Critics for dummies
“A lie that works is better than a truth that confuses it.”

Critics for dummies

Most of us do not imagine being targets. But deceiving, hiding, misleading or disguising the facts can manipulate public opinion, impose its certainties and protect its interests.

In the following paragraphs, the strategies employed by the detractors for nearly two years against the president of the Inkari Cusco Institute, Thierry Jamin, for having presented to the world the case of the dried bodies of Nazca will be cited.

Proceedings

To reach their goals, detractors generally follow the following recipes:

  • Disqualifying witnesses and experts in public who express a contradictory opinion.
    (Prosecution of incompetence or corruption)
  • Interfering to stop any scientific and medical study, any law project and initiatives contradictory to their certainties.
  • Trying to reduce the number of sympathizers and experts in several ways :
  1. Diversion of attention – by affecting publicly the experts on a personal level, their past, their projects, their circle of acquaintances and possibly their profession. The main thing is to decrease the impact of their analysis, including by using reasons which have nothing to do with the analysis. “Calumniate, slander, there will always be something left”, European saying
  2. Intimidation – Public slanders against opponents with contradictory opinions are dissuasive. They simultaneously demonstrate that each individual can become the target of opponents, not hesitating to make even false accusations to discredit them. It should be noted that these actions intimidate a majority of researchers.
  3. Scrambling and manipulation – By approaching the file with a vocabulary of specialists, the illusion is created that only specialists are relevant. Those in agreement with the opinion of critics will be validated, even whether they are not experts or if they express themselves anonymously. On the other hand, experts who disagree with critics will be disqualified, accused of incompetence or corruption.
  4. Reductive misinformation – Slanderous charges, accusations of fraud, without proof will start. Findings devoid of scientific demonstrations based on imaginary arguments if necessary, will be presented, to reduce the importance of the case.
  5. Amplifying misinformation – The aim is to highligh irrational statements to discredit scientific analysis and undermine the public’s sense about the strength of the case.

Strategies employed against the Nazca desiccated bodies case

Here are 22 strategies that have been used by detractors against the search for truth in the Nazca bodies desiccated case :

Note: To avoid advertising critics and their sites, we will publish links to their publications sparingly.

  1. “Move along, there is nothing to see »!”
    This strategy consists in presenting the case by minimizing it and all its aspects, qualifying it as negligible and insignificant (reductive misinformation).
  2. “It’s obvious!”
    The same opinion as the detractors’s is elevated to the rank of absolute truth, as the only plausible explanation. Neither scientific demonstration nor proof is necessary. Rumors and opinions are enough to rely on, even not justified.
    Example : Numerous radio and Web TV programs which attack the case without holding any evidence or relying on opinions of people not having even participated in the analysis.
  3. “Everything is wrong!”
    Accusing of being false the materials or testimonies without presenting any evidence nor scientific demonstration. The strategy consists in :
    – influencing the spectators least able to analyze the illegitimacy of the charges.- transmitting information recovered by medias, not having the capacity or the time to analyze the charges, drowning the case into the charges, trying to divert the new spectators.
  4. False video testimony (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIRCeQ-gqAg). A false witness can be payed and record a false statement, transmitted then by the media. This strategy is very powerful, because a large number of people will immediately stop to give any credit to the significance of the file, and will turn away permanently. The false testimony of the witness will not be discovered : (https://www.facebook.com/HumanoidesdeNazca/videos/2085473058445599/UzpfSTEwMDAwMTA1NjE1ODYzMzoxOTAxMjI4NjYzMjU1NjU0/)
  5. “He’s a crook!”
    Staining or introducing doubt about the credibility of the messenger. Discrediting the messenger can invalidate his message. Informations offered are then underestimated. To reach this result, detractors do not hesitate, for example, to attribute false statements to him.
  6. “I know everything!”
    Giving a judgment based on the fame, the career or the study level, without giving any demonstration or scientific analysis (reliable argument). It’s much more common than we can imagine. Some scientists who cannot present a scientific demonstration to justify their opinion lay the foundations of their value on their diplomas or their careers. Which of course is not a scientific process.
    Example: (statements by the Peruvian scientific community, statements by several radio or television broadcasts presenters, sometimes based on the opinion of scientists who didn’t carry out any examination of biological materials, or considered themselves as crooks).
  7. “It’s a scandal!”
    Denouncing the file in a violent way in order to create an emotion in the listener, without presenting the slightest scientific demonstration or any proof. Because the strategy consists of transmitting a convincing emotion without any logical, rational and scientific demonstration.
  8. “To cloud the issue…”
    Just formulate an objection whose apparent demonstration is only a very specialized set of information, even not dealing with the subject. Just conclude then in the detractors way of thinking…
    Such strategies are used to convince non-scientists people. Facing such demonstrations, they feel inefficient and like better relying on the apparent control of the detractor. It sounds a little like an ignorant customer who relies on the professional looks of a good salesman. Unfortunately this strategy is a real racket.
  9. “We never attack the strong points”
    Avoiding to attack the scientific demonstrations of the experts who obtained contradictory results to the opinion of the detractors. We will ignore them as if they had no value or did not exist. This strategy leads to insinuate in the public mind, that the charge of the detractors are weighy arguments against the results of scientific analysis and the experts statements.
  10. “I will explain you!”
    Make a public judgment based on false documents.
    Example: In 2017 on a French web radio, two experts from the Museum of Man, decided on the authenticity of the body called “Josephina” based on the Xrays of another specimen’s body.
  11. “All liars!”
    Disqualifying scientists with contradictory opinions by accusing them of incompetence or corruption.
    Example: Statement made in 2017 on a French web radio, by two experts from the Museum of Man.
  12. Amplifying disinformation strategy
    Sowing doubt in the minds of the audience by quoting or adding imaginary elements, exaggerations or even false information. By doing so, the audience is encouraged to throw “the baby with the bath water”.
  13. “To understand everything is useless!”
    Taking a tiny portion of DNA analysis results and ignoring the rest.
    For example, a DNA sequence, identified and lined up with the human species’ is considered to represent all of the DNA.
    The conclusion pronounced by the detractors is totally irrelevant and irrational on several levels, but it is again the contradictory nature of their statements which matters in non-scientific spectators’ minds .
    Another recent example : a British journalist who did not know how to explain the results of analysis and drew dramatically contradictory conclusions from these results.
  14. “Harm at any cost” to scientists who express a contradictory opinion to detractors.
    They do not hesitate to write a letter of complaint to the authorities (medical association, Ministry of Research or Health) or to the professional authorities (Research Service Director, laboratory, hospital). This mail tries to impose a professional pressure on the experts, to force them to keep silent, at the risk of reprisals about their career.
  15. “It’s dangerous!”
    Contacting the immediate professional community or the sponsors, or the vital financial communities on which the opponents to detractors and their experts depend, in order to harm them and their livelihoods. (Detractors who contacted the sponsors of Thierry Jamin, who then removed their help).
  16. “It’s big trouble for you!”
    Contact the experts’ s laboratories or hospital management, who performed or intend to analyze the materials, in order to threaten them with a reputational and business-related disorder. The goal is to stop attempts at expertise. (We must remember that a large number of laboratories contacted independently by the Inkari Cusco Institute and Gaia TV refused to carry out these analysis).
  17. “Stop researches…”
    Contacting the laboratories or experts making ongoing analysis, to convince them of their illegality considering the nature of the material, which is claimed to be illegally held. (Case of the pressures made the 2nd week of July 2018 on the director in charge of the HD scanner at the Cusco Hospital, who asked for authorizations without any report). The strategy is to prevent any scientific study of the bodies. (Case of the detractors having publicly called for sanctions on the Peruvian experts who carried out analysis…)
  18. Trying to influence the internal politics of a nation. In case the nation might decide to study the dessicated bodies involved in this affair, and to protect them if they prove to be genuine, then critics will try everything they can to influence the parliamentary process.
    Example: On July 4th, 2018, a bill was formulated in Peru to consider, study and protect these bodies. Since then, French and Spanish critics made contact with Peruvian Members of Parliament to encourage them to vote against the bill.
  19. “I have nothing to do with it!”
    Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia recognizes its lack of neutrality but claims to present a neutral point of view. Nevertheless, the discussions on Thierry Jamin’s page reveal an indisputable point of view : Thierry Jamin is considered as a crook to be opposed, since nothing is done by the judicial authorities. This judgment is based on pejorative information sources (so-called secondary sources), and all sources so-called secondary and favourable are invalidated and refused. In addition to the defamatory exchanges, the neutrality point of view presentation is not respected. Of course, the Wikipedia company claims not being responsible for the Internet users opinion.
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Thierry_Jamin
  20. “The majority opinion of the spectators shows the truth!”
    This strategy tries to influence the opinions based on the spectators belief, that a significant number of opinions rejecting the file is a proof of trickery.
    To give that impression of numbers, detractors hack into YouTube-related video notifications. We are witnessing the publication of totally irrational statistics. For example the statistics of the videos present a large number of unfavorable thumbs greater than the number of visitors. A video is seen by 1,500 people but the statistics are 3,500 unfavorable. Which of course is a hacking.
    However, their manipulation influences the census, and it’s impossible to add any favorable thumb.
    Sometimes they use other methods and the number of favorable thumbs decreases…
  21. Moles – and spying
    Introducing a mole among the people studying the subject, to counter their research and their initiatives very quickly, and to anticipate them before publication or realization, if possible. Critics would be able to try to interrupt the analysis possibilities, if information were indicated in the forum about upcoming scans.
  22. The masked terrorist
    To remain in anonymity, to carry out acts of defamation in public. The strategy is to dirty others by avoiding being personally identified. Critics do not hesitate to create false identities, use pseudonyms, open email addresses to false names to cover their real identities and increase their number. Equipped with such a mask, they allow themselves all the attacks, all the insinuations and all the insults. The innocent spectator attends their rampage and listens to them without suspecting for a moment that these good people intervene under false names and a false motive…

Conclusion

Detractors are extremists of thought. Great truths that should have been discovered without their approval, and question their framework of thought is unbearable. Every effort must be done to stop these achievements, and their fascist behavior indicates that they do not wish to see a scientific light on this affair. They demand the whole affair to be interrupted without discussion or delay. And for good measure, they wish researchers or messengers to be accused of trickery and sent to prison. If justice is too slow, they do not hesitate to accuse them of fraud with public finance institutions to trigger investigations that could confirm their opinions.

It is a time of war between the opposition forces and great truths that can transform our world, and will ultimately prevail, when we will be finally ready to welcome them.

Many thanks to Antoine Bruno, Catherine Rayer, Christophe Gegan, Fer Cas, Maï-Britt Vogl, Myriam Marmion, Sylvie Patsyjo and William Galison who facilitated the presentation of this work of reflection, for their artistic and linguistic skills and their advice wise.

Michel Ribardière

Share This