I'm not really sure where this came from.
Well, I dunno. Given the number of "Ueshiba had nothing because he got it all from Takeda" posts I've seen some people focus on, the "I don't know where this came from" argument seems a bit disingenuous.
I could make the argument that the Aikido techniques I've seen in Aikido simply represent variations of widely known Chinese techniques because that's true. However, I could not only say that of a lot of Japanese m.a. techniques, I could also say the same bascially trivializing comments about most modern-day Chinese m.a. techniques. Why don't we drop the anti-Ueshiba stuff and just appreciate it for what it is, what it does, what its body-technology is, and so forth. There's really no need for this "Ueshiba was a poor take-off on Takeda" stuff. If we're talking about Ueshiba's techniques (like the "ukemi" mentioned in the header) let's examine it.
If we're going to say that Ueshiba's technique (and Takeda's) came from somewhere else, let's be fair and trivialize all equally. Most of all, let's be even-handed in our analyses.