You just can't
use Caidin as a reliable source; but modern standards, he is not.

I know of two instances where very good historians have used Caidin as a
source. Both Robert Caro and Geoffrey Perret cite Caidin's account of how
Lyndon Johnson got his Silver Star, an account that is utterly bogus.
I attended a talk given by Caro during his book tour promoting his latest
volume of LBJ biography and during the Q&A brought this up. Unfortunately,
Caro reacted as if his own research was being faulted and defended Caidin. I
asked if he could recommend any Caidin books by name. He could not. So I don't
think he is familiar with Caidin at all. I suspect the Caidin piece on LBJ was
dug up by a research assistant and Caro took it at face value.
This is not to blast Caro, who seems to be a very diligent researcher and an
engaging writer--his Johnson volumes are wonderful. But it is a reminder of
why people should be cautious when a writer relies on secondary sources for
information--the author is at the mercy of these other authors' accuracy and
integrity.
Perret cites Caidin's LBJ account in his biography of Douglas MacArthur.
Now that these two respected historians have cited Caidin, others will, too,
not even bothering to go to the original Caidin source, but picking the story
up from Caro and Perrot, helping make it respectable (in a sense making _them_
the authors of the account, not Caidin, who fades into the background).
And so the fictional account assumes the form of fact.


Chris Mark