Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemaodyssey
By the same logic, you have come to similar conclusions with no proof to back up your claims that it is Herzog...just that it looks more like him. There is really no need to denigrate what could be a significant historical find, especially on your first day here and in your first post.
|
My apologies for ruffling your feathers on my first day here.
Yes, I have exactly as much proof as Merkle923 - which was precisely my point! Yes, it could be a significant historical find, and it could be a big nothing, but thus far I'm not convinced. Looks like Herzog's chisel chin to me, but we'll see...
By the way, speaking of needless denigration, was it really necessary for Merkle923 to invent an elaborate scenario denigrating the reputation of Charles M. Conlon - based on zero evidence? We've got a new goat at the Merkle game, it seems. That was the "overheated fantasy" I was referring to, but I guess you missed it.
This is my second post. I sincerely hope it meets with your approval.