I am pretty convinced that you either really believe in what you're
saying or you'd have to be quite a con artist. I see you are versed in
some logical inductive fallacies but there's no certainty of formal
logic. If sincere, you're a believe that "unusual" behavior occurs and
has "unusual" causation for which you are skeptical of the skeptics of
such phenomena and how they challenge things reasonably.

It seems like you were reading some skeptics' book when you wrote
this. Perhaps one might be able to identify your source if they cared
to expend the energy. It's a good idea if you did.

You must recognize upfront that skeptics of "unusual" phenomena are of
an extreme minority. People don't conspire to believe. But they would
naturally prefer "unusual" over reality even if they have never
witnessed it for themselves. I admit it for myself. One of my favorite
televisions series I watch at the moment is "Fringe," a show about a
government division that investigates "unusual" phenomena at the
boundaries of known science. But where I am actively skeptical, most
extend their imaginations to reality and assume "unusual" phenomena
exist out there somewhere certainly.  In our world, plain and ordinary
facts are more hard to get attention than imaginary ones. So you're
rhetoric in this post merely supports what is already powerful in the
minds of most people without being challenged.

The setup, a Bible for Debunkers is ad hominem because it insinuates
that such skeptics follow a belief as fallible as they presume the
Bible to be... that they believe in a doctrine and methodology all in
common with each other...that they all argue with the same faulty
reasoning as you are about to spell out.

PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY

You plan on more parts?

       Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment
       needed: one armchair.

Ad hominem. Innuendo. Implies the skeptic applies no real effort of
meaningful discovery.

       Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that
       suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full
       faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive
       terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that
       suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

Obviously, you don't like the mannerisms of some people. I don't
either. Do you assert that this is  (a) in ALL skeptics and (b) non-
existent in non-skeptics?
If you claim any degree, how did you measure this?

       Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but
       as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping
       infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may
       fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it
       entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.

I don't know what you mean by "open-ended". If you, as a believer,
defines "open-ended" process to include testing any and every claim
without prejudice to reason than let's see how this fairs. As an
example to show your potential reasoning, let's say that I decide to
come forward to the police and tell them that you raped my sister.
Should the police automatically investigate you?
Science establishes reasonable grounds to do an investigation as the
police do should someone make an accusation. The least that scientist
can be bound to for discovery is their senses and logic.

       Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
       This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides
       any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that
       therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

You are arguing that the skeptic may intimidate the listener with
information for which they are not following (obscure, hard to
understand theory, or maybe bullshit) thinking that this is convincing
believer that there exists certain closed subjects of investigation. I
wouldn't doubt that this occurs. But to be certain of ill intent is
doubtful too. Miscommunication due to differences of knowledge bases
is more likely.

       Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
       inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse
       the *process* of science with the *content* of science.
       (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral
       to subject matter and that only the investigative *process*
       can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that
       happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed
       successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure
       everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")

I'm getting noun/verb-static/dynamic confused trying to understand the
meaning of this. How does the claim, "certain subjects are inherently
unscientific" lead to some perpetrated confusion between process and
subject of science? And then, what's the significance here? Define
"process" and "subject" or "content" and how are they related?

       Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.
       The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly
       proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

Arguments by authority are imbedded in our whole social structure. I
loathe it. I failed miserably in English a few times because each time
I came to doing research essays I felt I had sufficient view points to
fill my papers with rational logical arguments to prove my theses. I
didn't need inductive support and also felt that if I found any, it
would be tantamount to crediting others for my ideas. So I was flunked
each time!
They were merely trying to teach me how to use referencing and
authoring and wanted proof that I could do so. But I was stubborn and
learned a hard lesson.
The point I'm trying to make is that authority is ubiquitous in
attempting to gain peoples trust on something. It doesn't guarantee
anything. But if we find faith in the authority, it helps us to be
practical -- we gamble that something is true for purposes of moving
on.
But since everyone does it, you cannot hold a skeptic who tries to use
it to persuade as being unique. It is okay, however, to choose NOT to
trust the authority.

       Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are
       "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are
       "stated."

Well, if you are certain of your convictions, you also can call what
you believe you know as "facts" too. If you are psychic and KNOW that
so-and-so's body is to be found at such-and-such a place be proud and
declare it!! But don't blame anybody should they ask you to prove it.
It seems a little more interesting than whether we evolved from
ancestral primates or not.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with
impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test
of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply
refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities
bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and
clear!)

Define the nature of "actual evidence" in particular scenarios. You
see a real ghost, for instance. You witness it knock over a lamp. Then
do you think that showing me the knocked-over lamp is a qualifying
piece of evidence for me to judge whether a ghost existed or not?
Should I trust your testimony (authority)? And even if I did, does
that PROVE that a ghost existed?

If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there
is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence
that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being
"too pat."

Well, this definitely requires you to provide documentation. You're
out and out claiming that there has been positive, undeniable proof
that skeptics certainly witnessed but denied with a shrug of the
shoulders. So what you're implying is that in such cases, they must
have kept coming forward to new people to prove their case but ALL of
them shrug it off? I'm sure you wouldn't POSSIBLY mislead anyone into
thinking it wasn't a repeatable experiment that you could keep
demonstrating to show its validity? There must be a mastermind
conspiracy of the few skeptics of the world being able to contain
this!

       Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all*
       of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
       critical elements

I'd have to hear the context of such a reference.

       of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration,
       exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of
       viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or
       metaphysical terms.

Intuition means different things to religious and "other-phenomena"
oriented people than to non-believers. Intuition is generally
understood to be the instinct or hardwiring due to vast experiences in
which you do not necessarily have the original memories that led to
the hardwiring. (You intuitively know how to walk because you are able
to but do not remember your first struggles at learning to)
Scientists, as people, can't escape from the qualities you mention to
the exclusion of a magical meaning of "intuition".

       Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the
       unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals
       reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any
       situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until
       what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms
       of established knowledge.

I agree that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown
in terms of the known. If you think this is silly, then perhaps you
are capable of describing yourself in terms of a particular friend's
picture I have on my desktop? Just tell me your difference in this
person's height compared to yours for instance. This should be a clear
example of providing evidence that you can or cannot know something
from something unknown.
"Reductionism" is a false created stance by those who invented the
term, "Holism" to oppose it. The claim by holists was that you could
only understand something or learn from it by stepping back and
observing the phenomena in its whole entirety rather than simplifying
it or "reducing" it. The analogies, and that's all they have, is to
things like a car with its separate functioning parts mean or serve
nothing in isolation. It is in the whole that they mean something.
But the lack of logic in it is how this is applied.
Testimonials (Authorities again!) claiming that they tried some
holistic product and it works for them. Well, duh, should I expect
there to be any negative testimonials from their ad? Oh, no,...its not
an ad,...it LOOKS like an editorial! So it must be by an independent
reporter.! If the testimonials are to be believed than you must
believe that the product works. Therefore, an example of holistic
medicine is proven to work. And holism opposes reductionism.
Therefore, reductionism is false. And since science is reductionist,
there's something wrong with science!

       Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement
       and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

I'm debating with you here and now. This is the proper forum for it.
But don't expect a research scientist to take you up if you can't
provide sufficient grounds. (remember, if you have to provide
sufficient grounds to arrest someone its only fair, isn't it?)

       At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
       familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
       irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

People are comfortable with what they know. But "unfamiliar" isn't the
ghost I don't see. It's the ghost that you DO see, if you actually
did! There's nothing unfamiliar about someone 'claiming' witness to
some phenomenon. (Sorry, 'stating' wouldn't sound right. Try it for
yourself.... See?)

       State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively
       from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best,
       an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

At least the skeptic would be giving charity to the believer. It comes
across as condescending but it can't be helped because the logic of
the skeptic may be crystal clear. Belief without certainty implies
lack of knowledge; If you make belief without knowledge, you are
pretending.

       Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a
       single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts,
       however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all,
       situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

Depending on what collection of evidence, set of assumptions, and
their conclusions, you can possibly show that one piece of evidence
for which if it is absent necessarily invalidates the conclusion.
Using your non-reductionist's favorite, a car, as an example, without
the engine, the car no longer functions. In conventional contexts, all
logical rules still apply. What is a skeptic trying to prove in
conventional contexts anyways? Is he trying to prove the Big Bang
while he's debunking a psychic?

       "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the
       correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the
       simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the
       most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply
       strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule
       of thumb but an immutable law.

Nothing is allowed to be SIMPLE for an apologist such as yourself, is
it? So you're necessarily implying that seeking a complex solution is
more rational than parsimony? That's like trying to solve math
problems should be figured without simplifying them first. Would you
prefer to say, "fourteen-plus-one-divided-by-five-minus-two" instead
of just "one"?

       Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma
       as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many
       historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between
       science and democracy.

I don't know what's in your head. What dogma? Which dogma? What
heresies?
Which heresies?
 For some reason "democracy" seems to find its way into mathematical
arguments everywhere. What do parallels between science and democracy
have to do with "unusual" phenomena?

       Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction
       between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this
       murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically
       that there is no evidence.

Absolute proof is lacking in a lot of science! Evidence is used to
support an INDUCTIVE argument to suggest a conclusion in such cases.
But the evidence is still founded on observation. Some conclusions are
induced on what is essentially samples of what has been observed (I
sample that the sun traverses the sky most days of my life. Therefore,
I predict the sun will traverse the sky tomorrow.)

       If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
       investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence
       alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary
       evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.

If you KNOW that this is true, then you HAD to have had first
experience witness to these ignorant skeptics. I can't believe you've
experienced ALL. But even presuming those you could have, name them
and tell us your story.

       In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will
       eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process
       of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have
       yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

Prove reasonable cause to investigate, maybe. (Do I need to call the
cops on you again?) Criteria for investigating the non-sensible is
identical to investigating non-existence because you can't affirm or
point to either. Phenomena that is claimed that CAN be repeated and
witnessed so that it doesn't become "unusual" phenomena anymore is
proof that it is part of our normal physics.

       Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established
       for phenomena that do not exist!

Sorry, but I do.
X doesn't exist. So what criteria should I use to determine whether or
not it exists? Well, dumb dumb, I just said ... X doesn't exist!

       Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double
       standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be
       judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific
       rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand
       extraordinary evidence"--but take care never to define where
       the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will
       allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential
       horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that
       which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

Any phenomena should require reasonable grounds to investigate. If
double standards exist, that wouldn't justify "unusual" phenomena. The
statement, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," was
made by Richard Dawkins, if I remember correctly. His intent in
context was to point out that phenomena that is extraordinary,
meaning, 'beyond ordinary experience', requires evidence that is
better than the types that actually ARE put forward in order to
justify their truth. They are very inferior because they are of such
types like second-hand testimonials, something which science DOES NOT
USE (no double standard). So when Dawkins' asked for "extraordinary"
evidence, he was meaning, more than just the average, ordinary
evidence. The terms mean different things in different parts of the
statement and is understood that way in context!

       Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena
       popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents
       and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can
       indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or
       from one case to another to support your views as needed. For
       example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the
       one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been)
       exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate
       example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your
       armchair and just say "I rest my case."

If what you say is true, then the skeptic has only tested one case and
generalized to all and then retired. First, what case can you point to
that the universal skeptic tried? And second, what evidence indicates
that skeptics are retired?

       Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to
       seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

Of course, you're presuming the skeptic actually witnesses phenomena
but DENIES what he or she sees! Thus you would like to call him or her
"imagining." But if this was true, the real word would be "lying." But
isn't that convenient of you? What's more likely: (1)ALL juries who
witness the evidence deny the true justice or (2) Most juries
correctly correctly judged the evidence?

       If a significant number of people agree that they have
       observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply
       ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the
       possibility that the consensus reality, which is routinely
       observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass
       hallucination.

First, usually the so-called reports of witnesses of significant
numbers of people to certain phenomena in question are reported by
only a minimal source, like one or two people, or in a statement,
uncorroborated, in some ancient text. So "significant numbers of
people" is put into question. Is mass hallucination possible? I think
only if it is just in terms of a just a magician's performance.
Otherwise, I would prefer to use the term, "mass delusion" instead. It
is more likely and includes the suseptibility of everyone, including
skeptics.

       Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single
       most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery
       and innovation.

I agree that ridicule is annoying and abusive. But everyone is suspect
to this. This should be challenged immediately by asking the person
politely not to do it. But you're doing it yourself in this post
yourself. So you should take your own advise.

       Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any
       persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails
       to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent
       mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that
       ridicule provides.

Your just stating a psychological fact. I agree.

       By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule
       constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can
       raise the level of objectivity, integrity and
       dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

You must have particular skeptical arguers or writers in mind. I
cannot argue for or against their behavior without seeing what they
wrote or said.

       Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots.
       Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of
       something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand
       that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their
       most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of

When one describes someone's view they favor as being enthusiastic,
they call it "passion." If not, they call it, "obsession." If they
want to be neutral, they call it, "zeal." Don't take being called, a
"zealot" as offensive.
The second sentence is not justified anywhere as worded. But it is
true that much of your arguments are circular in that you require a
premise that requires belief in some "unusual" phenomena or capability
to know certainty beyond which we can possibly know through our senses
prior to concluding "unusual" phenomena exists.

       time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them
       that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic
       phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not
       about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

Why is this so hard to believe? We NEED new physics to help us solve
our problems. It would be extremely valuable to have things like mind-
reading, talking to other dimensions (the dead?), and moving things
with our minds. And if scientists really knew they were true, they
wouldn't ignore these people! It's MORE likely that they'd demand
government intervention and support to get them locked up to examine!

       Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never
       forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo,
       out- of-context information and outright lies will fool most
       of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to
       ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran
       debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable
       success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between
       fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation
       of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire
       edifice of opinion.

You require proving this. Definitely you're susceptible to such
dilution of fact to fiction ratio in this whole document.

       Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example:
       if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies,
       respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great
       truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one
       will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.

You plan on using this term repeatedly throughout a lengthy work?
The proper disproof and likely one is that there exists a truth that
is not a blasphemy. The statement that all great truths began as
blasphemies is false.
Everybody gets tripped up on deductive logic sometimes. It's a human
attention thing. But many times people like yourselves are constantly
firing categorical statements that are not true in the first place but
in conversation may trip up someone into making a deductive logical
error on the assumption that they are true. Is this not deceptive?

       Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in
       question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep
       and timeconsuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena
       so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the
       tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing
       there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the
       unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the
       media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

It would be INFINITELY time consuming and if it was allowed it would
overtake all of regular science funding away certainly. As of now, its
been quite a few million years of evolution since mankind evolved from
shrew-like beings. So it should have been plenty of time to have given
all of mankind evidence that mind-reading, talking to the dead, moving
objects with our minds, etcetera, is not only possible ... but
everybody should be doing it!
Now assume that for whatever reason that you are sincere. If we were
to investigate any claims, what's to stop anybody who just needs money
from coming off the street and making an incredible lying claim about
some invisible phenomena? You would certainly solve unemployment
momentarily!

       Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or
       expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or
       reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the
       whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story.

       Here's how: a) take one element of a case
       completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that
       hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore
       that one element has been explained; d) call a press
       conference and announce to the world that the entire case has
       been explained!

You're either implying that the skeptic is logically stupid or he is
purposefully deceptive. So I think that you should provide particular
evidence of this. Also, you should provide evidence that the
particular part of the whole isn't a NECESSARY condition for the
conclusion  rather than a SUFFICIENT one.

       Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can
       mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP,
       psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public
       that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena
       must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage
       magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the
       same way.

This demonstrates that the phenomena is potentially fraudulent or an
illusion. This shows probable cause for its dismissal. What is
irrational about this?

       Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how
       superficially, the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the
       existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the
       existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that
       since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the
       enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and
       therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

This again shows probable cause for dismissal of the conclusion. Man,
if you lived in a world with justice system according to your mystic
science, you'd have a worse scenario than the Salem Witch trials!

       When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of
       intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles)
       focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been
       wielded by the intelligence rather than the intelligence that
       might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you
       devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract
       people from considering the possibility of nonphysical or
       nonterrestrial intelligence.

Later you blame them of trusting the intelligence(s) that wielded the
mechanism when they came forward to tell their story. Is it a
coincidence that you didn't follow that argument from this? ["...a
couple old geezers hoaxed it " , was the reference] Afraid people
would see the contradiction?

       Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in
       "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should
       point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with
       invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity?
       electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle
       that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."

Things like gravity and electromagnetism may be invisible, but not
extrasensory. You can sense physical phenomena unlike the ones you
claim. People used to think that air was magical because it was
invisible but it brought life. They called it "spirit." That was the
actual origin of the concept. It brought life. When things burned,
they disappeared into it and transformed and rose to the heavens (sky
and stars). These have segregated into those who transferred the
concepts into mystic meanings and those of real physical ones. Now,
you're magical forces keep getting removed further and further from
disproof as you keep defining it less and less tangible from their
original meanings. Learning about air, combustion, and energy has, for
example, revealed ancient "spirits" for what they really are. And
unless you can provide proof that physical contradictions coexist, why
should anyone believe you?

       Insist that western science is completely objective, and is
       based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or
       ideological interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable
       phenomenon happens to be considered true and/or useful by a
       nonwestern or other traditional society, you may therefore
       dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception," "medieval
       superstition" or "fairy lore."

I don't personally profess the scientific community infallible. But I
certainly don't think they should just be cavalier in opening inquiry
without reasonable grounds. If you want to invest in it you're welcome
to. Use your own money if you so strongly believe in it. And if it is
as prevalent and truly certain in the minds of the majority as you
claim it is, it should be even easier to raise money for your own
private research than traditional science.

       Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal,"
       "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get
       most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely
       emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any
       responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even
       centuries!

Most of the labels were actually just as invented and embraced by your
kind as it was by outsiders. I'm assuming you propose niceties like,
"alternative science," to suggest that it is as valid as normal
science but selects a different route. But this rhetoric, though it
may serve to improve your image, it would damage real science by
suggesting that it is less legitimate, ...only another alternative in
its own right. You would gain supporters not on merit or truth, but on
a false pretense of social legitimacy.

       Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed
       knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no
       police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or
       psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they
       do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)

You're presenting a strawman analogy of something that no one can
defend. Presuming someone argues this it is a fallacy. But by innuendo
you're implying that this is an actual argument that skeptics argue,
for one. If someone possibly does use this argument, I would imagine
they would not quantify the whole class of police officers, military
pilots, etcetera. It might be like, "Why do police officers, military
pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists not report UFOs?" It
would imply 'most' at best.

       Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of
       proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we
       seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never
       forget the mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are
       extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed on the White House
       lawn?"

Those wouldn't be arbitrary criteria. The question they would be
asking is if the phenomena is true, is it not sufficiently prevalent
in the society that you claim it is in that it should be recorded by
popular public media? If everyone sees people who can move things with
their minds, and yet there still exists a minority out there that
doubts it, wouldn't it make sense that the media would have covered it
by now to settle the matter once and for all? Come on UFO, become an
IFO (identified flying object) for once!

       Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims
       by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to
       misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth;
       for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of
       any position they've taken.

Didn't you just do this yourself? What's not extreme about claims of
reality beyond our understanding of physical reality?

       Another effective strategy with a long history of success is
       simply to misreplicate their experiments--or to avoid
       replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be
       ridiculous or fruitless. To make the whole process even
       easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims
       as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

A witness to phenomena is presumably passive in most cases. So it is
usually not do to an experiment they were conducting to discover
something out of thin air. So how could scientists replicate this? For
example, you walk through a grave yard and all of a sudden a ghost of
Mr. X appears and says, "Boo" to you. We go back to the grave yard
night after night for a year to test and see if he comes out and he's
a no-show. You tell us it must be because he's moved on or he only
comes every five years or....

       Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not
       scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking
       organization would fund such ridiculous tests.

So what? If you're certain you can get grant money, who cares what the
skeptic thinks?

       Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing method has
       failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it
       worthless, while taking care to avoid mentioning any of the
       shortcomings of conventional medicine.

Conventional medicine makes no promises even when they come through a
great deal of the time. But their procedures and medicines have to go
through a very set of rigorous testing stages before the medical
establishments and governments allow them to use their products,
services, and practices. This isn't the case for "alternative health."
They only have to prove that they pose no harm. So they just have to
make them weak ineffective products that go under the radar. Then they
sell them by using apparent testimonial material that qualify as ads
and have no legal status.

       Hold claimants responsible for the production values and
       editorial policies of any media or press that reports their
       claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a
       sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event
       itself must have been without substance or worth.

Yes, the media is not always fair to people. But I assure you most
media favors belief-oriented concepts over science and reason because
skeptical minds don't buy the products their commercials and ads
advertise. You don't see too many skeptic shows on T.V. But there are
lots of ghost, medium, psychic, and religious shows there.

       When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that
       is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not
       scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed
       scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly
       be objective.

The witness should just be able to report what they witness. Their
credibility as one should only be to determine whether they are
rational, not scientific.

       If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the
       participants--or the journalists who reported the case.
       Ad-hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the
       most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the
       issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have
       profited financially from activities connected with their
       research, accuse them of "profiting financially from
       activities connected with their research!" If their research,
       publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their
       normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact
       as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such
       activities!" If they have labored to achieve public
       recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them
       as "publicity seekers."

It's not ad hominem to show motive to bias a view if the motive is
relevant. That is, if without any motive the conclusion still follows,
then the motive would be considered irrelevant. For example, for
mediums, you should be able to find people who volunteer their
abilities to crowds on regular bases, like Jesus had supposedly done
with his miracles to crowds. But you don't find them anywhere, let
alone, everywhere.

       Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the
       opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the
       necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted
       out as experts on the UFO question, although course credits in
       ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in
       astronomy.

An astronomer knows the physics of matter and space. They know what is
potential and not from space. Things like how long it would take for
the fastest possible spacecraft to get to the nearest star? A
Ufologists is likely to be a course developed by people who believe
that UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects are actually identified by witnesses
as alien space ships. But does this course teach the math, chemistry,
and physics that an astronomy course would that would enable you to
investigate details of the aliens, the space crafts, where they came
from? One research group, SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial
Intelligence), initiated by Carl Sagan, has been searching the skies
for years now and they ARE astronomers. They have more credibility,
not to mention the funding and the technology to work with. What do
ufologists have? Novelty store items from Area-51?

       Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to
       go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they
       hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view
       confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon
       their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to
       lack compassion for self-confessed sinners.

Here's the Crop Circle confessors, right? You don't like the
reasonable testimony so you're calling it a setup. They're liars, you
say. How do you KNOW? Did you positively witness spacecraft yourself
come down and do art? Did the aliens spend all their time traveling
through space only to make a little art to give us a mystery and then
rush off home again for a chuckle with their families?

       Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found
       the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon
       exists!"

Proof of fabrication? Who are you referring to? It's telling when you
out and out accuse skeptics of lying and fabricating when skeptics
give charity and at worst assume you're just deluded, something that's
unintentional.

       Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims
       have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the
       field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually
       studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.

This is an accusation of utmost fraud which requires proof and could
have criminal repercussions if true. Maybe you should come forward to
the police with your evidence and break this whole thing wide open.
Maybe skeptics will be imprisoned for the scum you think they are and
you can score points for Rod Sterling in your next visit to the
Twilight Zone.