Quote Originally Posted by Throbert McGee View Post
Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.
LOL! So, out of the source, you question the kind of language?

No, nevermind what is proved or what the findings are or the arguments but the language is suspicious and questionable. Ok, you pretty much have expressed explicitly that you're brainwashed like Mr. Crocodile and a waste of time.

P.S. Of course, I've researched but I'd only have to read a few pages and watch a few videos to say I've researched more than you have.

Many of the sources dedicate much of their life to investigating the event but because China/Russia doesn't show up, they're not credible? I'm not sure how you reach your argument but it's absurd.