True, that he is. Let me rephrase: he was a quack.
He was viewing and, more importantly, writing about something he simply did not understand. There is no question about that - it is well documented.
I expect him to have some level of bias, the same as yourself or any other author.
We all have our own biases, the question is how we approach a problem with said biases in mind. Most people try to look beyond their biases and let the facts guide them (and in the end maybe refining their biases). Mr. Sitchen, on the other hand, decided to follow his biases and refine the facts instead. Again, the examples are numerous and well documented. It is not a question of opinion, but one of fact.
No, none are and I don't think anybody expect otherwise. At least I haven't seen anybody stating such.