April 2010

Friday, April 30, 2010

Teyana Taylor Hair Part

Zen and the Art of Debunkeo FRAUD

Written by Daniel Drasin

English Translated by Cristian Juri (Arkantos Khan)

then had a close encounter with a UFO. Or a serious concern about the otherworldly life. Or passion for following clues that seem to point to the existence of a greater reality. Mention any of these things to most working scientists, and be prepared for anything from paternal skepticism, the merciless ridicule. After all, science is supposed to be, purely a rigid management firm, with little patience for ideas "expanded" from reality. Right?

False.

Like all systems search for truth, science, properly conducted, has a deep expansive liberating impulse at its core. This "Zen" in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the nature of things "a beginner's mind." When this is done, reality can cool and talk freely, and you can hear more clearly. Proper checking and objective validation can (in fact * must *) come next.

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes, was once the main point of science. But today is usually a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent to the theft, institutionalization, hyper and new orthodoxy has concerned incrementally disconnected facts in a vacuum psychological, social and ecological. Has become so disconnected official science grand scheme of things, that tends to negate or exclude entire domains of reality and satisfied with life and reduce the physical consciousness dead.

As the millennium change, science seems, in many ways, be treading the weary path of the religions that presumed to replace. Where free dispassionate inquiry once reigned, now emotions rise in defense of a fundamentalizada "scientific truth." As abnormalities are stacked above the sea of \u200b\u200bdenial, defenders of the Faith and the United cling with increasing arrogance, the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things not dreamed of by their philosophy, many senior scientists revert to a kind of skepticism children, characterized by blind faith in the absolutism family. Not surprisingly, then, that so many promising areas of research are kept small to superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo ... and debunkeo (keep reading that the term is clarified.)

debunkery What? Essentially it is the intent of debunker * * (invalidate) new information replaces the scientific method scientistic propaganda.

To download this kind of pseudoscientific behavior a daredevil (as comedian) release, I wrote a useful guide to "how to" for aspiring debunkers, with a special section devoted to intelligence debunker alien (maybe the issue more aggressively debunked in all modern history). As will be obvious to the reader, I have taken some of these strategies debunkeo beyond the line of absurdity to make a point. For the rest, their inherently deceptive rationing, flat twisted logic and stupidity will sound frustratingly familiar to those who have dared to explore beneath the ocean of denial and attempted in good faith, report what they found there.

Without further added:

ANYTHING LIKE Debunked

Part 1: General Debunkeo

Before debunked, prepare their equipment. Equipment needed: a chair with armrests.
Put the correct side. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective and derogatory as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority. Show
science not as a process of discovery open-ended, but as a holy war against infidels government hordes worshipers of the weird. As in war, the end justifies the means, can wrap, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it completely, in the name of defending the scientific method.
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send a message" that accepted theory is above any evidence that may face (and therefore not worth considering any evidence of that style).
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the * process * of science with the * content * of science. (One can, of course, be objected that, as science is a universal approach to search the truth must be neutral to the subject matter, therefore, 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!"). Click
seem that your message is repeated by people in authority. The extent to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of his mouth.
Always refer to unorthodox tenets as "assumptions" which are "sprung" and his own assertions as "facts" that are "indicated." Avoid
examine the evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims" (Note that this technique has stood the test of time and dates from at least the age of Galileo. Simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church will more than 3 centuries of self-denial and transparent!).
If you examine the evidence becomes unavoidable, report that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted with a strong body of evidence that have withstood rigorous testing, desestímelas simply for being "just a handful." Match

skeptical necessary component of science with * all * science. Emphasize the elements close, rigorous and critical of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If someone objects, acúselos to see science in purely fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical.

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, discarding more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge. Put on stage
the fact that free inquiry and discussion are normal parts of legitimate science. Please
available to media producers who seek a "balanced report" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate only in those presentations where the times and trends a-priori, preclude such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross examination.
Each time, reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. What is not family is, therefore, irrational, and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Judgement
categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunker itself betrays uncritical belief, beyond the status quo. Keep
research that unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates it all. In conventional contexts, however, may wisely remind the world that "after all, situations are complex and imperfect human beings. "
The "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 is by definition the simplest! Implying strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule but an immutable law.
Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing many parallels historical, philosophical and spiritual science and democracy.
Since the public tends to have blurred the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help keep this dark. If there is an absolute proof, sentencing categorically that "there is no evidence!".
If you have submitted sufficient evidence to secure a further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "the evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove anything.
In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate any possibility of initiating any significant research process (particularly if not yet established a standard of proof for the phenomenon in question.)
Insist that criteria of proof can not be established for a phenomenon that does not exist! Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged separately worse defined set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary assumptions require extraordinary evidence" (but never sure where it ends up defining the "ordinary" and the extraordinary begins.) This allows you to create an infinitely distant horizon of evidence, for example, define evidence "extraordinary" as something that is out of reach at any point in time.
Similarly, to insist kinds of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena can only be considered real if we can bring to laboratories for analysis beaten with hammers and physical properties. Sauté the achievements of the inferential sciences (astronomy, for example, that works well without bringing planets, stars, galaxies and black holes to beat them with hammers laboratories). Practice
debunkeo by association. Gather popularly labeled as paranormal phenomena and suggest that those who propose and investigate speak with one voice. This way you can indiscriminately drag material between lines of different disciplines in one case to another to give support to his vision as necessary. For example, if an assumption has some superficial similarities with being treated and has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite as an example if appropriate. Then put a smirk, lie on your couch and just say "explain my case."
Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to see what * not * there, and not to deny what * is * there.
If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply show her as "mass hallucination." Avoid treating the possibility of consensus reality can in itself constitute a mass hallucination.
ridicule, deride, ridicule. It is by far the most surprisingly effective weapon in the war against the discoveries and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any level of persuasion, becomes completely unconscious in a blink. Only fails in those few-minded enough independent to avoid falling into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.
With appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule is an essential part of the scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity and dispassion with which any investigation is conducted.
If you are depressed about their innovative interpretations of the scientific method, declare that "intellectual integrity is a subtle matter." Involve
that researchers from non-Orthodox are sectarian. Suggest that to investigate the existence of something, one must first believe in it absolutely. Then declare that such "real believers "know all the answers to their toughest questions with complete details in advance. Convince people of your own sincerity reinsurers to yourself "I love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully take a step back regarding the fact that science is not to believe or disbelieve, but the search.
Use "smoke and mirrors", for example, obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out of context information and outright lies will fool most people most of the time. As little as one tenth of facts and nine m * shit, usually will work. (Some debunked veterans using homeopathic dilutions made with incredible success!) Cultivate the art of moving back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably weak foundation that the truth will always appear to support the entire building of opinion.
Use "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: If someone says that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, nobody will notice you really did not refute the original comment.

trivialize the event, trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and high requirement of time, while judges of the adverse non-Orthodox as so insubstantial as to demand no more than a trace of the magazines. If pressed about it, just say "but there is nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as "strange" (buff) or "freak" or "possessor of a style" (the favorite of the media code for "false").

Remember that most people not have enough time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tends to accept or reject all very strange. Therefore, it discredits the entire story trying to discredit * part * of the story. Here's how: a) take an element of a case completely out of context, b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that, therefore, that element has been explained; d) call a conference press and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!
Hire the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the phenomenon in question, such as ESP, psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena, they must have been (or deceived by) talented stage magicians who forged the original phenomenon in precisely the same way.
Find a prosaic phenomenon that, for the uninitiated, it appears the phenomenon in question. Then suggest that the existence of a resemblance, in some way, prohibits the existence of the genuine article. For example, implies that, as people usually see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars should be a similar illusion, and therefore can not be artificial.
When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus exclusively on the mechanism that could have been used by intelligence rather than intelligence that could have used the mechanism. The more attention you devote to the mechanism, the easier it will distract people to consider non-ordinary intelligence. Acknowledgement
investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they indicate that the physical sciences * always * have dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity "? Electromagnetism? ...) Responds with a condescending chuckle "It's an innocent interpretation of facts."
Insist that western science is completely objective and is based on assumptions not unstable protected beliefs or ideological interests. If there is a strange, unexplained phenomenon is considered true and / or useful for a non-traditional Western or other, you can dismiss as a "bad idea", "medieval superstition" or "fairy tale."
Label any poorly understood phenomenon as "hidden", "paranormal, metaphysical," "Mystic", "supernatural" or "new-age." This will put the majority of mainstream scientists off the case for purely emotional. If you are lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries!
Ask questions that appear to contain knowledge generally assumed to support his vision, for example, "Why are not police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that there are such people , insist that these must be mentally unstable).
Ask questions unanswered based on arbitrary criteria test. For example, "if this were true, why have not seen it on TV?" Or "in the scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why have not landed in the park of the White House? ".
Similarly, reinforce popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by stating that "if such and such were true, and we would know about it!"
Remember that you can easily appear to refute any such building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to quote wrongly his statements while preserving that convincing grain of truth, for example, acting as if they had tried the extreme position they have taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is just as wrong replicate experiments (replicate or avoid altogether, saying that "doing so would be ridiculous or fruitless"). To make the whole process even easier, say, not his statements, but their statements as they were reported by the press, or propagated by the popular myth.
Insist that so and so unorthodox that it is not scientifically testable because no organization that has financed some ridiculous self-respect tests.
Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing practice has failed to reverse a case of terminal illness, you can judge it useless (while making sure to avoid mentioning the shortcomings of conventional medicine.)
accountable to applicants for production values \u200b\u200band editorial policies of any media or press to report his sayings. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a tabloid, use this as proof that the event itself should be without substance or value.
If a witness or complainant says something in a way that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at all. If there is a accredited scientist, argue that their perceptions may not have been objective.
If you can not attack the facts of a case, attack the participants (or the journalist who reported the case.) Ad Hominem Arguments * *, or personal attacks are among the most powerful ways to shift the public and avoid the investigation, acúselos of "benefit financially from activities connected with their research!" If the research, publication, lectures and stuff, constitute their normal line of work or their only means of survival, hold as fact are "conclusive evidence that they are getting income from such activities!" If you have worked to gain public recognition for their work can safely characterize them as "publicity seekers." Fabrique
support experience necessary, citing the opinions of those whose field is popularly assumed that include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, can be exposed as experts on the UFO question, although courses in ufology have never been a requirement for graduation in astronomy. Invent
confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to disappear, prepare a couple of old men who say they were the ones who fabricated the hoax. The press and the public will always tend to view confessions as sincerely motivated, and promptly abandon their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear as lacking in compassion for repentant sinners. Invent
sources of misinformation. Proclaim that you have "found the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!". Invent

research projects. Declare that "these claims have been completely discredited by the greatest experts in the field!" Do this regardless of whether such experts have studied these claims, or, for that matters, if they even exist.

Part 2: Debunked

Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Indicate that a flying object "unidentified" is just that, and can not be automatically assumed as alien. Do this whether or not the alien has been assumed by someone involved.
Match the laws of nature with our present knowledge of the laws of nature. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional travel as mere assumptions because "today's science can not explain it, then it can not exist." Then, if a spacecraft anomaly is reported to have moved silently by, for making right angle turns at supersonic speeds and then disappear instantly You may summarily dispose the report.
declare that there is no evidence that life could exist in outer space. Like most people still behave as if the earth was the center of the universe, you can safely ignore the fact that the Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life. Point
the official SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years from Earth. Take this a-priori assumption as conclusive proof, then insist that this invalidates all contact reports ET on Earth.
If there is strong evidence for the crash of a UFO or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed information about previously secret military projects that could conceivably answer for that. The more voluminous the information, the less the need to prove any connection between the event reported and the military draft.
When someone produces the alleged physical evidence of alien technology, point to that no analysis can prove that its origin is extraterrestrial ultimately may be the product of a perfectly ordinary government top secret underground laboratory. The only exception is the evidence from a landing on the lawn of the White House (the only fact widely accepted by generations of skeptics as conclusively certified extraterrestrial origin).
If photographs or other visual media showing anomalous aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that such images can be manipulated in digital form now, do not prove anything. Assert this regardless of the amount of material or the circumstances of their acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a photo of a UFO, the greater the possibility of fraud. Photos that have passed all tests can be taken then known as the most perfect of all fraudulent! Discuss
that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be false because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated. Avoid responding to the logical proposition that if interstellar visits have occurred, the Earth can not be considered genetically isolated in the first place. Discuss
that aliens do or not do, should or should not, may or may not behave in certain ways because such behavior would or would not be logical. Base your notions of logic as the aliens would behave or not behave. As the Earth behave in every way, we can guess any behavior to fit their arguments.
such stereotyping of contacts according to simplistic scenarios are well established in the collective imagination. If a reported ET contact appears to have had negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the contacted believe devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to destroy ourselves magically save us!" If someone says he was traumatized by an ET contact, throw it as "a classic case of hysteria. " If the contactees stress the essential humanity and limitations of certain ETs who say they know, ask "why have not these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us? "
When an encounter witnesses are reluctant to step forward, acúselos of" seeking fame "indiscriminately with their strange stories.
Ask why alleged contactees and abductees have not received alien infections. Rejected as "absurd" any medical evidence to suggest that such a thing could actually happen. Categorize as "pure science fiction" the idea that the understanding of immunology of the aliens may be more advanced than ours, or that alien organisms may be sufficiently limited in their ability to interact with our biological systems. Above all, throw away anything that might result in an investigation of the case.
Travel to China. Upon return, report that "nobody there told me to have seen UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFO reports out of countries whose populations are overexposed to science fiction.
When hypnotic regression has yielded evidence of contacts in separate and completely independent cases, argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always useless in the hands of non-accredited practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must have had contact with literature-ET contact, and who, are their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been guided questions.
If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore, the memories of the subject must be completely lacking in confidence. Keep
can not be a government cover-up of the ET issue ... but there by legitimate national security reasons!
Impeach the conspiracy theorists to be conspiracy theorists and believe in conspiracies! Insist that only * theories can possibly explain accidentalists * repeated patterns activities organized suppression, denial and misinformation.

If it occurs the worst case scenario (ie, one where extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenly accepted as a global mystery of millennial proportions) just remember that the public has a short memory. Just take it as a "victory for the scientific method" and say dismissively, "Well, everybody knows that this is a monumental issue significantly. In fact, my colleagues and I have been saying this for years! "

NOTE: We try to find the image of some autorotulados" skeptics "who have changed history with his knowledge to illustrate this article, but we find that such people never existed.

Orlando Lux Club How Old To Get In

of skeptics

Manu is a friend who's always traveling. No matter what remote part is left wandering why not respond my mails. That in itself strikes me very nicely. I must confess I did not know this text. I had access yesterday when Ricardo Pool wrote in other intelligences, the yahoo group of which both are owners, Leo Zambrano during the interview that precedes this post.
And I laughed so much, so dearly I want to share with you all

Here is the piece of Manuel Carballal:

FRAUD OF SKEPTICS

by Manuel Carballal

lives not only credulous fraud. While many times we have faced deception and fraud of the false seers, this month we turn our critical eye to other "bi-Presidents," provided of not less than two sharp fangs. Another kind of vampire, shielded behind a clumsy pseudo disguise, try to squeeze the world of mystery towards its ambitious interests. History Science is full of examples. Nothing heavier than air could fly, electricity was a fad and useless and sky stones could not fall simply because in heaven there are no stones. And despite these categorical statements, flying airplanes, electricity goes civilization and meteorites controls exist.

Currently there is a group of pseudo-scientific, falsely calling themselves "skeptics" systematically attack any manifestation of heterodox approaches related to the mystery. I say pseudo because Voltaire said that "it is ignorance that denies or affirms, science always doubt." And that is what the term "skeptic" who doubts. However, the adjectives that often the "pseudo-skeptics" anomalous phenomena give leave little doubt: "nonsense", "crap", "jilipolleces", "stupid" ... Their brains do not need to travel to gifted scene and questioning witnesses to draw conclusions. This position was well reflected in one of his publications (Alternative Sound, No. 32, p.42) criticizing the book of the famous UFO researcher Josep Guijarro. Luis Alfonso Gámez, leader of the pseudo-skepticism English condemned the book "The Departed" with the following statement: "After reading the name on the cover the author, the fear of losing mental integrity prevented me from continuing. Better to live coward than brave brainless. "Of course the lowly mortals need only read a book to judge ... But did not say that the ESP does not exist?

in May 1976 in USA was held a meeting sponsored by the American Humanist Association which would result in the founding of CSICOP, the "Vatican" pseudo-skeptic movement (I refuse to accept the term skeptic to this movement of pseudo-scientific fundamentalism), followed by the establishment of similar groups in different countries , as the Argentine Center for Research and Rebuttal of Pseudoscience and the English Rational Alternative to Pseudoscience (ARP). In Spain, to cite just one example, self-described "skeptics" cronies have become common in any discussion of UFOs, parapsychology or paranormal phenomena. And it is suspicious that gain prominence only in such programs, and not in discussions or debates belong to their respective disciplines, which has led some authors to the conclusion that thus sublimate his academic mediocrity (the few that have university degree) getting fame, popularity and money systematically attacking all paranormal phenomena. It is clear that abound fraud and errors of assessment in the world of so-called anomalous phenomena, but as in any field of knowledge, experience and dedication required in a discipline to reasonable judgments about her. So only experts in physics may sound opinions about physics, astronomers can only speak with knowledge of astronomy and only doctors can properly dictate medical diagnostics. Why then specialized journalists, doctors, insurance agents and computer programmers make judgments radicals against all paranormal phenomena in discussions about UFOs, parapsychology, etc..? Why then do not go to programs ufologists or parapsychologists and discussions on information technology, biology or astronomy? The result is that the claims of these pseudo-skeptics are often ridiculous and funny would not be so pathetic. San Juan Andrés, "scientific adviser? Rational Alternative to Pseudoscience and expert on the sex lives of flies (about as exciting subject made his biological thesis) accused the universities of wasting time and money on psychic research, removing budgets of other issues for science ( and sodomy in the blowflies of Patagonia). Jesus Martinez Villarrica, former editor of The Rational Alternative (bulletin ARP) stated that UFO recorded audiotape in Bilbao masturbation was actually a midwife toad (say masturbation because only hear "sex songs" of a obstetricans Alytes, which according to ARP was the source of the recording UFO). Not to mention the categorical statements of these "scientists" that the majority of UFO spotted in Spain (including pilots, meteorologists, etc.) Rays were actually balls ... Rays in Balls, "masturbation" frogs, flies sex life ... someone might think that skeptics maliciously have some kind of disorder livid, and the fact is that researchers recently discovered that one of the biggest frauds in the history of English ufology, the alffaire Ummo had been committed precisely by one of these "skeptics" drawing on the myth created for him to realize his sadomasochistic fantasies.

Of course everyone is free to live their sexuality as you like, provided they do not take advantage of others to abuse the credulity of others shielded behind a false scientific precision. And the truth is that Freud might draw suggestive findings of the explanations that the pseudo-skeptics are many paranormal cases. It is still curious that in a recent study conducted handwriting of 5 UFO UFO field and 5 games, in at least three of the latter curious aspects of sex were detected, including signs of dementia. But the "sex skeptic" is not important. Analyzing the explanations that some of the patriarchs of the "scientific ufology" should give some feel terror. In his pretentious "Encyclopedia of close encounters with UFOs" (p. 236 to 238) Vicente Juan Ballester Olmos explained some cases of UFO landings as fraud or confusion with "Venus," an oil drum, "a fetus" "seaweed", "current object" (?), "Men in Red Cross", the "window of a house, a road sign, an" ocean drum, "a" tent ", a" mono "an" owl ", a" fantasy of deaf-mute ", a priest, a" truck wheel, etc.. The truth is that a wheel truck, that of being round, reminds us more of the typical flying saucer, but how a UFO can be confused with a cure , a monkey or an owl? Do deaf UFO fantasies that the rest of us? What is a "power object"? not strange that UFO witnesses prefer to sever relations with investigators when a "scientific" les said that they have seen the UFO was an oil drum, or a human fetus ... (?) is a way to call them stupid.

these enlightened few weeks ago "scientists" led by Ballester Olmos (Who also lacks any university degree) solved the most documented UFO case in Spain. On 11/11/1979 a UFO caused an emergency landing in a Supercaravelle Manises airport, the scramble (intercept mission) pursued a UFO hunting for hundreds of miles and concerns of drivers, airport director and neighbors of Manises. According to these "scientific" UFO actually were two chimneys of a factory in Algeria (?). And though it may seem choteo, an employee of a car factory tell a fighter pilot (whose qualifications equivalent to university later) that the UFO that was targeted because Spain were two chimneys all Algerian is considered "serious ufology." Given these statements who do not share the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) to the UFO phenomenon we must accept that only apply to the ETH scientists ufologists, but alcohol Hypothesis. Because you can not say so bullshit sober. Unless there are vested interests to explain, how absurd is the explanation, all enigma. And what can be those interests? Perhaps the answer lies in a letter from Felix Ares de Blas, founder and leader, "spiritual" ARP. In this letter, the principal "skeptical" English clarified that charges a quarter of a million pesetas for each conference against the paranormal. Naturally, if the conference is English the price is somewhat higher. The truth is that with such substantial fees bisceralidad understandably so to prove that the paranormal does not exist.

attack No matter what our jugular in the name of spirituality or science. Vampires suck the blood of the world of mystery with the same voracity at one end or another. And we all know that the ends meet. CHTMLXC CHTMLXC