Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Foreign English teacher asserts Korean sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks

October 21st, 2008 . by Matt

From the Korea Times. This letter writer seems to have bought all of the false arguments about Takeshima/Dokdo.

Dear editor,

Though it seems late to voice such an opinion, Japan’s claim to Dokdo is historical, geographical and legal idiocy. The only result of Japan’s claim to Dokdo has been to intensify an already strained relationship between Tokyo and Seoul.

Even a layman who knows how to turn on the news or click around the Internet should come to the obvious conclusion that Dokdo belongs to Korea.

First, Korea claimed Dokdo in 512. Japan did so in 1905 under an imperialist policy.

Second, various maps, from ancient to modern and from France to Japan, show Dokdo as Korean territory.

Third, and most legally important, the Cairo Conference of 1943 declared that Japan would be expelled from all territory taken by violence and greed.

It is no historical secret that Japan was defeated by the Allies in 1945, and was thus required to return all territories acquired through force.

While Japan appears to have some legitimate claims to Dokdo, they all fail when placed under even light scrutiny. In fact, most of Japan’s assertions are ridiculous.

They range from allegations that Koreans were unaware of Dokdo’s existence to allegations that Dokdo could not be found on Korean maps: ridiculous.

Essentially, based on Japan’s use of logic they should annex all of Korea and everything else they acquired in the early 1900s.

Any person aware of the Dokdo issue should ask a simple question: “Why is Japan still trying to claim Dokdo?” All countries want more fishing rights, but what is Japan hoping to accomplish by claiming the islets that are indubitably Korea’s? Japan’s actions are nonsense.

Firstly, his first point happens to be totally incorrect. Korea didn’t claim Takeshima/Dokdo in 512 AD – a look at the documents supposedly supporting that claim reveals the assertion is nonsense. Japan’s claim on Takeshima/Dokdo in 1905 was a formality to cement their sovereignty over the island in accordance with international (meaning western) law. Before that Japan had a long association with the rocks, including knowledge of it’s location and land usage. However, being an uninhabited island, sovereignty could not be determined at first glance, so Shimane Prefecture took steps to incorporate the Liancourt Rocks into it’s territory.

The Liancourt Rocks were not gained by force, and indeed, there was no conflict or war of words over them at all. If the writer of the letter has information that shows the Liancourt Rocks are “indubitably” Korea’s, then he should bring forth this new evidence.

This foreign English teacher should also take note that his opinion is only valued by Koreans for it’s validating effect. This kind of opinion makes him a “good foreigner” while any other type of opinion would make him an “unqualified foreign English teacher” that needs to “study history” and “respect Korea”. The Korean media pushing Dokdo is the same Korean media that is spreading the idea that foreign English teachers in Korea are dope smoking child molesters. Perhaps he will learn someday. It is sad seeing so many foreigners play foreign monkey for Koreans. No self respect at all.

Thanks to MP for the link.


120 Responses to “Foreign English teacher asserts Korean sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks”

  1. comment number 1 by: toadface

    Ponta, whoever the Hell you are…. Stop playing with yourself by making false arguments.

    Nobody is saying Bak overlooked Jukdo. What I’m saying for the tenth time is Bak’s So-Called Usando was positioned, and labelled with data from the Ulleungdo Sa-Jeok written by Jang Han Sang years earlier. Thus it’s clear other features from Bak’s map were referenced from the Ulleungdo Sa-Jeok. So it can be claimed the island to the East Southeast (辰) is the Dokdo from Jang’s survey as well.

    If you don’t agree I really don’t care. This thread shows you don’t know what your talking about anyway.

    Ponta, I’ve proven that today’s Naesujeon was historically called Jeojeondong 佇田洞. It says so here.

    Please read this link.
    http://www.ullungmarina.co.kr/main/main.php?page=tour1_02&cate=ullungdo

    Now if you have any historical evidence there was a bay across from Jukdo Islet also called JeojeonPo, please present the information to dispute my facts. Otherwise you will have to shut your mouth and suck on the truth. You’ve shown nothing to dispute this at all, just shabby references to inaccurate copies of Bak’s map.

    In other words you’ve lost this debate. Just accept it for once Ponta.

    There is no shame is losing a debate Ponta. After all nobody knows (or cares) who the Hell you are anyway, phantom Takeshima ghostboy…..

    Boo……..

  2. comment number 2 by: ponta.

    Toadface

    Ponat says
    “SHOW US THE EVIDENCE”

    Toadface says, without giving the evidence.
    “ponta,you’ve lost this debate”

    Boo!! argument, isn’t it? Can you see it?

    The site you showed doesn’t say today’s 苧洞 was located at the place labeled
    as 所謂佇田洞 in 1711. False evidence again?

    How many times do I have to say that today’s 苧田洞 doesn’t locate to the north
    of Jukdo? Bak did see Jukdo and couldn’t have overlooked Jukdo, which locate
    to the northeast of today’s 苧田洞. If it 苧田洞 as today’s it practically mean
    苧田洞 was north of Jukdo. If the direction was right, the place 刻石立標 was not
    Dodong. If you want to claim it is today’s 苧田洞 and Usando was Jukdo in order
    to seek the slim chance the vague circle is today’s Dokdo , you need to give
    us more concrete evidence, not your amateur opinion or analyzing of the
    maps. You are infamous “opinion” shifter who have kept changing your opinions
    in the last few months.

    So, just GIVE US THE EVIDENCE the stone marker was “pulled up” Dodong
    Harbour in 1937. You are the one who said your “views” are based on Data you
    collected, not me.

  3. comment number 3 by: toadface

    Ponta, seriously do you have a mental problem? Seriously I’m starting to feel sorry for your feeble attempts to save face in this “debate”

    It’s a historical fact, that today’s Naesujeon was called Jeojeondong you blockhead. Go to Ulleungdo yourself, look around and talk to the local people.

    Naesujeon was the former Jeojeonpo which was Bak’s Jeojeondong.
    http://www.ullungmarina.co.kr/main/main.php?page=tour1_02&cate=ullungdo

    I already showed you maps made by Japanese that show 苧田浦 as slightly to the Northeast and definitely South of Jukdo. Jeojeonpo is today’s Naesujeon and Naesujeon is South of Jukdo you silly sausage!!

    Can’t you see the characters for 苧田浦 Ponta?
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-ulleungdo1.jpg

    In other words, Bak’s map showed Naesujeon (所謂佇田洞) in the correct location Ponta, We have also confirmed Bak drew Jukdo directly East “東“ which is dead wrong.

    Ponta, for once in your life, stand up like a man and admit when you are wrong.

  4. comment number 4 by: ponta.

    Toadface

    I enjoy your emotional response, and I guess everyone do. But I will disregard that part and won’t respond to it.
    (Can’t you learn how to argue in a civilized way?
    )

    The place-names of 1711 maps are not same with today’s. Nobody was living in
    1711 on Ulleungdo.
    If you still claim your opinion is “fact”, then you need to give us the concrete evidence to support your claim except for your ”opinion” which constantly changes all the time.

    Give me the evidence = primary source, not “Dokdo Museum’s explanation” nor “your friend’s story” to support your claim that the stone
    marker was “pulled up” Dodong Harbour in 1937. You did claim that your ”views” are based on Data you collected.

    Where is your data which supposed to be collected by you? Don’t tell me that your so-called “views” are based on your “constantly evolving opinions”, not “data.”

    Let me ask you and please respond.

    (1)Do you own the primary source yourself?
    (2)If you do, what is stopping you from publicizing it?

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    Ponta, I’ve stated two possibilities for the location of Bak’s stone.

    A. It was pulled from Dodong Harbour and it was first positioned there by Bak in 1711.

    B. As some Japanese “historians” have claimed it was positioned next to “Standing Rabbit Rock” (Bukjaw Rock at Jeodong) There was mention of Standing Rabbit Rock written on Bak’s map.

    At any rate, either one of these explanations make sense and can be supported by the other locations such as Naesujeon (佇田洞) and directions of the compass “東” So really the stone marker issue isn’t the end all in determining this maps accuracy.

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo16.jpg

    You’ve stated that Jeojeondong is not located North of Jukdo, however we have confirmed the location of the 所謂于山島 not to be accurate. Thus you cannot make determination of other Ulleungdo landmarks based on the incorrect position of this island. Do you understand Ponta?

    Ponta simply doubting another person’s theories and demanding them to satisfy your self-imposed level of proof is not an argument at all, it’s just childish ranting.

    You have some bizarre theory that 佇田洞 is another harbour on Ulleungdo’s Northeast side of Ulleungdo, so I respectfully am waiting for your evidence to buttress your assertions. From there we can compare evidence and see who is correct.

    I’ve already presented my reams of data above, now the ball is in your court to prove 所謂佇田洞 is a different harbour on Ulleungdo’s East side.

    Everybody is waiting Ponta……..

  6. comment number 6 by: ponta.

    Ponta asks

    please present me the evidence

    And proof, according to oxford English dictionary,

    evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

    Toadface says

    “Ponta simply doubting another person’s theories and demanding them to
    satisfy your self-imposed level of proof is not an argument at all, it’s
    just childish ranting.”

    what dictionary have you been using? Toad-dictionary?

    You are the one who said ;
    “On Bak’s map he showed the location (Jukdo?) nest to his stone marker
    labelled as “刻石立標” this stone marker was pulled up Dodong Harbour in 1937.
    In other words Inspector Bak drew this So-Called Usando in front of Dodong
    from which the island isn’t even visible.”
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=978#comment-61275

    You are responsible for what you have written here as long as you want to
    convince somebody something.

    “It was pulled from Dodong Harbour and it was first positioned there by Bak
    in 1711.”

    Just tell me if you have the primary source to support your view, or not, will you? Yes or No.

    If you don’t have any concrete evidence to support your “theory”, then it is
    impossbile to agree with any of them since you are infamous for your
    constantly “evolving opinions”, multiple IDs and false claim that your
    “views” are based upon “data you collected.” If you can’t show me the “data
    you collected”, then I have to say that all you are talking about 1711 map
    is no more than a speculation by amateur who are only showing your
    “opinions” without any concrete evidence.

    You are the one who said ;
    “On Bak’s map he showed the location (Jukdo?) nest to his stone marker
    labelled as “刻石立標” this stone marker was pulled up Dodong Harbour in 1937.
    In other words Inspector Bak drew this So-Called Usando in front of Dodong
    from which the island isn’t even visible.”
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=978#comment-61275

    You are responsible for what you have written here as long as you want to
    convince me something.

    “It was pulled from Dodong Harbour and it was first positioned there by Bak
    in 1711.”

    So, please present me the evidence that it was “pulled from Dodong Harbour”,
    not “found in the remains of the warehouse in Dodong construction site” as
    other resource says.

  7. comment number 7 by: toadface

    At any rate, either one of these explanations make sense and can be supported by the other locations such as Naesujeon (佇田洞) and directions of the compass “東” So really the stone marker issue isn’t the end all in determining this maps accuracy.

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo16.jpg

    You’ve stated that Jeojeondong is not located North of Jukdo, however we have confirmed the location of the 所謂于山島 not to be accurate. Thus you cannot make determination of other Ulleungdo landmarks based on the incorrect position of this island. Do you understand Ponta?

    Ponta simply doubting another person’s theories and demanding them to satisfy your self-imposed level of proof is not an argument at all, it’s just childish ranting.

    You have some bizarre theory that 佇田洞 is another harbour on Ulleungdo’s Northeast side of Ulleungdo, so I respectfully am waiting for your evidence to buttress your assertions. From there we can compare evidence and see who is correct.

    I’ve already presented my reams of data above, now the ball is in your court to prove 所謂佇田洞 is a different harbour on Ulleungdo’s East side.

    Everybody is waiting Ponta……..

  8. comment number 8 by: ponta.

    Toadface

    Just answer me a simple question.

    Do you, or do you not have the primary source to support your claim?

    Yes or No?

    Do you really believe and want people to believe that the circle on the map is Dokdo?

    http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/utsu_take_map5.gif

    Just looking at the map, it is obvious that the onus is on you to prove your fancy theory.

    Proof is EVIDENCE establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    That is not what you haven’t provided yet.

  9. comment number 9 by: ponta.

    That is not what you haven’t provided yet.
    →That is what you haven’t provided yet.

  10. comment number 10 by: toadface

    Ponta, you’ve lost. I’ve proven Bak’s map is based on the Ulleungdo Sa-jeok.

    At any rate, either one of these explanations make sense and can be supported by the other locations such as Naesujeon (佇田洞) and directions of the compass “東” So really the stone marker issue isn’t the end all in determining this maps accuracy.

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo16.jpg

    You’ve stated that Jeojeondong is not located North of Jukdo, however we have confirmed the location of the 所謂于山島 not to be accurate. Thus you cannot make determination of other Ulleungdo landmarks based on the incorrect position of this island. Do you understand Ponta?

    Ponta simply doubting another person’s theories and demanding them to satisfy your self-imposed level of proof is not an argument at all, it’s just childish ranting.

    You have some bizarre theory that 佇田洞 is another harbour on Ulleungdo’s Northeast side of Ulleungdo, so I respectfully am waiting for your evidence to buttress your assertions. From there we can compare evidence and see who is correct.

    I’ve already presented my reams of data above, now the ball is in your court to prove 所謂佇田洞 is a different harbour on Ulleungdo’s East side.

    Everybody is waiting Ponta……..

  11. comment number 11 by: toadface

    BTW. Ponta, the museum itself says the stone marker was pulled from the ocean during construction of Dokdo harbour.

    This shows the Stone Marker was found in the Dodong Harbour area during construction. Can you read the explanation from below the stone at the museum?
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Bak-Stone1.jpg

    If you have another theory as to where the stone marker came from please tell us. Also give us the primary evidence to prove the stone came from somewhere else.

    Remember Ponta, Bak’s map showed he located his stone marker South of Naesujeon Beach (所謂佇田洞) You have failed to prove that 所謂佇田洞 is anything other than today’s Naesujeon Beach so I guess you are screwed Ponta.

    Look at Bak’s map Ponta, you can see the stone marker (刻石立標) it is South of Naesujeon Beach (所謂佇田洞) This shows Bak’s copied the Ulleugndo’s East “東“ location of “Jukdo”
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo16.jpg

    Ponta, as long as you are just some anonymous Japanese right wing radical lobbyist, why should we trust your opinion more than a museum. You don’t even have the integrity to tell us your name. For all we know maybe you are a murderer, or a thief!!

    Are you the same Ponta that continually posts about the comfort women issue?
    Are you the same Ponta who always posts about Yasukuni shrine?
    Are you the same Ponta who always posts about Takeshima?

    Don’t trust Ponta, he is just a anonymous ghost-boy Japanese lobbyist. Very creepy.

  12. comment number 12 by: ponta.

    Toadface

    Toadface says he has proved a circle on the map is Dokdo with NO EVIDENCE.

    The readership is recommended to view the map in question.

    http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/utsu_take_map5.gif

    And he says my demand to give EVIDENCE for the fancy theory is just childish ranting.

    Let me ask you a simple question.

    Do you have the primary source to back up your theory?

    YES OR NO.

    I’ll answer your question.
    I am the same ponta that continuously posts about hypocracy and lies— from comfort women issue to Yasukuni to Takshima—- made by some Korean ultra-nationalists.

    So please answer my question.

    Yes or No?

  13. comment number 13 by: toadface

    Ponta is that map comparison some kind of joke?

    I didn’t know 18th Century Korean map makers had access to Google Earth and Global Positioning Satellite technology. WOW! ancient Koreans really were high tech weren’t they? What an amateurish cheesy analysis of ancient cartography, by you Ponta. You can’t sell that shit here, pal.

    Ponta, you counter ultra-nationalist Korean statements with your own ultra-nationalist Japanese statements. What makes you any better? The bottom line is this Ponta. Because you have proven you are severely pro-Japanese right wing on many other Japan Korean issues, your statements cannot be trusted at all.

    Ponta your views are slanted and biased and that alone gives us reason not to trust you.

    On top of that because you refuse to reveal your identity, your statements carry no weight in academic circles of any sort. You might as well be playing with yourself in a dark closet.

    I think I know why you refuse to reveal your identity Ponta. It’s because the vast majority of Japanese themselves are ashamed of people like you. You think you are helping Japan, however all you do is make the world fear Japan and bring shame upon your nation.

    No identity = No accountability = No credibility Ponta.

  14. comment number 14 by: ponta.

    Identity=Steve Barber=No Evidence= No accountability. Sad.

    I didn’t know 18th Century Korean map makers had access to Google Earth and Global Positioning Satellite technology. WOW! ancient Koreans really were high tech weren’t they?

    Sad.
    18th Century Korean map makers didn’t have access to Google Earth and Global Positioning Satellite technology, toadface, and yet surprisingly, they dwew an accurate map which matches a modern map.

    For instance,
    http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/ANM/1834UsandoJukdocomparison.gif

    Considering that, it looks absurd to assume that the samll spot on the map you say is Dokdo.
    http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/utsu_take_map5.gif

    If you still want to claim that what you are saying on the net is “views”
    based on data you collected, not “opinion”, just SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE that
    the stone marker was pulled up Dodong Harbour in 1937.

    You are the one who said ;
    “On Bak’s map he showed the location (Jukdo?) nest to his stone marker
    labelled as “刻石立標” this stone marker was pulled up Dodong Harbour in 1937.
    In other words Inspector Bak drew this So-Called Usando in front of Dodong
    from which the island isn’t even visible.”
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=978#comment-61275

  15. comment number 15 by: toadface

    Ponta, Bak drew an accurate map in 1711. But as we know some features weren’t accurate such as islands on the South side.

    Citing the historical records we now know influenced Bak’s map we can begin to understand the origin of the errors on Chosun maps.

    Ponta your method of argument is to post a Google Earth image of Ulleungdo next to a 300 year old map and childishly eyeball the two make comparisons and then draw conclusions without any historical context or study. This is not academic at all, it’s a fast-food approach to the study of cartography and it doesn’t wash here buddy. Save that crap for Gerry Bever’s website.

    Regarding the location of the stone marker.

    1.The Korean museum stated to me and on the image I gave you, it was pulled up from the sea during the construction of Dodong Harbour in 1937.

    2. The location of 所謂佇田洞 (today’s Naesujeon) is accurately located to the Northeast. Bak’s stone marker is located where it should be, South of Naesujeon.

    It is logical to say Bak’s marker was located at Dodong on these facts and I stand by it.

    If you have any historical data showing Bak’s marker was elsewhere please present it. Using “Jukdo’s” location as a reference point is simply off the table Ponta, we’ve shown it is inaccurately drawn directly East of Seong In Bong.

    Again I’m waiting ANY logical evidence from you that the stone marker was located at Waldalli in front of Jukdo Islet. Otherwise you have to swallow the bitter pill and agree with the what I say Ponta.

  16. comment number 16 by: ponta.

    toadface

    “1.The Korean museum stated to me and on the image I gave you, it was pulled
    up from the sea during the construction of Dodong Harbour in 1937.”

    I’ve been keep saying that it is not “primary resource”. When we study Dokdo
    issue, we need to see the primary resource, not Korean explanation. Besides,
    you also said that you “heard” it from your friend. What on the earth is
    true in your words?

    Is there any special reason you can’t show us the primary resource? What is
    it?

  17. comment number 17 by: toadface

    Ponta, read point 2 above and then you can worry about whether or not Bak’s marker was found at Dodong.

    Secondly, put together a plausible theory as to why Naesujeong Beach is North or “Jukdo”

    As I’ve said, unless you can explain the inconsistencies of Bak’s map as I have, then you have to agree with me!!

    Have fun Ponta! The ball is in your court.

  18. comment number 18 by: ponta.

    Steve Barber,

    Have fun Ponta!

    Thank you I am having fun, watching how someone can claim the small spot on the map is Dokdo.

    http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/utsu_take_map5.gif

    Just show the concrete
    evidence= primary resource to show the stone marker was “pulled up Dodong
    Harbour in 1937.”

    The reasons you fell into total discredit for us are,

    1. You’ve kept changing your “opinions” for the last few months. You’ve
    kept saying that Usando in 1711 map was not Jukdo, but suddenly changed your
    “opinion”.

    Read yourself the history of process of the change of your “opinions”
    again.

    *2007 March*, you claimed Usando was not Jukdo, criticizing Gerry, since
    Jan’s 1694 report and Bak’s 1711 map has no link together.

    occidentalism.org/?p=555#comment-16254 (http://www.)

    “I agree with MyCoree. You(=Gerry) are playing connect the dots with
    twoseparate documents and shouldn’t come to any conclusions based on this
    alone. Gerry as I mentioned the map you posted earlier is evidently a copy
    of earlier maps showing incorrect islands on the South side of Ulleungdo.
    Thus we know the map was not made completely on a survey but through at the
    very least copying earlier Ulleungdo maps. What we’ve confirmed here is that
    there was bamboo on Jukdo Islet.”
    *2008 June*, you still claimed that “so-called Usando” is not Jukdo.

    “In 1937 when the Koreans were improving Dodong harbour they found Bak Seok
    Chang’s stone marker at the bottom of Dodong. In other words the “刻石立標” on
    Bak Seok Chang’s 1711 map marks Dodong Harbour. This co-relates exactly with
    Jeondong to the north. It also leads us to believe the other 2 nearby rocks
    could be Bukjeo Bawi and Cheotdae Bawi near Jeodong Harbour”

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/good-copy-of-bak-chang-seoks-1711-map.html?showComment=1213026180000#c3711480492817838502

    (http://)

    “Whatever the So-called Usando is on the 1711 Map it is not Jukdo Islet when
    we compare other maps we can say are also based on surveys.”
    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/good-copy-of-bak-chang-seoks-1711-map.html?showComment=1212931200000#c6790544167034752243

    (http://)

    *2008 October*, you suddenly started to admit that Bak’s map shares with
    information with Jan’s report just like Gerry pointed out, but you sill
    commented that Usando in 1711 map was not Jukdo.

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/10/1863korean-map-from-japanese-woodblock.html

    (http://)

    “Kaneganese, the island on the 1711 map was not Jukdo Islet from his survey.
    It was taken from the Ulleungdo Sajeok. The bamboo island from the Ulleungdo
    Sa-jeok was un-named. If you look at the map the island due East of
    Ulleungdo was drawn in front of Dodong Harbour. This was not Jukdo.
    The name Usando was an simply an assumption made by Pak Chang Seok.”

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/10/1863korean-map-from-japanese-woodblock.html?showComment=1224775980000#c4027784978316215880

    (http://)

    “Inspector Pak wrongfully drew this island in front of Dodong Harbour. You
    can see where he placed his stone marker on his map. This marker was found
    next to Dodong Harbour in 1937. You can see the characters 刻石立標 on his map
    found here.”

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/10/1863korean-map-from-japanese-woodblock.html?showComment=1224775980000#c4027784978316215880

    (http://)

    *2008 October, *the same month you commented above, you hit on a plan to
    insist that the vague circle on 1711 map have some slight chance to be
    distorted to be a Dokdo in Jan’s report , though still denyed that Usando in
    1711 map was Jukdo.

    “Of course maps show a neighbour island of Ulleungdo as Usando. They were
    simply copies with all of the flaws of their predecessors including phantom
    islands to the South. Bak’s Wooden Signpost, Stone Marker (Dodong), Waiting
    Winds Place, Jeojeondong etc., These maps all show Bak’s interpretation that
    a island due East of Ulleungdo with bamboo on it was “So-called Usando” As
    I’ve said Gerry, look to the Southeast of Ulleungdo on Bak’s map and you
    will see the outline of an island, just as in the Ulleungdo Sajeok.
    Liancourt Rocks.”
    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/10/1863korean-map-from-japanese-woodblock.html?showComment=1224858900000#c4652124247684563210

    (http://)

    *2008 November*, just a month later you stated above, *you finally decided
    to admit that Usando in Jan’s report and Bak’s map was Jukdo* only because
    you have realized you have to admit that Usando was Jukdo , otherwise you
    can’t even hint the possibility that vague circle was Dokdo.

    “Bak’s map linked above shows he drew this (Jukdo) south of Jeodong harbour
    (marked as 所謂佇田洞 and due East of Dodong Harbour. It is impossible to map
    Jukdo Islet south of Jeodong Harbour. First
    Jukdo is about 3kms to the North from Jeodong. ”

    2. You said that what you say is not just “opinons”, but “views” based on
    data you collected, but you quickly changed that what you say is just
    “opinions” when I pointed out above unstable comments history.

    Matt my views are the result of my own data, it’s more than just my
    “opinion.””
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=978#comment-61280

    “Ponta, first I didn’t know I was under oath when I made previous statements
    about Bak’s map. And yes I totally agree with you that my *opinion* has
    evolved about this map since I first saw it. I’m also sure that Gerry’s has
    changed as well.*”
    *(https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=978#comment-61328)

    3. You claimed that the stone marker was “pulled up Dodong harbour in 1937”
    based on Dokdo Museum’s explanation, but apparently, your word contradict
    against what you have said before.

    *2008 June*, you calimed that the stone marker was found at the bottom of
    Dodong Harbour in 1937. And your friend of yours from Ulleungdo told you
    so…

    “In 1937 when the Koreans were improving Dodong harbour they found Bak Seok
    Chang’s stone marker at the bottom of Dodong. In other words the “刻石立標” on
    Bak Seok Chang’s 1711 map marks Dodong Harbour. This co-relates exactly with
    Jeondong to the north. It also leads us to believe the other 2 nearby
    rockscould be Bukjeo Bawi and Cheotdae Bawi near Jeodong Harbour”

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/good-copy-of-bak-chang-seoks-1711-map.html?showComment=1213026180000#c3711480492817838502

    (http://)
    “Bak Seok Chang’s marker stone was found at the bottom of Dodong Harbour
    when they were developing the harbour many years ago. A friend of mine
    fromUlleungdo said it was found in 1937.”

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/good-copy-of-bak-chang-seoks-1711-map.html?showComment=1213074000000#c5465313394761224314

    (http://)
    *2008 October,* you said the stone marker was found next to Dodong Harbour
    in 1937, not “pulled up”.

    “Inspector Pak wrongfully drew this island in front of Dodong Harbour. You
    can see where he placed his stone marker on his map. This marker was found
    next to Dodong Harbour in 1937. You can see the characters 刻石立標 on his map
    found here.”

    dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/10/1863korean-map-from-japanese-woodblock.html?showComment=1224775980000#c4027784978316215880
    (http://)
    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    You’ve been changing your opinion.
    Perhaps I’ll be quoting in the future,

    “Steve Barbar says,’I am sorry, Ponta, I WAS WRONG. I have been damn wrong.'”

    NO?

  19. comment number 19 by: ponta.

    my commet is under moderation.
    Just wait, Steve.

  20. comment number 20 by: toadface

    Ponta, you made me wait for a week for that joke of a response?

    My point stands and thanks for showing I’ve been correct. The jist of what I’ve always said is…..

    1. Bak’s map was based on the the Ulleungdo Sa-jeok. The location of the island to the East (Jukdo?) was from Jang Han Sang’s survey years earlier.

    2. The island to the East (東) is South of Naesujeon Beach (former 佇田洞) and whatever the So-Called Usando may be, it was not located on the pure basis of Bak’s survey.

    Ponta I’ve proven my points above. You have insisted that this island is Jukdo located in front of Ulleungdo’s Waldalli. Why don’t you put your money where your big mouth is and prove YOUR point Ponta.

    I’m waiting……