Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknola
Well From what Joe posted, i guess we can say that Col Compton's knife is one of the first 29 fighters made? That is interesting to say the least.
I don't know early RMKs. I do know that one knife at issue has fancy decorative spacers, an ornate handle, and a high keeper Moore sheath, etc. The other does not. I also know that the earlier RMKs all had the same genre ornate spacers, etc, and the later ones morphed away from that to a military spartan look. Just from logic and thd law of similar properties, most people would therefore associate the ornate handle with the older knives. To do otherwise would require some serious mental gymnastics and an explanation involving shop construction method against the grain of evolution. That explanation is not needed in the obverse case.
And Joe...You are quoting Gaddis, but then inferring, deducing and assuming as if those inferences, deductions, assumptions were the word-of-Gaddis himself...but it seems you are ignoring the physical evidence. That is not the way science works, or investigations (which I do for a living). I know of several key things Mr. Gaddis was wrong about, some of which he freely acknowledged.
Whatever...What I don't know is why adopt this confrontational tone? What has it added? I say check egos at the log-on icon and change the tone to add respect. I'm claiming this to be my line and Gen. Moore's.
|
Jack =
Not confrontational at all. I simply repeated what Gaddis said. Nothing more and was assailed by my friend as though I had committed a carnal sin. So Bo's memory failed him and both his journal and Gaddis are wrong. That is the only "inference" presented in this discussion.
So no, I am not inferring anything. This is straight from Bo's journal Jack. Not an educated guess, not and interpretation, not a supposition. With secondary support from interviews with Bo to further support journal entries. So if Ron or anyone else wants to refute that, I suggest they do it quoting you "
the way science works, or investigations"
I have examined the stag
Commando, yes that is what it is, and it is clearly explained as I have outlined and referenced in previous posts what it is. It was made After the Zach knife. That is a fact. NO FIGHTERS OF ANY TYPE WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE ZACH KNIFE. That is from Bo's mouth and Bo's journal. Why is that such an issue? Because certain folks want to believe otherwise?
Even to further this discussion, Gaddis also clearly states that knife production, ANY knife production by Bo was "nil" because of his CAP duties. So when Zach walked into the shop when Bo was on leave to see if a fighter could be made, June 1942, the Randall legend was born.
So from 7 Dec 1941 to June 1942 very, very few knives if any were made. If only 27 knives were made after the Zach the following six months to 7 January 1943, it is telling. It is not like RMK was a well know company with a web site and national exposure. It was pretty much a one man show in a garage in an orange grove in a small town.
I am at a crossroads with the antagonism that still festers up when it comes to discussing RMK's, particularly older knives. Revisionist history seems to be the norm used to suit a certain position, and if something doesn't line up with another persons train of thought, even when that thought is refuted by viable evidence, the person presenting that evidence in a discussion is vilified. Strange dynamics still exist here in the RMK hobby and it seems some have not moved past it.