I'd have to take that with a grain of salt....note that part of the address line is "opinion-editorial". I doubt it "put a controversy to rest". There will always be a shooter on the grassy knoll..
I mean, if you can present evidence or information contrary to his findings, that's at least as factual and verifiable as his, I'm sure the author wil be happy to revise his conclusion -- he's been active on a few forums and encouraging the readers to do just that.
If you google the subject you will find plenty of contrary opinion and "facts" to back alternate versions. He drew his own conclusions and included the info he saw fit to make his case. One thing seems obvious in most all accounts and that is that both Rolex & Smiths were on the expedition. It's really splitting hairs and not worth wasting time trying to prove something that some will believe and some will not. Again, I'm obliged to point out that it is self-described by the site as opinion. I'll leave it at that.
Yep, I see no point in going further. A discerning reader will tell a good argument from a bad argument.
Well, usually wearin' it, yet wanted to get a sorta "cool" shot of it, at 14:54:34 (so, the hands would be almost pointin' to the 3, 11, and 7, but not quite*)... *Attempted to get the shot where the second hand was between 34 and 35 seconds, and missed it by that much... See, y'all have way cool watches, so I wanted to make mine seem spiffier somehow. The exif data of the original image shows it was created @ 14:54:34, yet the watch could also have been running a bit fast, and since it's set manually to match time.gov, the minute hand position could be off a bit. Introducing some more human error into the mix by clicking to take the shot is in there as well... Anyway, not as nifty as the timepieces y'all share, yet 'twas a thoughtful gift from 12 years ago...
