I have provided extensive list of credible scientific sources including government analysis. You cherry picked links such as rationalwiki, which I only provided as an extra information, while ignoring all other.
Funnily, when I was writing the reference to rationalwiki, I had the thought - "Maybe, I should not add this extra reference as someone may cherry pick it as biased in order to refute all other references I have provided".

Your claim about "appeal to authority" is invalid. This logical fallacy does not work this way. It is not an appeal to authority if the authority is a credible expert source. It is logical to provide reference to opinion of experts in the field.

Debunking does not necessary mean the need to write an extensive explanation.
These cases have been already debunked by scientific community, so I don't have time and need to dissect their arguments once again. It is enough to point out to these debunking articles and provide wide list of scientific references. It is enough to refer to legit criticism out there.

This series is to be of funny nature, not as some sort of dissecting essay.

Btw, I appreciate letting me know about "No upvote from me ". Certainly, I would seriously beat myself up about losing such an important vote...