IMHO the Rodliffe books are seriously flawed by the author's efforts to make the "evidence" justify and fit what he wants to believe, rather than looking closely at the evidence itself.
It seems likely that you have not read the Rodliffe books. He only reports what Pearse did, and passes little judgement.
There is nothing remotely naive about my comment.
Look at it another way - If the flights that the two groups were swapped over, how would I look if I was promoting someone who had made a handful of relatively minor hops of a much shorter distance, no turns, not out of ground effect, etc.
It'd be laughable.