First, let me say that I did not read through each paper in its entirety. I am also not bashing the Barkers. I merely skimmed through each and read a few things here and there, but I feel it was enough to say what I think about the papers. Again, I'm not trying to downplay the work that the Barkers have done, but that is not science. The only paper that even slightly resembles a scientific paper is the one where Reed did the work. None of those would have a chance at being published in a journal after going through the peer reviewing process.
I don't see what Matt's age has to do with any of this, especially since he is the only one on the right track. I personally would never use those papers as a source.
Reply With Quote