InfoCheckers

List of possible topics

From InfoCheckers

Revision as of 17:29, 22 April 2019 by Admin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Some initial suggestions for topics for investigation: * Alternative cancer therapies. <BR> :(Likely needs sub topics) * The 2014 “revolution” [CNN] / “coup” [RT] in...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Some initial suggestions for topics for investigation:

  • Alternative cancer therapies.
(Likely needs sub topics)
  • The 2014 “revolution” [CNN] / “coup” [RT] in Ukraine
(This is a big one, and relatively easy!)
Note: that document is important in discussions of NATO's suspected role in terrorism. However, the information in Wikipedia is clearly insufficient to enable an informed opinion.
Kennedy "was fatally shot by former U.S. Marine Lee Harvey Oswald". In contrast, a recent poll suggests that about half of people do not believe that assertion. This may be due to a number of books that make a strong case for a conspiracy in which Oswald was a patsy, just as he claimed.
Note: of course, this topic is held to be the mother of all conspiracy theories. Already for that reason it's worth scrutiny. In addition, a huge amount of formerly secret information has been released early 2018, but that information has not found its way into Wikipedia.
Some suggested sub topics:
- Oswald's visit (or not) to Mexico just before the assassination and the role the CIA played in generating that information (that was a main topic of investigation in recently released secret papers)
- The accusation that JFK's security was purposefully abandoned
  • “9/11” (no need to clarify!)
Some suggested sub topics:
- the collapse of both Twin towers
- the collapse of WT7
- the finding of the passport of one of the hijackers
  • The fat vs. sugar debate (links to be added later)
Recently it has been claimed that not fat but sugar is bad for health.
  • Man-made global warming
(Probably also in need of sub topics!)
For example, a quick verification of the references of https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age-intermediate.htm gives me as first impression that it's biased -even misleading- but useful for its references.
Note: the provided arguments are one-sided according to a scientific article about that issue:
https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/10sac.html
Compare: http://www.aidsorigins.com/origins-aids-pandemic

[Edit: I will now copy this to a discussion page and embed this forum discussion on that page]