I only just looked at your article - having not initially known you were AoM, as mentioned. I was amused to see the Radford reference, as I had brought the same article up earlier.
I will look to your other links here, since I now know a bit more about where you are coming from. But I see two things involved here, in what I THINK is the gist of your work. One, which I am most interested in, at least now, is your assertion, which I now see as likely, is that, contrary to advertised, it has not been shown how Ed built CC. The other will be what you think or know was involved.
These are two very separate ideas, RL. Have you given thought to separating them, and the pros and cons thereof?
Here's my point. If, in the latter case, you are introducing plausible explanations at best, there will be holes and the pseudo skeptics will shift the focus on that in order to divert attention away from the lie which is that they know how CC was built. This is Pseudo Skepticism 101.