Rigid, the use Occum's Razor in philosophy has nothing at all to do with proof. You do not apparently know what you are talking about in your use of that term. Frankly, my suggestion is stay away from philosophy unless you are a student or involved in using those principals routinely in your day job, as I must do. Honestly, stick to knives...

Regarding your "...simple really" phrase, we have proved our case in great detail. It is circumstantial proof, but overwhelming proof nevertheless. If you do not know the basis of the case that has been presented, then I assume you have probably not read the presentation here, or the much more detailed presentation of the case elsewhere on the internet.

The contrary assumption that Johnson made those Randall-stamped, Heiser look-alike sheaths, long before he was known to be making sheaths, is the fanciful argument. Oddly, there was never a formal case made for that amazing assumption, never in time, ever. But if you would like to make such a case, publish analogs, offer proof, or even a decent, logical argument that Johnson made all those sheaths in 1959-60-61, I'll be glad to consider it.

The burden of proof is on that argument, not the one favored by the overwhelming evidence that has already been presented.

My question to you ... If you have not read the case that has been carefully put together, meticulously documented, and can't address it's fundamental points, why are you negatively involved here? I don't recall you offering examples or pitching in with help when the case was first being critically examined (but perhaps you did, in which case I apologize for my error). But many other collectors were involved. They did pitch in, as questions, offer examples, checked out timing, etc., using knives from their private collections, etc. So... perhaps you will understand when I ask..what is your point here?