Oggy, one human opinion does not make for truth in any matter. You did not waste your time, you and your buddies all gave us a heads-up benefit of what you saw in testing and not just some CBBS words. For me "just words" is not meant to imply "lying"...I just like to see some effort and work involved with supporting the words, and you did that.
It's good enough for me.
By the way I think the YouTube guy in Europe, Penn 1969, did answer my question to him about his less that stellar results with the GM vs. A99 and my seeing his antenna being mounted low to the Earth. He writes:
Reply to your comment on: Sirio Gain Master vs Antron 99
@Marconi390 My GM is located on a 7 foot pole on my chimney. The Antron is sitting on top of the 20 foot pole that is located at the back of my shack. If you visit g0vqy.co.uk and then click on G0VQY's Shack > Photos > Ham radio, and then scroll along you will see a photo of the antennas are my house.
9:10 
Add to Added to queue Sirio Gain Master vs Antron 99
This is my findings after testing the Sirio Gain Master against the Antron 99. Both antennas were at a similar height and were connected to a York 863.
See all comments
Delete
Dec 15, 2010
I don't understand the video that I see in Penn's response above, because I recall seeing an antenna installed in a garden between some buildings, and that image is why I asked the question about his SGM's low height. Maybe I went to Penn's website and saw the image I recall there, or I could have this all confused with another report from somewhere in the UK. I do recall seeing the video above, but I also recall seeing an antenna mounted on a short pole in a back yard. I don't recall seeing an antenna on the roof of any building either, but I could have missed it though.
See how the problem with some words, even on a video, when all the facts are not always known or understood factually. I thought I was looking at Penn's Gain Master low to the ground, and if it was actually someone else I apologize to Penn for misstating his words and meaning.
I still feel I experienced a definite attenuation with my GM mounted at or below 20' feet, and that was my only reason for the comments to Penn.
When I take my GM down soon, I'll be testing that impression I first got with it being setup low to the Earth. If I don't find this to still to be true, then I'll post telling everyone I was wrong.
I don't understand my soil conditions either, but I believe it is as I've stated before...the reason my antennas all seem to produce very similar results when close to the same height at the current maximum...is due to the soil around me. I live over a huge shallow well aquifer that might be some square miles in size. With the limited understanding I also have about the subject of Earth affects, I understand that 5/8 wave type vertical antennas may well work their magic over poor to very poor conductive soil. My lack luster type results for my 5/8 wave and .64 wave may be supported by this idea if true. Maybe it might even explain why I see my 1/4 and 1/2 waves doing very well when compared to the longer antennas working over good to very good soil.
I also want to add that my GM vs. A99 also showed similar results to those that Penn saw. If you'll go to my WWRF albums and check out my Signal Reports for the summer of 2009, you'll see that my A99 also showed some of the best reports noted in the series. I always thought my A99 worked well with or without a GPK, but I never gave it much credit untill I rehashed my 2009, reports some months later and noticed how well it worked. I won't put much stock in the comparisons, but the individual numbers for each station for each antenna are what I saw at the time. Maybe Penn's station is located over similar Earth to my station, and we get similar results. Something to consider.
