As an electronic engineer with a fairly good scientific training I have learned that Science is no more no less than the wealth of knowlege obtained through the "scientific method", meaning you must observe a certain phenomenon many times, make suppositions about its causes, check all actual facts that could go against the suppositions, and, finally accept them as the current explanation of the natural (or otherwise) phenomenon, in spite of what "Science" had to say before the new set of observations. I think it is relevant to discuss this point because I've tried to Post in SciForum the analysys of an official autopsy report, made by forensic MD specialists, and other related obseervations , and I could Post it under no other title than "Pseudoscience". For a long time, up to the XIXth century, meteorites were denied by "scientists" because "there were no stones in the sky", only peasantes believed in it. I would say that isn't "scientific" at all, what do YOU think? Check my other Post and you will see what I mean. (I hope the Postmaster and the Moderator will understand the effort I am making to get out of the Ghetto).