![]() ![]() ![]() Well-documented reports from credible sources are ranked as a "1" while entirely unsubstantiated reports are rated as a "4", with "2" or "3" representing intermediate reports. ![]() In some of his later Sourcebook efforts, such as the mid-1990s Biological Anomalies series, Corliss added his evaluation of both the reliability of the claims, and their ranking as anomalies. Corliss quoted all relevant parts of articles (often reprinting entire articles or stories, including illustrations). Unlike Fort, known for his idiosyncratic writing style, Corliss initially offered little in the way of his own opinions or editorial comments, preferring to let the articles speak for themselves. Many of the articles in Corliss's works were earlier mentioned in Charles Fort's works. Corliss was inspired by Charles Fort, who decades earlier also collected reports of unusual phenomena. Each volume was devoted to a scientific field ( archeology, astronomy, geology, et cetera) and featured articles culled almost exclusively from scientific journals. Starting in 1974, Corliss published a number of works in the "Sourcebook Project". ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |