Now
this.
Typically validation involves at least one empirically known factor against which a theory can be tested. Here the author is validating his approach against his best guess of where an RNZAF Orion might have been; hardly rigorous. Maybe GT meant to write 'hilarious'.
This is as close to voodoo as you're going to get short of eviscerating a chook.
A very succinct rebuttal of the whole thing here -