Abstract (author's words, short quote): he discusses "how the earlier observational evidence was misconstrued as telling against it more conclusively than actually was the case" [read: research/files/Martinez-2004..., p.1].
On Tolman [read: same file, text layer]: emission hypotheses were advanced independently in 1910 by D. F. Comstock, R. C. Tolman and others, "apparently unaware of Ritz's work"; Tolman proposed and performed the sun-limb comparison and found no difference; he also deduced the light postulate from Kaufmann's and Bucherer's experiments. R. D. Carmichael (The Theory of Relativity, 1913, pp.18-19) wrote that, owing to Thomson's and Stewart's work and "despite Tolman's inclinations", there was then no undoubted experimental evidence for or against the postulate. By 1912 Tolman, like Ehrenfest, called for a decisive test between Einstein and Ritz; Tolman and M. La Rosa (Nuovo Cimento 3, 1912) proposed the sunlight Michelson-Morley test. De Sitter's binary-star analysis followed in 1913 (Phys. Zeit. 14, 429). The sunlight/starlight interferometer tests were done in 1924 by R. Tomaschek (starlight, Heidelberg) and D. C. Miller (sunlight, Cleveland); Martinez says their results "seemed to agree clearly" with Einstein and not Ritz.
Later critique (Martinez's account of J. G. Fox, 1962-65): by the Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem, light passing through a medium is re-emitted and takes speed c relative to the medium after one extinction length. On that basis Fox called interferometer tests "like those of Tomaschek or Miller or those using Tolman's apparatus" "irrelevant" to the source-speed question, and argued de Sitter's binary-star evidence was likewise not decisive because of the stars' own atmospheres and interstellar matter. Fox also answered several of Pauli's objections to emission theories.
Martinez's conclusion on the early rejection: Einstein's theory had prestigious supporters; Ritz's had none; "Ehrenfest and Tolman called for unambiguous empirical evidence to test Ritz's emission theory, but neither spent any effort in extending it". Ritz died in 1909.
Bearing on the claims
Claim 6 (priority 3, related work, and priority 2 for the history of the evidence): the evidence the 1917 book cites against emission theories (Comstock and de Sitter; the Stark-effect Doppler work) was later argued (Fox, as reported by Martinez) to be inconclusive because of extinction; this also applies to Tolman's own 1910 sun-limb experiment. Martinez is a historian's secondary account; Fox's papers (Am. J. Phys. 1962, 1965 [memory, medium]) are the primary sources to obtain. Later tests designed to avoid extinction (e.g. Alvager et al. 1964, pi-zero decay photons at CERN [memory, high]; Brecher 1977, X-ray binaries [memory, medium]) are what reviewers should weigh; not looked up this run.
Ritz's emission theory is a rival relativity theory that alternative-science readers often revisit; Tolman himself called it the one emission theory developed "with any completeness".