It's not exactly that they're a sensitive subject, it's that these sites are so often presented as being scientifically based and then end up hawking a book, as in this case.
His thesis is that there's an observational difference, in that...
"genuine formations show disturbance of the watershed within 48-hours of creation.... Hoaxed formations, on the other hand, reveal nothing unusual" so he starts from a position where he knows, in advance which are real and which are hoaxed, and notes a difference. That's hardly rigorous method.
|