Really? Dude. Lets just look at some simple facts.
Hes literally just not sure of what the truth is and would like to know it. Pursuing this he wants to examine things from both ends. Go through a process so to speak.
Why are you jumping on his back?
You assume bias absurdly quick.
Not sure who you're responding to, and assuming you're talking about the OP just be curious, that's not exactly what's happening.
The OP has advanced that there may be some influence to Chainmail from Dave Arneson's Blackmoor game. This is an interesting idea, and I'd enjoy reading something that explores it. But that's not what's happened. Instead, the OP takes the premise as a given and looks for evidence to support it, which he presented. In this evidence, he lays out the case that Gary may have been aware of material from Blackmoor and included it in Chainmal. This requires a very tight timeline of events that's only feasible if the actual publication of Chainmail is later than generally thought. How the material is included under this tight timeline is elided (apparently Gary is assumed to be a gifted plagiarist?)
The problem is that both Dave and Gary made repeated statements over many years that contradicts this premise. They did so consistently and even during a legal fight over the Arneson's share of the credit for D&D (where claiming that Gary previously stole material would be very helpful to Dave's case). This evidence to the contrary is dismissed in preference of the above conjecture. So, for the conjecture to be true, Dave would have to have not recognized his own work in Chainmail and decided to instead say how his own work was very helpful to him in developing Blackmoor AND Gary would have to be a liar. For the premise to be true, you need to at least assume Dave was dumb and Gary a liar. Or something even more fanciful, like a conspiracy for no apparent reason. This is a huge hurdle for the central premise of the OP to clear, and he's come no where near doing so. Instead, he assumes, without cause or rational, that there was early sharing and then builds his case from there. That's literally begging the question.
When challenged on this, the OP tried to claim that witness statements are actually weak evidence and shouldn't be credited over other evidence. But, he hasn't presented any evidence that the statements are untrue, just a conjecture that they may be so if you squint and and blur some (only some, he ignores what doesn't help) evidence to create his timeline. This is bunkum. It's obviously bad work in pursuit of a theory rather than scholarship to discover more truth.
