Snopes exposed


New member
For those of you that think snopes is god when it comes to knowing the truth or not. By the way you might want to check this out on snopes.:biggrin:

I present this for your own evaluation.
Who "Snopes" are was written up in READERS DIGEST and agrees with this account.
(no politcal bias was mentioned in the article).


For the past few years ( 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 that 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 fact '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.

Link Removed or Link Removed

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 Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion. that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet

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 You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust, ever 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 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

Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave. Suite
200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039

Link Removed

Last edited by a moderator:

Red Hat

New member
I've always said to take Snpes with a grain of salt! I've seen a lot of liberal bias in recent inquires. Time to use TruthOrFiction exclusively from now on!


New member
When it comes to U.S. policiy don't we all have skin in the game? I don't see how anyone can truly be objective. So don't trust anyone's "facts". Listen to their arguments (both sides) and see if there is sound logic on either side or if it is somewhere in the middle. Vote according to ideas and logic - not feelings or ideology. And always follow the money. Someone is bankrolling Sopes. Who?


New member
I've know for quite awhile that snopes was just a married couple. And in looking at anything about Oprahbama, they tend to soften any criticism. Most of their stuff, especially email hoaxes, is fairly accurate but yeah, you can't take them as the absolute gospel truth on everything.


New member
I remember following their posts back around the mid 90's on Usenet and it really has been fun to whatch how their information and status has grown from just another poster to creators of their own TV show. Ther have been times that I wish what they said wasn't true (wanting to believe rumors) but have found that they are as reliable or more reliable than any other source out there. I really haven't found them to be slanted politically one way or the other and seldom give opinions but rather stick to facts. Of course with any source of information they can make an error and you need to take that into account. I will be glad to put their track record on reliability up against any newspaper, media source or radio talk show host including Rush Limbaugh. :biggrin:


New member
they are and continue to be a liberal media tool.... I have caught them multiple times being flat out wrong or just plain lieing....


New member
Analysis: It apparently never occurred to this anonymous emailer to cite even one actual instance of promulgating "half-truths" or "lies" under the guise of providing reliable information. So much for credibility (the email's, I mean).

It's doubly ironic that such a scurrilous attack (which first began circulating in October 2008) should be mounted against the oldest and most respected fact-checking site on the Internet at the denouement of an election year marked from beginning to end by unrestrained smear-mongering, much of which it fell to to debunk.

Let's examine the accusations.

Is the owner of an avowed liberal?
The email alleges that is "owned by a flaming liberal" who is "in the tank for Obama."

First off, is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of Agoura Hills, California.

Second, these charges are laid without evidence. At no time have the Mikkelsons publicly stated a political preference or affiliation, or expressed support for any particular party or candidate.

Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement to, David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate" (source:

Anyone who claims proof to the contrary needs to come out with it.

Is 'in the tank' for Obama? Do they 'tell lies' about McCain and Palin?
You'd think it would be easy for someone so blithely asserting that the owners of are "flaming liberals" to offer evidence that they're "in the tank" for Obama and "covering up" for him. None is provided.

As of this writing dozens of forwarded texts pertaining to Barack Obama and his running mate have been analyzed on, each meticulously researched with copious references cited. I have perused them all, not to mention the twenty-odd texts concerning Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin, and find no discernible pattern of bias or deception, nor any evidence of advocacy for or against. To the contrary, I see a consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses of texts which more often than not are themselves dripping with political bias.

That's my assessment, as someone who has investigated the bulk of these rumors himself and can boast a better-than-average familiarity with the subject matter. I invite you to make your own.

Is a more reliable source than Snopes?
First off, has condemned this anonymous attack against and, in fact, lauds the site as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.

What's ironic about claims to the contrary is that when you compare the contents of the two sites their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way. Shouldn't we therefore conclude that is biased too?

Where the sites do differ is in the depth and quality of their coverage. On the Mikkelsons go to extraordinary lengths to address the finer details of each text, supplying critical analysis as well as background and contextual information. Most importantly, they cite sources.

Not to disparage owner Rich Buhler, who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource, but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best. boasts a 13-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.

Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.


New member
You live in California, but your insurance agent lives in Mandeville, LA? That's weird.

If Snopes was liberal, why would they stick up for Bush Jr.? If you go to and enter "Bush" in the search engine, you will find several ugly stories about Bush that Snopes labels as "False." Why would they do that if they are so liberal?

And why is this story on a concealed carry website?


New member
Very well done HK. I read somewhere a while back that the BAMSTER was in the tank with NOPES SNOPES. Keep your guards up. Thanks!


New member
You live in California, but your insurance agent lives in Mandeville, LA? That's weird.

If Snopes was liberal, why would they stick up for Bush Jr.? If you go to and enter "Bush" in the search engine, you will find several ugly stories about Bush that Snopes labels as "False." Why would they do that if they are so liberal?

And why is this story on a concealed carry website?

Just last president the liberal websites were claiming Snopes was a tool of the neo-cons trying to dismiss the truth about GWB.


New member
Just last president the liberal websites were claiming Snopes was a tool of the neo-cons trying to dismiss the truth about GWB.

Simple in every silo some grains of truth must exist, for if they were all fallacy's then no one would ever believe them....

Last election cycle they wrote a bunch of stuff that BHO said, was documented via news services, as false and reported as fals...... caught them at that 3 times.....

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest member