Lies by Omission

It seems to be a common feature in material written by people with "radical" or "unconventional" views that they apparently have reasonable, well thought out arguments to back up their case. They often have well developed websites, which apparently offer unbiased "information" to interested readers, like this one for example.

Such "evidence" is easily checked, and usually is refuted by many conventional and web authors, while supported by single or few "researchers", often with either hidden or obvious agendas. The exclusion of data which does not support an argument is both misleading and dishonest. An explanation should attempt to describe all known phenomena, not just single cited cases fitting a certain a priori argument.

A piece of factual writing is only as reliable as it's sources, and these days, such sources are easily checked. If they canot be verified, one must immediately ask why? What benefit to the author for not including sources, and indeed, what benefit ultimately to not including information which challenges their contention. Such omission may easily have the opposite effect to that which the author intended.