Thanks John, sorry for the delay, was traveling. Not sure I understand the first question, but it was actually the New Yorker article that reported Kean decided to focus on the really good cases, which absolutely makes sense. Sheaffer I think regarded that as some low hanging fruit he could swat at. Regarding the other stuff, SI is a strange animal ... they publish a lot of good, necessary stuff. Their takedown earlier this year of QAnon was fantastic. But then ... this. Later in the series, I'll explore more the nature of skepticism, its history, what it is, how it's used, its problems, etc. But I think the MO for these guys is that they think of some "rational" explanation that *might* explain it (even though it's just a theory) and they think that entitles them to say it's been "debunked." But I'll get more into that as the series progresses.