The Stuff You Can Find On Utube.

[sandyRoe]

Flicking through it the other evening I saw programmes posted by people who don't believe Shakespeare wrote his own plays.

They don't seem to be flat earthers .  Anything else strange to be found there?

[youngmafbog]

Each to their own.

These people have always existsed, they just have a bigger platform now.

[douglas9401]

Apparently there's still a market for von Daniken and his mumblings.

Some even use it as reference material.

[naomi24]

That'll be me.  I use it as reference material.  Apart from what's posted on here I don't use YouTube so I've no idea what else is on it.

[Old_Geezer]

Oh all sorts are found there, like any other social media platform. You need to work out those just wanting hits and spouting nonsense from those whom you feel you can trust.

[nailedit]

I watch a lot of you tube, and you are right Sandy, there is a lot of weird stuff on there. The shakespeare conspiricy dates from the 1800's so sometime before you tube 😁

[Old_Geezer]

"I've no idea what else is on it."

 

Everything and anything you want. Except if your's truly comments something that clashes with the message someone in YouTube authority wants kept quiet. Then it'll either never appear, or will disappear in some mysterious fashion. Do not trust the censor. Or the impression left behind where no dissenting voices are found.

[Ken4155]

There are also some very helpful tutorial videos on Youtube, showing you how to do almost everything.

It's not all cute pets and car crashes.........

 

[Ken4155]

&t=8s

[Ken4155]

 

.

[Peter Pedant]

posted by people who don't believe Shakespeare wrote his own plays.

They don't seem to be flat earthers .

They are flat earthers

Obit in the Times of an eccentric who supported this. He was a stalwart of the de Vere Society

https://deveresociety.co.uk/

The obituarist continued - de Vere died before the greatest of Shakespeare's plays were published and performed was a hurdle he found hard to clear

Wiki and references - wiki surprisingly favours secondary references over primary references - so.....

If Robert Falcon Scott wrote: "I have reached the North Pole" then it is  looked on ( as wiki) as less valid than something like "Amundsen wrote that Scott had reached the pole after him."

Hearsay over oral evidence. Not scientific, and you have to be careful

( not really AB fare but what the hell).

This gets over boastful articles - such as when X writes of himself " In a landmark series of experiments , X showed conclusively that such and such....." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine

Fenfluramine scandal and the New England Journal - 1996 - researcher writes his own laudatory editorial. The editorial board hadnt noticed.  The hacks did and let rip the day afte embargo ended. Heads rolled.

( the hacks could have said sooner "whoopsie Mr Editor, have you read this invited editorial?" but as a group they chose not to)

 

[barry1010]

I watched Ruth Goodman on Youtube the other day, part of the History channel, always find her interesting.

It's not all goofs, goons, funnies and loons.

Our friends have a successful YouTube channel, showcasing their lives living and continuously cruising on a narrowboat.  

[Peter Pedant]

There is a lot of good maff on U  tube - and some languages ( nil Latin or Greek, lots of Arabic)