It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does Snopes have an Agenda other than the truth...?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:32 AM
Alan ask's, Who watches the watchers? I couldnt answer him, but I know several haundred people who love investigating Conspiracies - so he fired this off to me for you guys to decide....???

Dear Anti-Evil,

I have stopped using Snopes quite a while ago because I thought they were liberal and slanted toward Obama. I didn't even check this out to see if it is true because I believe it. I have been using Truth or Fiction.

Guess we have to use "Truth or Fiction" now.

For the past few years www.snopescom 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

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 skepticisms - is a result of 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.

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 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 ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, 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 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 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.

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False...... Then they gave their Liberal slant....!!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder. Truth or
a better source for verification, in my opinion.

I have recently discovered that is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things... So you see, you cannot and should not trust for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI please don't use anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.

Thank you,

Alan Strong

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:06 AM
You are correct. I supplied some of the research on some of the articles in OpEdNews about the food safety bills. I know what was said was the truth because we were very careful not to open ourselves to the misinformation label. Snopes "debunked" the articles and called them false.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:20 AM
How nice to know. As I myself have been "snooped" before over issues which I know they were wrong (Namely the Rife Machine) it is nice to know that this is a husband and wife time with no formal experience in investigation and apparently not even a willingness to make a phone call to a state farm agent even when invited...

And lo and behold it was WIKI that outed them...

Proven my position on anarchy once again. Wiki the encyclopedia anyone can edit is anarchy. How can anyone even unregistered people have so much power and yet they do and yet it is working....even better than snoops.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:21 AM
Reply to post by Anti-Evil

I think this is a example of poisoning the well fallacy. The one incident you check upon fails at critical thinking. Just because the person you contacted did not know about them contacting them does not mean it did not happen. And even then do you honestly think they keep on widely available record everyone who calls them?

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:40 AM
I got into a fairly long running debate with a friend about certain social networking sites selling user information. I'd been present when the information was purchased and displayed... I knew it happened, I was there. He was certain they didn't sell your information. His close on the debate was a cut and paste from Snopes saying this absolutely does not happen. Since then I have treated Snopes like Wikipedia, for entertainment purposes or a link to outside sources.

new topics


log in