I vaguely remember reading Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, and several of Erich von Daniken's books as a kid. And seeing Uri Geller on various TV shows.

I eventually figured out that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That if something cannot be explained (or if the explanation is not well known), that doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is the best, or only, explanation. That amateurs in technical fields can occasionally make important findings, but they rarely turn a field on its head - especially these days. It's really hard for a no-name Joe off the street to pull the wool over the eyes of an expert who has been working in a field for decades - in that field. (Yes, brainiacs can get swindled by hucksters too, but you you know that's not what I'm talking about.)

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.