The fact that he goes into great lengths to flesh it out, that he includes it as a loophole? How many reasons do you need? I haven't seen him discuss Bertand Russells invincible tea pot theory and give it the status of a loophole, nor have I seen him flesh that theory out.Do you have a source for that “established by Bell” assertion?
To say that something is implausible is simply that you would never bet on it. That's not terribly interesting scientifically. Scientists are wrong all the time.