Again from Doc Kunda's Yahoo Group
--- In [e-mail removed], "ma ni" <statonberg@...> wrote:
> Vince,
> You claim two things are preventing you (or your research team)
I do not have a research team. Unless me, myself, and I counts.
> Your third problem seems to consist of disagreements over the
> speculated identification.
I am just the moderator on this topic and list and if people make
reckless claims that obviously fly in the face of what we already
know, then I will point it out. This is not my research and I did not
write any books on this topic, so I do not feel bound to go pay for
everybody's answers that they seem so unnerved at times to acquire,
and in the absence of answers make derogatory posts about the entire
body of work as has happened.
> One more thing: Since YOU are making the unlikely claim
> (unverified identification based on an unlikely growth pattern),
I make no claims, just debate boisterously at times what this book and
these theories make clear.
This unlikely growth pattern as you put it may be exactly what we need
to focus on. Why do you call it unlikely, cause it does not fit
common expectations of what people are looking for. New ground is
still today being broken by the mycological world (no pun intended)
regarding asexual reproduction of the Basidiomycetes class of fungi
which Amanita muscaria is a member of.
There was a time in the last millennia when many educated people
expected your boat to fall off the edge of the world if you sailed to
far west from europe. It is possible that the Amanita fits into its
own subclass of fungi with its remarkable and unexpected (to the
educated man) growth patterns.
> YOU have the burden of proof.
I have no burden of proof. I know that Amanita muscaria produces
cultures constituted of primarily white fibrous mycelia on the right
media. I know this product when ingested replicates the effects of
Amanita muscaria. I do not have to prove that, anybody who wishes to
recreate these experiments can easily do so after reading Mr. Teeters
work.
> Claiming that the dark fungal
> hyphae cannot be Mucor does not verify that it isn't,
The presence of white fibrous mycelia constituting over 99% of the
culture absolutely proves that it is not mucor, as mucor NEVER follows
this growth pattern.
> nor does it
> support your claim that it is Amanita.
Do I anywhere say it is Amanita, or do I say it is a culture produced
from Amanita. These 2 are not the same. Even Mr. Teeter acknowledges
that this may not be a pure culture, but that has never been the
point. The point is that we may have stumbled upon the secret method
the ancients used to take a small amount of a life giving fungi and
turn it into an endless supply of a culture with the same effects as
the fungi. The descriptions fit very well when looking at the lab
results and then reading the description used in the ancient texts. I
do not think the ancients would give a bleep about our mycological
debate, as they would be reaching for another glass of a life giving
drink or cake of living bread, not caring what we are hung up on at
times in this group
> The fact that Amanita was used as an inoculant may lend some
> evidence, but not nearly
> enough, since the unlikelihood is so great.
The unlikely hood of what is so great?
Sincerely
Vince
\~/@ ~~. Love and Peace, Namaste
~ (-<: ] -> Vince aka Doc Kunda
/~\@ ~~` The Urban Shaman