(1) It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive.
That's your subjective assessment. It may or may not prove intersubjective.
(2) How on earth do you know anything about what Khrennikov did or did not do, or how he felt about the so-called "challenge", or what his circumstances are?
Richard Gill stated on the 10,000 euros thread that Khrennikov in effect was unable to deal with the question. You didn't disagree with that assessment nor that Khrennikov had agreed to be an adjudicator. Do you disagree now?
(3) How do you know the opinions of the other two physicists? How do you know that they agree that "Dr. Christian's submission failed..."? Did they tell you that?
Once again: do you dispute it? (If I subscribed to your aesthetic at its most disturbed I'd put that in bold large-font red letters.)
It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive. Apparently you are quite happy to be decived by him, just as many other Bell-believers are.
Whatever.
It is not wise to indulge in speculations about things you know nothing about.
Your point being?