Reply to hfy Meng from Chu Sifu

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
61

[QUOTE=CFT;732709]

At the very least Hendrik can provide proof of his lineage back by at least 2-3 generations, even if you don’t accept a direct link back to Yik Kam. At present, because of the HFYWCK family’s unwillingness to disclose any more information (which is their perogative and our “duty” to question), we can only trace HFYWCK to one man: Garrett Gee sifu. Where have the other 3 sihing/dai gone?

.[/QUOTE]

If one just checking out the New Martial magazine of Hong Kong and Wu Lin magazine of China, There is not difficult to find all infomation needed to trace back to Yik Kam from different authors of Cho family in different part of the world and different era from the sixties to today.

Rene and Robert have lots of these articles data.

We know, Yik Kam –> Cho Soon –> Cho Dak-Sing, Sam Chan–> Cho On, Cho Chun –> Cho Hong Choy …etc.

Cho Dak -Sing has been challenged by a hongkong martial artists. Sam Chan felt to malaysia after got into trouble with fighting. Cho Dak-Sing is the son of Cho Soon.

Sam Chan is living in Ipoh Malaysia before his passed away and has his own WCK group.

Cho On is my sigung. Cho Chun’s is also my sigung and have other kung fu decendent who is teaching in China as for today who contribute in Wu Lin Magazine.

The writing of Yik Kam and the art salutation indicate the Tai Ping and the Hung Mun that could be confirm by the Tai Ping revolution history and Choy Lee Fut’s writing (since CLF is also involve in TaiPing) and Lee Man Mau, red turban, red boat opera uprising. and link to the Small Knive society of Shang Hai.

And we know Yik Kam is real. because what he record and passed down to Cho Soon and then Cho Dak-sing----> match the big picture and details of written and trace able chinese history be it from the view of Lee Man-Mau records or CLF’s description of that era.

In additional, also the SLT training Kuen kuit match the White Crane of Fujian and Emei 12 Zhuang training writing. White Crane is 400 years old which have great influence on Southern Chinese martial art. Emei is 700 years old which influence the Emei martial art.

So, how much more one needs to know that SLT is not created out of the blue but has a parents which is 400 years old and 700 years old which influencing China’s martial art development?

So, How much more one needs to know that Yik Kam’s writing matched the history of China which is written down officially.

For me, the mystery of WCK creation has been solved. The search is over.

So, why do I present all of these? trying to promote my lineage? trying to promote myself?

NOPE.

IMHO,
My goal is using all of these historical and technical details to activate the SLT or the core of the art. So that everyone sees, we have it all. we just not aware of and seeking outward. it is the time to look inward and train with peace of mind and progress forward. Thus, we preserve our art, be it from ANY lineage.

For it is the Technology of handling Mind, breathing, and physical body that is value able the rest about ego …etc doesnt matter. Thus, I am not anti anyone or any lineage. I am just interested in Technology of handling MInd, breathing, and physical body.

My only interest in all these history stuffs and kuen kuit stuffs is to make use of them for setting me free and have better grow. Once the history and kuen kuit data is reliable and clear define, then I let go of it and start the journey to set myself free and grow.

BTW:
Why waste live in running loop because of trying to defend an ego or a lineage or some his-story. Those are burdent, if the sifu cant let go of these how could the students? since they are the model. ACtion is an evident and sweet talk is just empty. spending time in these extra-burdent is going to be sufforcating. Why do we a modern human wants to strap ourself with all these burden and got stuck?

In these years, people, especially alot of those in the field of doing/ or claiming to do research in WCK mis-understand me and mis-understand the situation.

See, I dont compete with anyone, I just present my case and share. and if others dont have that much evidents, ( I spend 30 years of my life searching it and look deep into Buddhism, Daoism, chinese history…) then that is not my fault but they dont have enough data yet or having no data due to wrong direction.

But then a strange thing happen, they start to attack me, make all type of story try to discredit me with anything they could twist thinking if they could discredit me the discredit could delete whatever data I have found..

In fact, not to many know me. there is even less who know my skill be it good or louzy. In fact, I found the data, but the data is not create by me or my credit or discredit. Thus, it doesnt matter if I have credit or discredit. For once the data found, it is there always.

Thus, it is sad to read they notion of trying to discredit me thinking that way will delet the data i have found. it is impossible to delete a data which is make public that is a fact. if one dont know how to think straight and subsconciously/habitually love to play mind game or trick for arguement shake without even one aware of what one is doing, how could one do research? Again, that is back to the technology of handling the mind.

peace

Do you know why Angels could fly? because they dont take themself seriously, so they are light weight and could fly high. ----- :smiley:

62

[QUOTE=Hendrik;732707]In the field of research, one needs to have the criterion and knowing the field. Instead of jumping into research without any background and resist to look at evidents.

The above arguement is great, however, for me, it is just using a nagation arguement to nagate out every possibility to shows one’s own unbiased. That, for me, is about to win arguement on the cost of nagate everything. it just show " I am right ".

Could we shift into the state of provide evidents, examine evidents, and see which is likely?

instead of everyone turn into expert to argue for sake of argue? and when one needs to win the arguement, one is willing to sacrify any facts just to win the arguement for oneself?

It is my suggestion to anyone including Terence, you want prove? ask Gene Ching’s help to set up a meeting between the GM PAng of White CRane from FUjian, GM Fu or Emei, there once for all, I present my case and evidents. Gene could put that in the cover of his magazine, everyone can Youtube. Let those real pro to make the decision on the matterial I show, be it Yes or No. I will accept the vedict.

I am willing to go that far instead of playing Pro without any true or only partial knowledge about CMA.

Make my day.[/QUOTE]

Hendrik,

“Research” into WCK’s history – which is an inquiry into lineage – isn’t rocket science and doesn’t take any specialized knowledge. We don’t even need to see the arts themselves! Lineage isn’t proved by showing similarities in “concept”; cornish wrestling ( a form of jacket wrestling) looks very similar to judo (a form of jacket wrestling) and uses similar movements, concepts, etc. yet has no connection whatsoever. Similarities can come from all sorts of “sources”, from direct connection, from doing similar things, from indirect means, by adopting things, etc. The only way to show two arts are related is to show they are related by real people who practiced together (they can be related in “concept” without ever having any people-connection). Family tree stuff. And to show that doesn’t take any specialized knowledge. If that lineage – line of persons – cannot be proved, then any relationship remains speculation. It might be possible, it might not. With independently verifiable evidence of lineage, there is no argument possible that a relationship doesn’t exist.

Terence

PS - Let me add that I too see similarities in movement/principle between WCK and white crane and think it likely that there is some relationship. However, that similarlity can be attributed to other things besides a direct, or even indirect, connection of the two arts. So it remains in my mind speculation at this point. That relationship can only be proved by independently verifiable evidence of lineage. I know that stories of white crane people being on the red boats exist - but these are stories.

63

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;732727]Hendrik,

“Research” into WCK’s history – which is an inquiry into lineage – isn’t rocket science and doesn’t take any specialized knowledge. …[/QUOTE]

You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject.

Some will go to Korea to Germany to search for the involvement of WCK to the uprising. Instead of following the path of Lee Man Mau, the TaiPing revolution,and the Small Knive society to Shang Hai of China… Sure they are right but find different things or nothing.

Some argue for arguement sake due to habitually or subsconciously triggle by the emotion or feeling “just needs to win any arguement”. They are also right.

one sure doesnt need any specialized knowledge to do research, and garbage in garbage out. anyone is wrong? nope, generate garbage is also right for those who love to generage garbage.

Best Regars
Lots of love and have a nice give end.

64

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;732727]Hendrik,

“Research” into WCK’s history – which is an inquiry into lineage – isn’t rocket science and doesn’t take any specialized knowledge. …[/QUOTE]

You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject was. similar to we in the west love to define what is WCK with our 2007 western educate mind set and sure we think we are right.

Some will go to Korea to Germany or Mars to search for the history and involvement of WCK to the uprising and…

Instead of following the path of Lee Man Mau, the TaiPing revolution,and the Small Knive society to Shang Hai of China…

Sure they are right to go to Korea and Germany or Mars but find different things or nothing.

Some argue for arguement sake due to habitually or subsconciously triggle by the emotion or feeling “just needs to win any arguement”. They are also right.

I talk all day long about Chan Chan Chan, but keep fighting to feed my ego and continous on feeding the forever unsatisfying trist of ego; without a rest even for one second. and I call that I Know Chan or Zen. am I right? Yes, I am right. I only dont know when and where to drop my ego. and I am right. hahahaha.

See, Terence, everyone is right.

Best Regars
Lots of love and have a nice give end.

65

[QUOTE=Hendrik;732731]You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject..[/QUOTE]

An interesting circular tautology! Absurd, but interesting.

Do you think that I cannot understand the lineage of judo because I have a “western mindset” and am not a product of Japan of 1900? Why is it that all the “WCK historians” can’t provide independently verifialbe evidence of lineage? Because it doesn’t exist. So then we get treated to speculations, where various sources of stories, legends, similarities are cherrypicked (you pick the one’s that support your theory and disregard the others), linked together, and presto!, your theory is proved. But they are all built like a house of cards, one speculation or assumption on top of another. The arguments boils down to who cherry-picked from the stories better! And the really funny (sad) part is that people get so attached to these unimportant stories and theories.

Terence

66

An interesting circular tautology! Absurd, but interesting. -----

You sure are right!
When is the last time have you agree that you are wrong?

Do you think that I cannot understand the lineage of judo because I have a “western mindset” and am not a product of Japan of 1900? ------

I dont think.
and I dont think as you think.
and I dont make the above speculation and ask others these type of question.

If I intend to know whether you have understanding or not, I simply ask you to share your view, if your view fit the japanese judo teaching and trandition of 1900. then, you understand. if your view doesnt fit. then you dont, why do I have to think?

why do I have to run my mind CPU instead of just ask and observe?

That is the WCK concept of Asking hand right? hahaha

Why is it that all the “WCK historians” can’t provide independently verifialbe evidence of lineage? Because it doesn’t exist. —

You are right. and when is the last time you agree or admit you are wrong?

So then we get treated to speculations, where various sources of stories, legends, similarities are cherrypicked (you pick the one’s that support your theory and disregard the others)…-----

You know, based on the above post, you are right. Evidentally, you love to speculate and then speculate the outcome too. and what is speculation? mental exercise which might or might not reflect what is the situation. IMHO.

btw since you mind is habitually not practicing Mun Sau or asking hand, but speculation, do you really know WCK? if yes strange how come it doesnt shown in you mind set?

Terence, from your action above, we know you dont know the Concept or Traditional of Chinese Kung Fu in 1850.

That concept is the concept of Tien Yan hap yat in cantoness or Heaven and Man unite into one.

What is that means?
Asking hand, and listern to the hand as in Chi Sau or physical handling.
Ask and observe others action as for mind handling.

See, Without knowing this you dont know Kuen Choong Sum fat or “strike source from mind/heart”.
For your heart/mind is used for speculation not use for asking/listerning/ and issuing.

So do you understand the WCK with a “speculative mindset” ?
Nope your action show you dont.

So are you right? sure, am I wrong sure. hahaha.

peace

67

[QUOTE=Hendrik;732674]What do you mean by

“there’s no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from?”
[/QUOTE]

Hendrik,

That’s only part of the quote. My whole quote is “could be spin doctored [attacked] to say there’s no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from”.

My point is I think Terence is trying to use math logic to solve an anthropology problem. Or more direct to his background, I think his background in law is imposing certain standards for “provable research” that may be true in court, but isn’t so true in history or anthropology.

I’ve read enough of your posts to get the impression you probably are a historian. Honestly, I’m not sure I understand all of your Emei / white crane postulates or research, probably because you don’t write very clearly, possibly because of a language barrier or English as not your primary language. (Also, possibly because you seem to have a strange attachment to old Barry Manilow / Beatles lyrics and intersperse that into your writings, which really gives me horrible mind pictures of bad karaoke :wink: ).

What I can appreciate from historians / history is more from my experience. I’m a white guy (WASP) from America, so in my education I’ve read much more on Western civilization than Eastern. Many historian authors present different viewpoints, and in my opinion reading all of the viewpoints, even completely opposite ones, help give you a better picture of history. I don’t really read in history books I’m familiar with any kind of levels of “independantly verifiable evidence” like I hear from Terence, which sounds like more of a legal standard of proof. Historians look for stories, artifacts, meet people, and write about those including their opinions filling in gaps. The more details they find about people, artifacts, etc, and intersperse with their writings, the more they sound credible (which doesn’t necessarily mean they are right).

Historians have differing opinions. That’s fine with me, and I think that’s what you may be getting at with your western vs. eastern mindset comments - “only one truth” vs. “different perspectives on truth”. In my opinion, the more historians you have presenting their perspectives, the bigger view you have on history.

Anyway, the only reason your viewpoints haven’t been taken as seriously in my opinion is partially your writing style and partially that you have not gone through the exercise of distilling your ideas and writings down through the publishing industry.

I think with all the history stuff it would be great for many more projects that turn out books. Write books to exercise your mind, and spar to exercise your body.

68

WCK history is a history of people who practice WCK. It’s not “anthropology”. It’s not a question of “cultural mindsets”. How do you prove person Z learned WCK from person Y? That’s it in a nutshell. If you can do that, then you just extend it – that Y learned WCK from X, and keep going as far back as you can.

Saying martial art 1 looks like martial art 2, they share concepts or terms or whatever, doesn’t prove anything because these sorts of things can happen for all sorts of reasons. For example, I can say my martial art comes from Shaolin since it has Chan. But, maybe I adopted Chan a few years ago and put it into my martial art but tell my students it’s always been there. These things are too nebulous.

What Benny/VTM/HFY does is what Hendrik does, which is they can’t prove lineage so they try to prove “their theory” (what they want to be true) by cherrypicking (choosing the parts they like) parts of legends, stories, oral traditions, and in some cases similarities in movement or “principle” in various martial arts, putting those pieces together, and reaching their already foregone conclusion. And to this they put the stamp of “fact” or “truth”.

the problem with this approach is anyone can do this – we can come up with lots of theories, cherrypick what we want to support it, and say it is true.

The only genuine truth is we don’t know. In some cases we can extend the lineage back as far as the Leung Jan era. In others, like HFY, we can’t extend it back past 1990.

If our concern is actual, provable facts, then let’s stick to them.

Terence

69

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;732755]
I’m a white guy (WASP) from America, so in my education I’ve read much more on Western civilization than Eastern. Many historian authors present different viewpoints, and in my opinion reading all of the viewpoints, even completely opposite ones, help give you a better picture of history. …[/QUOTE]

IMHO,

It is not race, It is not education, It is not nationality, it is not historian, it is not view points. it is not that logic.

So

what is it?

It is WE forgot about AWARENESS or Observation of the subject we are investigating. WE are so indulge and melt into our own speculation and thinking and view points and reasoning and logic… lots of stuffs and no end to it.

Thus, We never see what is going on blind fold by those speculation, thinking, this and that…

One of my teacher is Lester Levenson. He is an American but he is a master of Zen. He said, When things become complicated it is because of EGO. and IMHO I totaly agree with him. It is that EGO with the hidden Agenda has so much fear, so much desire, so much … that make simple thing complex.

So, what is this got to do with WCK and the history of WCK? same thing, if one remove those speculation and thinking and release one from one’s lineage, title, ego…etc. One is much clear.

Mind is like a computer, if one doesnt have the data in it, no matter how one run it , it is not going to give one data. So, one can keep speculate and there will be non conclusive.

The WCK ancestor said " comes accept, Goes send it back… using silence to lead the action. … ACtion source from heart…" it doesnt tell us about Anti-Qing, or this programing, or that speculation. It is saying use your awareness or silence and spontaneously response.

How to do non resisting and flow? by not resisting, how to not resisting? not speculating and become limitless. It is not about programing or learning 10000 kiu sau or 1000questions which seems to be leading to the TRUTH but actually greating more confusion because those questions are about wining arguement not about solving issue at all. It is not about speculating with smarth arguement. IT is not about some monks inventing some art for anti-Qing, it is about a path to pointing at one’s awareness so that one could use this awareness for thier best in all situation.

Now, how the heck is possible that some monks or nuns could possible invent some universal programing technics to be able to applied to ALL CASES of fighting? (in the first place, buddhist monk and nuns doesnt beleive in programing others. why because following programing is Karma. Aware of and no longer has to follow programing or habit or subsconcious is end suffering as the Buddha tech) Dont believe me? Take the best computer we have today, program all the case about fighting…etc. and still can one cover all? and Why do you think Pentagon Needs Simulation and Real time simulation? that is because programing cant do it and can have it all. Programing is limit to a certain case only and the real life case is not limit ot a certain case. ( dont believe me, predict you are you going to met 1 hours later and start thinking what you are going to do. see if anything you think about will applied?)

For spontaneous stuffs we all needs to use the AWARENESS to the best.

Now, people claim this is Zen and That is Chan, read all those complaining and attacking, and You do it to me, You are bad , You are evil post in this treat. I even question are they aware of what they are writing while they are writing? if they do then is that Zen which is suppose to release and relif one that they practice? If not then do they know Zen?

and Do they Know AWARENESS? That question we all have to ask ourself.

So how can one learn about AWARENESS or obervation? Chi Sau. That simple Relax and listern and Observe. that is the training. Not sitting infront of the computer or Video camera typing and making more video to make more money with the creation of more and more speculation of this technics that technics..this self righteous sound objective question that self righteous fantasy logic … to lead others who has already confuse to even lost.

Peace

70

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;732768]
What Benny/VTM/HFY does is what Hendrik does, which is they can’t prove lineage so they try to prove “their theory” (what they want to be true) by cherrypicking (choosing the parts they like) parts of legends, stories, oral traditions,
Terence[/QUOTE]

I dont speak for Benny, but I can speak for myself. because Benny is not me.

Could you stop speculate and fantasy about what I am doing? You are not me. and I have just post evidents on my lineage upto 1850 above. Everyone is invited to trace what I am presenting.

In addition, the writing record in my lineage fit or match the writing of White Crane of Fujian and Emei 12 Zhuang of Emei. as in the above post, I also invite you to contact Gene Ching to conduct a meeting and video it in youtube for record.

Boy,
You are so into your speculation that you start babbling anything you can think of.

May peace be with you.

This is the last post i will post on this treat. Best luck and have peace.

71

What a load of crap…:eek:

It’s about hands and feet. :cool:

72

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;732788]What a load of crap…:eek:

It’s about hands and feet. :cool:[/QUOTE]

And here I thought it was about showing you have a pair, with half the posts around here. :wink:

73

Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you’re referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages

You’re entitled to your opinion, but to my mind the sole purpose was an attempt to somehow elevate HFY and CS to some exalted level of purity or quality, the case for which is not made in the book or elsewhere. With the limited evidence and conjecture you wrote about, it couldn’t be.

IMO (I’m entitled) this passage and the immature tirade about “internet historians” in MKF ruined what is otherwise a fairly good book by MA publication standards … though the bar is pretty low.

“Mastering Jujitsu” by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher in the same series is a far better treatment of a martial art’s history and philosophy. IMO (I’m entitled).

Where some people see “original” or “pure”, others see “obsolete” or “primitive”. Where some see “modified” or “impure”, others see “progressive” or “cutting edge”.

In nearly all fields of human endeavour, particularly the sciences, “scientific” being a label most WC people fall all over themselves in an attempt to embrace, progress comes through continual improvements, experimentation and discoveries. Anyone with a few year’s experience can contribute, you don’t need to work in the field for 30 years before you’re entitled to have an opinion and make real contributions.

It’s amazing that one of the few fields in which people claim with a straight face that this doesn’t need to, or shouldn’t, happen, is TCMA.

74

It’s about hands and feet.

And head, knees, elbows, weapons. :smiley:

75

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;732768]The only genuine truth is we don’t know. In some cases we can extend the lineage back as far as the Leung Jan era. In others, like HFY, we can’t extend it back past 1990.

If our concern is actual, provable facts, then let’s stick to them.

Terence[/QUOTE]GM Gee has been teaching in the US since 1975 and has taught 5 different generations of students since then. I’ve actually met a couple of them. Some of whom are still training with him to this day, and have been since before your “1990” barrier. There’s even photos from those earlier years on HFY’s official website and those pictures are also displayed in the HFY Kwoon in SF for the whole world to see if anyone chooses to visit.

“Proof” of Dr. Wong Ming’s existence has been shared with the public before, but was despicably (for lack of a harsher word) refuted as a computer-generated image by very crude characters. On the official HFY website, it is even stated who selflessly donated the personal photo of Dr. Wong Ming, acknowledging and giving credit to her personally.

from www.hungfakwoon.com
We would like to pay special thanks to Nancy Sung who was a longtime student of Buddhist Chi Gung from Dr. Wang Ming. Now in her 60’s, GM Gee and others at the headquarters had the pleasure of socializing with her on a recent visit to San Francisco. The photo above is an original and dates back 40 years and we thank Ms. Sung for providing it. Thanks also to Matt Kwan and Yohannan for their efforts to restore the photo to it’s original quality.

The HFY family did not have to share this private information with the public, but did so decidedly and still we can see how that information has been treated in the public eye by a select few. The HFY family is so grateful to Ms. Sung for providing it, and nobody should be surprised when we stand up in defense for her and for Dr. Wong Ming.

Proof that HFY existed before GM Gee also exists. As some of you may have read online, contact with students of GM Gee’s sihing from China have been made in the last couple of years (Allen Kong’s thread here on KFO). This is something that I know the HFY family is joyous about! Developments are slowly but surely progressing with our extended family outside the USA. Personally, I cannot wait to meet them and I’m filled with wonder as to what the future holds for the HFY family. This goes without mentioning, but it would be an utter disappointment to the kung fu community at large to see another kung fu lineage fall to history as has happened in the past ~ and especially for it to happen in this era should be unspeakable.

So, believe these things or not - that is up to you. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

BTW, lumping the VTM and the HFY family is getting very ridiculous. It has been stated time and time again by both parties that they are TWO separate entities. The HFY family has never stated that they are the original, the oldest, nor the best Wing Chun lineage. My Sigung Master Benny Meng has stated as such, but only as the representative of the Ving Tsun Museum and based on the research that they have done to date. Master Meng also stated that his position on the matter may change if new information proves otherwise. He has time and time again qualified his statements from the position of the VTM curator only. To say otherwise is without a doubt misleading to the general public and disrespectful to both the HFY family and the VTM. It needs to stop.

Respectfully,
Savi.

76

BTW, lumping the VTM and the HFY family is getting very ridiculous. It has been stated time and time again by both parties that they are TWO separate entities. The HFY family has never stated that they are the original, the oldest, nor the best Wing Chun lineage. My Sigung Master Benny Meng has stated as such, but only as the representative of the Ving Tsun Museum and based on the research that they have done to date. Master Meng also stated that his position on the matter may change if new information proves otherwise. He has time and time again qualified his statements from the position of the VTM curator only. To say otherwise is without a doubt misleading to the general public and disrespectful to both the HFY family and the VTM. It needs to stop.

This is a masterpiece of political doublespeak.

The thread was about statements made by Benny Meng on HFY108.com. He can’t, with any integrity, say one thing as an HFY rep and something else as a VTM rep. If there’s some conflict of interest there (not that I give a rats) that an issue for him and the two orgs.It’s more than “very ridiculous” to suggest that the onus is on the wider WC community to ensure they make the distinction.

Who he represents (which has to include HFY with him posting opinons and acting as at least a defacto moderator on HFY108 and you having mengsofaz in your .sig) is less important than the judgements people make on his personal character based on his statements. The “HFY family” and VTM both need to consider how that might reflect on them, for good or ill.

I can see how the “confusion” might be upsetting to you, but if you can’t see why people might confuse the two considering Benny’s relationship with both, you really are brainwashed.

And that’s just a red herring. The issue is statements made by two individuals, and what that says about them. As individuals.

77

“Proof” of Dr. Wong Ming’s existence has been shared with the public before, but was despicably (for lack of a harsher word) refuted as a computer-generated image by very crude characters. On the official HFY website, it is even stated who selflessly donated the personal photo of Dr. Wong Ming, acknowledging and giving credit to her personally.

If you are refering to the picture on page 45 of “Mastering Kung Fu Featuring Shaolin Wing Chun” by Garrett Gee, Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen then I would say… YES!!! It is indeed a computer generated photo. Anyone can see that. When I first purchased the book I thought the picture was just someones way of “fleshing out” a picture and I thought it was cool. I had no idea people were trying to pawn it off as an actual photograph.

If you want to call me a “crude character” for pointing out the obvious then you need to take more sips of the Kool-Aid :rolleyes:

Just so we’re clear… are you saying that is an actual photograph of a flesh and blood human being? Just curious, I could be misunderstanding you.

78

It’a computer-generated photo of Marco Polo (in Chinese drag)…he’s the real Wing chun Grandmaster amoungst the Chinese - although the system dates all the way back to Christofo Columbo (Christopher Columbus).

79

Yes it is a real photo. I’ve seen the actual photo in person, and I can attest to its authenticity. The only difference between the real photo and the one seen in MKF is a crease that was digitally erased from one of the corners. As it was stated on HFY’s official website, the photo is over 40 years old; taken sometime around the the 1960’s. Like I said, if you don’t believe me that’s on you. But this photo represents a glimpse into the existence of HFY’s ancestors; donated to the HFY from a generation of Buddhist practitioners of Dr. Wong Ming. There is no conspiracy on this topic.

Anerlich, this is what I am getting at. Grandmaster Gee is the only one qualified to represent the position of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun family. GM Gee has never stated that we are the original, purest, unadulterated source for all other Wing Chun. I’ve heard him on many occasions, even in public workshops, that he’s not interested in such a thing. He leaves that subject for researchers to decide. The only interest that he has is to keep the system alive for future generations. Master Meng is not the inheritor of the HFY system, so his position on the matter is separate from GM Gee. Just because he is a disciple of HFY does not mean what he says or believes supersedes his Sifu. The only thing that they both share regarding this position is that the Southern Shaolin Temple is the origination of all Wing Chun.

You stated: “The issue is statements made by two individuals, and what that says about them. As individuals.” What two individuals are you referring to?

80

[QUOTE=leejunfan;733109]If you are refering to the picture on page 45 of “Mastering Kung Fu Featuring Shaolin Wing Chun” by Garrett Gee, Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen then I would say… YES!!! It is indeed a computer generated photo. Anyone can see that. When I first purchased the book I thought the picture was just someones way of “fleshing out” a picture and I thought it was cool. I had no idea people were trying to pawn it off as an actual photograph.

If you want to call me a “crude character” for pointing out the obvious then you need to take more sips of the Kool-Aid :rolleyes:

Just so we’re clear… are you saying that is an actual photograph of a flesh and blood human being? Just curious, I could be misunderstanding you.[/QUOTE]You are completely entitled to your observations and opinions.