Originally Posted by thenavarro
You wrote: you're kidding, right?
I reply: No sir, I’m deathly serious, LOL. You started this thread using 2 examples (not 3 as you’ve since brought in, like I knew you would, so I told you upfront I wasn’t interested in ANY other examples, only what you originally showed) I simply very quickly demonstrated how easy it is to draw whatever result one wants to draw.
If you are going to present what you believe is a smoking gun, then you need to present it with all your evidence up front, else, you are going to be quickly dismissed just like I did yesterday. There are far too many instances on this board of this is real, this is not real, this might be real, etc, offered without any backup or justification as to why that is believed. You actually did some analysis there in post 4, that’s what I’m looking for in these threads, and from what I’ve read on these same boards, what many appear to be looking for in these threads. Lay all the info out there in the beginning. Before I get blasted for not chastising the others the same way, this paragraph is intended for everyone that makes an opinion on these boards on an autograph, not just Travis.
You wrote: You got to see the forest for the trees.
I reply: B-i-n-g-o, b-i-n-g-o, b-i-n-g-o, and Bingo was his name-O! LOL. You seem to have such disdain for two companies in particular, that most reasonable people quickly come to the conclusion to discount the information you present in my opinion. While on some occasions, you do have valuable information, in order for that message to be received by the intended audience, the messenger needs to change the perception that many get from that messenger. You’ve got to stop hacking at the same two trees, or you are never going to see the forest, or clear it out for anyone else. Even the great “Babe” (the ox, not Ruth) would have given out and grown resentful if Paul Bunyan had continued to hack at the same two trees day in and day out. Until you change the way you deliver your message, you are going to keep having a sore forehead from banging into the same trees over and over and over.
The two companies you bash, on a whole, actually do a relatively decent job in my opinion. Do they make some glaring errors at times? Heck yeah. Do they get careless or not follow their procedures sometimes? Heck yeah. Are they perfect? Hell no. BUT, they do provide a REASONABLE service for a reasonable price in MOST circumstances. If you want to “defeat” them, then do a better job of politicking and promotion then they do. The bashing is NOT going to help toward that end though.
You wrote: How can that be? can you explain that? It has at least four characteristics that match up on both of the other autographs?
I reply: You had to bring in another signature to make your point. Again, my concern was with your smoking gun style coupled with your lack of evidence presented in the first post. Congrats that it has 4 characteristics that match amongst the three, I showed you five characteristics that don’t match, amongst the two that were presented.
You wrote: Now don't just ignore it? answer please! Explain how this third example I am showing shows some characteristics of #1 and some of #2. Unless you want to call it by a third unknown hand? Is that what you want to do?
I reply: Like I told you in my original reply, I am NOT interested in any other Ruth examples other then the two that YOU chose to use in post 1. No, I don’t want to call it a third unknown hand, I told you already the 3rd signature does not interest me.
You wrote: So now what? Care to comment again? I did my homework here.
I reply: Now you’ve presented what you should have presented in the very first post. It took me eliciting it out of you, in order for you to make a full argument. Why do you state that you have done your homework here? Do you not usually do your homework?
Note that I haven’t expressed nor do I intend to express an opinion as to the authenticity or lack thereof of any of these Ruth’s. I’ve never studied his signature in depth, and don’t plan on starting now. I’m just trying to demonstrate what a lot of us reading on the sidelines are feeling IMO, in regards to all of the, “this is a forgery”, “this is good”, “I just know”, etc. etc. etc.
|