The Pilot's Reference Guide is rigorous and has it right. The resultant (red line) points straight up (not forward) relative to gravity. See the upper right drawing. In the same drawing, the initial (before getting bent by the wing) relative wind is coming at the wing from below (the wing is in a mush). That is, the flight path is somewhat downhill. The resultant points well aft compared to the (downward) flight path.
OTOH, Moment's book plays around a bit with the standard definitions. That doesn't matter until you try to communicate using his novel terminology. What he calls "apparent AOA" is simply AOA in standard parlance. Lift is roughly proportional to this "apparent AOA."
His "induced relative wind" concept certainly is true for any given point along the wing. The "induced relative wind" will have a different direction, depending on the location on the wing where you measure it. As a number for the wing as whole, I'm not sure what you'd use it for, or even how you'd measure it.
The dotted line in Moment's picture is labelled "vertical reference," which is fine. That's the line that I've referred to as the direction of gravity. He goes "non-standard" when he comes up with a lift + drag vector that's perpendicular to the wing. That would imply that the wing can be propelled through the air, and even make lift, with zero thrust. We wish! In reality, once you add in induced drag, the total of lift and drag (what I've been calling the "resultant") leans aft of a perpendicular to the plane of the wing.
The sketch in #145 looks right. Again, the resultant isn't forward of the BLADE'S flight path.