Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Golden Rules of the UFO Debunker - Anyone Can Become One/EVEN YOU!!

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Dr. R .X. Frager

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

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 to. 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, UFO
sightings, video analysis, . . . well you get the picture, we can't
really argue substantially 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 addressing 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 commercialy 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 every time!

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!!!!! [That's right - Carl Sagan]

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 practice.

Thank you Stanton Friedman for all you have contributed to discovering
the real truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
****"The people, I say, are the only competent judges of their own
welfare." -- American Revolutionary Josiah Quincy 1774


karl mamer

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

"Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
> The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!

Hey, those also happen to be the three Golden Rules of the UFO
Believer:

> 1) Attack the person not the evidence.

Those who seek to debunk UFO claims are all part of the giant
conspiracy, after all.

> 2) Have a closed mind or "Don't bother me with the facts my mind is made
> up."

"I'm not gonna even look up the definition of Occam's Razor!"

> 3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel
> better.

Or come up with any kind of bizarre explanation to account for why
no 2 ufo photos out of the hundreds look the same or why people have
seen grey, blue, yellow, giant, small, and Nazi-like aliens.
--
"Don't be afraid. I'm a Care Bear!"

Dr. R .X. Frager

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

kam...@zap.io.org (karl mamer) wrote:
>"Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
>> The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!
>
>
>> 3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel
>> better.
>
>Or come up with any kind of bizarre explanation to account for why
>no 2 ufo photos out of the hundreds look the same or why people have
>seen grey, blue, yellow, giant, small, and Nazi-like aliens.

Like I said -- ANYBODY can become a debunker!!

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Dr. R .X. Frager wrote:

> 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.

Ah, yes, add this to Phil Klass's list of characteristics that the
purportedly objective "skeptics" so mindlessly enjoy. He illustrated his
personal strength, resolve, and conviction by closing a debate by
screaming "BULLSHIT" and hanging up.

In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
"anachronism". Klass screwed up both. But boy can that journalist
peddle his books to his gullible "skeptic" fan clubs that uncritically
praise his every move for telling them what they want to hear!

--
Brian Zeiler

Dean Adams

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
>(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
>Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
>documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
>conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
>"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.

Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
forget such important little details.

Dean Adams

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4midfa$r...@zap.io.org>, karl mamer <kam...@zap.io.org> wrote:
>"Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:

>> The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!
>

>Hey, those also happen to be the three Golden Rules of the UFO
>Believer:
>

>> 1) Attack the person not the evidence.
>

>Those who seek to debunk UFO claims are all part of the giant
>conspiracy, after all.
>

>> 2) Have a closed mind or "Don't bother me with the facts my mind is made
>> up."
>

>"I'm not gonna even look up the definition of Occam's Razor!"
>

>> 3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel
>> better.
>

>Or come up with any kind of bizarre explanation to account for why
>no 2 ufo photos out of the hundreds look the same or why people have
>seen grey, blue, yellow, giant, small, and Nazi-like aliens.


Don't worry, Frager is a known plagiarist. Obviously he just
took someone's old text of the "Golden rules of a UFO believer",
and changed the title.


Bill Peterson

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

This is what is so interesting about your logical (?) behaviour, Dean.
Klass said the autopsy was a hoax, and said the phone cord was proof.
Now, he has been shown to be wrong, again, and you seem to ignore this.
Why?

Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe, hoping to get some
"inside" scoop on the next secret plane from sucking up to AW&ST by
"debunking" UFO's on the net. You are doing a poor job.

BP
--
Disclaimer: ididn'tdoitnobodysawmeyoucan'tproveathing!

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Dean Adams wrote:
>
> Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
> >(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> >Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> >documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> >conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> >"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.
>
> Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
> in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
> forget such important little details.

ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
the wrong reasons*. He was WRONG about the typeface in the MJ-12 papers
and lost a public bet with Stan Friedman about it. Then he was WRONG
about the wall phone proving the autopsy film to be a hoax, and he had to
publish a retraction of his claim in SI. You don't care that he cites
proven incorrect reasons to bolster his claims. He could declare that
there is no UFO evidence because the Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd
say "So what? He's still right."

Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
care! As long as this mere journalist tells his rabid fans what they
*want* to hear, they just don't care if he's wrong -- much less if he
BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.

--
Brian Zeiler

rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

bi...@io.com (Bill Peterson) wrote:


>Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe, hoping to get some
>"inside" scoop on the next secret plane from sucking up to AW&ST by
>"debunking" UFO's on the net. You are doing a poor job.


Bill, "Dean Adams" probably IS Phil Klass!


Bill Peterson

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mm14u$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>,

I doubt that, I ascribe more competence to Klass. Dean is just a hanger-on,
one of the crowd. He falls down when challenged with real data, and resorts
to fabrication. This, in my field, gets you fired.

JamesOberg

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Zeiler: (( Then he was WRONG
about the wall phone proving the autopsy film to be a hoax, and he had to
publish a retraction of his claim in SI. ))

I didn't know "retraction" was in Zeiler's working vocabulary. Oh, I get
it, only people he disagrees with have to do it!

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

JamesOberg wrote:

> I didn't know "retraction" was in Zeiler's working vocabulary. Oh, I get
> it, only people he disagrees with have to do it!

It's amazing that this is about as good as it gets for defending Klass
against the points I've made about him in these posts.

--
Brian Zeiler

Jonathan Waisman

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

> Ah, yes, add this to Phil Klass's list of characteristics that the
> purportedly objective "skeptics" so mindlessly enjoy. He illustrated his
> personal strength, resolve, and conviction by closing a debate by
> screaming "BULLSHIT" and hanging up.
>
> In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
> (arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> "anachronism". Klass screwed up both. But boy can that journalist
> peddle his books to his gullible "skeptic" fan clubs that uncritically
> praise his every move for telling them what they want to hear!
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler


Too bad Klass happened to be right on both counts: the autopsy film *was*
a hoax (duh...money...get the motive?) and so were the MJ-12 documents
(the format was wrong for the time, though it was close enough to fool
many). Klass' only fault was that he was right but for the wrong reasons.

Now tell put your hand on your heart and tell me you actually believe
that 'UFOlogists' don't ever lie about things to make their case more
believable. If you said "yes," then you're more gullible than most
victims of snake oil salesmen.

UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
Listen to them.

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Jonathan Waisman wrote:

> Klass' only fault was that he was right but for the wrong reasons.

Jon -- use your brain here. If we agree that he was right for the wrong
reasons (which is inarguable anyway), then OBVIOUSLY he was "right" only
because of luck. The reasons he cited were WRONG, and thus had NO
connection with the ultimate outcome. None whatsoever. He could just as
easily been wrong both times, since his "evidence" had absolutely no
correlation with the outcome.


> Now tell put your hand on your heart and tell me you actually believe
> that 'UFOlogists' don't ever lie about things to make their case more
> believable.

Nice diversion tactic. Apparently you realize on some level that Klass
is a huckster and a fraud, and you're trying to turn the tables.

> UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
> Listen to them.

Phil Klass makes a living preaching HIS stuff. What do you think makes
him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an almost
underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine, or writing several
anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures, and publishing his
anti-UFO newsletter? Furthermore, his entire public reputation hinges
directly on a total lack of credible UFO evidence.

Clearly, Klass is a anything BUT a "skeptic". He's a fanatic, churning
out the same garbage that all radical/fanatical groups do with misleading
statistics, biased information, and constant errors. Fortunately, like
any personality cult, his followers in sci.skeptic blindly absorb his
every word and parade it as the gospel.

--
Brian Zeiler

Dean Adams

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <4ml6ab$g...@bermuda.io.com>, Bill Peterson <bi...@io.com> wrote:
>>Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
>>in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
>>forget such important little details.

>This is what is so interesting about your logical (?) behaviour, Dean.

Thanks.

>Klass said the autopsy was a hoax, and said the phone cord was proof.
>Now, he has been shown to be wrong, again, and you seem to ignore this.

What does Klass have to do with anything??

>Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe

Heh. That is pretty funny, given the way you seem to
be obsessed with him and mention his name constantly.

> hoping to get some "inside" scoop on the next secret plane
> from sucking up to AW&ST by "debunking" UFO's on the net.

Phew... you sure come up with some bizarre wacko material!
Keep it up, maybe you will give some insight into just what
went wrong in those distorted neural pathways of yours.


Dean Adams

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <4mm2dp$m...@pentagon.io.com>, Bill Peterson <bi...@io.com> wrote:
>one of the crowd. He falls down when challenged with real data, and resorts
>to fabrication. This, in my field, gets you fired.

Well bill, then in that case there is no alternative... you're fired!
You have nobody to blame but yourself.


Dean Adams

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>What do you think makes
>him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an
>almost underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine

Hahaha!! Thats a good one. A perfect window into the
tiny closed-minded ignorant view of the world which is
the foundation for so many of your empty arguments.

FYI... your "underground magazine" is the worldwide
journal of record for the aerospace industry, and I
doubt too many "hobbyists" are willing to pay the
$100~ a year it costs to subscribe.

> or writing several anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures,
> and publishing his anti-UFO newsletter?

Oooohhh... you REALLY HATE that, don't you?

I know what will make you feel better, just think of all the
countless frauds and charlatans out there making even MORE
money off endless pro-UFO books, lectures, and newsletters.

It is an unavoidable fact that you can always make more money
off the hoardes of ignorant, gullible UFO believers than you
can from skeptics.


GK Smiley

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.

Bill Peterson

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

You will not be able to find any post where I fabricated without
stating that it was my opinion. My reputation is secure, and well
known within the microprocessor design and CAD community.

Again, what kind of "real" job do you have? Do they tolerate the
same crap you do here on the net?

Bill Peterson

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <dadamsDr...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>In article <4ml6ab$g...@bermuda.io.com>, Bill Peterson <bi...@io.com> wrote:
>>>Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
^^ (meaning Klass)

>>>in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
>>>forget such important little details.
>>This is what is so interesting about your logical (?) behaviour, Dean.
>Thanks.
>
>>Klass said the autopsy was a hoax, and said the phone cord was proof.
>>Now, he has been shown to be wrong, again, and you seem to ignore this.
>
>What does Klass have to do with anything??

Uhh, he is mentioned above in the post. Having concentration problems?
Surely you're not going to claim you weren't talking about Klass?

>
> >Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe
>
>Heh. That is pretty funny, given the way you seem to
>be obsessed with him and mention his name constantly.
>

As I said, you are just one of the crowd.

> > hoping to get some "inside" scoop on the next secret plane
> > from sucking up to AW&ST by "debunking" UFO's on the net.
>
>Phew... you sure come up with some bizarre wacko material!
>Keep it up, maybe you will give some insight into just what
>went wrong in those distorted neural pathways of yours.
>

Again, what is your "real" job? If I am so wrong, please explain
what you really do and why I was so far off.

Tom Kelly

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <318E66...@students.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

> Dean Adams wrote:
> >
> > Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

> > >In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
> > >(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> > >Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> > >documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> > >conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> > >"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.
> >

> > Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct

> > in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
> > forget such important little details.
>

> ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
> Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
> the wrong reasons*. He was WRONG about the typeface in the MJ-12 papers

> and lost a public bet with Stan Friedman about it. Then he was WRONG

> about the wall phone proving the autopsy film to be a hoax, and he had to

> publish a retraction of his claim in SI. You don't care that he cites
> proven incorrect reasons to bolster his claims. He could declare that
> there is no UFO evidence because the Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd
> say "So what? He's still right."

In his never-ending pursuit to convince himself of his UFO theories, Brian
again displays that pathetic UFO mentality which forces him to ignore,
dismiss, and eventually forget all correct criticisms by skeptics.

Klass clearly showed that MJ-12 papers were fraudlent *primarily* because
of the copying of the Truman signature (Klass correctly called it a
"smoking gun"). Amazingly, and apparently blind to its true implications
(perhaps using Brian's mentality?), it was Friedman in his Sept./Oct. 1987
_International UFO Reporter_ who claimed that the "match" confirmed the
authenticity of the signature! (Further evidence of the miracle! Right
Brian?) Let's see, who *royally* screwed up here?

Klass' point about the typeface was among a number of other reasons why
the MJ-12 document was most likely a hoax. Secondly, while he was
incorrect in his UFO newsletter about the wall phone in the alien autopsy
he immediately published a retraction (*nothing* by Klass was published in
SI regarding the alien autopsy). He realized he was wrong and admitted to
it. Freidman for years refused to admit his glaring error with MJ-12--and
to this day I don't know that he ever did. What a shame.

> Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
> with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
> care! As long as this mere journalist tells his rabid fans what they
> *want* to hear, they just don't care if he's wrong -- much less if he
> BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.

Again, he didn't "blow" anything. The MJ-12 papers are clearly fraudulent.
If Phil didn't demonstrate this then who did? Secondly, yes, he was wrong
about the phone in the autopsy film. You were wrong about where Klass
published it (something you'd no doubt use to condemn SI in the future if
I hadn't pointed it out). Mistakes are made and people move on. It's
called the scientific method; or have you heard of that?

> --
> Brian Zeiler

--
-Tom K.

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

James J. Lippard wrote:

> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"

Yes, it is. What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST? Maybe
.0001%? I bet their circulation isn't even 250,000.

> and I believe Klass was a
> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
> his income, no doubt about it.

Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
per year as "senior editor", but he probably makes more off book
royalties and lectures and his newsletter, even if he does give a free
lecture every so often.

--
Brian Zeiler

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

GK Smiley wrote:
>
> Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.

Wow, another pointed rebuttal to defend Phil Klass...

--
Brian Zeiler

James J. Lippard

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <318F06...@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Phil Klass makes a living preaching HIS stuff. What do you think makes
>him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an almost
>underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine, or writing several

Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost

underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine," and I believe Klass was a

senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
his income, no doubt about it.

>anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures, and publishing his

>anti-UFO newsletter? Furthermore, his entire public reputation hinges

These things do NOT make much money. Prometheus Books pays its authors
very poorly (I'd be surprised if he made more than a few hundred dollars
per year from his books), and Klass often lectures for free. When the
Phoenix Skeptics brought him to Arizona State University around 1985, he
did it entirely for free and was put up for the night in the home of one
of our members. The only people who make a decent living at being
professional skeptics are people like James Randi and Paul Kurtz. Even
the editor of the _Skeptical Inquirer_ has a full-time job aside from
_SI_.

>directly on a total lack of credible UFO evidence.
>
>Clearly, Klass is a anything BUT a "skeptic". He's a fanatic, churning
>out the same garbage that all radical/fanatical groups do with misleading
>statistics, biased information, and constant errors. Fortunately, like
>any personality cult, his followers in sci.skeptic blindly absorb his
>every word and parade it as the gospel.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler


--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04

karl mamer

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

"Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
> 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

Actually, incredible claims required incredible levels of proof.
the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
Produce a body. Produce impossible technology. That is the
level of evidence required.


> Call them "crackpots" and "lunatics." If they don't have a college

Did I call them crackpots? I suggest that explaining away the fact
that trying to reconcile that people report all kinds of different
aliens and all kinds of different looking UFOs with some kind
of "Rainbow Coalition" of aliens strays so far from concepts
of parsimony that it ventures into the realm of the bizarre.

> abducted by aliens, "little nobodies, people seeking celebrity status."

In the absence of hard evidence, like a body or a capture ship, one
needs to question the qui bono side of things. Lazar needed money.
Lazar was a pimp. In courts of law where rulings are made on
a preponderance of the evidence, credibility of the witness
does come into play.

--
KAM...@IO.ORG.................................................
..Karl.Mamer,.President,.SOMWWTWTN..|."I.dunno..Some.of.it's ..
....Society.Of.Men.Who.Watch.The....|..pretty.interesting."....
.....Women's.Television.Network.....|...........--.Group.Moto..
.................................................KAM...@IO.ORG

James J. Lippard

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <318FB9...@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

>James J. Lippard wrote:
>
>> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
>> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
>
>Yes, it is. What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST? Maybe
>.0001%? I bet their circulation isn't even 250,000.

_Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is one of the most respected aviation
industry magazines, published since 1916. It is owned by McGraw-Hill and
has a circulation of 143,310, which is hardly "almost underground" or even
"low-circulation." Nor is it a "hobbyist" magazine. Can you name any
aviation industry magazine with a greater circulation? Where does this
"250,000" figure as the threshold for low vs. high circulation come from?

Admit it, your description was grossly inaccurate. If you can't admit
your errors, then why are you so hypocritically hounding skeptics for not
admitting theirs?

>> and I believe Klass was a
>> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
>> his income, no doubt about it.
>

>Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
>per year as "senior editor", but he probably makes more off book
>royalties and lectures and his newsletter, even if he does give a free
>lecture every so often.

You bet, huh? Let's get Phil Klass in here to give you one of his
famous sucker bets, something like:

I'll bet you $10,000 that there is no year in which I was employed
as an editor at _Aviation Week_ in which my income from books,
lectures, and the _Skeptics UFO Newsletter_ matched or exceeded
my income from _Aviation Week_.

Do some calculations, Brian. You can calculate his newsletter income by
estimating the circulation and production costs compared with the
subscription rate. I'd estimate that his book royalties are on the order
of $1,000/year. How much do you think he makes for lecture appearances,
and how many do you think he does a year?

The only way Klass would be making more money from his ufological
activities than from his _Aviation Week_ job would be if he were getting
paid by MJ-12. Is that your view?

Dean Adams

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
>Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
>the wrong reasons*.

Ha! Who cares what he said, all that matters are the facts. You were
whining about some pointless trivialities while trying to gloss over
what really mattered... the fact they were hoaxes.

> You don't care that he cites proven incorrect reasons
> to bolster his claims.

You're right, I don't care about "his claims".

> He could declare that there is no UFO evidence because the
> Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd say "So what? He's still right."

"There is no UFO [alien] evidence" is an accurate statement.

>Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
>with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
>care!

I don't know, you tell me. You seem like *infinitely*
more a "fan" that I could ever claim to be.

> they just don't care if he's wrong

Why bother, you care enough about him for the both of us.

> much less if he BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.

There you go again. Amazing. He said they were hoaxes
and they were. Oh yea, he really blew it.


Lawrence E. McKnight

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

[snip...


>
>Phil Klass makes a living preaching HIS stuff. What do you think makes

>him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an almost
>underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine, or writing several

>anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures, and publishing his
>anti-UFO newsletter? Furthermore, his entire public reputation hinges

>directly on a total lack of credible UFO evidence.


Hmm. Haven't you cited the 'almost underground low-circulation hobbyist
magazine' as an umimpeachable source when it suits your purposes?

[snip...
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....

John and Susan Hutchins

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:

From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
confused by convenience stores? ):^)


John Hutchins


Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

John and Susan Hutchins wrote:

> From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
> Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
> his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
> confused by convenience stores? ):^)

Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
foundations of his conclusions.

First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.
He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.

Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
demolished.

The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
both.

--
Brian Zeiler

James J. Lippard

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <318FEE...@students.wisc.edu>,

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
>foundations of his conclusions.

Not true.

>First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.

Which article by Klass has this as its foundational argument? Please
cite your source.

>He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
>about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
>irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.
>
>Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
>anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
>hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
>demolished.

There is plenty of evidence that the Santilli film is a fake.

>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>both.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler

Chris C. Lesley

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:

: GK Smiley wrote:
: >
: > Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.

: Wow, another pointed rebuttal to defend Phil Klass...

Wow, another lame insult from True-Believer Brian. Attack Phil Klass all
you want, True Believer; this gives exactly zero credence to YOUR claims.

C.

--
Chris Lesley

"Heaven wheels above you, displaying to you her eternal glories,
and still your eyes are on the ground." --- Dante Alighieri

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Chris C. Lesley wrote:

> Wow, another lame insult from True-Believer Brian. Attack Phil Klass all
> you want, True Believer; this gives exactly zero credence to YOUR claims.

Obviously you didn't read the original post on Klass that I made, or you
wouldn't have said something so silly. I gave several specific points
that illustrate Klass's ineptitude. It's easier to say it "gives exactly
zero credence" to me than it is to actually READ the post and counter my
points.

--
Brian Zeiler

adav

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

NAKED EMPRESS or The Great Medical Fraud
______________________________


Following up his sensational SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT, this
new expose by Hans Ruesch shows how, with the help of press agentry
and the venality of most of the mass media, the public has been
brainwashed into equating medical care with health , whereas
exactly the opposite applies: modern medicine has become the
principal cause of disease today.

So, in one year, 1.5 million Americans had to be hospitalized
as a consequence of the intake of (prescribed) drugs that were
supposed to cure them of something or other. Another case in point
is cancer. The ably exploited fear of this disease, caused for the
most part by products issuing from chemical, industrial and and
pharmaceutical laboratories, has become a solid-gold source for
researchers, drug manufacturers and doctors, who keep foisting
their deleterious cut-burn-poison therapies on the frightened
patients, most of whom die from the treatment before the cancer
can kill them.

Since the cause of most cancers is well-known, they could be
avoided by prevention, which early education should provide. And
yet, practically no public funds go into prevention because there
is no money to be gained by it - only health. The big money is all
in the pseudo "research", done on millions of animals, which can
give only false and therefore misleading answers; and in the
treatment of the patients with the violent, destructive, but
immensely lucrative therapies imposed by official medicine.

Certified reports of cancers completely cured by "soft",
drugless treatments, usually based on natural diets, mostly
various raw foods, have been piling up all over Europe and the
U.S.. But all the competent and honest doctors who threaten the
profits of the lucrative medical trade with inexpensive therapies
are being attacked, vilified as "quacks and charlatans", sometimes
even barred from the profession, by the quacks and charlatans who
make up the profit-oriented Medical Power.

Animal experimentation, inevitably misleading, is of course
the alibi that has been devised by this organization for extorting
huge grants for a phoney 'research', and to safeguard the drug and
chemical manufacturers from criminal prosecution when the
deleterious effects of one or more of their products can no longer
be concealed. Then they can always say "all the prescribed tests"
(on animals) had been consciously undertaken. But they do not say
that they, in collusion with the Health agencies and corrupt or
misled politicos, have imposed those tests.

NOT MORE CHEMICALS, BUT FEWER CHEMICALS; NOT AN INCREASE IN
DRUGS, BUT A DRASTIC REDUCTION OF DRUGS; AND NOT A MULTIPLICATION
OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS, BUT A TOTAL ABOLITION OF SUCH "ALIBI'
EXPERIMENTS ARE THE INESCAPABLE PREMISE FOR A BETTERMENT OF LIVING
CONDITIONS AND AN IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH. The present book
brings ample proof of this, besides unearthing some
informationthat many powerful individuals in America and abroad
would prefer to keep buried forever.

Animal Defense & Anti-Vivisection Society of B.C.

ABOUT THE COMPULSION OF SCIENTISTS TO PERPETUATE ERROR
http://www.angelfire.com/free/ADAVpageTwo.html


Jim H.

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

There have been no bigger opponents to the autopsy hoax
than serious UFO researchers themselves. MUFON has spent
much time and effort to disprove this monstrosity, because it
derails attention from serious research. I think the point that
is being made is not that Phil Klass, was correct in discounting
the video as a hoax which is quite obvious, but rather his criteria
judging it to be so. He was incorrect in his methodology.

-Jim H.

Garry Bryan

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

Dean Adams (dad...@netcom.com) wrote:

: I know what will make you feel better, just think of all the


: countless frauds and charlatans out there making even MORE
: money off endless pro-UFO books, lectures, and newsletters.

: It is an unavoidable fact that you can always make more money
: off the hoardes of ignorant, gullible UFO believers than you
: can from skeptics.

OK, here's the big one. . .prove it! (Remember, sceptics have bought the
Mexico videos as well. . .)

Garry (%^{>


Chris C. Lesley

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Chris C. Lesley wrote:

And it's easier to completely duck the issue than address the points
Klass has made (scored?). Your ad hominem attacks on Klass mean diddly;
you can say "he's incompetent" until you're blue in the face if you
want. That doesn't change the fact that MJ-12 is a fraud, and
convincingly proven to be so. So sorry to burst your bubble, True
Believer...

Garry Bryan

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

karl mamer (kam...@zap.io.org) wrote:

: "Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
: > 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

: Actually, incredible claims required incredible levels of proof.
: the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
: Produce a body. Produce impossible technology. That is the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: level of evidence required.

But wouldn't that be. . .well. . .IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Garry (%^{>


Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to
Chris C. Lesley wrote:

> And it's easier to completely duck the issue than address the points
> Klass has made (scored?).

I'm attaching my original post, since you're obviously SO clueless that
you missed it several times. Here's a clue --> the post "addresses the
points".

> Your ad hominem attacks on Klass mean diddly;

They're not "ad hominem". They're substantive, specific points.

> you can say "he's incompetent" until you're blue in the face if you
> want.

Apparently you haven't gathered yet that Klass blew the two biggest cases
in ufology in the past decade.

> That doesn't change the fact that MJ-12 is a fraud

But not because of the typeface Klass cited, genius...

> and
> convincingly proven to be so.

Have you read any of Friedman's research on the documents that prove
beyond ANY rational, reasonable doubt that it CANNOT have been slapped
together by a civilian? It was ABUNDANTLY clear that it was an inside
job. This doesn't prove the validity of the contents, however. It only
proves that whoever drummed it up had far-reaching, intimate access into
the private and government lives of the people mentioned therein.

> So sorry to burst your bubble, True
> Believer...

I see you're pushing the bounds of reality back even further. You almost
sound like you've convinced yourself that you've made a valid point
somewhere.

Now read the following post slowly and carefully. You will find several
specific points that you failed to address.

KLASS.TXT

Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

Bruce Hutchinson wrote:

> I would guess Klass targeted the phone because it was a physical item that
> seemed out of place, given the year the film was supposedly made.

Gee, you think? That's really going out on a limb there, Bruce...

It was
> only after a rather tedious search through dusty archives was it was shown
> that the phone *could* have existed then.

Heh. No, it was shown that the phone DID exist then.

> Never-the-less, a lot of others
> had the same opinion as Klass,

Like who?

>and if I remember the discussions here
> correctly,

Which you don't.

> some of them were normally Believers.

Not to the best of my knowledge.

>Do we apply your standards
>to them also?

If you're wrong, you're wrong. If you're wrong a lot, well, people
remember that (except your cult followers), especially when it's a result
of shoddy research.

> To castigate him over just one point does not do you any
> credit, nor does it in any way change end results- he was *right*.

He was right for the wrong reasons and he lost a public bet about it.
Geez, how many examples do I have to give? What about the Coyne case
with that big, wacky "bolide" that escaped detection by everybody but the
pilots -- and the contemporaneous EM interference was "coincidence"
because his plasma ball theory of EM and luminosity effects collapsed
under the weight of REAL scientific scrutiny.

Klass is not a scientist. Klass has NO technical acumen in analyzing UFO
reports, and his reports directly contradict the existing body of
knowledge of atmospheric physics. If you actually READ the analyses of
REAL scientists, you'd have a different opinion on UFOs. But, you seem
to prefer pseudoscientific journalists and magicians hellbent on public
relations posturing, clowns like Randi and Klass. How these two buffoons
ever earned the respect of so many scientists is utterly infathomable
and, in fact, a very sad statement on the current state of contemporary
"skepticism".

--
Brian Zeiler

Lawrence E. McKnight

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

>John and Susan Hutchins wrote:
>
>> From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
>> Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
>> his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
>> confused by convenience stores? ):^)
>

>Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
>foundations of his conclusions.
>

>First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.

>He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
>about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
>irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.

Are you making the claim that the typeface was the _only_ reason he gave
to say that they were hoaxes? Or is there some SaucerZealotLogic at
work... if he gave seven reasons to suspect the documents, and one of
them was shown to be wrong, the the other six HAD to be wrong, also?

>
>Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
>anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
>hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
>demolished.

Now here, because you say 'the entire crux of his postition', it appears
that you ARE making the claim that the phone was the ONLY thing. Hell,
this probably doesn't even rely on SaucerZealotLogic, it is merely
SaucerZealotDistortion.

>
>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>both.

Let me see here. The 'two biggest events in ufology' are things which
are widely acknowledged, even by most proponents of UFOs being alien
visitors, to be hoaxes?
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler

Joseph Byczko

unread,
May 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/8/96
to


Pretty good Doc. How much is the cost? May I suggest something of a
"graduate program" to those who master the basics?


1.Guilt by association. The idea of this tactic is to directly or
indirectly yoke UFO research to more bizarre areas. For example:


-Psychics; esp those of the "Amazing Kreskin" variety.

-Witchcraft, vodoo, apparitions, snake handlers,
spiritism, and other Bovine eSchatology. Everyone loves
a good ghost story.

-Parapsychology. ESP, Imply sickness of the mind.

-Linkage to elaborate and incredulous conspiracy theories
rather than facts. Sows lots of doubt and makes UFOs
consigned to the lunatic fringe.

-Imply a tradition rooted in mythology and spiritual
fairy tales. Employ false exegesis of various religious
scriptures for support. Why not blame the devil?

-Gather UFO support from extremist groups,assorted
crackpots, criminals, secret societies,cults,...ect.


2.Misinformation.

-Encourage men with "credibility" to testify of Government
coverups, 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.

-Make people choose between limited and unacceptable alternative
"either-or" explanations.

4."Totalism"

-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.

Fashion a dummy position held by a UFO researcher. Then
proceed to rip it appart. Many will discredit the researcher
on this false premise.

6. Whipping Boy.

When a UFO researcher is caught in some error, use this as
a platform to debunk the field.

Warning: Prospective graduates are going to have to work at this
degree. No matchbook universities or mail-order sheepskins here!


--

Standard Disclaimer: Not my employers opinion; "I did this!"
Joe Byczko byc...@gdc.com

Note: Because of extreme site delays I do not see posts in real time
to newsgroup. Email reply to me if response desired on newsgroup.
I will post reply to group.


Brian Zeiler

unread,
May 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/9/96
to

Brian Zeiler wrote:

> pilots -- and the contemporaneous EM interference was "coincidence" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That should read "simultaneous". Little sleep, long day...

--
Brian Zeiler

Robert Sheaffer

unread,
May 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/9/96
to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.96050...@garcia.efn.org>,
Jonathan Waisman <wai...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>Too bad Klass happened to be right on both counts: the autopsy film *was*
>a hoax (duh...money...get the motive?) and so were the MJ-12 documents
>(the format was wrong for the time, though it was close enough to fool
>many). Klass' only fault was that he was right but for the wrong reasons.

Actually, he was right for the *right* reasons, but got a few
small details wrong. On the main points, Klass was exactly
right. Mr. Zeiler, of course, never makes mistakes.
>
>Now tell put your hand on your heart and tell me you actually believe
>that 'UFOlogists' don't ever lie about things to make their case more
>believable. If you said "yes," then you're more gullible than most
>victims of snake oil salesmen.

Often, it's not even "lying," it's pretending that no contrary
arguments exist, ignoring these arguments as much as possible,
misrepresenting them when it is necessary to mention them, and
flinging _ad hominem_ insults at anyone who presents contrary arguments.
In short, by being sneaky and shifty, which is akin to lying,
although technically different. Of course, they also tell lies,
sometimes, too.
>
>UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
>Listen to them.

Exactly.
--


Robert Sheaffer - Robert....@siemensrolm.com - Skeptical to the Max!


Dean Adams

unread,
May 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/9/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>James J. Lippard wrote:

>> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
>> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
>
>Yes, it is.

Ha!! And next Brian will attempt to prove black is white,
up is down, and that aliens use his balcony as landing pad.

> What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST?

Who cares? What percentage of the population subscribes to most
any magazine? Ask a serious question like what percentage of their
target audience subscribes and you will get an extremely high number,
probably one of the highest for any magazine... not to mention the
fact that audience consists almost entirely of aerospace professionals
and government/military officals worldwide.

Oh yea, thats an "underground hobbyist magazine". Ha! Well, you still
have to love it when Brian does such a fantastic job of showcasing his
always wildly distorted view of the world.



>> and I believe Klass was a
>> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
>> his income, no doubt about it.
>Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
>per year as "senior editor"

Geez, who gives a rat's ass??


Dean Adams

unread,
May 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/9/96
to

Lawrence E. McKnight <mckn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

>>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>>both.
>
>Let me see here. The 'two biggest events in ufology' are things which
>are widely acknowledged, even by most proponents of UFOs being alien
>visitors, to be hoaxes?

And that says quite a lot about the state of "ufology"... :)


karl mamer

unread,
May 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/10/96