I will make the start.
Sure there are quite a lot of points. But due to I will travel for a week in the US next week, I will only post here one first point.
I already apologize for the many pics in here, but I think in this thread it will be helpful for comparison. So please forgive me Justin!
I think everybody which got involved into Dr's work will immediately have recognized the Hydrogen/Carbogen Change
In The Universal One Dr stated, that Hydrogen is a 1+ element, and Carbogen is the amplitude element (4) in the same octave:
The Universal One Page 13:
The Universal One Page 89:
But in all his later work, he changed this, so that Hydrogen is now the amplitude element and Carbogen the 1+ element.
E.g. in the famous pics, which are also available as posters from the USP:
Poster Pic and in many books, here from "Atomic Suicide?" Elemental Chart No 1:
(One can see, that this chart has been modified, for Carbogen has now an N too much at the end and not on the same line. Also Hydrogen and Carbogen are not correctly vertically aligned like the other elements)
Poster Pic and in many books, here from "Atomic Suicide?" Elemental Chart No 2:
(Here it seems they only changed the Carbogen to Hydrogen, but forgot to change the Hydrogen to Carbogen, so now Hydrogen is 2 times on this chart which is obviously an error
The question is now, what is correct?
As in the Universal One he describes the valencies of the elements, and from this point of view Hydrogen should be a 1+ element:
The Universal One, Page 111:
On the other hand in "Atomic Suicide?", he shows which elements are mainly important for us, and which are mainly used in us:
Atomic Suicide? Figure 5:
Here Hydrogen has to be an amplitude element, otherwise they would not be in such a nice triangle.
Now from a pure theoretical approach:
If Ethlogen and Bebegen are really Deuterium and Tritium, then Hydrogen has to be a 1+ Element, because Deuterium and Tritium are heavier than Hydrogen. They could theoretically also be the 3- 2- Elements Luminon and Halonon or even Helionon. But as he descibes them as very special elements this is not very probable (additionally the higher densities and melting points of D and T also trashes this theory). Otherwise they would have to be - isotopes, which is also unlikely, as midtones should not be developed in such early octaves according to Dr. It would certainly also be possible, that Deuterium and Tritium are just normal Isotopes (in the conventional sense) and not elements on its own. Then Hydrogen could be a 1+ or a 4 element. Also the chemical behaviour which is actually the same for H, D and T tells, that these are the same basic element, for 1+, 2+ or 3+ elements would have a different valence bonding behaviour, as indicated by Dr in "The Universal One". As stated before, from this bonding behaviour, Hydrogen should be a 1+.
From another approach one could say, as we only know Hydrogen and Helium from this octave, it is very probable that Hydrogen is an amplitude element, for as an amplitude element it would be the most dense in this octave and therefore the best visible. From this point it would be very unlikely, that we can see the 1+ element, but the amplitude element we can't.
So we have pro and contra for Hydrogen being a 1+ element or an amplitude element.