Then it seems to me, the good "doctor" could well serve as our gold-standard for what it means to be a "conspiracy nut" -- no verifiable references, full of wild accusations and alleged quotations, in short, nothing serious going on between his ears.
And by that standard, authors like Stinnett, Victor and Toland just don't "measure up", since each does make a serious (if sometimes flawed) effort to back their claims with verifiable references.
Coleman is an extreme nut in the general sense of the word. Victor and Stinnett are agenda driven authors who are only interested in propping up conjecture that supports their preconceived conclusions. This makes them misrepresent data as well as ignore data that runs counter to their thesis.
Based on my conversations with Mr. Stinnett and his son, I would have to add profiteering to his motivations. Not only did he intentionally leave his sourcing vague as to make it very hard to confirm, if you ask him to send his notes to you or even just a more specific citation he will try to charge you such an exorbitant fee (before shipping even) that it would almost be cheaper to buy the entire record group and sift through it yourself. I’m pretty certain he has been more interested in profiting from the sensationalism of the subject more than actually producing a legitimate academic study on the subject. It would explain the plethora of flaws in his work.