There were scientist that knew Pluto existed but had no proof. That does not mean it didn't and does exist but without proof and the integrity of that being tested there was no proof.
Astronomer Lowell hypothesized there was a planet X. There was of course no proof and yet it does exist.
In 1930 Clyde Tombaugh in fact took pictures of what would be called Pluto and now something that many knew existed but had not empirical proof that was unassailable and the very same discovery process could be replicated by peers and achieve the same results.
Now documents are presented all the time that are not what they appear to be and I have seen peers fired for submitting what eventually proved to be an incomplete record or out right fraud.
Shouldn't we expect that we would have the opportunity to test Barry O. COLB for integrity?
He did after all provide it and yet we are unable to determine provenance, integrity of information contained in the document and what information was used and it's provenance to qualify it's placement on the COLB.
How is that we cannot by trial test and examine a document that Barry submitted?
His assertions about that are proof of his illogic on both subjects and provide insight into his persistence on protecting a suspected fraud of the highest order.