Let’s look at the question posed by the o.p. in the thread in question:
The first part of the o.p. starts out by characterizing the paper, the claims within, and the author as unambiguously fraudulent and/or delusional, and the claim itself as tantamount to science fantasy (“teleportation”) with no discussion of the paper or indeed an indication of having comprehended the claims to any credible depth. It then poses the question of whether the author is a “binaries scam artist” (I still don’t know that that means) and if he will be “endorsing HIV curing magnets,” further polluting any genuine factual query with negative semantics.
I understand the question that you seem to think you were asking, i.e. “Do the claims made in this paper have any credible validity?”, and yes, that question does have a factual answer or at least qualifies for discussion on the merits of the claims, which are frankly pretty far out there and although dressed up in a pretty good semblance of scientific jargon are not supported by theory and experiment to a degree in accordance with the extraordinary nature of said claims. But the questions you actually asked, to wit, if Montagnier was avaricious or insane, are not legitimate factual questions based upon the content of the paper or anything short of direct evidence of a conspiracy to defraud or personal and intimate knowledge of the author’s state of mind. This was a very ad hominem and intellectually dishonest way to ask what should have been a very straightforward question about the falsifiable scientific merit of the claims made within the paper.
Stranger