I did not say that the recorded age at death of George Martin of Ipswich was wrong, it could very well be correct. What I said was that I placed a lot more faith in the 1679 arrival date and the 1680 date of their child's birth in Ipswich. The years of those events are almost certainly correct, while the age of 86 years is an estimation which cannot be corroborated (and therefore I have less faith in that). I think that Greene would agree with that, given his conclusion. The short distance between Salem and Ipswich is also a known fact, and thus the geography also supports his conclusion concerning George Martine.
And likewise, I did not say that the will (the actual record) was wrong. Simply that Greene's interpretation could well be wrong (that George Jr. died before George Sr. made his will). It seems to me that it was Greene who was making an a priori assumption that this was a typical will for a typical family of that time and place. I never made that assumption because this does not seem to be a typical family.
And I am not saying that my alternative version is necessarily more credible. However, it is credible enough to be given consideration, and that it potentially could have more sources supporting it (if we look for them) than the single source (the will) used by Greene as if his interpretation is the most credible.
Therefore, I submit that I am being open-minded about it. Who knows, I might even be able to convince Greene to reconsider his conclusion (based on connections of families in both Salisbury and Martha's Vineyard, but I won't know until I finish looking for more information and have even more confidence that the will (or at least the interpretation of its meaning) is somewhat misleading.