This is a pseudo-skeptical[1] finger in the ear reaction.
There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either.
All I see is a total a priori dismissal which is not good practice for either a skeptic or a scientist.
Here's what would've told me that this is a good faith exercise (by either you or Snopes): You show that you understand what the claimed evidence is, you present it in the most generous and strong terms, then you explain why it's wrong.
There's little in the Snopes article which opposes the microwave theory, as opposed to the sound theory. It quotes two US experts in favour of the idea, and the strongest evidence it gives against microwaves is a dismissive reaction from an expert who, as the article makes clear, was acting as a spokesman for the Cuban government.
> There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either.
I have debated that topic multiple times during different years. Yes, I am not fully up to date with the newest version
I you were a police man and some guy came up and claimed to be a victim of a crime and you find out the details don't add up, well that happens. Now if he came back next year with a slightly different story about the same crime, yeah that is fishy. If he constantly keeps changing his implausible story you would at some tell him to get lost for wasting police time.
This is a pseudo-skeptical[1] finger in the ear reaction.
There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either.
All I see is a total a priori dismissal which is not good practice for either a skeptic or a scientist.
Here's what would've told me that this is a good faith exercise (by either you or Snopes): You show that you understand what the claimed evidence is, you present it in the most generous and strong terms, then you explain why it's wrong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566408/#sec0017