I know I'm getting old, but all I see are a bunch of "attaboys".
D
Perhaps your vision is being adversely affected with age, ... don't the comments "wow that is detective work" and "great screen matching" directly applaud the level of analysis? And the other remarks of general praise speak to your implication that there wasn't anyone who offered applause for the writeup. Also, it should be apparent the whole intent of the writeup and the presentation of the annotated images was to convey authenticating information.
I'm guilty of critical thinking, not maliciousness. If I were truly the scoundrel you claim I am, I would have done one of two things:
1. Dumped on the phaser and discredit it, or
2. Not written about the phaser at all.
I did neither. My goal is to be an honest and fair presenter of facts, period.
IMO, you are absolutely not a fair presenter of facts. You have entire posts on your site dedicated to attacking people. And you can't write a dispassionate assessment of something like a Shatner tunic or the TOS phaser without hurling abuse and implying dishonest and malicious intent on the part of the auction house and/or consignors. Your earlier remarks in this post certainly validate that without a doubt. And the use of profanity in your posts is never appropriate, IMO.
I happen to be fortunate to know several very prominent Star Trek collectors, in North America and Europe, folks that own very high end Trek & TOS screen used items which have sold successfully for 10's of thousand of dollars and higher at auction - and I can assure you that these folks attach no credibility to your analyses or your blogger site. You are truthfully regarded as just "Don Hillenbrand the hater", IMO - someone who continues to denigrate reputations regardless of the facts at hand in order to seek revenge for some imagined offense committed against you - and I won't repeat the more colorful expletives several folks have used to relate to me their true impressions of your lack of character. As I've said before, IMO, your intellectually dishonest posts fool no one.
I for one could hardly believe my eyes when I read your attempts on this forum to discredit the restoration of the Galileo shuttlecraft; something everyone else here universally applauded. Yet you try to persuade readers the finished effort was some type of false creation - not worthy of being called a "restoration" - which is absolutely wrong, IMO. And the other forum member's comments in that thread reflect my assessment.
When you have headlines on the net attempting to drive traffic to your site proclaiming "Authenticity of TOS Phaser Questioned" and when you assert the writeup falsely claims things which it certainly does not ... that absolutely attempts to discredit the Phaser, IMO.
When you say:
To expect us to swallow everything that you and PIH have spoon-fed us is absurd
as you did earlier in this post, that is malicious, IMO. It implies an attempt by the auction house and consignor to spread deceitful or misleading information to convince the public of something that is untrue.
When you keep harping on the fact that Profiles had a bad item on their cover, time and again in different posts on your site, that is malicious, IMO. They are arguably the most prestigious auction house for entertainment memorabilia, having sold unquestionably authentic multi-million dollar items and have an outstanding reputation for TOS in particular - with the Jefferies auction and Justman auction and many amazing props & costumes since then. A fair and honest person would not endlessly attack them for a rare mistake - forgetting about all the other times they were not mistaken. Think of the thousands or so items that appear in each catalog - it is understandable to most that it might be difficult to dedicate the appropriate level of resources and research required to every piece all of the time - and a reasonable person wouldn't constantly condemn them again and again or see it as anything other than an unintentional mistake. You seem to see a grand plan to willfully deceive and rob the public, IMO. It truthfully seems difficult for me to imagine anyone who thinks of Don Hillenbrand as anything but a hater when it comes to the affairs of our prop collecting community.
You challenged me to provide evidence that there were comments of applause for the Profiles writeup - which I did. Now it's your turn. Let's see some remarks from other collectors agreeing with you that you are a totally fair and unbiased analyst and you haven't engaged in hate-mongering or malicious behavior - specifically with regard to the examples I listed above. Thanks.
Also, you just quoted me in your last posting but never answered the question I posed:
There is even the direct statement in the Profiles description "... match those evident on a screen capture from "Assignment: Earth" (first airdate: Mar 29, 1968), which directly establishes the on-screen use of this prop in that highly memorable The Original Series time-travel episode." Why would that line of description even be necessary if there was a declaration of screen use of the unique prop in 4 episodes made earlier in the write-up, as you suggest?"