Hacker News Reader

Comment by maym86 | Hacker News Reader

Why do you ask? Do you think it's unusual to question something when new evidence comes to light? Seems entirely reasonable to share updated information on a very well known study.

View on HN

Why was the evidence covered up for so long? What changed to have it come to the light? It's reasonable to reevaluate with new information, it's also worth questioning why there's new information

Agreed, but that wasn't what OP asked. It just seemed like an odd question given the headline explains that the reason this is being discussed is because there is new evidence available.

New evidence doesn't answer their question, why is their new evidence coming out to discredit this study now?

Q. "Why is there a push to discredit this study, seemingly all of a sudden?"

A. New evidence is available as stated clearly in the headline.

New evidence is the way the study is suddenly being discredited, it is not an answer to why it is happening.

Little more, we're basically disagreeing on what the question asked was. How cynical do you have to be to assume the question asker didn't even read the headline?

The article explains that. Previously it was hearsay, now raw audio and video evidence is available.

That isn't an explanation. It's not like the video and audio evidence was just recently made, why was it withheld and what changed?

That "new evidence" came to light in 2017. An entire book has been written and published since then. So why now?

Why? Why not? Why? Why not?... It's interesting.

Maybe because it was successfully silenced the first time?

This is huge IMO and I haven't heard about it until now so I think it is good that is being pushed again.

The author wanted to reach a new lucky 10,000. https://xkcd.com/1053/

Are you suggesting some conspiracy? 2018 comes after 2017. This is not a long gap in time for academic research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com