I’ve so far skimmed the “Nuclear weapons aren’t real” article and it seems to be a run of the mill conspiracy site (besides giving quite a good run down of how the A-bomb is “supposed” to work).
The name – Mensonges de la science (Lies of science), poor design and plethora of ridiculous (and long disproved) claims are all fair pointers that it is full of conspiracies of dubious credibility.
There are hundreds of such sites on the Internet and they seem to be quite immune to fact checks.
Great work, is possible to pick one claim and fact check it and show it’s not true. The reason for this is that it’s hard to tell people that a website is fake in general, but always better and wiser just to pick many claims and debunk them.
I’ve so far skimmed the “Nuclear weapons aren’t real” article and it seems to be a run of the mill conspiracy site (besides giving quite a good run down of how the A-bomb is “supposed” to work).
The name – Mensonges de la science (Lies of science), poor design and plethora of ridiculous (and long disproved) claims are all fair pointers that it is full of conspiracies of dubious credibility.
There are hundreds of such sites on the Internet and they seem to be quite immune to fact checks.
Edited: 2019-07-28 17:27:45 By James Bohacek (talk | contribs) + 9 Characters .. + 1% change. (Note | Diff)
Great work, is possible to pick one claim and fact check it and show it’s not true. The reason for this is that it’s hard to tell people that a website is fake in general, but always better and wiser just to pick many claims and debunk them.