Get it from a legitimate source, and we'll talk. But not one of your fringe fryer tinfoil sources which you habitually equate to legitimate investigative journalism.
And this is exactly what I was saying. Use a site (wiki) that is based on user contribution to slander and discount another site that posts very interesting articles on finance and other topics simply because it also (and by other posters) has some far out ideas.
And they have duck bills, and they quack, and you habitually give equal credence to their typical quackery as you do to real news. Did I ever mention false equivalency?
So you admit that you would have to go to the frontier fringes to back up your bogus claim. Thought so. RT? ZH? Or some such known for their biased and conspiracy-friendly "reporting?" Pfft.