# The True History of Wing Chun?



## StormShadow (May 3, 2013)

This story is much more plausible 

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/truthrevealed.php


----------



## K-man (May 4, 2013)

Well, how about that?  It was a good story but ....            :asian:


----------



## mook jong man (May 4, 2013)

Don't believe the rebel thing at all.
The whole argument that it was used to train up soldiers for combat in a short amount of time is B.S in my opinion.
I don't know where this idea comes from that Wing Chun is fast and easy to learn , I'm here to tell you it aint.

The stance takes years to become comfortable with , skill in chi sau takes decades.
It would be quicker and easier to hand them a knife and say "Off you go mate , go and do your best".

If all these rebel people were supposedly taught , wouldn't we have a lot more lineages around today than what we have?
Why was Wing Chun pretty much unknown until Yip Man brought it over to Hong Kong in the 50s ?  I mean with all these rebels being taught wouldn't some of these descendants of rebels have been taught by their fathers and been teaching their own brand of Wing Chun in Hong Kong  before Yip Man even got there?

There is no other martial art quite like Wing Chun on the whole planet , it's unique stance and way of executing a type of soft force are totally different to anything else. 
If it was invented by men why the hell do male students take so long to learn to do the movements correctly as compared to female students who just relax and let the angles and structure do all the work instead of tensing up and using brute strength like the males do? 
 To me it makes perfect sense that it was formulated by a woman.

I think for some reason there has been some attempt to masculinise Wing Chun from some quarters and try to down play it's feminine origins , whether people are ashamed to say they do a martial art invented by a woman I can't say.
Probably has a bit to do with self promotion as well.

I just think it works , so who gives a toss if a woman invented it .


I suppose all these people were taught by rebels and they all managed to keep it a big secret.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 4, 2013)

I seriously doubt the rebel origin and for the record we are talking early 1300s here

Something many fail to understand when talking Chinese history&#8230;.Buddhist does not necessarily mean Shaolin&#8230;.yes Zhu Yuanzhang (Hongwu Emperor, first Emperor of the Ming Dynasty) was a Buddhist Monk, and a penniless peasant, but I do not think there is a link to Shaolin there is a link to Huangjue Temple which is Buddhist but not Shaolin.

There is a book by Ip Chun that discusses the history and he too seems to doubt the origin story but he has no solid idea as to what the origin is either


----------



## Argus (May 4, 2013)

I only had a chance to skim over the article, but it seemed like a whole lot of speculation. For being a "scientific study," it was mostly just speculation, supported only in a few places by possible correlations with rebels and secret societies, which sounds like rather shaky ground itself.

I do think that the story with Ng Mei and Yim Wing Chun is likely fictional -- there's even good reason to believe that Ng Mei herself is a fictional character, as she appears in other folk lore and fiction around the early 20th century, from what I understand. But, this hypothesis doesn't really offer a convincing alternative.

At any rate, I tend to think of Leung Jan as being the founder of Wing Chun as we know it. From what I understand, he was very innovative, and established many of the principles we think of as uniquely Wing Chun, such as the idea of maintaining one's squareness, and "Lat sao jik chung."


----------



## StormShadow (May 4, 2013)

Argus said:


> I only had a chance to skim over the article, but it seemed like a whole lot of speculation. For being a "scientific study," it was mostly just speculation, supported only in a few places by possible correlations with rebels and secret societies, which sounds like rather shaky ground itself.
> 
> *I do think that the story with Ng Mei and Yim Wing Chun is likely fictional -- there's even good reason to believe that Ng Mei herself is a fictional character, as she appears in other folk lore and fiction around the early 20th century, from what I understand*. But, this hypothesis doesn't really offer a convincing alternative.
> 
> At any rate, I tend to think of Leung Jan as being the founder of Wing Chun as we know it. From what I understand, he was very innovative, and established many of the principles we think of as uniquely Wing Chun, such as the idea of maintaining one's squareness, and "Lat sao jik chung."



I have to agree with you on this argus.  She does appear in other asian literature as more of a "bad-guy" than a good guy.  With everything going on around those times it would make sense to conceal an art under mystery in wake of oppression.  I cannot discount this story sense I cannot currently conduct on own investigations but I certainly feel the narrative we all know is not what really happened.


----------



## StormShadow (May 4, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> Don't believe the rebel thing at all.
> *The whole argument that it was used to train up soldiers for combat in a short amount of time is B.S in my opinion.
> I don't know where this idea comes from that Wing Chun is fast and easy to learn , I'm here to tell you it aint.*
> 
> ...




When they mention "easy to learn" I believe they are referring to removing of needless movements. Throwing away what doesn't work and favoring what does.  Basically where Bruce Lee got his ideas from.  So easy to learn in the sense of, you aren't wasting time learning move for move for hundreds of attacks.  Basically making it "easier" to learn in a relatively short amount of time.  

Personally, it never bothered me in the least that it was invented (or foretold it was invented) by a woman.  If and woman did invent it and used it to destroy men in combat than that says even more in the positive about the art honestly. 

The article does state the penalty for being identified as a martial arts practitioner where your family would be executed down to 9 generations.  Thats an extremely heavy price to pay and excellent cause to keep it a secret as long as possible given those times.

To me, this story is plausible, as wing chun gains even more steam & popularity in the practiced arts, I suspect the real origins (or most of it) will present itself.


----------



## James Kovacich (May 4, 2013)

How clever the rebels were to name their secret art with the name of their location and Yimms name translating to secret...pretty smart of them...even smarter 2 guys with 15 years in the art have managed to do what nobody else has ever been able to do...discover the truth about Wing Chun.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## yak sao (May 4, 2013)

In WC we are taught to not oppose force, but to let it go.
Has anyone ever known a woman to let anything go?


----------



## mook jong man (May 5, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> When they mention "easy to learn" I believe they are referring to removing of needless movements. Throwing away what doesn't work and favoring what does.  Basically where Bruce Lee got his ideas from.  So easy to learn in the sense of, you aren't wasting time learning move for move for hundreds of attacks.  Basically making it "easier" to learn in a relatively short amount of time.  Personally, it never bothered me in the least that it was invented (or foretold it was invented) by a woman.  If and woman did invent it and used it to destroy men in combat than that says even more in the positive about the art honestly. The article does state the penalty for being identified as a martial arts practitioner where your family would be executed down to 9 generations.  Thats an extremely heavy price to pay and excellent cause to keep it a secret as long as possible given those times.To me, this story is plausible, as wing chun gains even more steam & popularity in the practiced arts, I suspect the real origins (or most of it) will present itself.



Even under the threat of death and your descendants being executed and their families pet dogs and cats being raped  , things still have a way of getting out.

People get drunk , people get on the opium , people like to boast about fights they've been in , people can be paid off for certain information , someone somewhere would have let the cat out of the bag.

Frankly I think Benny Meng has about as much credibility as William Cheung.

If they both told me it was raining outside , I would have to go out and check.


----------



## StormShadow (May 6, 2013)

so mook, is it safe to say you believe the Ng Mei - Yim Wing Chun story is legitimate?


----------



## Eric_H (May 6, 2013)

Since what's written in the article is an extrapolation on my family's version of Wing Chun history, I guess I can field most questions on the details of it. Or at least which parts are natively ours and which ones were part of the VTM marketing machine. 

Ng Mui, for us, is the name of our energy concept. Ng Mui Gong Yau Faat. It's a re-telling of 5-element theory. It was also part of the old modus operandi of "keep secret the wing chun." Our Branch was kept inside a single family for a long time before my teacher. He was the first one not blood related to learn the whole system.

The chart that Mook Jong Man posted is basically how we see the art of the red boat opera performer side, just replacing Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun with Tan Sau Ng (founder of the red boat opera). That's where we draw the distinction in types of wing chun, opera society vs boxer society.

As for the Shaolin connection, there's a signature of 3 animal shapes in WC that identify themselves as the "southern shaolin calling card." Most/all southern shaolin descended styles have them (lung ying, bak mei, etc)

All history discussion should be taken with a grain of salt, but one of the things I liked about the HFY explanation before I got deep into it is that it seemed more practical than the nun myth. To each their own.


----------



## mook jong man (May 6, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> so mook, is it safe to say you believe the Ng Mei - Yim Wing Chun story is legitimate?



Yes I do.

Wing Chun is dominated by men , no doubt about that .
But the women I have met in Wing Chun are really good at it , and the ones that I have taught in the past did the techniques more correctly than the men.
One might say they have an affinity for it , because it was invented by one of them.

Years ago I sparred Sigung's top female student in the pictures below , when she came over from Hong Kong , and I am not ashamed to admit it but I got absolutely friggin mauled by this woman.

I'm not exactly slow , but she made me look like I was standing still.
She was so fast I couldn't get anywhere near her without getting hit all over the head , and after she finished with me she looked at the other guys and said "Anybody else want some ".
Needless to say , not many did after they just saw me get hammered.


----------



## StormShadow (May 7, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> Wing Chun is dominated by men , no doubt about that .
> But the women I have met in Wing Chun are really good at it , and the ones that I have taught in the past did the techniques more correctly than the men.
> ...




Well women are smarter than us lol. I would wager the top male practitioner in wing chun would beat the top female practitioner in wing chun. Some are born with an affinity for certain things.  Some people are born faster, more agile, stronger ect.  I do not believe since it was invented by a woman, most women in general will be better at it than men.  There are a host of factors that could play into that.  In an art not predicated on strength, men tend to use strength anyway be it for macho purposes or just subconsciously. Women also look more eloquent in performing movments possibly due to the strength factor.  The finese of women in other arts can be seen as well, not just in wing chun.  I've also seen examples of women having trouble performing the sil lum tao, straying from their center line in the movements while some guys get it right away.  I think it goes both ways, maybe females are more noticable as men are predominately taking up wing chun.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 7, 2013)

Speaking of women...The True History of Wing Chun...well ok...maybe not so true.... but it has Michelle Yeoh  so it must be true


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 27, 2013)

Don't believe a thing that comes out of VTM. It is not a legitimate museum. It was created to support Benny Meng's business interests, meaning to support what ever system he is trying to promote at the time. This has ranged from Ip Man Hong Kong Wing Chun kuen (Moy Yat lineage), "Chi Sin Weng Chun", Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun kuen to now Hek Ki Boen Eng Chun.

In my humble opinion Ng Mui, Yim Wing Chun, Chi Sin etc. etc. are all myths. There is more academic work out there (check Google Scholar) to support their existence in myth only (wuxia fiction), not fact. Same can be said for "southern Shaolin".

Cheung Ng may have existed, but he came from the north and injected a lot of opera-style (long bridge, wide horse) martial arts into the opera. Nothing closely related to Wing Chun, which likely developed later and independently on the red boats themselves. In addition actual records indicated Cheung Ng was an entire generation too early to have taught Wong Wah Bo and co. anything at all. Cheung Ng's place is in opera history, not Wing Chun history.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 28, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> Cheung Ng may have existed, but he came from the north and injected a lot of opera-style (long bridge, wide horse) martial arts into the opera. Nothing closely related to Wing Chun, which likely developed later and independently on the red boats themselves. In addition actual records indicated Cheung Ng was an entire generation too early to have taught Wong Wah Bo and co. anything at all. Cheung Ng's place is in opera history, not Wing Chun history.



You speak pretty surely for a man with no facts or citations to back him up. Anything that proves that this is more than just another man's opinion?


----------



## Kenpo5.0Hawker (Aug 28, 2013)

Regardless of any of these origin stories being true or not, they do seem to me to have lots of value as inspiration for a fighter. I enjoyed reading them. 

Tom


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 29, 2013)

Eric_H said:


> You speak pretty surely for a man with no facts or citations to back him up. Anything that proves that this is more than just another man's opinion?


It's an informed opinion... Check my claims, see for yourself.


----------



## Koryu Rich (Aug 29, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> It's an informed opinion... Check my claims, see for yourself.



Thats not really how it works I'm afraid.

You've put that forward so it's your responsibility to back it up.


Do you have any sources?


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 29, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> It's an informed opinion... Check my claims, see for yourself.



Actually, the burden is on you who makes the claims to provide the proof.

So far, I'm not seeing any.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 29, 2013)

Or one can also do the research if one is interested to find evidence to prove or disprove a statement

I have no horse in this but it goes both ways folks


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm aware how forums work guys. I post some more stuff perhaps, you argue with it some more because you are cemented in your beliefs, and around and around we go. I'm not going to waste my time if your mind is already made up. How about instead of believing what people tell you (me included) you just do a bit of digging for yourself. Or you can blindly follow. Up to you. Point is if you train hard and make your art work for you, I respect you. Lets not get hung up on the politics too much.

Remember this though, when Pan Nam and Ip Chun first circulated the Cheung Ng theory, they didn't have google scholar...


----------



## Koryu Rich (Aug 29, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Or one can also do the research if one is interested to find evidence to prove or disprove a statement
> 
> I have no horse in this but it goes both ways folks



And how would someone, like myself, who has virtually zero experience in this corroborate all of that?

It doesn't go both ways, not if you wish to be taken seriously in any discussion.


----------



## Koryu Rich (Aug 29, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> I'm aware how forums work guys. I post some more stuff perhaps, you argue with it some more because you are cemented in your beliefs, and around and around we go. I'm not going to waste my time if your mind is already made up. How about instead of believing what people tell you (me included) you just do a bit of digging for yourself. Or you can blindly follow. Up to you. Point is if you train hard and make your art work for you, I respect you. Lets not get hung up on the politics too much.
> 
> Remember this though, when Pan Nam and Ip Chun first circulated the Cheung Ng theory, they didn't have google scholar...



Carrying on from my previous point.

How does that help complete beginners in the system or those from other backgrounds? Take me for example I'm pretty much completely from Japanese systems.

It's basic procedure on most forums and in academia to back up, in some way, any claims like this you make.

It not only lends credence to what you have written but also enables those interested to follow your thought process and research.


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 29, 2013)

I respectfully disagree. Sheep read and accept. If you want to do that, fine. When I release my book I'll let you know. On a web forum I'm more than entitled to throw in my opinion and run. I believe I'm right, others believe they are right. If I've made a comment or shared an opinion that provokes thought and you'd like to look into it further... That onus is on you, not me.


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 29, 2013)

You also may wish to direct your enquiries about academic citations to those who promote the Cheung Ng angle. A part from being in the Cantonese opera from about 1730, there is no mention or connection of that name to anything Wing Chun related. Some WC systems try to connect Cheung Ng to one of our first known ancestors Wong Wah Bo, who spread Wing Chun in the post opera ban era (1855). If Cheung Ng was say 30 in 1730 and Wong Wah Bo was say 30 in 1855... Do the math, could Cheung Ng have taught Wong Wah Bo?


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 29, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> I respectfully disagree. Sheep read and accept. If you want to do that, fine. When I release my book I'll let you know. On a web forum I'm more than entitled to throw in my opinion and run. I believe I'm right, others believe they are right. If I've made a comment or shared an opinion that provokes thought and you'd like to look into it further... That onus is on you, not me.



So now you're anti reading. This has got to be the worst constructed argument I've ever seen. You are nothing but a troll.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 29, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> You also may wish to direct your enquiries about academic citations to those who promote the Cheung Ng angle. A part from being in the Cantonese opera from about 1730, there is no mention or connection of that name to anything Wing Chun related. Some WC systems try to connect Cheung Ng to one of our first known ancestors Wong Wah Bo, who spread Wing Chun in the post opera ban era (1855). If Cheung Ng was say 30 in 1730 and Wong Wah Bo was say 30 in 1855... Do the math, could Cheung Ng have taught Wong Wah Bo?



Who said Tan Sau Ng taught wong wa bo? Our line has him a few generations before that timeframe.


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 29, 2013)

Eric, that's pretty unfair. A guy comes in here and shares a little insight into his own formed opinion and gets torn down because he doesn't reference?!?!?! Is the way all posts/posters/opinions are treated on this forum? I hesitated joining forums, now I know why.

i tried to come in here respectfully and I get accused of being anti reading? Unbelievable. My opinions have been formed from reading. Something you should do Eric and not VTM or HFY material, source your own. Are you afraid to do this? Like the fanatical religious, too much money and emotion invested into something, you will hold your breath, turn blue and pass out before hearing anything that might debunk your beliefs.

Open up and free yourself from one lineage perspective and "Sifu says". It's okay to have your own opinions you know. My Sifu and I share different beliefs in WC origins, what's wrong with that? If this kind of free thinking is discouraged in your organisation Eric, I suggest your drastically Re think who you are involved with.

i am no troll, but comments like that border on turning me into one. I was looking forward to some good discussion and potentially making some friends and contacts. Instead I've been gifted with yet more closed minded cult/group like thinkers.

Thanks but no thanks. I'm off (last post).


----------



## SamAbb (Aug 29, 2013)

Which version is that? This has changed several times in your org.

Pan Nam (and Ip Chun by association) also listed Cheung Ng as having taught Wong Wah Bo.

Thats it, I'm done.


----------



## Eric_H (Aug 30, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> Eric, that's pretty unfair. A guy comes in here and shares a little insight into his own formed opinion and gets torn down because he doesn't reference?!?!?! Is the way all posts/posters/opinions are treated on this forum? I hesitated joining forums, now I know why.



When you offer up an opinion as fact, you should expect it to be questioned. When you act like a troll, expect to be called a troll. When you act like a child running away and crying about it as you are now, expect to be treated that way too.



> i tried to come in here respectfully and I get accused of being anti reading? Unbelievable. My opinions have been formed from reading. Something you should do Eric and not VTM or HFY material, source your own. Are you afraid to do this? Like the fanatical religious, too much money and emotion invested into something, you will hold your breath, turn blue and pass out before hearing anything that might debunk your beliefs.



I'm still waiting for that reference so that I can read it and change my opinion based on available evidence. 



> Open up and free yourself from one lineage perspective and "Sifu says". It's okay to have your own opinions you know. My Sifu and I share different beliefs in WC origins, what's wrong with that? If this kind of free thinking is discouraged in your organisation Eric, I suggest your drastically Re think who you are involved with.



Here you are telling me not to believe what my sifu says, but rather what your sifu says. That's not really free thinking.



> i am no troll, but comments like that border on turning me into one. I was looking forward to some good discussion and potentially making some friends and contacts. Instead I've been gifted with yet more closed minded cult/group like thinkers.
> 
> Thanks but no thanks. I'm off (last post).



And the last little piggy cried WAH WAH WAH all the way home.



> Which version is that? This has changed several times in your org.
> 
> Pan Nam (and Ip Chun by association) also listed Cheung Ng as having taught Wong Wah Bo.
> 
> Thats it, I'm done.



From Pan Nam through Eddie Chong:
http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.ThePanNamWingChunBranch-ByEddieChong

"The Shaolin Temple monk, Yi Chum, was said by Pan Nam to be the true founder of Wing Chun. Yi Chum taught Tan Sau Ng, who taught Dai Fa Min Kam, Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tei (Leung Jans teachers) and so on until Pan Nam"

My org, the HFYWCKA doesn't try to write the red boat opera history with Wong Wa Bo and Leung Yi Tai - we try to just work with what is widely available. Its not our line, so it's not our prerogative. In the 1850's-1870's we had a lineage holder named Hung Gun Biu, who was the 4th generation successor down from Tan Sau Ng. This person is total separate from the opera troupe. It's all oral legend however, and free to attack or disagreement from people who present solid evidence. 

Also consider that Tan Sau Ng, is a nickname and may have been given to more than one person. Additionally it points out 5 cardinal uses of Tan Sau the tool as used in Wing Chun, so it may be more of a codeword than an actual person.


----------



## Koryu Rich (Aug 30, 2013)

SamAbb said:


> I respectfully disagree. Sheep read and accept. If you want to do that, fine. When I release my book I'll let you know. On a web forum I'm more than entitled to throw in my opinion and run. I believe I'm right, others believe they are right. If I've made a comment or shared an opinion that provokes thought and you'd like to look into it further... That onus is on you, not me.



Strawman.


Not for one moment have I suggested that anyone should read and accept.

In fact one main reason for you showing what your opinion is based on is so that people can examine it critically.

Of course you can shoot and run with your opinions but don't expect them to be given much credence if you don't provide any backup for them, especially when you state them as fact.

You'll also do them and yourself a further disservice when you show that you find backing up your word to be so objectionable.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 30, 2013)

Koryu Rich said:


> And how would someone, like myself, who has virtually zero experience in this corroborate all of that?
> 
> It doesn't go both ways, not if you wish to be taken seriously in any discussion.


Yeah it does, welcome to the real world if you truly care about the topic or the history you are discussing. You are on a computer there is Google, there are tons of resources available, there are libraries, there are thousands that do research all the time to find the truth of things based on something they read or heard and they are taken very seriously. Basically being spoon fed is easier but not the best way to learn and not always right. Following tradition is easier, following what you have been told is easier (the earth use to be flat you know and the center of the universe ) but it is not always right. Do the work, do the research and you can get a lot more solid proof. Being pointed in a direction is nice but still does not give solid irrefutable proof, "you" need to verify it all to be certain.

People make statements and if you agree or disagree it may or may not produce in the person making the statement a need to explain further. Or they can give you all sorts of documentation and it may or may not be correct. 

There are tons of books out there from reputable people and there are a lot of reputable people making statements that the founder of Taijiquan was Zhang Sang-Feng. I can produce tons of documentation in from the heavy weights of taijiquan history that say he existed and be taken seriously and argue the point Ad nauseam. But it is all historically un-provable if you go beyond what you are given and do the research yourself based on historical documentation.

But if it helps&#8230;.even Ip Chun is not so sure about the origin stories of Wing Chun and if you read his books, and I will not tell you which one, he says it himself.


----------



## Koryu Rich (Aug 30, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah it does, welcome to the real world if you truly care about the topic or the history you are discussing. You are on a computer there is Google, there are tons of resources available, there are libraries, there are thousands that do research all the time to find the truth of things based on something they read or heard and they are taken very seriously. Basically being spoon fed is easier but not the best way to learn and not always right. Following tradition is easier, following what you have been told is easier (the earth use to be flat you know and the center of the universe ) but it is not always right. Do the work, do the research and you can get a lot more solid proof. Being pointed in a direction is nice but still does not give solid irrefutable proof, "you" need to verify it all to be certain.



Most of that research that you would be looking at, what would it have? Yep sources, it would be built on other's work to one degree or another.

It's not about being spoon fed and at no point have I indicated that I feel it should be, it's simply makes the conversation flow far easier, lends weight to your opinion and allows those you are dealing with to follow your train of thought and reasoning. 

At no point have I mentioned irrefutable proof and in fact the main reason for asking for sources is so that one can verify things, so that you can in fact do the leg work.

A great number of other places from educational establishments to other forum would not bat an eye at such a request.

Asking for a reference or source is not expecting someone else to do the work.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 30, 2013)

Koryu Rich said:


> Most of that research that you would be looking at, what would it have? Yep sources, it would be built on other's work to one degree or another.
> 
> It's not about being spoon fed and at no point have I indicated that I feel it should be, it's simply makes the conversation flow far easier, lends weight to your opinion and allows those you are dealing with to follow your train of thought and reasoning.
> 
> ...



I know how research works, done a lot of it since my college days (and a lot during) and many times it is based solely on a statement with no additional source to back it up, sometimes I have done this for work and other times because I was interested. It is not always easy but it can be quite interesting

And I had this long multiple post response I was working on and then I thought.this is getting silly and is not worth my time so I deleted the entire thing

Bottom-line 

You can ask for a source and one may or may not be given and you can at that point, should you desire, dismiss the entire thing. Or if you are truly interested  look into it yourself and find out if it is right or wrong and either way you learn something.

Beyond that, I have no horse in this race

Xue is outPeace


----------



## Kenpo5.0Hawker (Aug 30, 2013)

I like to see sources etc. that really improves a scholorly debate. Yet I want to ask certain posters here that are currently disputing this history to provide proof (cite resources) that the history the OP provided is incorrect. Do you have a Better version you can back up with citations?  If so I'd love to see them. If you cannot back your claim then stop asking for others to provide what you yourself cannot. So. If you dispute th OP and that history. Please show me why. Otherwise it's a bunch I've very awesome myths. All unsubstantiated and yet very insperational. 
Tom


----------



## StormShadow (Aug 30, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah it does, welcome to the real world if you truly care about the topic or the history you are discussing. You are on a computer there is Google, there are tons of resources available, there are libraries, there are thousands that do research all the time to find the truth of things based on something they read or heard and they are taken very seriously. Basically being spoon fed is easier but not the best way to learn and not always right. Following tradition is easier, following what you have been told is easier (*the earth use to be flat you know and the center of the universe* ) but it is not always right. Do the work, do the research and you can get a lot more solid proof. Being pointed in a direction is nice but still does not give solid irrefutable proof, "you" need to verify it all to be certain.
> 
> People make statements and if you agree or disagree it may or may not produce in the person making the statement a need to explain further. Or they can give you all sorts of documentation and it may or may not be correct.
> 
> ...



Technically, we can still be the center of the universe if it indeed spans (using a directional compass as concept) to the east and west of the earth. We primarily explore the east as leading out from the earth toward the sun.  I doubt, the earth is the end of all solar systems in the grand universe.  The concept of the expansion of the universe is all based on the big bang and the dissemination of matter.  We do not know 100% that we are not the center, only on estimates and speculation of theories in physics.  *just a little aside*


----------

