Let's see. He uses Jim Marrs(!) as a source, for a claim that there is a transcript that exists, but he didn't see it or read it and couldn't confirm it, but he accepts the claim at face value.
He cites a reported Russian prediction that the dollar will collapse and their use of a gold coin as meaningful, even though the dollar didn't collapse and there are perfectly good reasons why the Russians would want to do such a thing.
A "scientist" tries to have a certain objectivity and wants to have evidence for his claims. Whatever his job may be, a "scientist" did not write this post.