Just noticed what I believe is your source for this. From the main article of this thread:
“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).
Are you aware of the difference between what Gould says and what you say he says? Gould is saying every evolutionary theory he knows of can potentially be falsified--say, by finding a radio in Cretaceous sediments. You're saying Gould is already aware of and admitting falsifying data for every case.
I didn't pay too much attention to this on the first pass because Gould has given the Luddites a fair amount of quote material, hyping his Punk-Eek by running down "Neo-Darwinism" (gradualistic scenarios). Thus I'm used to seeing his quotes taken out of context and distorted to make it appear he's not a Darwinist at all. However, on closer examination, you've taken a unique license here.
But I think he said what I said, and meant what I think he meant, he just said it better.
He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record), and while he believes in the theory, owing to (as you and he see) "a preponderance of the evidence", he is at least willing to imagine observations or experiments that rely on those holes to potentially disprove the theory. I firmly do not believe he in any way meant to suggest that those observations or experiments would be falsified. If I get it right, his very Punk Eek theory uses those very holes as a sort of dis-evidence of the potential validity of his thesis.
(Didn't von Daniken find a radio in the Cretaceous? Or was it a Battery in Babylon?)