Other than my conclusions, what other conclusions are possible without contradicting my references? -Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate cause he saw Korean hand strikes by being a Korean. He taught a better hand strike to Karate for Tameshiwari/Breaking purpose. The referenced facts are: 1. Karate didn't have the hand strike that rotates shoulder and stacks speed & power without implosion & explosion. Kamesuke Higashioona 1933 Hand Breaking without shoulder-rotation. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._1933_Hand_Breaking_without_shoulder-push.jpg 2. Karate had it after Mas Oyama. 3. Korean always has had that hand strike, including before Mas Oyama. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtgeqsmWwAE9by-.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jaTY5Zr.jpg https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png My conclusion is: Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate. -Breaking/Tameshiawri was well known in Japan by Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul; Korean always has had Breaking. The referenced facts are: 1. Breaking/Tameshiawri was well known in Japan by Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul. Mas Oyama in America, by Graham Noble 2. Korean always has had powerful Breaking including Hand Breaking. I referenced many Korean Breaking events from history in any era. (400 years ago, 100 years ago.) https://i.imgur.com/UqPLaLW.png https://i.imgur.com/GqgCXfa.png https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png https://i.imgur.com/d3vM6SR.png The conclusion is: Karate started Breaking/Tameshiwari as a modern practice of Karate by Mas Oyama. This was done by either copying Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul or by copying Iron Palm's Breaking culture. (I suppose Karate copying Iron Palm is also possible although Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu was well known in Japan including 1940's Judo player Masato Tamura doing Breaking under the name Kiaijutsu, not Karate.) What other conclusions are possible in these situations? Also, it's Ad Hominem fallacy to attack my motive, motivation, credibility, agenda rather than attacking the substance of my argument itself.