M. " <MedResearch121

>wrote:

> >

> > Hello,

> > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when reading the Snopes material, I often wondered "who watches the watchers?" Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up their statements.I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.p.s. I put a question mark after the exclamation point (only in the Subject line) to indicate my doubt on this whole subject.Pauljs

Nov. 19, 2008

 

Snopes.com is a Scam

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

 

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have

the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.

 

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.

 

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

 

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.. Gee, what a shock?

 

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www..snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not'

fully looking into things.FROM: rremelin _________Paranormal_Research - Scientific Data, Health Conspiracies & Anything Strange Paranormal_ResearchSubscribe:... Paranormal_Research-

[Guest guest]

You have to only go back as far as the presidential campaign and read

all their " debunked " stories about Obama, when in fact they were all

true. They definitely were in the tank for him, and were willing to

post lies to sway the public, knowing that millions go to snopes for

everything.

 

Carol

 

, " M.M. " <MedResearch121

wrote:

>

> Hello,

> I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of

this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when

reading the Snopes material, I often wondered " who watches the

watchers? " Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion

on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which

were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up

their statements.

>

> I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.

[Guest guest]

Snopes is merely one couple---who have taken it upon themselves to validate or invalidate the internet material that comes their way. Obviously they do it from their own viewpoint--and thus instill their own biases into their explanations..thya are not experts by any means---don't know why there is such a hoopla about them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes--- On Sat, 1/31/09, bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions wrote:

bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team! Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 6:27 AM

 

 

You have to only go back as far as the presidential campaign and readall their "debunked" stories about Obama, when in fact they were alltrue. They definitely were in the tank for him, and were willing topost lies to sway the public, knowing that millions go to snopes foreverything.Carol, "M.M." <MedResearch121@ ...>wrote:>> Hello,> I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting ofthis person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, whenreading the Snopes material, I often wondered "who watches thewatchers?" Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinionon this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of whichwere not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back uptheir

statements.> > I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.

[Guest guest]

It's interesting that you post a wikipedia page as your source. Did

you know that anyone can post and edit a wikipedia page? I could go

to Obamas page and note that he used to have purple hair if I wanted

too.

We have to remember that anyone can put anything on the internet.

 

, Bea Bernhausen

<beabernhausen wrote:

>

> Snopes is merely one couple---who have taken it upon themselves to

validate or invalidate the internet material that comes their way.

Obviously they do it from their own viewpoint--and thus instill their

own biases into their explanations..thya are not experts by any

means---don't know why there is such a hoopla about them...

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes

>

> --- On Sat, 1/31/09, bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions wrote:

>

> bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions

> Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is

run by a husband and wife team!

>

> Saturday, January 31, 2009, 6:27 AM

You have to only go back as far as the presidential campaign and read

> all their " debunked " stories about Obama, when in fact they were all

> true. They definitely were in the tank for him, and were willing to

> post lies to sway the public, knowing that millions go to snopes for

> everything.

>

> Carol

>

> , " M.M. " <MedResearch121@

....>

> wrote:

> >

> > Hello,

> > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of

> this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when

> reading the Snopes material, I often wondered " who watches the

> watchers? " Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion

> on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which

> were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up

> their statements.

> >

> > I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.

>

[Guest guest]

Just happened to be the first one---there's tons of info on it--most people know about it---just google it....---but then who knows---anyone can post on google too....--- On Sat, 1/31/09, mommy2threelilboys <mommyon731 wrote:

mommy2threelilboys <mommyon731 Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team! Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 8:06 AM

 

 

It's interesting that you post a wikipedia page as your source. Didyou know that anyone can post and edit a wikipedia page? I could goto Obamas page and note that he used to have purple hair if I wantedtoo. We have to remember that anyone can put anything on the internet. , Bea Bernhausen<beabernhausen@ ...> wrote:>> Snopes is merely one couple---who have taken it upon themselves tovalidate or invalidate the internet material that comes their way.Obviously they do it from their own viewpoint--and thus instill theirown biases into their explanations. .thya are not experts by anymeans---don' t know why there is such a hoopla about them...> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/

Snopes> > --- On Sat, 1/31/09, bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions wrote:> > bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions > [Health_and_ Healing] Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It isrun by a husband and wife team!> > Saturday, January 31, 2009, 6:27 AM> > > > > > > You have to only go back as far as the presidential campaign and read> all their "debunked" stories about Obama, when in fact they were all> true. They definitely were in the tank for him, and were willing to> post lies to sway the public, knowing that millions go to snopes for> everything.> > Carol> > , "M.M."

<MedResearch121> wrote:> >> > Hello,> > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of> this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when> reading the Snopes material, I often wondered "who watches the> watchers?" Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion> on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which> were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up> their statements.> > > > I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I have known that for years. Ed Johnson,

Attorney who wrote a note in this post as well as

myself have reported them to the justice

department many times. They tell people

aspartame is safe with full knowledge that its

deadly: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_no_hoax.htm

 

Regards,

Betty

At 09:47 AM 1/31/2009, Bea Bernhausen wrote:

 

>Snopes is merely one couple---who have taken it

>upon themselves to validate or invalidate the

>internet material that comes their way.

>Obviously they do it from their own

>viewpoint--and thus instill their own biases

>into their explanations..thya are not experts by

>any means---don't know why there is such a hoopla about them...

><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes

>

>--- On Sat, 1/31/09, bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions wrote:

>bluegreensolutions <bluegreensolutions

> Re: Snopes.com is

>a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team!

>

>Saturday, January 31, 2009, 6:27 AM

>

>You have to only go back as far as the presidential campaign and read

>all their " debunked " stories about Obama, when in fact they were all

>true. They definitely were in the tank for him, and were willing to

>post lies to sway the public, knowing that millions go to snopes for

>everything.

>

>Carol

>

>--- In

><%40>@

>. com, " M.M. " <MedResearch121@ ...>

>wrote:

> >

> > Hello,

> > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of

>this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when

>reading the Snopes material, I often wondered " who watches the

>watchers? " Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion

>on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which

>were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up

>their statements.

> >

> > I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ya Bea

 

I liked your expression 'hoopala'.......

however as to the why? IMHO many people need a quick and what they term 'reliable' source of information to either credit or discredit 'stuff' they read on the internet...... SNOPES became their god..... and thats what happens when you put your misguided faith in a little god....... it is being proven that they are fallible! Where as IMHO 'G' is infallible.

 

I willl ckeck snopes.... but if there is an obvious BIAS and none of the other 'reliable' sources agree... then I know almost certainly that SNOPES has it wrong. I usually look for collaboration.

 

Cheer's from Clare in Tassie