I know...but how reasonable is it to disregard how his senior students interpreted and worked with what he taught them? They spent more time training with him than you did!
One of the worst things about the Aiki arts is the idea that they were never taught in good faith.
Takeda was a paranoid individual, and from all of his students comes the notion that "True Aiki must only be shared with a select few special students" because it is "so easy to steal." Whether this is wholly true or to any degree false it is a poisonous notion.
If time in were the only measure then the most senior would always have the most correct opinion. But we all know that seniority and experience don't actually match up so cleanly with actual ability and understanding in most cases - or, in most cases outside of Aikido, anyway.
After a number of years in (and some of us have a large number!) it's entirely reasonable to evaluate what we've been doing based upon our own experiences. Saotome did no less - a number of his seniors told him that he should stay in Tokyo and study a little bit longer, was that reasonable?
Mochizuki (who had spent a lot more time with Ueshiba) told Tamura that what he was doing wasn't even Aikido - would it have been more reasonable for Tamura to follow Mochizuki then stay with the Aikikai?
I respect all those folks who spent time training with and without Ueshiba - but at some point you have to stand up and form your own opinions.
Takeda as a paranoid certainly can't be ignored. And whether or not Ueshiba taught in good faith or not - it's beyond question that his students had a more than difficult time understanding him, by their own admission. That's not an unimportant consideration.
It's really only poisonous if you go down the path of Ueshiba-as-avatar - if you evaluate him as a man in the company of other men (and women) working on common principles then it all works out.