I appreciate the loyalty to Henry for the detailed work he put into the report. I really have enjoyed some clarity from it However, his work falls short of the greater potential the antenna seems to be capable of.
As a metaphorical example;
If I were to test a light that some have reported could cast illumination many miles away, and confine the test to a room, or even a forest, I would never see it's potential.
Also, if I wish to prove my Buick gets 16 MPG, I can. Yet, I have also seen my Buick get 99.9+ MPG. Some would argue it can not do it, drawing upon the manufacturer's reports to prove it. Wouldn't change my experiences.
Henry does admit there could be more beyond the limits of his report that may be possible with this antenna. At least that's how I read it. Also, he appears to be attempting to describe the exact nature of the antenna, settling on "it is a half wave vertical mounted above a quarter wave impedance matching section".
Personally, I believe that fails to describe the potential of the antenna beyond the limited, or should I say, the confined, parameters of the report.
I am not the scientists some are, but in the simplicity of my experience, the cone is NOT a 1/4 wave matching section. If that were it's only function then we would not require a gamma match capacitor to tune, ie match, it. Whether that was or was not the intention of it's designers is beside the point. What is relevant to the discussion at this late date is whether the antenna is capable of producing the kind of far field results many have seen with it.
As I've long time said, "A person with an experience is never the servant to a person with an argument." Or, no one's argument can change my experience.
