If you had actually read Gallacher's book, then you would understand the reason for the outcome. How much suspicious evidence do you actually need to draw your own conclusions? If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
And as I said, I have read some of Larry's materials. So I had a first-hand glimpse as well as an outside critical assessment.
Doesn't it ever give you pause that Larry continues to rely on the result of a single "contest" many years ago? That is, after all, what you seem to fall back on every time. Let us imagine for a moment, since I'm feeling particularly generous today, that Larry did actually achieve the touted results in a fair and proper manner. It can only be regarded as a "skill" if he can do it again. Has he? If so, then why does he not use the results of these later feats in his over-the-top self-promotion materials? Why does he continue to rely heavily on a single long-ago event? Say, like a lottery winner who once went out on a limb by spending too much money on lottery tickets and lucking out, and then holding seminars for the next few decades on how to do what he did.
Why does Larry not perform the miracle again so that he and his disciples would be vindicated and a whole new flock would come into the fold? You will recall that Larry reportedly took some crazy risks to achieve those contest results, even if you take what he says at face value. So if it is a teachable skill, let's see it again. And as for the "live" trading he does at his seminars, there appear to be far more first-hand accounts of tepid results and negligible profit sharing payouts than glorious and memorable performances. I refer both to first-hand accounts by posters on these boards as well as an article of a journalist's interview of actual attendees, which another member posted here some time ago. Do a search. I know, I know: "You should have been there last time!"
Yes, mschey, please do talk to me about "pure propaganda," and "seeing only what you want to see." Just be sure to listen while you speak.