I give him credit for experimenting - we all like to tinker. It's all the people who accept his results as fact that I question.
Here's the problem with Bell's research. He's using a sample group that is considered statistically insignificant. That's the death knell for any scientific 'fact'. Also, I haven't read his articles in a long time but I don't recall any of his means of measurement as being calibrated.
So, he's not measuring enough guns and he's using (probably) gauges and whatnot that may or may not be accurate.
Bell isn't blindly accepting conventional wisdom? If you are blindly accepting Bell's results then I guess I don't see the difference?
I put his articles in the 'interesting but anecdotal' column.
