Hm, I think that describes Ueshiba's behavior pretty well. It may have been a factor (the major factor?) in his severing ties/"moving on" from Takeda. Why credit him if Takeda didn't even understand the full context?
On the other hand, it seems like it would have been fair to say Takeda showed/taught him aiki, since Ueshiba failed to learn it on his own. Thus there is a legitimate debt there.
Well, I agree that there is/was a legitimate debt there, no question. My point was that to some degree Takeda almost undoubtedly was well aware of the traditional antecedents of ki, kokyu, hara usage, and so on, since his internal-strength skills would have depended on them and there's no way he could not have been aware of them, to some degree. Considering that he spent a lot of time competing, talking, etc., with and among martial artists as he grew up, it's pretty much a certainty. The point being that Takeda would not and never did consider himself the inventor of Aiki skills.
Similarly, Ueshiba, because of the things he said and published, would not have considered Takeda to be the innovator of "Aiki" (I told you it was/is a fairly well-understood skill and has been for many generations). Hence, no matter that Ueshiba personally owed some sort of debt/fealty to Takeda, it would be nonsensical for Ueshiba to credit Takeda with "Aiki".
Liang Shouyu got me started on jin skills back in the early 1980's, but both he and I recognize the skills as just an element in training that has been around for thousands of years...... should I spend my time making posts, etc., about Liang Shouyu's 'discovery of jin'? Of course not.. that would be idiotic. If, a generation from now, a bunch of guys who recently became 'experts' in some jin skills start pointing their fingers at me for not recognizing Liang Shouyu as the true founder of Sigman-Do, I'll be sad.