Mark started this thread as an attack on the authenticity of ideas presented by a direct student of Saito Sensei. I don't mean to disparage Mark's actual training or skills, whatever they are. I think it is quite fair to challenge Mark's fundamentalist / originalist basis for his attacks.
You're missing the point.
Let me try it this way, so if I say, Gleason (who is a 6th dan shihan) who trained with a number of direct students of Ueshiba states this is aiki, then does that trump your card? How about if I say Howard Popkin, a student of Okamoto who was a direct student of Horikawa, states this is aiki, then does that trump your card? How about if Marc states it, does that trump your card? So, my straight flush to your one of a kind should then be enough, right? Why do I think you'd find some other way of arguing these things?
How about if you present your research and experiences to actually challenge and/or argue the information presented? A lot of mine is here on Aikiweb. Yours?