Brad Simpson,...HK Luger Follow-Up...?

[John Sabato]

[quote]I simply pointed to an example of boosting that anyone can look at and decide for themselves. <hr></blockquote>

Brad I believe this is a hard point on which there is much debate...

You have NOT pointed at a hard example of boosting... what you have done is propose a theory that because two photographs appear in a book that imply that a boosting has taken place that it has really happened...

You have made no allowance for any circustances that could have produced the error in publication except that a Luger got boosted. There could certainly be a mixup in photos during publication... The only fact we have ascertained is that the photos exist in a published book.

Please let me be clear on this... I am not saying that you are wrong, only that there could be other facts that could produce the same circumstances... No matter how much coincidence is reported, coincidence doesn't make anything a fact. If there is more than one plausible explanation possible, then any effort expended should be used to validate one possibility from the many proposed.

[quote]there seem to be members who don't believe that boosted guns exist. <hr></blockquote>

Brad who might they be? I have never seen anyone post on this forum in several years that fall into that category...

[quote] There also seem to be members who believe certain guns are right because "experts" say so. <hr></blockquote>

Opinions are like er, ...elbows! everybody has some... So called EXPERTS convince others of the veracity of their statements by using FACTS that either make logical sense to the uninitiated, or they don't...

A neophyte should be able to take stated FACTS and draw his or her own conclusions... Your method of stating the facts falls short here because the only facts you have stated are that two photographs imply that they are the same pistol, and the last known owner of the latter of these two pistols is the same person who has possession of the .45 carbine.

Everything else is pure conjecture portrayed as fact... and it will be until all the FACTS are revealed either by disclosure or discovery.

The true facts may never get revealed or discovered and there are many who would take a subjective view what we know to be FACTs (and I include you and Jan in this category), and add speculation and conjecture to draw their own conclusions and then pass them on to others as facts...

The other camp here includes those who have seen and understand the FACTS as we know them and will NOT draw a conclusion based on speculation or conjecture, nor find anybody guilty or innocent, until additional facts are revealed or discovered

...Why?? because the case as stated has insufficient data to be declared proven or otherwise a fact.

Pete's list of questions must receive indisputable answers for the second group to make a valid conclusion.

Additional posturing and rhetoric will not make the case... only additional FACTS derived from answers to the questions posed.

Nobody here disputes your right or anyone's right to draw your own conclusions based on what you know or think you know, but don't be too disappointed when you don't find universal agreement to your position.

I too stand by what I have written, and I am confident that many here stand behind this interpretation of the FACTS as we know them.

I would like to thank all who have participated in this lively discussion in a civil manner and demeanor... It is a pleasure to be associated with people with manners... I can easily picture how this discussion might have looked if it had taken place on any other discussion forum [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]

My recommendation is that the next step be RESEARCH by all who have an interest in the truth... When and if you find additional truth, POST IT HERE on this same thread... additional rumors or speculation will add nothing to the achievement of a truthful conclusion to the Luger mysteries that have been posed. Additional threads on the same discussion only dilute and delay the answers...

<img src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" border="0" alt="[soapbox]" /> <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />

[bradsimpson]

John,
If you can produce the gun on page 175 and the gun on page 179, and it can be verified that they are two different guns, I will be the first person to congratulate you and admit that I was wrong.

With the large membership of the Luger forum, They shouldn't be that hard to find?

I vote that we all start looking! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

[John Sabato]

Brad, that is my point exactly...

does ANYONE here on the forum know where these guns are today and who the owner(s) is or are?

If we don't know and can't find out, then we are right back to speculation...

[bradsimpson]

John,
We have a lot of Lugers here, and I've looked through all of them.

I can't find either one here? [img]confused.gif[/img]

[Edward Tinker]

Exactly Brad and John. I think both have good arguements and I never thought that Brad was wrong, just that I would like more facts.

I have seen too many gov't publications that have been reviewed by 10 people that have glaring mistakes and omissions, so it is my feeling that a couple of pictures don't make a damning fact, it raises questions and eyebrows, but does not convince me of anything except the possibility of something wrong. I don't have the book, so can't look at the pictures myself, but trust y'all that the gun "appears" to be the same gun, so?????

Heck I don't know, lets talk about the best deal anyone got on a Luger?

Brad have you ever traded something "interesting" for one? Or a while back I bought an old dealer publication and they said they received a huge trunk just full of Lugers. I can't imagine, that would be something. <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />

[Doubs]

It has been said that there's the possibility that the pictures may have been mixed up and certainly it could have happened. I would like to point out that the side views of the pistol(s) that show the serial numbers are, in fact, two different photographs taken at different times. How much time between shots is speculative. I don't know that my observation has any bearing on anyone's conclusions but it is a fact to be added to what's already known.

[Roadkill]

Might have something there, Doubs. Gentleman A, owner, took a picture of it for insurance. Along with a lot of other details unknown maybe bad guy B bought and boosted it, gentleman C bought it, gentleman D had it next, then Gentleman E (current owner) bought it because high dollar items seem to find their way to big name dealers. Book is being put together so Gentleman A and Gentleman E both submit photos. Guns are faked, dealers are taken. This is plausible. What I don't understand is why the photos were both published when its so obvious. Bad mess up or a strange sense of humor.

RK

[ToggleTop]

I don't think I can add anything worthwhile to this thread except that maybe we need to get our heads out of the sand!
How can this topic ever be discussed and any conclusions drawn, it sounds like a bunch of lawyers blowing hot air. I'm sorry.

[wterrell]

Pete,

[quote] In the "Faked & Boosted" thread, you made, what I believe is a very serious accusation about a 1940 HK luger becoming a much more rare and conditoned 1941 HK luger...... <hr></blockquote>

[quote] .....But I would like to know more about this accusation...... <hr></blockquote>

This would be an assertion, not an accusation (Although I can see where "accusation" would be more inflammatory). If there really is an accusation here, please put it into "QUOTE".

What is going on here? Why the twisting of words? Surely, there is more going on here than meets the eye?!

Toggletop,
Sounds more like a bunch a teenage girls harping at each other!

[John Sabato]

Guys, I don't think twisting of words is the issue... Each person has spoken from their own perspective on what has been said...

It is exceedingly rare when two or more people have the same perspective...