I became an academic person long ago with a special interest in light. Not light, as energy, but light as information, and the neuro and cognitive processing of that information. Along the way, I was thoroughly schooled in how confused and messed up things were in science, best explained by Thomas Kuhn:
I actually met Thomas about the time I was participating in a full scale Cognitive revolution in academia, and the experimental studies being carried out all around me were fascinating. A fun read from this era is Plans and the structure of behavior:
The source of much of my revolutionary thinking was, The senses considered as perceptual systems:
It was in Hawaii, working on a telemedicine project, that I stumbled upon "Fingerprints . . ." and devoured the contents. With such a radical scientific background--even within the academic world--I was not at all surprised to see Graham similarly tackle established dogma in fields that I knew nothing about. What surprised me a little, was that we academics were thought of as locked into dogma--to be exposed and enlightened by free thinking free lancers like Graham. But, the writing was compelling, and the discoveries seemed real--sounded like fun. Besides,I had always been a fan of blue sky thinking.
The big difference I see, after following developments for 20 years or so is that so many of the contributors are really lacking in appropriate training in basic science and philosophy. So they do it wrong--but don't understand why their contribution has not been widely accepted. The deeper issue is that many of Graham's flashy fantasies of lost civilizations can't be tested in sufficient detail to be truly supported--even if the "know-how" and resources were available.
I've admired what you've contributed in Mysteries for a long time, and hope some of it turns into a book. I think it represents some of the best efforts to add some of the detail sorely lacking in Graham's books. I'd like to see more of this in the future.
Efforts to get more "sciency" in speculations about human cognitive processes, consciousness, and the universe seem to be new areas--especially when they involve some sort of computer simulation. It may be an area of exploration for the future, but so far I've found examples at GHMB far too sensationalistic. So far, ones I've explored lack detail much as in Graham's early "Fingerprints.
I never forget that there are two kinds of bad theories: ones that explain too little; and ones that explain too much. At GHMB, the theories never explain too little.