Beg to differ, C.H. Anybody who can sell skadillions of books with no basis whatsoever ain't no fool. His royalties are in fact spendable, so all he is is proof that capitalism and P.T. Barnum are compatible. I don't even think the people who read them are necessarily idiots either, because ideas are supposed to compete in the market place. I don't like Velikovsky either, but the people who burned and banned his books were infinitely more dangerous.

Those who are mistaken are the ones who actually believe any of the great aberrationists. I find Charles H. Fort most enjoyable, because he is actually serving a purpose; he's saying, "OK, you believe in rationalism and science, then explain this ----" and of course if you work on it, you can explain it, so it helps you understand How Things Work. My current acceptance, BTW, is that Velikovsky actively believed in what he said; Van Daniken did or does not. Churchward and Smyth are there too. They are all fun to read and are interesting-to-important as psychological pathologies.

Interesting observation, having been on both sides of Civvy Street in my life. Why is it automatically "civilian facts and military denials?" Couldn't it just once be "military facts and civilian fantasies?" I understand how we all long for this Universe to be full of unicorns, folksingers, green grass, blue skies and cheap oil. It is not the military that keeps it from being so; it is Reality.

CC

PS. It seems to me, as a card-carrying paranoid myself, that some of us work extra hard at being offended and/or insulted. Everybody quotes the Biblical thing about not giving offence. How about for once practicing not taking it??