Siu Lin tau

[GlennR]

I don't have a theory, and don't need one.
I just shows real evidence of Wck in the past 160 years. In the previous posts.

No, no it doesnt

[guy b.]

Don't blame me. It got nothing to do with me.

Data shows what it is.
Doesn't matter am I a pro or amature.

Let the data speak for itself.
Sorry the 160 years data doesn't fit your expectation.

Data can be used to show almost anything. It depends which data you include and which you omit

[Hendrik]

Jim,

These red boat uprising people are closely tight in the 1850 era . These people are all hung mun member within the red boat opera group.

Lee man mau the leader of the red boat opera member , is from Heshan or crane mountain county , kulo is within Heshan.

Lee man mau joints with people in Nga Wu Poon Yee in the 1850s uprising. Nga Wu poon Yee is where the Cho family reside.
Where yik kam the opera actor later teaches cho family.
From the salutation of yik kam Wck and passed code we know they are indeed hung mun member and participate in the 1850 activity which match with the chinese official history.


these are traceable in the official Chinese history records such as in this attach photo.
So, we do know how likely is whether a story did happen in 1850. via these detail we can know who made up his- story and who is real deal.

[Hendrik]

From official Chinese history record on lee man mau with Nga Wu poon Yee.

[Hendrik]

Continuous

[Hendrik]

Why not?

Pieces matches up from different lineages and converge in many areas.

I am sorry but this is only More stories and conjecture based on stories. Why do people assume that the stories are true?

[tc101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKs-5MzGUiw

All the pieces match up too.

[Hendrik]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKs-5MzGUiw

All the pieces match up too.

Now I really understand you well.

This is really clear up why you are not be able to read what I am posting,
but keep taking what you think as what I post.

[GlennR]

Now I really understand you well.

This is really clear up why you are not be able to read what I am posting,
but keep taking what you think as what I post.

He just doesnt follow your theory-driven research.

You have your own ideas about what happened and fashion the "evidence" to suit.

Pretty simple really

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Hendrik,

Thanks for sharing.

I understand Lee Man Mau is the Red Junk Uprising leader. When I say Wong Wah Bo was the "Dai Sihing" that would be of the Red Boat "Wing Chun" community.

We know Leung Jan was born in 1826. Wong Wah Bo more likely would have been older and was taught in Gulao since the age of 13 (pre Red Boat times). WWB later in life became a Red Boat member. The other Red Junk members would not have been exposed to the art of Wing Chun for many years later so this is why I call him the Dai Sihing..

Also, what type of martial art did Lee Man Mau practice? Were they our Crane cousins and later taught some WCK or were they two separate sect of the troupe woking together helping each other? Hung Mun always hire martial art experts/families to teach them some fighting. With so many people being from Hoksan it would make senses that one of the most wealthy & established martial art families in that region help them by teaching them Gongfu. If Leung Lon Kwai had family/friend on the Red Junk it would make sense that he was upset when it was burned down and help them by tweaking the art based on the needs of the time period...

Hope all is well!

Peace,
Jim


***

These red boat uprising people are closely tight in the 1850 era . These people are all hung mun member within the red boat opera group.

Lee man mau the leader of the red boat opera member , is from Heshan or crane mountain county , kulo is within Heshan.

Lee man mau joints with people in Nga Wu Poon Yee in the 1850s uprising. Nga Wu poon Yee is where the Cho family reside.
Where yik kam the opera actor later teaches cho family.
From the salutation of yik kam Wck and passed code we know they are indeed hung mun member and participate in the 1850 activity which match with the chinese official history.


these are traceable in the official Chinese history records such as in this attach photo.
So, we do know how likely is whether a story did happen in 1850. via these detail we can know who made up his- story and who is real deal.

[tc101]

He just doesnt follow your theory-driven research.

You have your own ideas about what happened and fashion the "evidence" to suit.

Pretty simple really

Yes yes that is exactly what I am saying and it is what all conspiracy theorists do too.

[KPM]

This dogma comes from your belief that your lineages stories are true and you find information that supports it and ignore information that doesn't. Then you present it as fact. That is cherry picking. You ignore HFY for instance since it doesn't fit your dogma by saying it does not have the right DNA or has Yip Man signature both of which are only your conclusions and again not fact.

.

Any kind of historical/anthropological research is to some extent based upon following hunches and theories and looking for data that fits together. Imagine trying to figure out what happened during a particular battle during the American Civil War 150 years ago. You may have written accounts based upon interviews with different survivors published in different newspapers of the time. You may find some elders who can related stories told to them by grandparents with first-hand knowledge of the battle. You may be able to visit the battlefield and look for artifacts and get the "lay of the land." From all of this you might be able to piece together the events of the actual battle. You take the common elements from several newspaper stories and interviews and have to assume those common elements are true since they appear in multiple sources. You look and see how those elements correspond with the known history of the time and area and how they correspond with the land features and other elements of the battle site. You might have to reject accounts from sources that aren't supported by other sources. It is not an exact science. But this isn't "cherry-picking" either. Hendrik has been doing something very similar. He has compiled various lineage "legends" and stories from multiple sources to look for the common elements. He has examined existing lineages of Wing Chun to look for the common elements. He has examined the known history in China that is related looking for where things fit. In any kind of research like this you have to have some kind of theory to guide your investigation, otherwise it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. When you start finding plenty of things that overlap or "match", then you know you are on the right track. So I give Hendrik credit for this. His expression of his findings in English leaves a lot to be desired, but hopefully that will change in the future. I still think he needs to organize what he knows so far into one document in English with a good ghost-writer/proof-reader so we can all figure out exactly what he is talking about. I'm still a bit confused myself.

Now, just another thought. No one has yet bothered to try and answer my questions about HFY history.

[tc101]

Thank you KPM for a thoughtful reply.

I think things are much more complicated than that. Did Yip Man learn from Leung Bik or not? How can we ever know? This sort of question is repeated thousands of times in wing chun history. We cannot even know something this frequent in time yet we want to know what was going on in the red boat era.

I do not see how oral or written accounts of wing chun lore can be taken seriously. Even those are cherry picked and interpreted.

Hendrik's wing chun DNA is his creation to give his subjective conclusions based on limited cherry picked information weight.

His so called TCMA experts are not like anthropologists but are self appointed experts.

Put that all together and what do you get?

And what is the point of all this so called research? What does it matter in the slightest? For example does it matter if Yip Man learned from Leung Bik or not? What does it matter if HFY came from WWB or WWB came from HFY? It changes nothing.

[guy b.]

And what is the point of all this so called research? What does it matter in the slightest? For example does it matter if Yip Man learned from Leung Bik or not? What does it matter if HFY came from WWB or WWB came from HFY? It changes nothing.

The point is that everyone needs to watch Hendrik's clips and beg him to teach the internal aspects to really make their wing chun work. He will do this in a drip drip fashion over the course of 15 years as he thinks up new stuff and strings you along. You will never reach the end and it will be fiendishly complex

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Jim Roselando;1236451]Hello Hendrik,

Thanks for sharing.

I understand Lee Man Mau is the Red Junk Uprising leader. When I say Wong Wah Bo was the "Dai Sihing" that would be of the Red Boat "Wing Chun" community.

We know Leung Jan was born in 1826. Wong Wah Bo more likely would have been older and was taught in Gulao since the age of 13 (pre Red Boat times). WWB later in life became a Red Boat member. The other Red Junk members would not have been exposed to the art of Wing Chun for many years later so this is why I call him the Dai Sihing..

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A non offensive post commenting on Jim's post deleted-quirky work in the shadows?!!!!