To be fair to the man, its pretty clear from his declaration you link to that some what he says is first-hand, some is second hand and some is assumptions. I think this is a little less nuts than the way you make it sound (that he doesn't know anything other than its possible).
If he were nuts, he would have told the court the same things he told the reporter and with the same conviction. He didn't, so he's sane but unreliable.
