Ok, you're still assuming (incorrectly) that I was comparing Bachman's number to Beck's number. I was only comparing the two ways of looking at Bachman's number  and thus dismissing it as fringe because the source is anonymous (by way of Bachman). But now I will mention Beck, only to lump them both together: neither number seems credible in light of so many other lower estimates. Neither is substantiated by another source. (Another news outlet reporting Bachman's number doesn't count). -   