Somehow these inconvenient details never make it into the popular literature, despite the fact that the frozen mammoths, like Flight 19, are de rigeur in any pseudoscience best-seller. In effect, the literature of pseudoscience is a sort of parallel literature to that of science. Lobster traps are built so that once the lobster gets in, he cannot get out. If the information is refuted or modified later, that just proves once again how fickle science is, so that the final judgment comes down to a subjective one. The experts disagree, so the individual has to decide for himself which alternative to accept.
Relativism strikes again.
For example, as the theory of continental drift won widespread acceptance in the late 1960's, a small number of conservative geologists wrote papers arguing against the theory. That was their right and duty as scientists, but most of the arguments they employed were outright balderdash at the time and unlike wine they have not improved with age. To anyone even remotely familiar with the data, these arguments were transparently specious and filled with glaring fallacies. This is a game science cannot win. If scientists revise their ideas, the very fact that they do is taken not as evidence of improvements in knowledge, but as evidence of how changeable and uncertain the results of science are.