[INM@RLM]

Denniss, thank you for digging out those archived pages from Olve Dybvig's Special Interest Group Luftwaffe in Norway web site, now sadly defunct. This material was extracted for Olve by Seaplanes from the US NARA T-177 microfilm and I thought it had been lost completely from the web. Taken as a whole it contains a few slips (but not on anything relating to the Fw 200), however, it's still very useful and it's good to know that it can still be found by anyone with a mouse.
It was this same material that I documented in Post #3 of this thread (third set of evidence), except that I used copies taken directly from T-177. Those were extracted for me many years ago by a professional US researcher.

Dénes, you put the William Green situation very well. ("almost every piece of information contained in this book was erroneous") However, as my absolutely favourite History teacher used to say: "Gentlemen, it's not what happened that's important, it's what people think happened that really matters."
For any new explanation to be understandable, the starting point has to be the recognisable one of "what people think happened". In this area what is in Green is a near-perfect picture of "what people think happened", so - for me - Green is both the obligatory launch point, and because he is often so off-beam, he is also the perfect foil. Some interesting and innocent fun can then be had by starting with what Green states to be the case and comparing that to what can be found in primary sources documenting what actually happened. When somebody claimed to be a historian, making these comparisons was once expected to be a normal part of their job description.
In sum, I fully agree that using Green does not constitute serious research (and never has). However, I cannot agree that William Green is "just not relevant anymore for serious researchers." Often there is no other well-recognized source in English that can be used as the baseline for a comparison with the real findings of serious research. (If you are going to take someone on a journey best you start from somewhere that is already familiar to them.) My opinion.

In a separate category, we also have the authors whose books continue to roll off the presses, and yet who still seem to rely implicitly on every single silly thing that Green ever hoovered up and regurgitated. The trouble with (and the joy of) books is that they can be around for a very long time. [Think Gutenberg Bible, except that one was actually proof-read.] In the sub-world of publishing from which the books on our interests come, editors as effective quality-control backstops have generally been conspicuous only by their (almost?) total absence. So the constant question is this, when something silly is published, will the world be better served and better informed if the individuals that have actually delved into the subject simply say nothing? Or is saying nothing actually complicity? You will be able to work out where I stand on this.