It is not “diligence” to put in fantastical time stamps and every once in a while cite Greek words and grammar as if it has anything to do with your points. It is nowhere near “scholarship”.
The second accusation and denial is second such according to any gospel, since all four have three of them. Indeed, as anyone can read, the second accusation is describes differently: Matthew and Mark have a woman accusing, Luke has a man, and John has several people.
The solution is evident: John, who provided most detail overall, described the second accusation and denial most comprehensively, as coming from several people at once. Other evangelists gave an incomplete account based on someone else’s memories.
Now, you could provide an interesting insight into the timing, the movement of Peter in and out of the courtyard, and you could advance the hypothesis that perhaps the second denial was in fact several. But the pretense that your marginal interpretation somehow is the exact truth down to the precise timing, and everyone else was just covering for Peter for two thousand years is silly, so serious conversation, that you perhaps hoped for, did not happen.
You like to sling pejorative adjectives about rather freely, while neglecting to account for the architecture of the scene; the status, location, and posture, of the characters; known relationship of events; and the number and timing of the rooster crows that give the time frame of the scenario. The sequence of the denials is accurate, The timing is obviously meant to be approximate, not claimed to be precise, but is reasonably estimated when the texts show that the first cockcrow and the second are about an hour apart. It is known that the first three denials came before the first cockcrow, and the second three came before the second and last cockcrow.
Jesus' two earlier prophecies of that evening are couched in terms that do not preclude two (or even more) cockcrows on the next morning. To insist that only three denials sre in view in the words of Christ would be the prejudicial blindness of an unimaginative mind that would not be open to review all the conditions that His prophecies regarding Peter would permit. In fact, the wording ought to give the inquiring student's spiritual discernment a little uptick when, for the second time, Jesus reiterates the prophecy and adds that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed a second time. To limit the meaning of the prophecy to the scope of one's opinion is not really the way to approach the Scriptures with an open mind.
In this particular case, the call is to be more noble like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures to see if it be so. What is in the Scriptures is in the Scriptures, and needs to be interpreted as given, not change it if it doesn't seem to agree with one's prejudice. In this presentation, nothing is changed, only harmonized in the only way that can make the Gospels agree. If there are six denials, then there are six denials. Arm-waving won't change that.
Now, the harmonization and chronology of the texts given in this article are indisputably coherent, as you will have found when you took your Bible and followed through the two stages of this period of time when Jesus was brought into the first residence until the time when He was taken through the door of the second residence.
It is very clear that if you haven't followed this through for yourself, you have no basis for argufying; and if you have followed it through for yourself, you will still have no basis for arguing about it, either.
So, I think you might want to explain what is behind the purpose for your attempt to assail the integrity of this article, which also implies discrediting the integrity of the scholar who has studied, taught, preached, and translated the complete New Testament for over sixty years. I have already remarked that the chronology used is not mine, but comes from his article available on the Happy Heralds Inc web site.
I have said before that I was done with you on this, but I have been patient to restate points that defeat any cogent argument against it that you have proposed. Now my patience quota is used up, and I find I will have to treat any further attempts to discredit this chronology with unfounded opinions as churlish, and ignore them.
For anyone else, if they have an honest question that is for clarification of the article, I will respond as best I have time for.