Bil Says:
IMBLITZVT-your theory is called 'Ocams Razor",I believe.
With no intention of hostility, Bil, I just want to call you out on this previous statement.
Compliments of Wikipedia, the world's renowned source for truth..haha:
Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.
Your statement assumes that the two theories are equally backed with evidence, and that one has no more weight than the other. While I am biased, I would venture to say that there has been sufficient evidence to make the "simplest hypothesis" my own....haha. But in all seriousness, I mean to say that the information I brought to this discussion covered a wide variety of media including historical documentation, manuals, and photographs that suggest a Japanese use of phenol resins material in weapons manufacture, and importation of such material from the weapon's nation of origin for outright use in the Japanese military.
The "simplest" of all these media happens to be a single photograph that clearly states that a gun is indeed a Japanese type 98. Furthermore, the mount attached to that gun also identifies it as having been Japanese issued. This detail has clearly been overlooked, as well as many details brought to this discussion in favor of a hypothesis that has no backing. There is no publication that has any evidence that shoots down any information I have conveyed through my research on this issue.
So then in regards to the "simplest hypothesis" I believe that assuming a gun, clearly marked and mounted as one thing, and instead called another by our friend here, to be a stark disobedience to the "law of parsimony"
In this situation the simplest answer is the one that agrees with what was recorded in the photo. And, my experience in test taking also leads me to shy away from a "definite" answer. (ie. one that is all inclusive and uses the terms "always", "every", and "never", because many times there are exceptions to the rule) That is why I cringe when I hear someone say that "all" type 98's had wooden covers.
All- agree to disagree, but do it not out of spite for another person, but because your hard earned research says otherwise.
Thanks for the fun!
-seth
