Ok. So I obviously don't believe the above article/video AT ALL. The point is that the way the OP was phrased, the average semantic interpretation would be that I did, in fact, believe it. Technically there may be some room for equivocation there, the tacit implication is really quite strong.

Further more, this is clearly a totally crackpot idea, but there are TONS of sites, articles, videos, etc that support the claim. Some of the people quoted or interviewed even claim to have what would constitute some legitimate, authoritative credentials. However, some simple critical thinking skills carefully applied to the data combined with a review of scholarly sources on the topic, if needed, will show this to be a somewhat ridiculous farce.

A better presentation that does not invite so much antagonism (unless that is the intent of posting the link in the first place) might look like this:

Hey-

I found this article and it seems a bit odd. Anyone have any other info on this? Has anyone else researched this issue in the past?

Such a neutrally-worded post would do much more to engender rational responses and would likely generate more constructive input.