In the past several earned this title for their ceaseless efforts to marginalize the interest in UFOs/UAPs through a process of ridicule, rants, lies, straw man arguments, and a tireless ability to knit pick and misquote.
The field is currently wide open with some candidates in the field itself. Visions of the rumors surrounding the end of NICAP (and infiltration by the covert agency types) fill the air.
How to identify these people?
They seem to follow a similar talking points guide.
1. Ridicule, as in "some foil hat wearing members of the UFO community"..."crackpots"..."con artists".... The direct attack on the person or people instead of dealing with the issues.
2. "It's our government" becomes the pillar of the discussion. This is an old, musty even, argument. If the government had as many super duper craft and processes as these people have claimed - we would already be on Mars! Global wars, conflicts, and hunger would have been alleviated.
3. "Con Men"..."Money makers"...adds an additional pejorative label and distracts attention from where the name caller may be getting his check. Since there are no large government grants to research UFOs/UAPs anyone wishing to do so has to ride his or her own bank balance or charge for speeches, books, and videos. Are there less than honest, even shady, individuals out there? Yep! On both sides of the question. The old adage of "the buy beware" is still true and the intelligent person will evaluate the motives, amount of real information, and cost per aspect of presentation to judge is this a real, honest presentation or one designed to just make money?
4. "I'm not going to discuss this with you." "We have differing views, so I am not going to engage." These are often termed gaslighting phrases and have been uttered by well-known and highly qualified scientists as well as authors and promotors who might be seen as questionable. It should be remembered that science is in assembling a hypothesis, testing, and retesting. A close-minded response to looking into new possibilities should never be the go-to answer for those claiming to be rooted in science.
5. "We don't have enough data." The science types like this one. Used to funding and grants for data collection and analysis it seems to be their favorite response to new , potentially conflicting, information. The problem with the UFO/UAP field is that the data exists, some for decades, and no one has truly worked with in an open and non-biased manner. The Condon Report closed the door to venturing into that field by new and eager academic scientists; Condon's summary told them not to waste their time. Yet, the huge body of reports contains more than one scientist suggesting, "hey, there is something here we need to be looking at more closely." Few read those reports, most news and political types just swallowed the summary whole and digested the explanation as truth. Various government bodies were studying the phenomenon for years (Blue Book, Military, others) ; large public groups (NICAP, APRO, MUFON, etc.) amassed huge numbers of reports with data.
6. "I'll debate anyone with my facts!" Or some similar phrase that really means that I will rant, dismiss, and not even listen or consider any other views. They wrote a book (decades ago) and express how it was ignored, etc. They play a sour grapes card while appealing to those who want to be regarded as intelligent and not like those "loonies." They may or may not have scientific training. Their debates are often nothing but derision, insults, dismissal of contrary or alternate facts, etc.
So, keep an eye peeled for the next poster child of debunking. The one using so many of these classic methods to control the discussion.
