Spirit-WWW: NewsGateway Article <news:alt.alien.visitors.223091>
From "Pres. Richard X. Frager" <email@example.com>:
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors, alt.paranet.ufo,
Subject: The 3 Golden-Rules of the UFO Debunker//How To Become One!!
All Follow-Up: Re: The 3 Golden-Rules of the UFO Debunker//How To Become One!!
Date: 6 Feb 1998 17:53:51 GMT
The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!
You've seen them on television talk shows, you've read them in Parade magazine
(hint-hint), now you would like to be one too. Of course we are talking about
the fine art of "debunking". You say you don't have a science degree from
Harvard or Stanford, no problem, anyone can be a debunker. Although real
professionals make it sound so easy, you can learn "right now" the skills of
this noble profession. Discover the secrets in three easy-to-learn lessons.
Write them down and practice the instructions until they become second nature,
and even you can earn your "Degree" in bunkology.
First off, why would you want to become a debunker? It's simple, really.
The other side has all the evidence in their favor. When you stack up the
voluminous amount of good "science" that has been done on crop circles, animal
mutilations, human abductions, government cover-ups, crash retrievals, landing
sites, artifacts, implants, sightings, video analysis, . . . well you get the
picture, we can't really substantially argue about the data.
So we have to resort to the three "D's" : deny, dispute and debunk. First
"deny" there is anything there, when that fails, go to "dispute" the facts, then
as a last resort "debunk" everything. It's easy and quite "necessary" really to
maintain a functioning society and avoid economic disintegration. And now: the
three Golden rules of the debunker:
1) Attack the person not the evidence. ---- As listed above, the preponderance
of evidence to establish the existence of extraterrestrials and their other-
worldly crafts is overwhelming. So instead of acknowledging the evidence, ATTACK
the persons' credibility. Call them "crackpots" and "lunatics." If they don't
have a college degree, assault them for that. If they do have a degree, even a
Ph. D. ask them the relevance of it to the subject matter. To quote Vince
Lombardi: "The best defense is a good offense" so be offensive. Perhaps use a
Phil Klass technique, and declare people who claim to have been abducted by
aliens, "little nobodies, people seeking celebrity status." That usually
pisses a bunch of people off. Another Phil Klass technique is also very
clever, (as quoted from the Don Ecker radio talk show) just yell out this
nice expletive: "BULLSHIT" and hang up the phone. That leaves the audience
bewildered and bothered.
2) Have a closed mind or "Don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up." ---
Unfortunately, sometimes you will have to address the evidence. It can be quite
ugly, and you really don't want to hear it. So rule #2 is keep a stiff upper lip,
perhaps roll your eyes and just drown out the other person when they are trying
to make a point or quote a statistic. Try to dismiss the facts, here is another
quote from the Messiah, Phil Klass, "Even airline pilots can be grossly mistaken."
Wow! Would you really want to fly commercially if that was true, I sure wouldn't.
But by the time the audience tries to figure out what you meant, just move on to
another one liner, such as "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" Now, who is the audience going
to believe, someone who just illuminated a point by using some great research, or
you, the "debunker" who only has to say "wrong, wrong, wrong." You may try
throwing in some obscure references and words like "confabulation." Gets them
3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel better.
Yes students, it's still really potent, spouting a reason that lacks substance.
Remember, American's are science-illiterate, they wouldn't know an isotope from
ice cream, or an electron from a election. So razzle-dazzle them with b.s. Here
are a bunch of official-sounding denials that lack merit, but sound plausible:
swamp gas (but only where there's swamps!), atmospheric mumbo-jumbo, temperature
inversions, funny looking clouds, planets, hallucinations, shadows and light,
smoke and mirrors, mistaken this or that, hoaxes, and that old standby, "Doug
and Dave" which was recently used capably in Parade magazine by you know whom!!!!!
Once you've mastered these three golden rules - you can be a debunker too,
and have a degree in 'Debunkology." There will be a test given so study and
UPDATES: Other techniques of the debunkers: A) Ask for endless references.
B) What the public doesn't know - we won't tell them. Obviously, the Military
that is in control of the "Black Budget" has a greater data base than most
researchers, and they are keeping that information to themselves.
Thank you Stanton Friedman for all you have contributed to discovering the real
A reader added the following Golden Rules of the UFO Debunker (Graduate Program):
1.) Guilt by association. The idea of this tactic is to directly or indirectly
yoke UFO research to more bizarre areas. For example:
a) Psychics; especially those of the amazing Kreskin variety.
b) Witchcraft, voodoo, apparitions, snake handlers, spiritualism, and other
Bovine eschatology. Everyone loves a good ghost story.
c) Parapsychology. ESP, Imply sickness of the mind.
d) Linkage to elaborate and incredulous conspiracy theories
rather than facts. Sows lots of doubt and makes UFOs consigned to the lunatic fringe.
e) Imply a tradition rooted in mythology and spiritual fairy tales. Employ false
exegesis of various religious scriptures for support. Why not blame the devil?
f) Gather UFO support from extremist groups, assorted crackpots, criminals,
secret societies, cults,,...etc..
a) Encourage men with "credibility" to testify of Government cover-ups, secrecy,
and collusion with alien malefactors. The idea here is that the most dangerous
lie is the one closest to the truth. Somewhat like offering a fine steak laced
with just a bit of arsenic. However, to be real good at this you need reliable
source of true information. Lacking this offer a creative theory of your own;
no doubt someone else will embrace it.
3.) False bifurcation.
a) Make people choose between limited and unacceptable alternative "either-or"
a) Encourage the belief that a theory is entirely true or entirely false. No grey
areas permitted. Use this to promote heated and bitter debates between UFO
researchers. Make people draw lines between science and chicanery over minute
differences of understanding.
5.) Straw man attack.
a) Fashion a dummy position held by a UFO researcher. Then proceed to rip it apart.
Many will discredit the researcher on this false premise.
6.) Whipping Boy.
a) When a UFO researcher is caught in some error, use this as a platform to debunk
Warning: Prospective graduates are going to have to work at this degree. No
matchbook universities or mail-order sheepskins here!
Thanks to Joe Byczko for the Graduate Program!
Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression
by David Martin
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down
a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense,
other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends
heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition
1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If,
in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about
the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest
charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors
and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real
and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter,"
"kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." You must then
carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting
strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are
simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can
be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or
"taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the
impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires
the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With
thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For
example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge
of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't
reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another
variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker
and a press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If
Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or reporting a
Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933,
Burke, VA 22009
Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc.
[Reply to alt.paranet.ufo] --
[Reply to author only] -- Use [back-button] to return.