No? He dunks on Shirley. His point is that professional investigators found and documented much worse things.
Except for the part where when asked for proof he laughed off the idea of using convictions as a measure of accuracy.
As if: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46916838
What if this article is just the rationalist version of the Nick Shirley hit piece?
Except for the part where when asked for proof he laughed off the idea of using convictions as a measure of accuracy.