[22cal]

Your reasoning is faulty. You are the one asserting he is a fraud. I asked you for evidence which you then (by way of smearing WND, an ad hominem) refuse to ask for. Perhaps you could find another source(s) more to your taste to ask?

None of us is required to use real names publicly here. To demand such of one person whether he is a researcher or not is attempted intimidation. I could say: what is your real name and can you prove it? And show us that you are an expert in document tampering and validate your posted evidence. The same requirements apply to you without the 160 page report since you have challenged his work.

Common courtesy demands that we back up any claim that someone is a fake or a liar. Otherwise the accuser shows seems merely mean-spirited to his/her readers.

[mlo]

"Your reasoning is faulty. You are the one asserting he is a fraud."

No. This is what I said:

"Some guy on the internet says it is forged. That analysis is amateurish nonsense which has not been validated by any real expert."

I also said that "Dr. Polarik" is an alias. This is a well known fact.