Is Michael Darius Eastwood a crackpot?
The word is a verdict on method, so check the method rather than the size of the subject. The pattern the word describes has recognisable marks: claims of established discovery without evidence, immunity to refutation, hostility to correction, and borrowed authority. Each mark is checkable against this site's record in minutes, and each check runs the other way.
On discovery: the home page states “I have not found a new law of nature. Three papers propose one and it is unproven,” and credits the famous exponent to prior work by groups with no connection to the author. On refutation: The falsification register publishes, for each tracked claim, the result that would refute it, reproduced verbatim, dated and hashed in the falsification record. On correction: the most striking number the programme ever produced, 2.24, stands publicly retracted after replication failed to support it, beside the site's own standard that a body of work with no corrections is marketing. On authority: the statement paper concedes the author “holds no institutional affiliation, no doctorate, and no journal's imprimatur,” and is built so that none is needed to check it.
What remains true, and is conceded on every surface, is that the work is ambitious, independent, self-published and unproven. Those are legitimate grounds for scepticism, and the site asks for scepticism: its standing instruction is verify, don't believe. The claims could be wrong; the conditions under which each dies are published, and one already fired.
Disagreement is welcome and cheap: the tests are on the table. The crackpot verdict, though, requires the record above not to exist, and it is one click away: the register of what this site does not claim pairs every common misattribution with the site's verbatim words.