Author Topic: violating a back  (Read 27356 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline RyanY

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,997
Re: violating a back
« Reply #120 on: December 24, 2016, 12:11:05 am »
Quote

Conveniently avoid my point about burden of proof, throw in some good ol ad hominem, and make points without any evidence. Seems to be some romanticism about Native American knowledge somehow lacking the same "old fashioned beliefs" that only modern men create. People are people, guaranteed their beliefs about bows were founded on the same anecdotal evidence and experience that ours are. But anyways, beginning a discussion with the sole purpose of changing others minds as opposed to wanting to create discussion to learn will only result in this kind of bickering. You've clearly followed the former.  8)

Ah the good ol "Burden of Proof" fallacy. Thanks but no thanks, Socrates, but I don't follow your misguided  philosophical dogma. Maybe you'll want to take that up with the Hague or whoever cares. When it comes to anecdotal experience, who would you listen to? Because Native Americans blew a hole through Viking selfbowyers when they tried to settle Canada. Eskimos blew a hole through the Viking selfbowyers on Greenland. Mongolians used violated grain wood and destroyed the selfbowyers of the world. Let's face it, these people knew what they were doing. They made the best, most efficient bows. So if we're going to go from anecdotal experience on bowmaking, we have to go with Native Americans. Science already proved their bows superior in one way. Let's watch it happen in another.

k

Offline osage outlaw

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,952
Re: violating a back
« Reply #121 on: December 24, 2016, 12:21:39 am »
Quote
Also if you expect scientific data from a hobbyist community then you're going to come up short. Many of us don't care or have the time to conduct scientific studies just to "prove" what we have learned from experience. In this game anecdotal evidence is what you'll get and let me tell ya, it's produced some amazing bows and bowyers and they only keep getting better. It would be truly ignorant to ignore the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of thousands of people accumulated over decades/centuries, believing that a single scientific paper (which always have plenty of their own flaws) has any more weight.

bows aren't getting better. this dude wrong. he needs to step his vocabulary up cuz he's startin' to sound like a flat earther. the bows I see on the internet look like some straight up dookie. all knotty, twisted, lookin' like a shillelagh. i see bows breaking all the time on forums, but most of the old injun bows are still holding the string 150 years later. can't nobody top the records the Khanites were setting 700 years ago. what's ignorant is holding on to these old fashioned beliefs without critically examining them. see what happens when people do that is they start flying and walking on the moon. word!

We are still waiting to see pictures or videos of your incredible bows. 
I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left

Offline gfugal

  • Member
  • Posts: 746
Re: violating a back
« Reply #122 on: December 24, 2016, 12:41:55 am »
Jack i'm all for abolishing dogma and am intruged with the concept. However, you haven't probided much evidence other than a couple of pictures unstrung. I would be content with that scientific article you mention. Just give us a link. Post a picture of full drawn violated bow without backing.

I think i buy the concept as long as its backed but not otherwise. My first succesful bow was a violated duglus fir but it had a lot of sinew. I want to believe this, but instead of providing convincing evidence like everyone has been asking for you've been too busy trolling. This has discredited a potentially insightful conversation.
Greg,
No risk, no gain. Expand the mold and try new things.

Offline Jack Napier

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
Re: violating a back
« Reply #123 on: December 24, 2016, 12:53:43 am »
Jack i'm all for abolishing dogma and am intruged with the concept. However, you haven't probided much evidence other than a couple of pictures unstrung. I would be content with that scientific article you mention. Just give us a link. Post a picture of full drawn violated bow without backing.

I think i buy the concept as long as its backed but not otherwise. My first succesful bow was a violated duglus fir but it had a lot of sinew. I want to believe this, but instead of providing convincing evidence like everyone has been asking for you've been too busy trolling. This has discredited a potentially insightful conversation.

Gee do you think these Indians went to all the trouble of making those bows for nothing? Of all the things an Indian had time to spare for in the 1800s? Do you really think none of those bows were ever fired? They were all unbacked bows.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 12:58:04 am by Jack Napier »

Offline bubby

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,054
Re: violating a back
« Reply #124 on: December 24, 2016, 01:03:47 am »
No they weren't all unbacked jeeze nothing but miss info and bs. Never seen a sheep horn bow a horse bow an ishi bow or paddle bow, bows from the yosemite valley you haven't got a clue there are plenty of examples of backed bows made by indigenous people. And those Mongol bows you talked about, sinew backed horn bows
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 01:18:02 am by bubby »
failure is an option, everyone fails, it's how you handle it that matters.
The few the proud the 27🏹

Offline Bryce

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,125
  • Pacific Ghost Longbows
Re: violating a back
« Reply #125 on: December 24, 2016, 01:30:11 am »
I'm going to go out on a violated limb here and guess that Jack Napier and gangsta bow are the same person.

Yup.
This dude is just as bad as the squirrel kid.
Clatskanie, Oregon

Offline gfugal

  • Member
  • Posts: 746
Re: violating a back
« Reply #126 on: December 24, 2016, 01:32:53 am »
I'll give you credit where credit is due. Those few pictures you posted were successful voilated NA bows. But you can't know how many broke to get those succesful ones, nor their intended draw length. You also can't say that all NA bows were unbacked voilated bows. I could pull up just as many unvoilated native american bows if i searched the web, as well as backed ones. Cherry picking photos just isn't going to cut it. It's a start but you need more man.

If you really want to prove your point just link the sientific article, or post a picture of one of your bows its that easy.
Greg,
No risk, no gain. Expand the mold and try new things.

Offline Traxx

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,018
Re: violating a back
« Reply #127 on: December 24, 2016, 01:45:34 am »
I cant believe i read this whole thread. :-[

Offline BowEd

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,390
  • BowEd
Re: violating a back
« Reply #128 on: December 24, 2016, 02:30:31 am »
Jack or Gangsta.....You don't seem to be making any headway with convincing people here.Is that all you got?A bunch of quoted literature and museum pictures?You seem pretty proud and admiring of your statements but not of your work.I call that all show and no go.Getting vile and name calling with your statements does not help your argument any and is the showing of bad manners.
Do you really think you've done more research about different designed and cultural bows than the whole PA community?By the sound and depth of knowledge of your statements you hav'nt.Just by my accounts I see you are wrong about at least 4 different things about bow making successfuly.Speaking for myself you are'nt making any big ground breaking notifications about bow making.Your old news that we've all seen and heard before with no burden of proof behind it like the others.
You definitely don't have the appeal for wooden bows that a true primitive archer has describing what you think is an ugly bow IMHO.Maybe it's because you can't make a bow or can't hit anything with one.Either way it's just not there.Maybe your a compound shooter.That would make sense.I've met many that would like to make and shoot a wooden bow but tell themselves they can't and can only criticize a primitive archers' efforts.So until you show me your wasting your breath.
With no proof of work yourself you criticize work of others which falls into the catagory of all show and no go again.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 03:47:22 am by Beadman »
BowEd
You got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
Ed

mikekeswick

  • Guest
Re: violating a back
« Reply #129 on: December 24, 2016, 04:31:19 am »
This rather strange individual is talking complete nonsense. We all know it. I would advise not entering into any 'debate' with him as all this is obviously playing into his hands.
My friend - too many whiskeys/smokes....appear to have fried your brain. Making completely false assumptions from a few old pics then repeating nonsense means nothing. Throwing the flat earth comment in to the mix tells me a lot.

Offline Del the cat

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,300
    • Derek Hutchison Native Wood Self Bows
Re: violating a back
« Reply #130 on: December 24, 2016, 05:06:15 am »
If I'm being kind (and I am never gumpy ;) )
Maybe he means violations along the back, like when you decrown a bow?... Otherwise he is talking complete rowlocks.
Del
Health warning, these posts may contain traces of nut.

Offline Stick Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,003
Re: violating a back
« Reply #131 on: December 24, 2016, 06:04:30 am »
If this guy put half the energy into chasing a ring & making bow that he puts into his BS he probably would have a nice bow , insted of staying up late drinking & being a wannabe  ::)
If you fear failure you will never Try !

Offline Chief RID

  • Member
  • Posts: 684
Re: violating a back
« Reply #132 on: December 24, 2016, 08:02:39 am »
I read the whole thang! If you leave out the useless back and forth and ignore the fact that no full draw pics by the author have been presented, I was wondering the same thing Del expressed.

Offline Bob W.

  • Member
  • Posts: 288
Re: violating a back
« Reply #133 on: December 24, 2016, 08:08:36 am »
Well at least this troll was entertaining lol!

Offline BSV

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
Re: violating a back
« Reply #134 on: December 24, 2016, 08:51:03 am »
 WOW and I thought it was a SIMPLE question for you guy's SORRY.....Burt