List of non-credible sources and attributions

[Kommander]

Does anyone not know that Coast to Coast is entertainment only? Then again I remember back when I listened to it there seemed to be three types of guests, legitimate guests (I once got extra credit for turning in some notes I took on theoretical time travel via near light-speed travel and worm holes), fringe scientists (there are TWO mirror universes and if we are not careful they will collapse into each other!) and total nutters (when I worked with space aliens at area 51...).

[Yogimus]

Coast to coast is some crazy shit. Go from a perfectly logical discussion about the effects of religious influences during the 2nd world war VS the war on terror, straight to Al Queda being a front for the helenistic triad and/or illuminati.

[Windy Wilson]

Coast to Coast AM: Because the truth is out there. So is Art Bell.

Good one.

I am both surprised and pleased by this list. Surprised it took so long for this site to post one, and pleased that this forum alone on the internet (to my knowledge) has such a list.

[Windy Wilson]

Coast to coast is some crazy shit. Go from a perfectly logical discussion about the effects of religious influences during the 2nd world war VS the war on terror, straight to Al Queda being a front for the helenistic triad and/or illuminati.

The nature, subject and direction of thread hijacks (even on radio) greatly depends on the people reading the thread.

[Jered]

Coast to Coast AM: Because the truth is out there. So is Art Bell.

Good one.

It's actually a Coast to Coast AM advertising spot from one of the radio stations out here.

[gromulin]

Coast to Coast AM is great entertainment. The doublewide-based scientific community never lets me down. That's because I enjoy listening to schizophrenics late at night, they take themselves SO damn seriously.

[Weetabix]

What about Newsmax?

[Weetabix]

That's kind of what I thought. I get the willies whenever I read a link to them. It's like you can't verify much if any of it independently.

Of course, I've hears snopes called unreliable, too. Is that true, or can they be counted on?

[Aesop]

Chris is free to list them as such, or not.

IMHO, they are what Wikipedia would be if it were administered by a small family, which is what Snopes is.
Frequently, they get things right. Equaly frequently, they don't know what they're talking about. And without personal information to a degree that would obviate the need to consult Snopes in the first place, one never knows which side of the realty line their stories are. I've sent them corrections, and had the same bogus info still sitting on their website months later. I attribute that to inattention and inertia rather than actual malice, but the result for readers is the same. As far as I can tell, the only thing that motivates them to due diligence is whether, on a given topic, they feel like it.
As a general rule, I'd get a factual response 1000-fold better from the members of this forum than from Snopes. Which, to open another can of worms, makes Snopes about as reliable as IMDb, and much like other solely online "references", worth every penny you pay for them.

You takes yer chances.

[Netpackrat]

Snopes is run by a couple of libs, and them calling another news source unreliable is the pot calling the kettle black. They are generally reliable, when it comes to non-political stuff. Otherwise, seek some other confirmation. I've been hesitant to use them as a source for anything for a while now, and usually do so with a disclaimer.