Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

If Snopes Had ANY Credibility, They Lost it Now

Snopes is the online “fact checking” site that many people turn to in order to find out whether things are true, urban legends, fake news and the like.  People take this site as an objective reference, a final word on truth and imagine it as some think tank trying to set the record straight.

Wrong.

The fact is that snopes is run by a husband and wife team of radical leftist progressives from the San Fernando valley in California with absolutely NO background in investigation and simply google the answers to questions and post them as truth.

Here’s a picture of your internet sleuths David and Barbara Mikkelson:

snopes

Crack team there…look at that fat cat investigating David’s hair.  New article on snopes “Social Justice Warrior’s hair made out of cat nip: CONFIRMED”

These two crusaders not only start and end their with google searches but with their limited information and their inability to process it often times just cover up the truth with lies.  There are numerous accounts of snopes just covering up for the Obama administration and the progressive agenda as a whole.

One need only search Benghazi to find out the snopes duo carrying Hillary Clinton’s water.  Or when Obama encouraged illegals to vote assuring them that no one is coming to their houses to deport them.  The Mikkelson’s said, well, the WHOLE interview shows different.   It DOESN’T, the whole interview simply shows Obama trying to walk away from what he just said but not doing a very good job of it.

But a lot of people all ready knew about he Mikkelson’s being a pair of nobody’s lacking any credential for serious investigations.  I mean, everyone has google so what do we need snopes for if that is all they do?

They not only want to debunk things that, in doing so, help their leftist cohorts in DC but they want to actually contribute to the misinformation against their enemies.  Namely trying to undermine President Elect Donald Trump.  Even when he is exonerated with concerns of fake stories about him the Mikkelsons don’t say that the rumors were lies or false, they say they are unconfirmed or mixed.

My main problem with snopes is that if you try and find one instance of a false report concerning Trump supporters harassing a minority, a Muslim or a Hillary Clinton supporter you find NOTHING.  And it’s not like the stories aren’t out there.

I mean when Yasmin Seweid, a student at Baruch College in New York claimed three Trump supporters attacked her and called her a terrorist and tried to take off her hijab, the left stream media jumped all over it and didn’t even use the word “alleged” when reporting the incident.

The Mikkelsons were probably giggling with glee as Trump supporters were getting bad press and didn’t cover it at all.

Yasmin Seweid’s story unraveled so quickly that even snopes could have probably uncovered the truth if they took half a second from being political hacks and looked into it.  The truth finally came out and Yasmin Seweid has been arrested for filing a false police report.  It seems she was late for curfew and made the whole thing up.

Snopes is silent.  Just like it is silent when it comes to other fake stories of Trump supporters harassing people.

A student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette falsified a story that she was attacked for wearing a hijab. Police quickly determined that she had fabricated the story.

A California community was outraged over a student who was passing out “deportation notices.” Of course, it was just a poorly timed joke, not a hate crime.  Turns out the kid handing them out was a Clinton supporter.

Or how about this guy:

fake-harass-story

Nope again, this is an anti trump filmmaker who just happens to specialize in special effects and makeup.

This next one resolved itself pretty quickly and therefore snopes didn’t have time to get involved and try and cover it up.  It does go to show the onslaught of fake stories and not only the willingness of the media to report it as truth but at points be complicit in the lies.

called-out

called-out-2

Suffice it to say Ms. Harvard, a reporter based in New York City with .Mic, quickly backtracked on her claims and the UIPD chalked it up a work of fiction.

I actually love it when police call on these fakers and how quickly they scatter.

min-police

The girl who posted her fake sob story online quickly deleted all her social media accounts and avoided the cops.

Then there’s those who just want to go all in until they realize that, like Yasmin Seweid, doing so has consequences.  That’s why this next person just SAID she filed charges without actually doing so.

fake-charges

And then there are all those fake stories about waitresses getting mean things written on their receipts instead of tips and so forth.  Nearly ALL are frauds and fakes and lies for people to push their anti trump agenda, or to get a little fame or to bilk idiots out of money who feel sorry for them because they believe the lies.

You would think that snopes would look into a couple and try to see if any are legitimate.

Nope.  But you want destroy a tear jerking Christmas story about a dying boy…they’ll be there.

I don’t know if the following story is true, it’s made the rounds over the past couple of days so you might have heard of it.  A dying boy wishes to see Santa Claus before he passes so a nurse at a hospital in Tennesse calls up a part time Santa, Eric Schmitt-Matzen, to come.

Long story short, Schmitt-Matzen comes, talks to the boy who asks if he is going to go to heaven and Santa responds: “When you get there, you tell ’em you’re Santa’s Number One elf, and I know they’ll let you in.”

The boy dies in Santa’s arms.

Apparently for Christmas haters like David and Barbara Mikkelson this story has to be false.

You know what, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t and if Santa is more a Krampus and is trying to pull some con then he should be exposed.  My issue goes back to how complete inept and unqualified the Mikkelsons are to tell anyone what is true and what is not.

Schmitt-Matzen told the story to the Knoxville News Sentinel.  He left out the names of the family out of respect and the name of his friend who is a nurse at her request.  The Mikkelsons decide to call two hospitals and get to the bottom of it.

Though they mention it on snopes I don’t think they really understand how HIPA works.  Hospitals aren’t going to tell them ANYTHING about a dying boy if his parents don’t want it released, especially not two hacks from California who run a blog.  The Mikkelsons are taking that HIPA silence to cast doubt on the entire story.

Even though WBIR-TV did some ACTUALLY leg work on the story in order to verify the key points like an electronic paper trail detailing events and facts dating back in October, snopes refuses to speak on that in their article because it is their intention to mislead people into believing what they, the Mikkelsons, want them to believe.

But don’t take my word for it, here’s the WBIR-TV report:

Facts verified in Santa’s hospital visit story

Another thing that I like that leads to the veracity of this story is that Eric Schmitt-Matzen isn’t running away from the story and folding under the scrutiny that so many of the aforementioned “victims” did.

Snopes wants you to doubt this Christmas story.  They want you to doubt that Trump will be a good president, that Obama was a train-wreck and that Hillary was a monster.

When your entire claim to fame is that you find out the truth but in reality you are just novice political hacks from California, no one should take you seriously.

That is why you must disregard snopes as a reference and seek out the truth for yourself.  Lest you just believe what the Mikkelsons want you to believe regardless of whether it’s true or not.

 

  • Grey Winters

    Normal liberal reaction. Hating.

  • durabo

    Evidently, Dr. Joseph Goebbels’ descendants are mainlining his spirit alive.

  • ReadWryt

    But it HASN’T been verified. Not in anny manner of acceptable journalistic methodology, but then…you haven’t verified that Snopes is merely some couple running a website out of their home, and “report” that as fact, even though staff members, including their Managing Editor, have been interviewed by real journalists over the past couple of months, so it’s not surprising you feel your lies are truth when you think facts are lies…

    • Bullets First

      Which part hasn’t been verifited? That Yasmin lied about the whole thing? That’s been verified. You can check out her court hearing. The Santa thing? According to WBIR, the local news organization on the ground who has actually spoken with Eric Schmitt-Matzen and took his evidence off the record in order to protect the privacy of those involved. Just because the hospitals didn’t violate HIPA in order to tell the Mikkelsons what they wanted to hear doesn’t make the story untrue. Yet everyone is throwing Schmitt-Matzen under the bus because Snopes makes it appear that the story is false.

      Staff members? Ok, Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

      Why is having a few political shills to help out mean the Mikkelsons are some authority on anything?

      Take a look at what Lacapria had to say about the following claim:

      “Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.

      MOSTLY FALSE
      WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant.

      WHAT’S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant “made up the rape story,” she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not “free” the defendant.”

      The problem is that the claim is 100% TRUE. Lacapria interjects a bunch of falsities in an attempt to bury the lead that Clinton got a child rapist off and then was caught on tape laughing about it. And a story this big the Mikkelsons, one would hope had the oversight to either approve or disapprove of the political shell game. So either the Mikkelsons have absolutely nothing to do with their little website or they are complicit in the dissemination of the information. You can’t have it both ways. My problem is with snopes and in that, how the Mikkelsons have set it up to be a water carrier to defend and protect liberals and progressives. They can have a huge staff but if the all march lock step to the Mikkelsons directives like Lacapria does then snopes and the Mikkelsons are synonymous.

      • ReadWryt

        Actually, I was originally referring to the Santa story, but please…by all means, quote for us all the part of the interview where Clinton laughed about the outcome of the case…because…THAT never happened. What you are doing is the same as hearing WW II vets laughing about incidents in that campaign and then reporting that they “…laughed about killing Nazis…”.

    • Bullets First

      Oh, and just to satisfy your desire to hold bulletsfirst more accountable than snopes for verification, here is the text of the audio of the aformentioned tape that Hillary was caught on laughing about the child rapist she got off:

      Clinton: Of course he claimed he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]

      Clinton: So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence [laughs] before it was presented.

      Clinton:I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, “Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” [laughs]

      The evidence she is talking about is the underwear of the girl who was raped. The investigators cut a swath from that pair of underwear that had bodily fluid from the defendent on it and had it tested. Clinton on the other hand took the underwear with the hole in it and had it tested by a forensic firm in Brooklyn. The expert told her that the material on the underwear wasn’t enough to test. “He said, you know, ‘You can’t prove anything,’” Clinton recalled the expert telling her. That’s what she wrote and handed to Gibson. She played a legal shell game and got her client off of a child rape conviction and laughed about how smart she was.

      • Bullets First

        Maybe I should add this part because it also directly refutes what Lacapria said about Clinton not asserting that the victim “made up the rape story”

        Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.

        Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.

        So, its false because Clinton didn’t ACTUALLY USE “made up the rape story” word for word? This is the kind of bias and shotty fact checking that invalidates so much of the drivel that snopes purports to be truth

      • ReadWryt

        No, she laughed at her gullibility in trusting Polygraph testing, at the idea that a defense attorney might be denied access to evidence in a case and then quoted the Forensic Expert that to use those underwear as evidence in a case would be a “Miscarriage of Justice”, which she clearly thought was an over the top statement.

        There is, though, no reason to continue discussing something like this with someone who has all the journalistic integrity of the Weekly World News. This may sound like a harsh indictment, but the fact that it was THE ACCUSED…that, for those of you following along, would be THE RAPISTS underwear, and not the VICTIM’S underwear. You are incapable of getting a simple fact of the case like THAT correct, and yet you are some sort of authority because…well, blog.

  • Bill Charlton

    There was an actual documentary by Dr. Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm which documented actual coral-encrusted chariot parts (including a gold chariot wheel, presumably belonging to the Pharaoh of the Exodus) and other evidences at the bottom of the Red Sea where the Israelites crossed during the Exodus.
    The FAKE news site “World News Daily Report” (a site which adds lies to factual Christian and conservative news stories apparently in order to discredit the true accounts by adding fabrications) rewrote the story adding significant fabrications to it.
    Then Snopes “debunked” the FAKE story from “World News Daily Report”, while omiting any mention of the factual elements, helping to deceive the public into discrediting any of the factual Red Sea discoveries.
    (For the factual account, see YT video “MOSES & Exodus part 3” for Dr. Lennart Moller’s documented discoveries)

    • Bill Charlton

      This practice of obfuscation is an effective one. Another example is an old picture that existed long before photoshop & even personal computers, showing a Pterosaur having been shot/captured by U.S. Civil War soldiers.
      Once the photo was uploaded and began making rounds on the internet, some industrious souls who wanted to ensure that no one might actually believe that a Pterosaur could have existed in our recent past (and therefore question the narrative that all Pterosaurs died out with the dinosaurs), created a very similarly looking photo, which they published widely on the internet. Then, after sufficient saturation, they admitted their photo was staged (without confessing that there an original photo) and succeeded in debunking their own photo, leading people to believe that there was only ONE Pterosaur photo, and that it was a FAKE.
      To see BOTH photos compared/contrasted, see YT video: “Pterosaur Foto real vs fake The Civil War Pterosaur Photo No One should see! 1-2 (copy)”

Send this to friend