Wait Wait Wait. Someone tried to make a Tiger into a cat? Please keep refuting the allegations this is getting hilarious. His Grandfather partially domesticated a wild tiger by leaving food out? Yes, that is such a better explanation.
Yes, that is sarcasm. Oh and I’m about to send half of this carp to YMAS. You have done nothing to refute his serial killer like claims.
I could careless if he touched a tiger which, sounds like an awfully lame rip off of Daniel and the lions I might add.
Mackan: Interesting subject, the one concerning the crime stats. I highly doubt that we’ll ever find the truth ind the Anthony-matter, but I myself is getting more and more convinced that he is telling some truth and a lot of lies. The most before and some during Nicosia seem like BS to me.
I did a search on the alleged incident in Cyprus with the 12 or 14 Danish soldiers, but nothing came up.
I don’t know if the military here in Denmark would have a rapport on the incident, but I highly doubt that it would be open to the public.
Furthermore, I doubt that it even took place.
By the way, Terrafirma is right, in the story, there are no cub present. As far as I remember, Tony says something about being treated like a cub, but I don’t remember excactly. I don’t want to pick side in that pointless discussion, just wanted the cub-subject to fade out, it is not interesting, if you are looking for facts. And Terrafirma, you’re right, one needs to read the book to get all the details.
Could everybody leave it there, please? No? okay, see you
Excellent research on the Stockholm incident that Tony recounts in his book, Mackan. Yet another part of his story that doesn’t hold up.
In fact, a good post all in all, high-lighting just a few of the details of ‘Taming the Tiger’ that are without any foundation in reality whatsoever.
It seems that, so far (apart from the fact he may have been in prison in Cyprus at some time, and has also served a sentence here in England), there is NOT ONE piece of Tony’s story that has not fell to bits when anyone has researched it.
Maybe terrafirma will be the first person to verify 100% just one small part of Tony’s book.
No you don’t. The only use for the book is the cub story you want to go away. His other claims are on video for the world to see and hear. I don’t need a BS book to supplement a BS video.
I think Anthony is telling a lot of lies and I think that the tiger story is one of them. As the debate Terrafirma is trying to keep hot, the tiger story is irrelevant, if you want to find facts. There are other things in the book that I have not heard on the videos, but you’re right, many of his main stories is on video. The book can be used to find a lot of contradictions. His age and the timeline in the story, as an example.
You don’t need to read the book to say that his story is full of BS, but the book underlines the BS even more and makes it easier to break his story down.
Just my opinion 
[quote=stubbe78;2293397]I think Anthony is telling a lot of lies and I think that the tiger story is one of them. As the debate Terrafirma is trying to keep hot, the tiger story is irrelevant, if you want to find facts. There are other things in the book that I have not heard on the videos, but you’re right, many of his main stories is on video. The book can be used to find a lot of contradictions. His age and the timeline in the story, as an example.
You don’t need to read the book to say that his story is full of BS, but the book underlines the BS even more and makes it easier to break his story down.
Just my opinion :-)[/quote]This I can agree with.
Is anyone in charge of coordinating the information for a writeup, I would hate to see Mackans work to go to waste.
I should say Mackans and others, it’s just that his recent post made me realise, that unlike terrafirma, some folks actually are diggiing up information and timelines etc and that work shouldnt go unrecorded.
As an aside, I bet the ghost writer of his book had a hard time keeping a straightface as it was written.
Yoj.
On the contrary, Angela Little defends 100% Tony’s story.
I know this because i phoned her up and asked her.
The transcript of that conversation is somewhere in this thread.
Although, as it’s now almost 60 pages long, god knows where! Which is actually quite a problem - the length of this thread. Some people (some no longer posting here) have done some excellent research into ‘Taming the Tiger’, but this work is lost in the depths of this, now very long, thread!
Here is an early summary that I think nails some of the biggest issues.
The bit about going through the Saudi desert with “just a small bottle of Evian” may be amusing, but is a distortion of the account in the Book - so disregard it. This is another example of embellishment of the original account, to make it seem more absurd. If Santadog had read the Book he would realise this. But then what does Truth matter?
Right then. Provide evidence. Quote the book. Quit with your crap about embellishments and prejudice and rubbish and actually have some input instead of constantly whining.
Moreover, the only record for a William Black in NY who was a savy businessman was William Black who graduated from Columbia in 1926. He died in the 1980s He had no children named William Black.
Here is a link corroborating the history of William Black
[quote=terrafirma;2293880]. But then what does Truth matter?[/quote]How many of his videos have you watched?
Have you refuted anything in the videos?
I guess you don’t care about the truth yourself.
[quote=SantaDog;2293899]Moreover, the only record for a William Black in NY who was a savy businessman was William Black who graduated from Columbia in 1926. He died in the 1980s He had no children named William Black.
Here is a link corroborating the history of William Black
http://www.maykuth.com/Archives/chock90.htm[/quote]
Do you seriously think that TA would have used the guy’s real name? Just think of the consequences if he had.
Eventually all your silly stuff is going to get moved. It is one giant derail that adds nothing to the thread.
You said this was an embellishment:
The bit about going through the Saudi desert with “just a small bottle of Evian” may be amusing, but is a distortion of the account in the Book - so disregard it. This is another example of embellishment of the original account, to make it seem more absurd. If Santadog had read the Book he would realise this. But then what does Truth matter?
Hmmm let’s see…as usual you refute but add nothing to the discussion.
[quote=]The idea that you could survive on foot in the Saudi desert with just a small bottle of Evian is particularly amusing.[/quote]
This is called a summary. Yes, it leaves out the other people but, it captures the ludicrous nature of the story.
Let’s let SD illustrate:
So, we get the entire story on pages 82-85. What we see is four bottles of water, in the Saudi desert, for three people, one of which is drunk immediately. That leaves one bottle for each person.
hold on:
he idea that you could survive on foot in the Saudi desert with just a small bottle of Evian is particularly amusing.
A little more sarcastic? Yep. Embellished? Nope. Oh wait I’m sorry he said Evian. You are right that should be disregarded not the rest.
I live in the “desert” I marvel at idiots that hike, in these modern times, with one bottle of water. No, not a small bottle I’m talking at least a liter. Yes, the story is silly.
Fair enough, if it is silly. But do you also agree that it is pretty silly to research “William Black”. That is really silly!
That researching something that’s in the book is silly?
Seriously, all this crap and derailment needs culling, utter waste of space and time, and that’s what i expect it’s meant to be.
[quote=terrafirma;2293971]Fair enough, if it is silly. But do you also agree that it is pretty silly to research “William Black”. That is really silly![/quote]Really? Using a book with names to research facts is silly?
Well, I guess all of those research papers I have done are silly.
Anthony has not written a note in the book about using fake names and therefore it is not silly. However, I know that in the next issue of his book, he will write that he didn’t use correct names for all the persons in the book. What’s silly is the fact that he didn’t put that in the first issue