I started doing research on ancient civilizations, and you have put it all together for me. Thank you.

- Robert Esparza

While you do present an interesting amount of insight, your work has a bit of a flaw.

When you attempt to disprove a point, you do it from a close-minded angle. Rather than allowing your self to take a look from the view of those who believe in the idea that you attempt to disprove, or even those that kinda believe, you attack the idea from only your view point, not allowing the thought of truth in the idea to start at all.

This may seem like a good thing for a convincing piece, but unfortunately it only alienates the two groups mentioned above. In other words, the only readers you convince are the ones that already shared your beliefs.

The close-minded angle is nicely subtle, but it still exists in the little bits of biased opinion you put in there. The only way to present a pure, irrefutable truth is to do so without opinion, without bias. This creates a pure form of knowledge, one that looks at "why it can" and "why it can't." And unfortunately, the only way to do this without creating your own opinion, yet still being convincing is to give "why it can" a chance, and to present refuting knowledge in such a way that it would convince anyone. Open-mindedness is the key to this. You must be able believe the idea you're disproving, note what causes you to believe, and disprove it on those grounds, all without using any bias or religion that states otherwise. Remember, they don't believe what you believe, so all you would be doing is trying to disprove their truths with your lies.

Please do not get the idea that I am knocking on you, or acting high and mighty. This is hard stuff to do, and I'll be the first to admit that I can't. You're also not all that closed-minded.

- D. Davidson

Note: The following letter discusses the article "Who Lost the Middle Ages?" An updated and revised version of the article was published in Skeptic magazine (v. 11 n. 2):

I don't have a firm opinion about New Chronology and am not going to defend or discard it. Time will show. The purpose of my short message is to point out two of your arguments which are incorrect.

Firstly, you are saying "Let us suffice it to say without getting into complex mathematics that the Fomenko method of analyzing the stars does not quite prove his point because he must first assume that Ptolemy's values are without error in order to 'prove' their 'true' date. A small error in value on the part of Ptolemy could and does throw all Fomenko's calculations to the wind." Quite the opposite: Fomenko assumes there must be three types of mistakes: outliers, systematic and unsystematic. The first kind is obvious mistakes, they don't fit into any, old or new, chronology and have to be discarded. The second type is systematic, possible, for example, if the same unadjusted tool was used for measurement of a large cluster of stars, or similar things. This shifts a whole cluster of stars by the same value. This is identified (by statistics) and corrected for. What is left is unsystematic mistakes, or random noise, that is small imperfections of measurements. This noise should be small. Then the question is what is the century which fits best, although not ideally, into this picture. The answer is 11th century. Fomenko says that, in order to fit Almagest into its current place on the time scale, one has to assume that the noise of measurement was 4%, and even the weels of carriages were made to a better precision. Therefore, you are not right in saying that Fomenko does not account for possible erroros. He does, and uses the most sophisticated approach here, that is mathematical statistics.

Secondly, Fomenko argues (with examples) that the carbon dating method produces an error of a few thousand years. Please read these explanations or ask any physicist, they will confirm. The carbon dating only makes sense in geology where a mistake of a few thousand years is unimportant. That is all. Again, I am not trying to judge who is right, but hope you will agree with me that those two points of yours are not quite true.

- Victor Podinovski, PhD.
Senior Lecturer, Operational Research
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

Old knowledge from Mars becomes reality. Life has been brought to Earth from the outside. The Sun created all the planets. Humans originated form dinosaurs. People live in big illusion that the Universe created for them. Your information about eternal life is behind memory barrier. Humankind is about to enter new epoch of development. There are no predictions.

- Jim Motluk

I notice that you connect Aleister Crowley with Satanism in "From Cthulhu to Cloning". He didn't so much worship Satan as accuse Christians of worshipping Satan. And even that seems metaphorical. Briefly, Crowley saw "Christianity" as an obstacle to mystic experiences, which he sometimes described in Gnostic/Hindu terms as visions of the truth beyond the universe of illusion. (Illusion created by the metaphorical Great Magician, and maintained by "demons" or distactions from the path.)

- Dan Keys

Great site: provides a much needed break from the mindrot!

- C.S. DeBlues

I much enjoyed your debunking of Childress's Ancient Atomic Warfare
fantasies but think you appear to have done L Sprague de Camp a disservice.
Whilst he was a fan of Lovecraft's fiction he was also an engineer who had
little time for the sort of twaddle put out by the likes of Childress and
Hancock. That minor point aside your site is very good and I have recommended it
a couple of times on my own pages. I appreciate what you are doing. Best wishes,

- Ross Sargent

Nice site all the same, despite the disingenuousness all such "'skeptically" inclined are prone to be by their nature (perhaps calling it "pseudo-skeptical" would be a little unkind, but only a little). I never realized I'd been brain-washed by fiction writers all these years. I only wish I had your super-lucid grasp of 'reality'. ... YOUR (sic) NOT NEARLY AS CLEVER AS YOU THINK!

- Rainer Scott

Regarding the article "Ancient Atom Bombs":
I am not here to defend [David Hatcher] Childress. but to make him out to be a crack pot is not fair to you or him. [To] attack his theory is one thing, but keep it fair,no cheap shots. Even Immanuel Velikovsky brings up the green glass in his book Earth in Upheaval. Let me remind you what he said: "yet the enigmatic and rather regular signs of fire in graves of the Old and Middle Kingdoms of Egypt, as if from the presence of some volatile substance that penetrated there and became inflamed by the heated ground is worth mentioning." Even he was not willing to dismiss it as a myth. But he wasnt willing to say it was from atomic bombs either. There is something there, and there are places all around the world like this [with] green glass that can not be explained. I have no clue what it is or where they come from but to poke fun at someone is not right; please keep your comments fair. Leave the cheap shots to the main frame professors who think because they have a peice of paper that they have all the answers.

- William Farkas

I'm a crew leader for the Mount Konocti Project Foundation, of over thirty years of research in Clearlake, California. We are now finding evidence that the people who inhabited this area originally came from the continent of Mu. We should be inside the volcano this summer.