One of my favorite strategies of reasoning takes the following form:
1.) Take a somewhat unlikely, but still reasonable and well accepted explanation for some phenomenon.
2.) Reject it because it is somewhat unlikely.
3.) In its place, adopt a highly unlikely or completely implausible explanation (the latter is preferable).
4.) Con your way into a position such that you can force people to listen to your BS.
A couple of examples:
Some people seem to think that it is unlikely that the Egyptians and the Mayans independently invented the pyramid. So, clearly, aliens taught them both how to make pyramids.
(A little thought experiment: Make a pile of dirt, sand, gravel, or any other particulate matter. What does this remind you of? A pyramid perhaps? No, no, don't send your answer just yet. Let the aliens check it first.)
I also read the work (sorry, lost the link) of some genius who disagrees with explanations of cave paintings. He thinks it is unlikely that people where incapable of creative thinking when they lived in caves. Thus, drawings of horses with human torsos are empirical proof that centaurs once roamed the earth.
(Clearly this man has never seen a horse run, jump, or get an 18 inch erection and thought: "damn, I wish I could do that.")
So please, from now on, screw Occum's Razor. All it has done for us is produce bland and probable explanations. Wouldn't you rather have UFOs and centaurs than human creativity?