Page Content (OCR)
other theorists. Most perplexing of all was the fact that some of the literature about the ruins I had visited smacked of pure fiction, because the authors had not visited the sites but laboured instead to couple fictitious theories with dubious facts. This led, of course, to conclusions that bordered on the imbecilic. An offshoot of this process is, understandably enough, an enormous quantity of crank literature created by unqualified researchers who attempted to interpret the scientific material in their own ways. In many areas of the less popular sciences the crank material outweighs the scientific because few if any scientists have tackled those subjects. So 98 per cent of all the available literature on Atlantis, flying saucers, Tibet, and prehistoric ruins falls into the crank category. The task of sotting all this out and developing a valid synthesis is a formidable one - one which! have undertaken with great trepidation. In his book, In the Name of Science, Martin Gardner defines the characteristics of the common crank or pseudoscientist. He lists the four chief attributes as being: (1) The crank considers himself a genius... even a towering genius who is years ahead of hi&time. (2) He considers his colleagues and fellow researchers ‘ignorant blockheads', largely because they fail to recognize his genius. He assaults his opponents by impugnation, questioning their honesty, intelligence, and motives. They respond in kind, naturally, and so great storms are whipped up in the trivial teacups of the scientific and pseudoscientific journals. Controversy is the lifeblood of crankism. (3) The pseudoscientist is paranoid and feels he is the victim of a vast conspiracy designed to suppress his brilliant work. In many instances these imagined conspiracies become a vital part of the subject itself, as for example, the endless literature discussing how the U.S. Air Force has been keeping the truth about flying saucers from the public. (4) The crank delights in focusing his attacks 'on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories'. He goes after big game. He is wiser than Einstein, knows more about astronomy than Fred Hoyle, and is better informed about the moon than Neil Armstrong. The crank also invents his own terminology: a jabberwocky understood only by him and his closest allies. So, we find the literature filled with confusing and complicated terms which are merely displays of pseudoerudition, or what psychiatrists call neologisms. Over the years I have met the leaders of many peculiar cults and pseudoscientific factions of belief. With very few exceptions, they have all lived up to the above criteria. Most were friendly and cooperative with me until they realized that I did not share their beliefs in Atlantis or visitors from Andromeda. Then they turned on me with wrathful vengeance and launched such campaigns of unfounded slander that I could only be amazed and amused. I have now been accused of being everything from a Communist con man to a secret agent for the Central Intelligence Agency; from a religious fanatic (I'm a lifelong agnostic) to a pawn of the devil. Typographical errors, over which I have no control, in my many articles and books have been lovingly dissected by these groups and prompted countless letters and essays reviewing their sinister implications. After twenty-five years as a writer and reporter dedicated