Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: The Gallagher Paradox  (Read 79893 times)

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #75 on: February 10, 2013, 05:44:22 PM »

Now perhaps you will answer my question.  You wrote " If the Bevington object is what you claim it is then surely it is in TIGHAR's best interests to have its identity confirmed."
I asked, "Please tell me how anyone could ever confirm it's identity without a time machine."

I apologise for not giving you as prompt a reply as you have to my questions. I was alluding to the paper you have previously said was being prepared where Mr Glickman has produced a revised version of the interpretation that was featured at the gathering last year. IIRC it was suggested that the new interpretation clarifies some issues with the original one. Now if that has been done and published and I have missed it I apologise in advance. However while I am on the subject of promised papers, and I do realise you are a busy person, I seem to recall in another discussion http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,944.msg22220.html#msg22220 that a new analysis of the post loss radio signals and tide/water height on reef analysis was mooted I am curious to see how that is progressing. Certainly IIRC this is an area of quite complicated issues and that was reflected in the discussion. 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #76 on: February 10, 2013, 06:49:06 PM »

Just answer the question.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #77 on: February 10, 2013, 08:07:11 PM »

Just answer the question.

I was under the impression I had by agreeing that at present the only method of confirming the identity of the Bevington object appears to be through the techniques that Mr Glickman uses. Something which I note seems to be your approach and which, unless I am mistaken, I understand you are continuing to pursue, which is why I asked that question regarding the new paper - the one you have said is close to release. Of course I would like to invent that Time Machine you referred to, then you and I could both zip back to July 1937 for a glimpse of events but so far I haven't been able to duplicate the TARDIS' mechanism although I have managed to construct the blue police box it comes in, something my meagre skills are art least good for.  :)     
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #78 on: February 10, 2013, 09:13:11 PM »

Alas, neither Mr. Glickman nor the State Department photo analysts nor H.G. Wells can take us back to the reef in 1937.  No one can confirm what the photo shows. Experts can offer opinions based on their special tools and training but ultimately it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we choose to believe- just as in everything else in life. 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #79 on: February 10, 2013, 09:26:56 PM »

Alas, neither Mr. Glickman nor the State Department photo analysts nor H.G. Wells can take us back to the reef in 1937.  No one can confirm what the photo shows. Experts can offer opinions based on their special tools and training but ultimately it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we choose to believe- just as in everything else in life.

That is so very true Mr Gillespie, now I wonder if you could let us know when the reassessment of the tidal data etc. http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,944.msg22220.html#msg22220 will be released. This I concede is not the place to ask it but you may transfer my post to the relevant thread if you wish.
Logged

william patterson

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2013, 07:59:28 AM »

Dan, Dan, Dan...

We can no longer interrogate Gallagher. We can no longer interrogate Emily. Who knows when we will hear from Jeff Glickman as to the Bevington object or anything else?

The Bevington Object, as I pointed out to Jeff Glickman, gains credibility not from some contorted forensic analysis that lacks independent verification, but from the acceptance of the assertion that both landing gear assemblies lie (985 feet  below sea level, less that 3 meters from one another) just several hundred feet West of the calculated position of the Bevington Object.

Now I know you are loathe to take my word for it, but I have seen both landing gears in the Extra High Definition Videos from both 2010 and 2012. It seems highly unlikely to me that the Bevington Object could be one of these, but nothing is impossible. The landing gear assembly that is most intact, however, appears to be attached by chain to the rest of the aircraft wreckage, so if anything, it must be the other. Gallagher never saw the aircraft. Lambrecht never saw the aircraft. I am prepared to offer the hypothesis that the aircraft was washed over the side of the reef before 9 July 1937. What I see on the bottom leads me to believe the two gave up because they received no response to their radio distress signals, and decided they were not prepared to endure an Outward Bound type of experience.

I am not allowed now to show further pictures of these objects, or of anything else underwater. But I will report to you that today I found 10 stamped letters, presumably commemoratives carried by Amelia Earhart, near the hooked end of the HF antenna. Every day there is something new to find.

Mr.Mellon, your views are completely contrary to Tighar's hypothesis and evidence.
Now you suggest Earhart and Noonan went down with the plane so as not to endure an "outward bound experience"?
And you have now found letters, paper letters laying on the ocean floor, to go along with banjos you have seen, and toilet paper rolls you have seen among the underwater coral, just how much more bizarre can this get?  Perhaps Amelia wanted to read some and play some fiddle as she waited her drowning?

Mr.Gillespie has a reason you can no longer post pictures, I would imagine it has little to do with readers not having the proper photos and film work.
It is because these daily assertions defy common sense and give two decades work a bad association and the forum was over run with nonsense.
But you ask the readers to accept your reality over a forensic examiner's experience and to suspend common sense?

Personally I would accept Glickmans "contorted forensic analysis" on the Bevington photo any day of the week over this unsupported "viewing" of total non sensical biodegradable items on the ocean floor.
This realm of make believe is the sort which spirtualists and shaman propose in which ectoplasm and chicken bones  betray known physics. There is no difference. Make believe is still Make believe and nothing you propose makes the slightest rational sense.
Your views will never be accepted seriously even by the most hopeful of Niku proponents, so you may wish to rent a boat and retrieve the goods.  I assume you have the resources as your signature suggests.
They should be on a basketball court sized area, all laid out and easy to find. Perhaps this summer a trip can be made for Banjo retrieval?
She is waiting, Good luck!

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #81 on: February 11, 2013, 08:36:45 AM »

...you may wish to rent a boat and retrieve the goods.

That's not a legal option for Mr. Mellon or anyone else.  TIGHAR's antiquities Management Agreement with the Republic of Kiribati, signed in Washington last in March 2012, gives TIGHAR "the exclusive right to search for, study, recover and preserve artifacts including plane parts or wreckage, bones, personal effects or any other items relating to or which tend to suggest the presence of Amelia Earhart or Frederick Noonan within the territorial boundaries of the Republic of Kiribati"
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #82 on: February 11, 2013, 03:01:21 PM »

 :)

... just how much more bizarre can this get? 

 

Plenty bizarre, wiliam patterson. But out of respect for Ric's requests, I wil not post them here until he hears from Jeff Glickman.

In any case, they would probably be rated PG13.   
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 03:44:02 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Don Dollinger

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #83 on: February 11, 2013, 03:33:13 PM »

Quote
Gallagher is fussing about the skeleton she and the other islanders, her father for instance, do not think to tell Gallagher that there is a plane wreck in plain sight on the reef to the north of the Norwich City, something that would have solved the puzzle there and then. Surely saying that "It is not an inescapable fact that no islander reported a plane wreck to Gallagher or that he did not see one himself. All we know is that he made no mention of an airplane wreck in his correspondence." is if I may say so a fantastic statement 

IMHO it is somewhat common knowledge among the villagers that there was a plane crashed there.  As evidenced by this quote from the 2nd interview of Emily

Quote
RG: How did you know that this was part of an airplane?
 ES: I heard it from those who were there before us that it was part of an airplane.
 RG: So the people on the island said that this was part of an airplane. 
 ES: Yes. 

I'm sure that someone had to have told them what it was, most likely one of the Englisher overseers.   Are we too think they had seen so much crashed airplane debris that they knew it on sight? IMHO, not likely.

Not what plane or who the pilot was just that a plane had crashed there at some time prior to their arrival and they had retrieved and used some of the flotsam debris.  I believe that Gallagher knew of it, whether told by the islanders or others or by seeing the debris, that the possibility of a plane crash in the area was indeed possible.  Also, him being the smart fellow that he was may have put 2 and 2 together and thought "unidentified plane crash before habitation, unidentified skeleton castaway, possibly female, Amelia Earhart's plane disappeared in vicinity.  Wishful thinking, but perhaps?"

One would think the higher ups would know about a plane crash as they did all the preliminary surveys and groundwork that was required to establish Niko.  I would put it to you this way.  If you are in the shoes of the higher ups and did not know or at least had not heard the rumors of a plane had crash in the vicinity, at one time, and got a report from your subordinate that they think it might be the famed aviatrix would'nt you question what would lead him to that conclusion, unless you too had heard of the plane crash  Of all the people in the world why her?

LTM,

Don

Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 710
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #84 on: February 11, 2013, 04:00:02 PM »

Early September 1940 Gallagher arrives and is told of bones.

Mid January 1940 to November 1941 Emily Sikuli sees what she is told are plane parts
 She says  it was “Not observable at high tide. At low tide it could be seen”
The old theory that plane parts were in a crevice or hole and only viewable at low tides makes since and Emily’s statement is evidence of it.   Neap Tides and also possibly needing calm seas at the same time to see something 200 meters from the beach on a splashy reef edge could mean it was only visible on rare occasions while Gallagher was there.
“The struts were there”  could mean the Bevington object was still there.

Regarding the lack of an Earhart bones to the plane connection, Emily says: “ People decided thes bones were from the plane. When I used to go to the place, the bones of the 10 people were still there”

 I agree there was probably a mixing of memories by Emily of the different bones but it could be some Colonist “decided” other bones (possibly N.C. casualties), found closer to the plane, were from the plane. Bones of “10 people” may have eliminated Earhart’s plane from being connected by the Colonist. The word “Decided” may have meant there was some colonist discussion about what the association really was. From the Kilts Story, some Colonist still remembered that Gallagher thought of Earhart when finding the bones and even remembered American woman shoes found with them. There may have been different opinions, but as Emily remembers, they “decided” the plane was associated with the other bones. Maybe based on closer location and higher number of skeletons. Some, like whoever talked to Kilts, and remembered the woman’s shoes may have still had reservations
3971R
 
Logged

George Pachulski

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #85 on: February 12, 2013, 11:58:23 AM »

 
Another speculation is that Gallagher may have been too sick to care any more about what  was being told around the island concerning a plane.

Likewise it may have passed given the propensity with which the settlers liked to use dynamite for well and chanel digging that the plane was not destroyed by a series of raging storms... but by the hand of man in an explosive way , but that is mere imagining ....... cause who would admit to that ?   Tossin a stick o dynamite into the norwich or the plane hulk ?

that would go a long way to explain the lack of, or great difficulty in finding larger parts of the aircraft today ...
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 710
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2013, 01:21:30 PM »

Interesting that Emily associates the bones of 10 people as being from the plane “or’ ship but she thinks the specific bones her father made a box for were found with the plane parts she saw on the reef. That is a connection of the bones found to the plane wreck, but the bones were described at a different location . However, since she did not go with the crew to collect the bones, that could explain why she may not have known where they went.
 It seems there are two events Emily remembers:
1.  Emily was shown plane parts on the reef by her fisherman/carpenter father at one time.
2.  Emily hears about the crew sent to collect the bones and that Gallagher thought they may be from plane people. Her father is asked to make a box for these bones so she remembers this event and has access to Gallagher’s thinking through her father’s work.

 Speculation on my part is she remembers the two events but maybe not the order of them and in her later memory assembles the story where they went to the plane wreck she saw, even if she saw the plane wreck after Gallagher was dead.  But there were windows of time, post bone recovery, when Emily was there and that Gallagher was absent, sick or deceased, where the plane wreck could have been seen but not reported to him.

  Regardless of the challenges to remember the order of events 62 years later, there are still the details. That’s why these are the things she said that I give more weight to:
“The waves were washing it in low tide”
“On the rocky part. It was not far from where the waves break”
 “Not far from where the ship was. Not toward the village but away from it. The struts were there. [holds up hands in circle, apparently indicating that the struts were round in cross-section, about 20 cm. in diameter”
And she draws a solid circle at the end of a line.
These are specifics and seem to fit the Bevington object
 I agree with Jeff that what Emily said is not hard evidence and we need to be careful.   I think what she saw is evidence to some degree reinforced by her specific descriptions in separated interviews and their similarities to the Bevington object and its calculated location.
3971R
 
Logged

william patterson

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #87 on: February 12, 2013, 02:11:23 PM »

I doubt Emily saw any plane at all. Her description of rusty metal sounds like a keel or ship parts and the parts seem
relatively stable, like heavy iron.
If anything I believe she saw parts of the Norwich on the reef flat itself.
That is not to say plane parts did not wash ashore at various times, and were witnessed by others.
I just have a hard time with the whole "Peek-a-Boo" plane wreckage theory.
It's there, it's not there.It's not there when Maude sails by or it was underwater at that time.
It never seems to be visible when anyone European is looking.

This is a reef with a drop off edge, as Tighar Team members and pictures can certify, not a long flat with a series of 10 foot step down ledges where a plane would get stuck for decades, not out past the breakers.
No, in my opinion it either washed off into the deep of 300 plus feet or it didn't. If it washed into the deep then after storms or whatever a wing could wash up.
But this whole plane superstucture hanging around just underwater, in perhaps 10-20 feet of water, visible at certain times and tides is far fetched to me and doesn't fit with the near vertical drop off once past the breakers that has been described by visitors.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 02:16:39 PM by william patterson »
Logged

George Pachulski

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2013, 10:59:14 AM »

This image from another thread seems to show a lot of rust on a crashed electra wheel strut , if so,  maybe it could have been the wing bottom and strut with a bunch of rust particles from the Norwich attaching themselves to the aluminum.... :P

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2346;image


Or maybe she did see that sticking out from the water , but then again maybe it was part of the norwich , a pulley and a crane attached to some deck plate ??  ???
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #89 on: March 19, 2013, 07:06:18 AM »

I’ve only lightly perused the Gallagher Paradox thread ('made it to page 3, so far), so I may have missed what I think may be an obvious question – what might Gallagher have known about Earhart’s flight, and the subsequent searches?  I don’t recall reading any analysis of British news coverage of the day.  Since most of the TIGHAR research is viewed through American eyes, what might we be overlooking?   It’s an important aspect of “context” that has occasionally been brought up in other discussions, but I didn’t notice it discussed in this particular thread (of what I've read so far). For example, might Gallagher have assumed the aircraft was definitely lost at sea, based on seemingly authoritative news reports of the day, and that any human remains found on the island could only have gotten there by boat?  Or, might AE's flight and disappearance only been some minor incident that happened in some other country to someone hardly known to the British?  Here route didn't include England, only old Colonies, so did British newspapers and newsreels have given her flight much attention?
Hmmm, come to think of it, I remember reading Australian(?) newspaper clipping about her flight, somewhere in these forii.  Again, that indicates to me that news of her flight was covered "locally", but might not have been in the "home" newpapers.  Again, what can we surmise Gallagher might have known about her?
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP