Some of the references do look rather somewhat dubious. For example, in the "Tunnels" section there is a reference to "Subterranean tunnels and the hollow earth" - which appears to be available at:
"What if I told you that I had been inside a fantastic tunnel system that runs beneath the continent of South America? Would you think me a liar? Or worse yet, insane? Though I admit it is a story that seems difficult to believe, I am telling the truth. Read on, dear reader, and decide if I am mad or lying."
Edit: Reading further down that page I see a positive reference to Erich von Daniken (NB as I have mentioned in another comment, I learned the importance of skepticism from the works of von Daniken at a very young age).
I agree with that. I think it's right to be skeptical of the article, but also right to be skeptical of alternate links if they're not better sourced themselves. I understand the merit of the heuristic approach, but it shouldn't be conflated with the method of logically examining the reference material.
Unfortunately, the downvotes show that HN doesn't appreciate this distinction, at least not when it's said to a popular member of the community. :)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol...
"What if I told you that I had been inside a fantastic tunnel system that runs beneath the continent of South America? Would you think me a liar? Or worse yet, insane? Though I admit it is a story that seems difficult to believe, I am telling the truth. Read on, dear reader, and decide if I am mad or lying."
Edit: Reading further down that page I see a positive reference to Erich von Daniken (NB as I have mentioned in another comment, I learned the importance of skepticism from the works of von Daniken at a very young age).