Originally Posted by
Empty_Cup
From what I've seen thus far I personally believe that GMT made up the material and it seems like EML's follow-up letter went along with this story. I think this would mean his testimony under oath was sincere but it would also mean the marketing is completely off as far as that material goes. Since I never really cared about the marketing it doesn't effect me or my training, but I definitely agree that this material should be presented honestly.
How much of the material is made up and how much was learned via GM Ie, we'll probably never know. And what is GMT's mindset with regards to correcting/clarifying the current marketing of the material, we might never know that either. As of right now, it appears he's content to let it stand despite the many accusations.
What I do know is that it has no bearing on my relationship with my sifu and the respect I have for him and the material he has taught. There has always been a grain of salt taken with origins of forms and history since so much of it is 4th, 5th, 6th-hand accounts nowadays.