Techniques of the 'debunkers'

"Boston Marathon bombings: rounding up the conspiracy theories" (note the snark without actually even an attempt at answering the questions raised by a real researcher:

"Daniel Hopsicker's Madcowprod.com claims to contain "investigative reporting into the drugs trade, 9/11, and state-sponsored crime." His Boston Marathon "investigation" suggests that the bombing suspects' uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, worked with the CIA, Chechnyan crime bosses and other groups often to be found in a second-rate thriller. It's unclear what these purported connections have to do with the suspects' motivations for the explosion – but there is talk of peacock-feathered stilt-walkers and ice sculptures of nude people."

"Black Backpacks and Colored Circles"

"Houdini's Revenge: Category Archives: Boston Marathon Bombing" referring, in part, to "Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down (Part 5)"

The main techniques of 'debunkers':

1. focus on a goof like Alex Jones, and hope that the best theories are tainted by association;
2. concentrate on the most ridiculous theories and hope that people will be encouraged to ignore the important ones; and
3. just bluster your way through with some snarky comments, and hope nobody will read the source material.

I always wonder who the 'debunkers' think they are writing for.