Anders » November 19th, 2016, 3:34 am wrote:My point is that the first quote showed that indeed, the peer review process is in practice less reliable than what has been claimed. And the second quote is from a mainstream source in case the first quote is unreliable.
I'm reading some of the text on Miles Mathis' website at the moment, but I haven't figured out yet if his claims are valid or not.
I can appreciate that you're reserving judgment on "Miles Mathis" and his claims. All the more reason to refrain from casually sourcing him. We don't need an alleged email from the Math-Cave to prove the fact that the peer review process is beyond flawed. It adds nothing to the topic. Neither does the following line from TimR.
TimR » November 14th, 2016, 10:44 am wrote:Cope was son of a wealthy Quaker shipping merchant (the Quakers coming under attack by Miles as a front for Intel.)
According to "Miles Mathis" everyone under the sun, except him/it/them of course, is "a front for intel." Perhaps we should place all the casual references to "Miles Mathis" in a new thread titled, "Miles Mathis and other intel demigods of scientific revisionism"?