<HTML>And you're still including people in there who have relevant academic qualifications, follow the scientiific method and whose work gets published/discussed/reviewed in mainsteam and/or peer reviewed journals.
Why not include Kate Spence ? Her work is controversial as it relies totally on the OK AEs observing culminations rather than, as the "orthodox" consensus holds, being "horizon watchers".
I don't see that such a list can represent anything other than the subjective opinions of the compiler and as such has as much validity.
John</HTML>
