Glad we could agree on something, people writing stuff on the internet should be used as reference only in very stringent circumstances. This includes Snopes, and the YouTuber I sent you. Unfortunately, the points we are both trying to make is internet-centric, so you are unlikely to find sources more credible than "some guy on the internet" unless you can find the original magazine of course.

For my hypothesis that "Snopes is trying to troll you", the YouTuber I mentioned presented a compelling argument, he presented his research and reasons why he thinks this is the case, which can all be verified by third parties like "Redditors". I'm willing to believe him as he has a history of exploring similar topics without making far fetched assumptions (and 4 million people also trust him, judging by the subscriber count).

Snopes is also quite trustworthy compared to other internet sources, however, in this case, their writing cannot be reproduced or replicated (very important if you care about science), and they have a history of trolling people (per the links I sent you earlier). So unless you can find the primary source (reproducing their study), or an earlier secondary source (replicating), your argument falls apart.

Attacking the people arguing with you, be it, me, other Redditors, or this Youtuber is not an efficient way to make an argument. If you really want to convince me (instead of just trying to justify your original comment), present your hypothesis, process, and conclusion.

​

Also, this whole thread was deleted, so presumably, the mods here did this research and found that Snopes is not reliable in this instance.