(I think its going to take another 15 posts or so to get this to 100 pages, so maybe I'll try to ask a relevant question to all parties involved)
Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents? If not, why not?
On that same idea, how, if everyone is reading from the same primary source documents, do 2 groups of people manage to come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions as to what happened?
Are these primary documents available for public viewing? If not, why have they not been published in some fashion so that the active observer might be able to take a look at the primary material for himself?
This new paper to be published that I seem to recall Tom Paul mentioning a page or so back, will it be published with proper University of Chicago citations like a normal, peer reviewed scholarly work? If not, why not? Citations add to the credibility of the work. I would put very little stock in the David Moriarity piece that caused the previous engagement in this war last year because frankly the endnotes citing the primary and secondary sources used to write the piece are pathetic. Whenever this next piece comes out, please use legitimate citations for works used, otherwise, it will amount to a pile of garbage to anyone who knows what a proper piece of scholarly writing should look like.
So, maybe I, and the rest of the observers, can get some answers.