The withholding of information.

[Rundquist]

I stayed away for a week and I miss an awesome thread. It’s ok. I had nothing to add to the discussion. I’m sure I could have invented something like many people did (hah, hah – in my best Nelson Muntz tone).
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

_ didn’t have to share squat with this board. I suspect that 9 out of 10 of the “knowledge deposits” on the board (whether actual or self appointed) would have hoarded the information that Paterson has pretty freely made public knowledge. It’s a sickness really. Many people that collect art, stow it away and the art is never seen by the public ever again. The same holds true for rare jazz or any other form of art. I have a friend with one of the greatest rare jazz collections on earth. His goal is to one day have the whole thing on display in a museum. Again, he didn’t have to share the information.

Some of you guys have been very appreciative. Others it seems are performing an interrogation. I understand that this board is a place for discussion…blah, blah, blah. Theories change. History changes. Almost everybody can be accused of being “hard-headed” at least at some point in their lives. Let me amend that. That goes for every one of us. We get used to things being one way. We don’t like change.

With that said, you guys are blowing it. Paterson has done more for this hobby than anyone else (at least in the form of detective work). Deal with it. Accept it. You don’t have to like him. But you have to accept that fact. You don’t have to respect him as a person. But you have to respect him for what he’s done for this board.

He brings in some new information that doesn’t necessarily jibe with some individual’s ideas and all of the sudden people are asking for his papers, his pedigree? That’s lame. We know who he is. WTF. You wonder why he goes on and on about what he does, who he knows? It's because people keep asking him.

If I thought that some of you mugs could actually scare him away I’d be upset. He’s just frustrated dealing with some of you. It’s a two way street I realize. This is the first gear related thread that I’ve been interested in since…well I can’t remember. Don’t “Larry David” it up. Schmucks.

[CairoIndy]

Scare _ away?!!!!!
that's a good one!-haven't laughed so much for ages!

[St. Dumas]

Rundquist, I've followed this thread from the beginning and I don't perceive any of the challenges to _'s submissions to be attacks on _, but rather legitimate questions about the information contained in the sources to which he tells us he has access. Because this is an informal forum, members are forced to take other members at their word, and most of us don't "really" know each other or have never met in person. Accordingly, there can never be an avenue for the kind of fact-checking a journalist, for example, would engage in. Innocent and legitimate attempts to authenticate or corroborate _'s claims can easily come across as skepticism, when all the member wants is to get to the "truth" of a claim. Precisely because _ states he cannot disclose the actual documents to which he refers, his information will necessarily attract the kind of curiosity that can never be entirely satisfied in the minds of some forum members.

I think there's a real danger to the purpose and spirit of this forum in discouraging the authentication of claims (an assertion to which _ would no doubt agree). The information presented by _ raises questions about certain previous information and assumptions regarding the Raiders jacket, casting doubt on some information previously presented on this website as fact, no doubt in good faith and based on the evidence at the time. It is only appropriate then that any new information be subjected to the same evidentiary standards. If _'s non-disclosure obligations make that impossible, that's fine. But this means his claims can never be substantiated by any other interested party, with the result that some members' concerns about the authenticity of his claims will never be satisfied.

Such is the nature of forums like these.

SD

[Rundquist]

Rundquist, I've followed this thread from the beginning and I don't perceive any of the challenges to _'s submissions to be attacks on _, but rather legitimate questions about the information contained in the sources to which he tells us he has access. Because this is an informal forum, members are forced to take other members at their word, and most of us don't "really" know each other or have never met in person. Accordingly, there can never be an avenue for the kind of fact-checking a journalist, for example, would engage in. Innocent and legitimate attempts to authenticate or corroborate _'s claims can easily come across as skepticism, when all the member wants is to get to the "truth" of a claim. Precisely because _ states he cannot disclose the actual documents to which he refers, his information will necessarily attract the kind of curiosity that can never be entirely satisfied in the minds of some forum members.

I think there's a real danger to the purpose and spirit of this forum in discouraging the authentication of claims (an assertion to which _ would no doubt agree). The information presented by _ raises questions about certain previous information and assumptions regarding the Raiders jacket, casting doubt on some information previously presented on this website as fact, no doubt in good faith and based on the evidence at the time. It is only appropriate then that any new information be subjected to the same evidentiary standards. If _'s non-disclosure obligations make that impossible, that's fine. But this means his claims can never be substantiated by any other interested party, with the result that some members' concerns about the authenticity of his claims will never be satisfied.

Such is the nature of forums like these.

SD

I hear you. But eventually, there will be others (trusted, respected members) that might get to see the "ledger". Just because he can't take scans and put this stuff up for everybody to see does not mean that it can't be substantiated. That’s a formality at most.

I have met the guy. The last thing I would ever call the guy is a liar. There are others that would vouch for him. Considering his past track record with regards to this hobby, I just don’t think the line of questioning is necessary. Look what it led to. He fires back his credentials and all of a sudden he’s a glory hound.

The alternative is for him to just keep the info to himself.

[Rundquist]

Scare _ away?!!!!!
that's a good one!-haven't laughed so much for ages!

I agree . He enjoys the detective work too much. I assure you that he doesn't do it to be king of this "sh..-heap", as some may think.

[CairoIndy]

Rundquist,go back and read Pattersons posts over the last year!..the insults(the ones he hasn't deleted afterwards!),accusations,personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims(claims that anyone else here would have to back up with hard evidence)you will get a more realistic picture.
His attacks on Peter disgusted me-made for deeply unpleasant reading..I'm not suprised Peter is staying away!
Bullying is bullying in any enviroment.
I AM suprised _ is still here though,since I suspect that truthfully he hates this place-he makes it clear that he feels most of us are beneath him(Jello eating,Kool-aid drinking fan-boys)but,don't worry Rundquist,there will always be enough arse-lickers on this board to stroke his ego and keep him coming back.

[gwyddion]

I think a lot of the troubles have already been ironed-out via PM according to the thread in Lao Che's

I think it a pity that threads containing new (and good IMO) info usually get messy and stop to exist. Sometimes I think there is too much passion floating around here. Can't we just all keep an open mind? This is not just about _'s thread, but an observation made in general.

Regards, Geert

[RaidersBash]

yea...would've been nice if people could have just given it all some time for all the details to come out, instead of jumping all over this piece or that, and at times "reading" like calling someone a liar...

in an environment that should be treated like friends sharing beers at a round table, the moment someone stands up and basically says "YOU'RE AN MOD EDIT: WATCH IT!! LIAR!!! Well, that's about the end of civility and in a real world situation guys would be going outside to "discuss" in a different way.

And it's a shame that it cost the rest of us who were enjoying the discoveries to loose out...

[Rundquist]

I think a lot of the troubles have already been ironed-out via PM according to the thread in Lao Che's

I think it a pity that threads containing new (and good IMO) info usually get messy and stop to exist. Sometimes I think there is too much passion floating around here. Can't we just all keep an open mind? This is not just about _'s thread, but an observation made in general.

Regards, Geert

Didn't realize that there was a post in Lao Che's. I'm not trying to stir things up. I just lament the fact that whenever there is a thread with real content that I am interested in (once every other year or so), it gets locked down.

[whipitgood]

This is the first gear related thread that I’ve been interested in since…well I can’t remember. Don’t “Larry David” it up. Schmucks.

I say "Larry David " it up only because I love "Curb".

[Rundquist]

Rundquist,go back and read Pattersons posts over the last year!..the insults(the ones he hasn't deleted afterwards!),accusations,personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims(claims that anyone else here would have to back up with hard evidence)you will get a more realistic picture.
His attacks on Peter disgusted me-made for deeply unpleasant reading..I'm not suprised Peter is staying away!
Bullying is bullying in any enviroment.
I AM suprised _ is still here though,since I suspect that truthfully he hates this place-he makes it clear that he feels most of us are beneath him(Jello eating,Kool-aid drinking fan-boys)but,don't worry Rundquist,there will always be enough arse-lickers on this board to stroke his ego and keep him coming back.

Since I stand behind the man, am I an "arse-licker"? You're entitled to that opinion. Did you mean to come off like that? Perhaps, or perhaps not. We aren’t robots. We all have emotions. They get the better of all of us. But before we jump down somebody’s throat perhaps we should look at things from their perspective.

Do you know every part of the history between Paterson & Peter for instance? I doubt it. Perhaps Paterson would be better off at times using more discretion on a public forum, but I’ve seldom seen him make statements that weren’t warranted, at least from my perspective.

I had my run-ins with Paterson before I ever saw most of you on this board. I’m not an "arse-licker". The respect is warranted.

PS- I would want the thread locked down too if I had to deal with all the questioning. It would be very taxing arguing points (some warranted, some not) with people that are arguing about things that they haven’t seen.

Gravity exists. I can’t see it, but it exists. If there is a paper trail that says there was a studio dock scene filmed, it was filmed. As Agent 5 pointed out, it doesn’t mean that any of it made it into the movie. Just because there is no still photography that we have seen does not mean that it didn't happen. Understand this concept and other ideas are easy to reconcile.

[CairoIndy]

Do you know every part of the history between Paterson & Peter for instance? I doubt it.

The 'history' between _ and Peter doesn't interest me and is none of my business.What I object to is having that muck publicly spread across the boards for all to read..and it goes on and on and on.As for 'arse-lickers' I'm not going to name names,I'll be booted-off the boards-I don't have the luxury of immunity here.

[Rundquist]

Do you know every part of the history between Paterson & Peter for instance? I doubt it.

The 'history' between _ and Peter doesn't interest me and is none of my business.What I object to is having that muck publicly spread across the boards for all to read..and it goes on and on and on.As for 'arse-lickers' I'm not going to name names,I'll be booted-off the boards-I don't have the luxury of immunity here.

There’s a lot of “history” with regards to this hobby that is very real and is in congress to what is on this board and is taken for granted. If it were public knowledge, it would change your perception of events and people and most likely make this place unpleasant, which is what I believe many people are complaining that Paterson has done. Well sometimes lines get blurred and unpleasant things spill over into the bubble. I’m not knocking guys that just want to come in here and get away from it all. I’m really not. But people need to be sympathetic that the reading that you enjoy comes from somewhere.

If you weren’t going to “name names” as far the "arse-lickers" point goes, why mention it at all? Cheers


PS – I just read the Lao Che thread and I reiterate that I don’t want to stir things up. There’s just something we can pick up from all this maybe.

[Yojimbo Jones]

A mirror thread to this one could also be call "The substantiation of information." Before I got headhunted into the business side of the fence I was teaching at a uni and doing a PhD. Old habits of asking analytical research questions die hard.

I absolutely respect it if someone can only share certain things. That's just the nature of relationships, business or otherwise. I for one would never begrudge _ that. The main issue is when you get into territory where a small circle of people allegedly have "proof" that certain info is real, yet the vast majority of the audience (ie this board) do not. That's all well and good. I couldn't care less to know the details of the ledger or need that proof to be honest. It's none of my business. But the slippage is where as a flip side, people in those audience have a right to make the point that a) nothing can be treated as FACT without evidence that we can see; and b) without that evidence, to look at the facts we DO have and ask questions. If nothing else, it's a way of assessing what's going on so people can make their own minds up independently of other stuff that can't/won't be given to us to evaluate.

What I see at issue here has absolutely nothing to do with _. Just the issues that occur when you lower your standards of substantiation away from the sort of thing any professional or academic organisation would accept into their knowledge-base. Too harsh for a fan-board on the net? Maybe. But it's the nature of the beast.

[Rundquist]

A mirror thread to this one could also be call "The substantiation of information." Before I got headhunted into the business side of the fence I was teaching at a uni and doing a PhD. Old habits of asking analytical research questions die hard.

I absolutely respect it if someone can only share certain things. That's just the nature of relationships, business or otherwise. I for one would never begrudge _ that. The main issue is when you get into territory where a small circle of people allegedly have "proof" that certain info is real, yet the vast majority of the audience (ie this board) do not. That's all well and good. I couldn't care less to know the details of the ledger or need that proof to be honest. It's none of my business. But the slippage is where as a flip side, people in those audience have a right to make the point that a) nothing can be treated as FACT without evidence that we can see; and b) without that evidence, to look at the facts we DO have and ask questions. If nothing else, it's a way of assessing what's going on so people can make their own minds up independently of other stuff that can't/won't be given to us to evaluate.

What I see at issue here has absolutely nothing to do with _. Just the issues that occur when you lower your standards of substantiation away from the sort of thing any professional or academic organisation would accept into their knowledge-base. Too harsh for a fan-board on the net? Maybe. But it's the nature of the beast.

You're right. The people in the audience do have the right to ask for proof. But what's the point of being in this audience if that's the level that one operates on? Most of the info on this board is unsubstantiated, at least by those standards.


I've never heard of a scientist that specializes in Indygear.

[Yojimbo Jones]

I agree (to a certain extent), and am enough of a realist to know it isn't likely to happen. But like I said, it's the nature of the beast; and without it, certain arguments are going to keep on happening. What you seem to be wanting is for us to leave our thoughts at the door. Then what's the point of taking in new information if we can't articulate how it fits into what we know?

I guess another angle to think from is this. Why would I care if the Bantu Wind dock scene was shot on a soundstage? Because I don't. Couldn't care less. What I DO care about is when it flies in the face of too may things we can comfortably take as fact. Then we have not only burden of proof to be provided, but it opens a MUCH bigger can of worms that has implications for many other topics.

[Rundquist]

I agree (to a certain extent), and am enough of a realist to know it isn't likely to happen. But like I said, it's the nature of the beast; and without it, certain arguments are going to keep on happening. What you seem to be wanting is for us to leave our thoughts at the door. Then what's the point of taking in new information if we can't articulate how it fits into what we know?

I guess another angle to think from is this. Why would I care if the Bantu Wind dock scene was shot on a soundstage? Because I don't. Couldn't care less. What I DO care about is when it flies in the face of too may things we can comfortably take as fact. Then we have not only burden of proof to be provided, but it opens a MUCH bigger can of worms that has implications for many other topics.

The questions are fine. This place is a discussion board. Of course questions are going to arise from new information. Paterson's character was the issue that was brought up in a round about way. I would have taken it as an insult myself. I'm not saying that people meant for that to happen. But that's essentially what happened. I'd have told everyone to go "F" themselves too. I'm just trying to show a different way of looking at it.


ps- I still don't understand why there is a debate with the dock scene. Whether or not the soundstage footage ever saw the light of day does not mean that it wasn't shot. If it raises questions, then that's what this place is for. But why would one question that Paterson has receipts for it, considering his track record.

[RCSignals]

The questions are fine. This place is a discussion board. Of course questions are going to arise from new information. Paterson's character was the issue that was brought up in a round about way. I would have taken it as an insult myself. I'm not saying that people meant for that to happen. But that's essentially what happened. I'd have told everyone to go "F" themselves too. I'm just trying to show a different way of looking at it.


ps- I still don't understand why there is a debate with the dock scene. Whether or not the soundstage footage ever saw the light of day does not mean that it wasn't shot. If it raises questions, then that's what this place is for. But why would one question that Paterson has receipts for it, considering his track record.

apparently the questions weren't fine.

As for the dock scene, the issue of a reshoot that wasn't used was not the point. It was suggested in the discussion and apparently confirmed by 'Frank Pritt' that it was used. There was the problem for some people, and their concerns were expressed in the thread.

[Raider S]

ps- I still don't understand why there is a debate with the dock scene. Whether or not the soundstage footage ever saw the light of day does not mean that it wasn't shot. If it raises questions, then that's what this place is for. But why would one question that Paterson has receipts for it, considering his track record.

There's debate because the story has changed/evolved as research tends to do. People did raise questions and sought answers and it caused a lot of bickering. Some people might be mistaking asking questions with lack of respect.

I'm sorry, there seems to be somewhat of a double standard here. I understand when people are passionate and also understand people not wanting to be called liars (if that ever happened), but it goes in all directions.

[crismans]

I, for one, am relatively new to this hobby (although I've immersed myself in it [hobby-time wise] since discovering this place). I don't doubt _'s record or his deserved reputation as you can see his footprints all over the board, especially in the jacket section where his primary interests lie. So I don't think most people (if any) were trying to impugn on his reputation.

But all of us are interested in the history of the gear (I would say that this point and gear accuracy would be the primary reasons most, if not all, of us frequent this place). Does having an accurate knowledge of that history qualify as anything of importance in the grand scheme of things? Very doubtful, but hobbies as a concept are important, and, as such, we invest a certain importance in what pertains to them.

To that end, I (and I think a lot of us) were trying to integrate these new revelations into the existing framework. Some of it inserted in quite nicely (as I've said before) and other parts seemed to conflict with had seemed to be put forth as "written in stone". I think most people were just trying to work through what wasn't meshing. It was something of an organic process and might have gotten a touch messy at times.

Another thing I was wondering was all of what _ saying documented fact or was some of it educated guesses? His Lao Che thread addressed that issue and helped to clear up any gray areas.

[Rundquist]

Well, I'll just extricate myself from the whole thing at this point with this. People need to put themselves in the other guy's shoes whenever possible. If I had that ledger, I don’t know if I would bother broadcasting any of it to this board, where every little piece of information is dissected. That’s what this place is, sure. But if one was the only sounding board for it, one might not want to be bothered. It is unrelenting.

This place can easily go from a pleasant hobby to a menial chore, especially when one has to answer every single post as it relates to your thread/new info. It would be easy to become defensive, grow weary, and take your ball and go home.

[Michaelson]

So, is it time to shut this one down, since you, the originator of the thread, are 'extricating' yourself from the discussion? That's standard practice.

Regards! Michaelson

[crismans]

If I had that ledger, I don’t know if I would bother broadcasting any of it to this board, where every little piece of information is dissected. That’s what this place is, sure. But if one was the only sounding board for it, one might not want to be bothered. It is unrelenting.

Point taken.

However, it is this obsessing(?) about these things that have provided a lot of insight. I hope that _ continues to provide info in whatever capacity he's comfortable with.

[Rundquist]

I don't need it open. Though I always hate seeing a locked thread that was locked before I ever saw it myself.