Club Obi Wan

_ wrote:And to be clear? You have a bur in your shorts because you got caught in an indefensible position defending and indefensible person. You got caught and it's galling you. Get over it...

That's your misconception. I didn't defend anyone, I merely challenged you to back up your claims with proof, not just allegations that you had proof. Independently verifiable evidence is the hallmark of any scientific or forensic investigation, and the evidence to which you refer on this forum is the type that can't be verified, so you ask us to take you at your word. That's apparently fine for a lot of COW members, but not for all of us. The reason I call you on it is that the older posts on this forum reveal the source of your own bias against Peter, which causes the more discriminating members of this forum to take your "backroom sleuthing" revelations with a grain of salt. We all want the truth about the history of the jacket, but when truth is indiscernible from subjective revisionist history due to a long-standing personal grudge against a jacket manufacturer, it gets a little unsatisfying.

I don't like our personal feud cloging these threads, so I'm willing to declare a detente with you on our feud if you are.

SD

St. Dumas wrote:..... which causes the more discriminating members of this forum to take your "backroom sleuthing" revalations with a grain of salt.
SD

"more discriminating members of this forum...."?!

Tread lightly, SD. You just raised the hackles of more than a few members with that line.

I don't like our personal feud cloging these threads, so I'm willing to declare a detente with you on our feud if you are.

An excellent idea.

Michaelson

Fair enough, Michaelson. No insult intended to COW members. By "discriminating" I meant "demanding". It may be that _ shared his raw data with some of you. The rest of us are expected to take him at his word. While no one is disputing his work and research on the Raiders jacket, his Wested bias clouds his more recent comments.

I am no jacket expert by any means. However this got me wondering. If the Smithsonian jacket was the tank scene (supposedly) and the Chicago jacket was the castle scene... what jacket was in the bike chase? Was it either of these jackets or was it a 3rd?

St. Dumas wrote:It may be that _ shared his raw data with some of you. The rest of us are expected to take him at his word.

Which is exactly why those of us who have seen his "raw data," have on multiple occasions mentioned just that, in order to substantiate his claims. However, some folks either don't read it or they gloss straight over that point.

you beat me to it Rick.

well stated

jnicktem wrote:I am no jacket expert by any means. However this got me wondering. If the Smithsonian jacket was the tank scene (supposedly) and the Chicago jacket was the castle scene... what jacket was in the bike chase? Was it either of these jackets or was it a 3rd?

Again this is MY OPINION just by LOOKING at the screen grabs, but the motorcycle jacket appears to be the same jacket used in the tank scene.

Kyle

most of the thank scene is smithsonian.

Not trying to throw any fuel on the fire, but many of us would like see some items that substantiated some of the claims. I realize that a lot of this is covered by NDAs and other reasons (job related) and can't be shared. No problem with that, but surely some of it could be shown. I'd like to see it from purely a historical standpoint, even if I fully believe whatever is being discussed without proof.

The problem is that anyone that mentions this is automatically labled a trouble maker or accused of trying to "call _ out". This isn't the case (from my perspective anyway), at all). _ has a (from all accounts), well-deserved reputation and that carries considerable weight. But this is an internet forum and most of us (outside of a small cadre) don't know the others personally. Prudence demands that you don't take everything at face value. But, if you would like some proof, any proof, just to verify that your faith is well placed, then the villifying begins.

_, I fully understand where you're coming from. I truly do. And, as I've said numerous times, I appreciate the hard work you do here for nothing more than the work and providing information to us. And I would NEVER suggest that you do anything that would interfere with your job (that would be incredibly stupid on my part).

Mainly, what I've been saying is that people see the otherside of the coin. We're on the outside looking in. If we're getting information that doesn't jive up with other things we've heard or seen, then, when we question (even if we're just trying to work out the "kinks" so to speak), we're villified. Let me emphasize that I'm not saying you're the one who has villified us. Not that you need my approval, but I have noticed your efforts in restraint as of late. I'm sure it gets frustrating in your position, but the other side (the casual observer that doesn't have your connections) isn't always the best either.

At any rate, thanks again for your hard work (it's not said enough) and cheers!

Too much time has passed since the production of the first three films, and too much of what we have to go on is hearsay.
For some, the only proof would be physical proof, or at least pictures, videos, interviews, and that is probably just not possible, so many years later.
This is a strange sort of archeology; we're digging for something that is no longer there. (Or at least, not to be found!)
Things don't seem to be getting clearer with each new revelation, the waters just get muddier, and the passage of time is not going to make them any clearer.
Hopefully I'm wrong, and I'll certainly stick around to find out. It's a lot of fun after all.
Personally, I don't care. I'm only in this hobby for a cool looking and relatively screen accurate representation of my favourite movie-jacket.

Again, not trying to clog up a good thread... I didn't intend for my earlier posts in the closed thread to come across as defending anyone's treatment of Holt by any means.

Carry on, thread.

To answer a couple of points,

crismans wrote:No problem with that, but surely some of it could be shown. I'd like to see it from purely a historical standpoint, even if I fully believe whatever is being discussed without proof.

Um…_ does finally show the "blue book" and it gets little fan fare.

crismans wrote:The problem is that anyone that mentions this is automatically labled a trouble maker or accused of trying to "call _ out".

It has never been the issue of asking questions or for proof, but in the manner in how they are asked that causes issues, at least for the ensuing battles that the staff has to then clean up.

_ wrote:When indygear offers me a 5 year contract with a mid-six-figure base plus performance incentives and offers to cover my legal expenses related to this?

Let me start playing…and then win the lottery and you got a deal. In the mean time…Tic Tac?

I have decided to stay away from this kind of discussions because I feel I have nothing substantial to add . I have to admit I know nothing about this jackets and you guys spend so much time investigating about them that the only thing I can say, once again, is thank you for sharing all this stuff with us and for giving us such interesting, and finally well tempered, debates.
The thing is that, inquiring about something as peculiar as a simple jacket in a good movie seems also to be a perfect way of finding lots of information about many other things that are involved in the production, and about the movie industries in general.
So _ and Holt, but also RC, Crismans, Yohimbo…etc. This one goes for all of you:

Um…_ does finally show the "blue book" and it gets little fan fare.

We saw the accordian folder, yes. What I'm wanting to see is the contents therein!

And Rask, I sometimes get far too heated over this stuff (even when a voice in the back of my head is trying to tell me to just calm down and put things in perspective). You never fail to be the voice of reason in these things so right back at you.

What, you can't see them peeking out at the seams?

_ wrote: Peace, bro?

Done.

SD

Finally!

It has been pointed out to me in private that apparently things I've said in public AND private via PM was taken as 'calling out' folks regarding points on the jacket. I'm not even dignifying the PM with a response.

If this is how individuals have defined responses from me, I apologize, as I have NEVER 'called out' ANYONE regarding anything referenced to this hobby. Ever. EVER!!!!!! Anything said or information provided has always been considered from friend to friend, co-worker to co-worker, fan to fan, or hobbiest to hobbiest.

I will keep my own council again. I'm sick and tired of this perceived 'us' (veterans) vs 'them' ('new' folks) mindset, and refuse to say or share any more information than I need to from this point on, publically OR privately. This 'lose-lose' situation is one I am no longer going to follow.

Check my past posts, least one forgets, that I have been the one who has constantly preached that one member's opinion is JUST as good as anothers here. Folk don't have to agree....but that's the entire point of a discussion board. To discuss.

_, hang in there. I've just hit the wall.

Regards! Michaelson

St. Dumas wrote:

_ wrote: Peace, bro?

Done.

SD

Kyle

knibs7 wrote:

St. Dumas wrote:

_ wrote: Peace, bro?

Done.

SD

Kyle

_ wrote:

Yojimbo Jones wrote:...and photos would be nice....

I'm working on getting it into Tony's hands, with phots of him and Harrison...

So _, just let me know if you need somebody to hold the camera tripod steady, or fan the subjects, or whatever. Happy to contribute any way I can...

Tibor wrote: So _, just let me know if you need somebody to hold the camera tripod steady, or fan the subjects, or whatever. Happy to contribute any way I can...

For that matter, _, if you need someone to be your personal assistant FREE OF CHARGE, let ME know

Kyle

knibs7 wrote:

St. Dumas wrote:

_ wrote: Peace, bro?

Done.

SD

Kyle

You know, I often feel like I'm in a glass cage of emotion.

What a great movie!

Just so we're on the same page, _, I'm referring to anything I'VE ferretted out in MY research over the years, and nothing of what you've (or anyone ELSE for that matter) have shared with me....but I'm sure you knew that already.

Regards! Michaelson

It's just human nature to want more. It doesn't necessarily mean it is right... just that it's human nature. I am sure the wide majority of the people here are thankful for the things you have shared. I know I always read your posts with great interest, even if I never said anything. I honestly don't know enough about jackets to even try to want to ask a question. Also honestly, I don't care THAT much about the exact history of the making of Raiders. I still find it interesting and I enjoy reading it. I am also glad the information IS out there. I think I can speak for a lot of people who are a lot like me. We read what you write with great interest- but we don't express it. The things you have done for this community are great! You can never be repaid for all of your research... and I don't think you want to be. This is also a hobby for you. This is a hobby for all of us. And I think we all need to remember that. It's a hobby folks... nothing more.

I'm with you Michaelson and _

Kyle

I've obviously missed something - how did it go from sunshine and rainbows to craziness in an hour?

Actually, it seriously went to pot a little over 4 hours ago, YJ.

Regards! Michaelson

Yojimbo Jones wrote:I've obviously missed something - how did it go from sunshine and rainbows to craziness in an hour?

because this is COW. welcome to my world

Okey dokey...

I hope those weren't any of MY PMs

Kyle

Well Gents, hope things calm down. This has been fascinating stuff. For what it's worth, I don't think people get treated differently. Some folks do like to poke bears with sticks and they get what they get.

On a lighter note...something good has in fact come from this thread. This has saved me a ton of time, I had no idea the Smithsonian had gotten rid of the Indy display. I was planning to go back there with my family soon, and my obsessive compulsive tendencies would have had me insisting where I had seen it on my last trip. This really saved my wife and daughter the grief of dealing with my insisting it must be around the next corner in the museum.
-MACHone

That exact same thing happened to my father on a family vacation years ago. He hauled us through a museum for half a day looking for a display that he finally found out had closed the week prior.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

and I just wanted to "Borrow It" for the benefit of us all...well, what's in Chicago?