I would say that half of the 50
crackpot theorists that run rampant here are hoaxsters and pranksters.
Not exact matches
«He was way ahead of his time,» says University of Chicago
theorist Michael Turner, «and if you're way ahead of your time, you're a
crackpot.»
Still living in Japan, Joe remains haunted, seen by his son as a
crackpot conspiracy
theorist trying to prove the calamity was not a natural disaster.
Has the department had an internal discussion, or commissioned any research — internally or externally — that identifies these «
crackpots and conspiracy
theorists» and «vested interests», and evaluates their arguments?
What is the science, referred to by Davey, which is contradicted by the «vested interests» and «
crackpots and conspiracy
theorists»?
What is Davey's (or the department's) evidence that «vested interests» and «
crackpots and conspiracy
theorists» have had an impact on the wider debate?
And you will always get
crackpots and conspiracy
theorists who will deny they have a nose on their face if it suits them.
How do the arguments advanced by «
crackpots and conspiracy
theorists» and «vested interests» contradict the science?