Wossname

The person certainly seems offended, but since they didn't give any information on why, it's impossible to know.

This definition of science seems very broad. Astrology as a field makes claims which are in principle testable, but do practitioners of the field actually compare their predictions with evidence with any regularity? Even without a precise definition of science, I find it hard to see anything astrologers do as even attempting science.

@Tom I explained in detail in my answer, reproduced above, why that is bad reasoning.

@DanilaSmirnov If that suggestion had been made in a comment on the answer, it would have given me an opportunity to improve it. Was moderator action required, or is the community voting sufficient to address which answers should rise up?

Since comments have a character limit I have responded to the points made in this answer in an edit to the question.

What is the recourse in such a situation? An accepted answer which includes an incorrect statement needs a response, yet the incorrect answer is allowed to stand while the response is deleted.

Is there an edit I could make to my answer that would make it acceptable?

I understand your reasoning, but in my opinion it still leads to an unsatisfactory outcome. I didn't include a discussion of the numbers because they had already been answered, but the accepted answer still includes the words "yes, the meme is accurate in its primary statements". You say that propaganda sneaking through is a minor issue, but in this case it has not only snuck in, it has become validated by the accepted answer. I attempted to remedy the situation by commenting on the answer, and that was also deleted.

@DJClayworth See, for example, the difference between Summary Finding C1: "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy." and Summary finding C5: "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy." C5 is a categorical statement of fact, C1 is a statement of belief. Only statements C1-4 are couched like that.

Slight nitpick, but it doesn't say as a finding of fact that they were not involved, it says "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it" that they were not involved. This language appears to be deliberate, as it's only used for that section of the summary.

Aren't you just talking about placing a mirror at point B?