s this where we're going?
As usual, we are not going anywhere. Dan, you often selectively single out one item in a post and focus on it.
1. I merely quoted Sagawa because Scott previously used him to support the assertion that Tanomo was Takeda's teacher. I countered it with a direct quote to the contrary. Facts do matter, at least in so far as what Sagawa said - whether you believe him or not is another issue. You have previously, quite happily quoted Sagawa's assertion that he grabbed Ueshiba and he was immobilized. Maybe he was making that up as well. Do you have a roadmap to tell when Sagawa is being factual and when he is on an agenda? You (and I am no different) cherry pick "evidence" to support ideology at times.
2. As I said, Sato Keisuke clearly stated that he did not believe Tanomo was the martial teacher of Takeda - and gave clear and cogent reasons why. Sato was so trusted by the Takeda family that they delegated him as the one individual (not Sagawa, fwiw) to go to the old man and suggest that he stop traveling, as he was so old. Sato was respected (and apparently loved by Takeda as well) because he, unlike almost all those guys, had no ax to grind, was not grandiose, and wasn't a climber who wanted some kind of status - which, I think, encompasses most of the other main Daito-ryu guys. Sato's statement, quoted in Stanley's book, was, for me, the most impressive "evidence" I came across.
Dan, you try to have it both ways. You sling words like defamation and liar, but you've accused the Yoshinkan of a cover-up regarding the true nature of Shioda's few sessions with Horikawa - which would be calling him a liar, as it were, given that Shioda asserted that he learned everything from Ueshiba, and an official representative of the Yoshinkan, while clearly endorsing the sessions Shioda had with Horikawa, supporting that.
Like everyone else in these sometimes fun, sometimes tedious discussions, you, too, have your own ideology, or you would have let me natter on without contributing your own thoughts (among which you accused me of defaming Takeda and calling him a liar, neither of which I did).
Here's another example of "lying" "Did Takeda Sokaku teach you aikido." "No," said a certain someone, "He taught me the meaning of true budo." Liar!!!!!! Liar!!!!
Here's another example. My Araki-ryu teacher said, in reference to a brilliant bout by Chiyonofuji, the sumotori, "That's Araki-ryu." Liar!!!!! Chiyonofuji never took an Araki-ryu class in his life!
Here's another example. The same man said of aikido, "That's not budo." (Given that he had his own definition of budo which was an activity that focused explicitly on practicing to kill people, he was right - for him.).
"For the first time in my life, I want a mature
relationship," said a lovely Japanese woman to me. "Me too," I replied. Didn't realize that what she meant was 24-7 exclusive and total contact.
In each case, the words, as are so typical in Japanese fashion, are used as adjectives, based, often, on a personal meaning, rather than as "existents."
So here's where I conclude my participation in this round of the same old grind. You, I and the others involved in such discussions can only offer opinions. Some based on historical facts (no one ever described Saigo as having any skills that sound like aiki, for example) and some by osmosis ("I have an actual understanding of aiki, so I can understand history in a way different than you").
BTW - since you always - always
- write, "hidden in plain site," is there a hidden meaning in that? Are you hiding something different from my "hidden in plain sight?"
The fact that you assert that your undeniable skills are the "aiki" of which Takeda, Horikawa, Ueshiba or Sagawa speak (at least one, maybe more parties would assert that they did not do the same thing), that doesn't prove anything to me. It's circular. Scott Harrington, (Hi Scott) whom you have aligned yourself for the nonce, studies some kind of Daito-ryu. You guys agree, more or less, in this thread. Would that change if you put hands on each other and one asserted, "you suck." Let's say Scott finds your "aiki" has a high suckability quotient? Would that change the validity of your assertions here? It seems, according to your lights, that it does matter, since you say you are using your physical ability in aiki to evaluate vague historical claims in English, including probably mistranslated quotes which, in any event, can have cultural nuances, that you are very likely not aware of. (Sorry Dan, you have a lot of knowledge that I do not have, but I still dream in Japanese, and sometimes use it to think about things for which I cannot find an English equivalent).
At the end of HIPS, I gave a list of several pages of genuine avenues of research that could establish some of these otherwise endless suppositions. Were people so inclined, we might even get some answers!
(Note: Here's an interesting one. A long term student of one offshoot of Kodokai asserted that Horikawa did not emphasize hanmi at all, because of his understanding that Daito-ryu/aiki was derived from Japanese dance - gagaku - at it's core rather than the sword)!!!!!!! (Just like I speculated about in HIPS, that there may be some kind of Internal training TM in gagaku, just as Tokimune asserted).This was in response to my question why many Japanese writers asserted that the Kodokai, in particular, did things differently than other factions of DR.
There is so much rich information out there, based on genuine historical records, genuine cultural heritage that the whole picture could easily change if only people cared enough to start digging.
Finally, read the last lines of HIPS again. I not only didn't rule out Tanomo, I publicly, at least, provide the first outside nugget of evidence that there COULD be something to the story. So don't accuse me of defamation.