raptor wrote:
I want to believe, but I'm not seeing a conclusive link here. How does one go about validating this kind of thing?
Any insight on this Pete?
- R
I might get slammed for raining on this parade but here goes (since you asked).....
In my line of environmental work via peer reviewing other reports, I would have to agree that there isn't 100% definitive or conclusive proof in the written text provided in the link below:
http://www.bloodforthebaron.com/6/fforce.htmlThe author uses phrases such as "All these examples pointed towards". That isn't conclusive or actual proof. Mind you, getting conclusive proof would be a [LASER BLAST]. But there are ways of getting this proof through Palitoy record's (if any still exist) such as concept art work, unproduced catelogs with the figure depicted or a hardcopy (i.e. resin, 2 UP) of the figure. Worse case, maybe UK State Museum can provide a document or a signed written letter stating that this figure is indeed an unproducted Bombardier figure, which was obtained from Palitoy.
I assume these pictures where taken at the UK State Museum? If so, this should be clealy stated in the article.
And speaking of validating information
Quote:
"Further searching produced a 5th member to the team, one which had been seen before, but no-one knew for certain where this figure came from and had always remained a mystery. The figure was a grey, red and yellow repaint of the GI-Joe Flash figure. During the second series of Action Force, Palitoy issued repainted GI-Joe characters with some of its vehicles. 'Bombardier' was labelled to be scheduled with the Mobile Missile System. The toy was issued to SAS eventually without a figure, but was originally issued with a figure in the GI-Joe toy line."
Further searching of what....? What was labelled and scheduled? This is unclear to me or any other reader. This needs to be further elaborated upon.
The way the article reads is that the mystery figure (Flash) is all in likelihood a Palitoy figure. Hence the reason why I stated that "providing if this information is validated to be accurate" earlier in this thread.
Once again, don't shoot me for the feedback. It's just my take.