Yeah, I did read it. I assumed it was a joke.
1. Someone makes an outrageous claim.
2. The claim is debunked by looking at the facts.
If someone makes a statement without being willing to supply evidence, then the statement is questionable.
If the response to any attempt to debunk the claim is that those debunking it are questionable, then there is no point in arguing anything; if you decide on a conclusion, and refuse to consider facts or evidence, and indeed consider facts to be merely an inconvenience that gets in the way of your pre-determined conclusion, when what's the point in attempting to have a discussion?
---
Edit: Also, feel free to ignore my post here.