I'm not invested at all in whether this story is true, so I'm not arguing for or against. But it appears snoops debunk job boils down to their opinion, no solid counter evidence or reasoning.
I read it through pretty fast and it looked good. Then I read it carefully analyzing their reasoning. What I came away with was they don't want to believe the story, so any point they can't get conclusive, physical documentation, photographs or video tape, or an eyewitness and exact timing, they ain't gonna.
And there was some flaws in their analysis, too.
This is not to mean the story is true, but that snoops is no final authority. I used to check them out on a number of times, but begin to find them 'way overextending themselves debunking many stories, some added up to nothing more than a different opinion of evidence whose interpretation could go equally their way or the original way they were debunking.