Smoke Grenades On Sale

Attivissimo and UFOs

When you live so 'in close contact with reality', and 'very easy to lose sight of the neutral point of view. This goes for everyone, unfortunately. Applies to the conspiracy, which fall beyond repair in a spiral of madness where only their ideas are right and where everything is seen by their distorting lens. You lose touch with reality '. This is true but 'also for those working on the other hand, for those seeking the truth 'in the midst of the lies. Unfortunately few of them succeed, 'cause these, too, sooner or later end up becoming slaves of their convictions, therefore the case that are no longer' examined the data and are derived from these concepts (and how 'right to be). No, the opposite happens. From the ideas, some concepts are derived data. This is called ideology.
Attivissimo Paul has often made an excellent job in some fields of study. For heaven's sake ', and' also true that I consider much of the research done wasted energy, because I firmly believe that we should not feel too well with the head about Sept. 11 conspiracies or humans that it 's never gone to the moon.

That said, Paul Attivissimo recently examined the case of Buzz Aldrin said that on Phobos (Mars asteroid) there is' a monolith "weird." According Attivissimo, ufologists (who are regarded as scum indistinct, all strictly conspiracy) cheered 'cause I thought it was a confirmation that the monolith was of extra-terrestrial origins.

analyze the situation with the right rigor:

1) Buzz Aldrin never spoke of a man-made object on Phobos.

-> This point is 'clear, and it' also made it clear from the speech of Paul Attivissimo. Except that, according to the ideas of active, for UFO (indistinct), Buzz Aldrin had confirmed the existence of a monolith of artificial origin. So I wonder, by what mental operation Attivissimo Paul has created this mass "indistinct" of ufologists who said, unanimously, 'Aldrin said that the existence of an artificial monolith?

Chira this ideal type of Ufology and 'Attivissimo was generated by using a highly ideological thought process, which puts the ufologist like a conspiracy.

In any case, very busy at this time is right to say that Buzz Aldrin has never talked about man-made structure.

2) The problems are on point 2, where Attivissimo played a bit 'too much on words, always be overshadowed by his ideology. Is very active and 'even bother to quote the definition from a dictionary of Monolithic. Typical ploy of those who have never done in his life and academic research that has as its highest point of 'truth' "the dictionary (lol), but that 's another story.
Attivissimo argued openly referred to as the Monolith Aldrin spoke to was absolutely natural sources (which are in the same video, Buzz says, "and 'was to put the Universe, or God if you want). According Attivissimo therefore Buzz spoke simply because 'this monolith would stimulate the public once again into space, given that in recent times very few are interested in space. E ' what I also said Aldrin. We

but 'we are intelligent people and not hide behind a finger, this is the finger of Attivissimo or Aldrin. What I want to reflect on which are the words of Aldrin, not the nature of the monolith. Whether natural or artificial at this juncture I do not care.

But do you think the public would really be pushed to a new interest in space only for a natural stone from the normal form curious?!?! I mean, 'with all the interesting things that we are in space (think of Mars), NASA should venture into a multibillion-dollar project to go to a picture of a stone "natural" to stimulate public opinion?

To me, as a common citizen, to go to a picture of a normal stone, I could care less. And you? Moreover, as a scientist, I would find a lot more 'interesting to study (example) better than the atmosphere of Mars, which one (A is A) only Rock. Are you kidding? What is' a joke?

So how to solve this issue? The question has one answer. Repeating once again that we do not know the source of that monolith and we're just looking statements Aldrin ... It 'obvious even to a 5 year old child who was playing Buzz deliberately with the allusion to a structure of extra-terrestrial nature. 'Cause this is, of course, could go to stimulate the public to space research.

So inviteteri davverso Mr. Attivissimo to do more 'attention with his post next time.
In the coming days we will also open another question from Attivissimo, Edgar Mitchell's claims. Where even in this case there are obvious structural errors. Suffice it to say that the issue is so open ':

"Edgar Mitchell says UFOs exist" BUFFALO

Well, here it is apparent the fabulous Attivissimo scientific method, that is the envy of the most' noble conspiracy sites. Why

'Edgar Mitchell has really said that UFOs exist, so it is not' a hoax. You can 'then discuss whether the content of the statement is true or false (if UFOs exist or not), but that Edgar Mitchell has claimed that UFOs exist is' a fact, true.

Attivissimo Not likely.

PS Forgive the lack of accents, but I write from a U.S. keyboard.

Cold Showers Erections

The case of Joan and the program "Mystery" A methodological problem

There are some things that leave you speechless. Among these, certainly falls in the case of Joan, the woman abducted by aliens and "seeded" over and over again to create a hybrid alien-umano.La story of Joan came out during the last two programs of "Mystery", a new program Mediaset led by Enrico Ruggeri dedicated to the world and the mystery of the inscrutable.
As happens now for decades, the issue still can not UFO (Except in rare cases) to enjoy autonomy, and can thus be made only within a context of many other mysteries. Pyramids, Atlantis, UFOs, Vampires: all the same thing.
Giovanna, its history, the program of Mediaset, the same Henry Ruggerri have given a great example of trash TV. Moreover Ruggeri is not the first time you venture into land of ufology "exotic" and not very scientific, everyone will remember well the transmission with a studio guest Corrado Malanga. This time we rirprova Ruggeri.
There are many things that make you smile tornarno and that the story of the beloved Joan. Starting with the same description of Alien, which clearly recalls a well-established substrate of knowledge in conspiracy literature. The alien who does not feel feelings. The alien can no longer reproduce. The alien who comes to earth to create the human-alien hybrid.
here I do not want to do a trial of Joan. We are in a free country and everyone has a right to express them (also odd) views. The problem is not John, the problem is how the whole thing has been analyzed and presented to viewers. The problem then is once again an incorrect methodology that magically reveals a well-concocted false.
Let's see a little 'what happened during the broadcast: We have presented a series of photographic evidence, a series of "signs" on the body of Joan and The notorious end of a movie alien fetus. And here comes the fun part. To analyze the movie studio was a ufologist (in brackets belonging to that line of thought that still gives heed to bales of Col. Philip Corso). I wonder what it cost to call a doctor, a professional, a veterinarian, or any other health experts to consider testing video? What then do a cost analysis for simplicity of the DNA of the alleged fetus? There has been talk of analysis "expensive", but with all the support behind Mediaset do not believe that the economic factor accounts so much. So why did all this happen? It 's very simple. Media
work increasingly through the story, because people like to listen stories. Everything is told as a story, a crime of a war. Everything becomes a story in installments to keep the viewer glued. The only way therefore to gain from the "history" of Joan for Mediaset was to serialize the event and create a story which takes the viewer glued, waiting for subsequent events.
The problem is simple: if I'm holding a baby REALLY hybrid-alien, that is, if the experts can tell me clearly that they are in front of a very exceptional fact there is no need to serialize the story to get share: the mere fact of having made a discovery like that capitalize on the interest of viewers worldwide in just one second. In a word, if history Joan had been genuine:
a) There would be no need to serialize
b) In the studio there were not doctors or experts and a ufologist.

The fact that the story was instead presented it is clear evidence that it is all a big lie. As this is the only possible way to gain from a lie.