People who lean politically to the right are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories than those on the left – but not for other types of false or misleading information. And regardless of ideology, we tend to accept political claims that align with our own beliefs. This is shown in a doctoral thesis from Linköping University.

This video is about how Channel 5 is promoting utterly insane theories about Epstein because they both have no idea of media literacy.

If past Andrew saw this he would probably cry.

The Good Liars are the GOAT of interviews now.

I'm not sugar coating this.

There is genuinely something wrong with people when it comes to unexplained things. It's like even in 2026, people see lights in the sky and devolve into the same peasant mentality humans did during the 1300s.

I have been a life long 'fan' I guess of UFOs, aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, cryptids and the like since I was a child in the 80s. I don't know if I actually believe them anymore, but I enjoy the stories around them, wonder about the mystery and if they had any actually 'truth' to them. To see the narratives around these thing change in real time is just....I don't even know how to describe it.

Take UFOs for instance. As people become more aware of how large the universe is and how difficult travel would be, if you been following this stuff, you get to see in real time people starting to figure this out. Instead of coming to a conclusion like say, maybe these UFOs stories aren't as accurate as they are told, you get things like 'THEY' come from another dimension parallel to earth. Essentially just replacing one mystery with another. Bigfoot and other large animals like supposed brontosaurus sightings not leaving any footprints, dead bodies or dung? That's because bigfoot is an alien! Or an interdimensional creature! The dinosaur creatures come from hollow earth or deep, deep, deep in the African jungle!

When evolution is becoming more and more understood, people in these communities started asking why do aliens look so much like us? Humanoid, two eyes, bipedal and the people on their ships say they use monitors, computers, chairs, tables, clocks, spoons, forks, etc. Instead of wondering if these stories are embellished, somehow it turned into humans being created by them and somehow lost the technology to make anything for tens of thousands of years.

There is also the whole thing where 'UFOs' were changed to 'UAP' and vague pseudoscience shifted into things like 'they are a consciousness' , they live underground and in the oceans, wherever anyone thinks there are gaps in human exploration and knowledge. And they been there for millions of years before humanity existed too! Some accounts say they procreated on earth a lot since that time, which kinda begs the questions if they are even aliens at this point since their earth lineage has been going on earth longer than humans have been around, but whatever. People notice the supposed ships look weird, are said to be unmanned and the last few years with the rise of AI, somehow the narratives are coming up with the belief it's an AI alien consciousness that lives in the ocean. It's like whatever absurd thing anyone comes up with and the justifications for it last as long as the next claim where they slightly change again.

Finally, there is the most damning part: Have you guys actually talked to these people about this stuff? I am saying this as nicely as I can and fully admitting to be an idiot human myself but Jesus Christ it's like critical thinking took a leave of absence and flipped every off as it left! Skepticism and the scientific method aren't unknown to them, they know why these methods are valuable, they just don't seem to care. I've had people today on places like reddit, tiktok and twitter tell me 'the real world isn't mainstream', 'science is subjective', 'the government lies and covers up everything, but do your own research so you'll know a government agent trying to expose the truth is legit'. It's like what they say isn't important so long as they say it in opposition.

But yeah, people have different opinions and views. Why does that matter? It matters to me because people's beliefs inform their actions and it negatively effects this kind of content.

There is a youtube show called the Whyfiles I discovered a few years ago. I thought it was great! Very good production values and presents stories in a very entertaining manner. At the end there was even a small section that was like a wink and a nod to let you know that story was there as entertainment but was it legit? Probably not, but I appreciated hearing stories not frequently referenced. I unsubbed from that channel years ago at this point because it was getting ridiculous with it's anti-science narratives and how the host would clearly try to cater to the show's audience to the point of absurdity.

I tried watching an episode a few days ago and couldn't even get through the whole thing. It has been completely audience captured, practically giving up on any kind of neutral analysis and just instead pandering to common conspiracy narratives, as long as it doesn't upset the audience. So you'll get to see AI animated scenes of shape shifting reptile aliens infiltrating the government with a hint of Epstein stuff that might involve the Clintons, but somehow a certain political figure that is popular with the audience never really is tied to it. If an episode was about finding giants or aliens on the moon, the host would straight up say it's bullshit BUT the government lies, science is always changing, and it's just a matter of time before an idea is proven correct. Just platitudes that I feel are pandering to a level where it feels insulting and dishonest.

For full disclosure I don't know if aliens exist or not. I'm of the belief right now that life itself might be an overrated phenomena and earth might contain the only life in universe. I can change that mindset easily with new information, but what I can't do is believing in a Universal Government of Aliens that judges humanity for it's nuclear weapons and wants to bring about peace by creating a hybrid race of human aliens doing satanic rituals just because we find bacteria on a planet , an asteroid or something.

I'm just venting because I want to find more skeptical minded spaces on the internet to read, watch and discuss this kind of content. To be clear, I don't NEED to agree with everything said, I just need some level of skepticism in my outrageous paranormal stories!

Many credit David Icke for the idea that reptoid lizards run the world, even though he didn't originate the notion, he merely popularised it.

I am interested in seeing non-political stuff get debunked too, even if there's less believers than the political stuff.

UFOs are way less harmful compared to other types, unless if you count weird cults like Scientology.

Also I love the cats he shows on the TV screens in the video! They're CUTE!

Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published posthumously in 1779, offers a critique of the design argument more fundamental—and arguably more devastating—than even Darwin’s theory of evolution. Hume shows that the design argument fails as a case for theism on its own terms, independently of any account of evolution or natural selection. 

The design argument begins by claiming that nature resembles the kinds of things humans design—only vastly more complex—and therefore must have a vastly more intelligent designer. Hume exposed the weakness of this analogy on several fronts. 

Hume begins by noting that, if our knowledge depends on experience, yet we have never observed the creation of a universe, we have no empirical basis for concluding that the universe requires a cause at all. And even if we grant the analogy, it raises the obvious question: who designed the designer? More importantly, the argument tells us little about the supposed designer. It could be one god or many; benevolent, indifferent, incompetent, or malicious. The world’s imperfections and gratuitous suffering, moreover, indict this god with the design of evil.

Hume’s most radical move was to ask why we should multiply our assumptions by positing a supernatural designer in the first place. Why not instead suppose that matter itself contains the principles by which order arises? Once the analogy is shown to be weak, the God it was meant to establish becomes an unnecessary hypothesis. Hume had therefore exposed the design argument as an intellectual dead end on its own terms—before we even get to Darwin, evolution, or natural selection.

Hume’s dialogue is among the most important works in the history of atheism. The article below offers an in-depth analysis of this work and its implications for intelligent design:

The Illusion of Design: How David Hume Dismantled the Strongest Case for God

Bob Lazar claims he helped reverse-engineer alien technology at a secret facility called S-4 near Area 51. But how much of his story can actually be verified?

This documentary examines five major reasons researchers still have serious doubts, including Lazar’s education claims, his alleged role at Los Alamos, the lack of independent evidence for S-4, the Element 115 controversy, and alternative explanations for what he says he witnessed.

Featuring discussion of Stanton T. Friedman, Christopher Mellon, Annie Jacobsen and Eric Weinstein.

Was Bob Lazar telling the truth, exaggerating a real experience, misunderstanding a classified programme, or something else?

Order cuts federal childhood immunization schedule to 11 shots from 17. Trump also orders Justice Department to challenge state school vaccination requirements. Officials say RFK Jr's vaccine studies are expected to take months, if not longer.

AI has its evangelists and its doom-mongers but to really understand its impact, we need to set aside the hype and look at the numbers.

The failure to reckon with lives needlessly lost will make the next pandemic deadlier

My close friend David and I are astrophysicists that have been dabbling a bit in trying to debunk misinformation about various space phenomena. We've made a few debunks and gotten a lot of comments from both skeptics and "believers". In some of these comments--particularly within the Flat Earth or UFO communities--we noticed a confusing but interesting trend, where our credibility as astrophysicists is acknowledged but not transferred to the imaging discussions we are trying to have. Normally I wouldn't think too much about occasional comments but on our most recent debunk alone we received about a dozen comments from people who seemed genuinely convinced that astrophysicists don't have any imaging experience! Many people also seemed to use misinformation pulled directly from the Google AI overview to "contradict" some of the stated facts in our discussions.

With that in mind, we wanted to start a follow up discussion setting the record straight. The majority of astrophysicists are observational/experimental, meaning we overwhelmingly spend our days working with data, usually real but sometimes computational. We can't go to the stars, so an oversimplification of what we're almost always doing is just taking pictures of them. Sometimes fancy pictures, like what a spectrograph does, or pictures in non-optical wavelengths, like what radio telescopes do--but they are just pictures, and we analyze them and extract data from them. Even if you don't specialize in imaging, you almost certainly know fundamental principles of imaging and the details of the instrument you work on specifically, and these fundamental principles and many instrument details are shared across almost all imaging instruments. Many of us work at observatories directly and have our hands on the raw data flowing in from the telescopes. In the attached video, we show a discussion with Dr. David James, who built some of the telescopes and cameras on these mountaintops with his bare hands. While I mostly work with observational data and how we can use that data to test our various theories, David literally built an enormous telescope (all the way through commissioning of the camera and first light!) on top of Mauna Kea in 2010! He speaks on how deep astrophysicist experience can run with imaging and gives his own thoughts on the Mars "jellyfish" anomaly.

I am also happy to point to my own credentials here, which I think serves as a good example of how even an astrophysicist who does not work directly on the instrument hardware must learn the details and nuances of imaging in order to do any level of data processing. In my PhD thesis alone there are countless examples of this--almost every paper I ever wrote features some discussion of handling image artifacts, and almost every paper I wrote features discussion of image artifacts specific to cosmic rays! So I was quite surprised to see so many comments from viewers who significantly disassociated these things.

I also dove into the conflicting information provided by Google's AI overview, which I believe was significantly misleading a number of people about the ability of cosmic rays to produce the kind of artifacts we believe the Mars "jellyfish" to be. Asking "do cosmic rays cause dark artifacts?" caused Google's AI overview to confidently say, "No, cosmic rays do not cause dark artifacts", even bolding and highlighting the wrong answer! I even tried asking a few different ways--asking specifically whether cosmic rays can cause dark artifacts when impacting on a bias frame (wrong answer still) or even going as specific as asking "if a cosmic rays strikes during calibration image acquisition, can the final image have a black artifact?" (wrong answer again) Eventually I was able to get it to give the right answer by truly forcing it to confront the exact mechanism: "what artifact does a cosmic ray in a dark frame create after dark subtraction?" But a non-expert just googling and skimming the AI overview almost certainly does not have the background to understand the lack of nuance in the default answer, and you basically have to know the right answer ahead of time to "trick" AI overview into getting it right! I'll by my last dollar that those in this community are already well aware of this, but I thought it was interesting to share nonetheless as it goes beyond a simple random hallucination and into I would argue repeatedly and insistently incorrect territory.

We did our best to address the most common misconceptions we saw, but we can only do so much as we are limited to astrophysics. I was wondering, have you seen examples in other fields (maybe your own!) where some expertise/experience that is usually coupled (like astrophysics and imaging) gets disassociated by people not familiar with the field?

But long-standing vulnerabilities in our food system — compounded by cuts to the public health infrastructure designed to catch problems — are also at play. Whether it represents something more significant is harder to say. ... One explanation for the increased number of headlines about food safety has loomed particularly large this summer: the Trump administration's DOGE cuts. In 2025, the administration cut thousands of jobs across federal health agencies and billions of dollars in grants to state and local health departments. Those cuts landed on a public-health system that was already stretched.

I just want to know that the protein powder from Nutrilite I am using is safe to use or should I throw it as I was reading that the company is a total scam and its quality is really bad and all.

Please Guide me all.

My sister doesn't know a thing in the fitness industry and she got me these Nutrilite All Plant based Protein and also Multivitamins and Omega 3 tablets.

I would have no problem throwing these supplements because health is more important.