Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: The Gallagher Paradox  (Read 123810 times)

George Pachulski

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #60 on: February 06, 2013, 08:38:21 AM »

Furthermore ...

Another thought on why Gallagher's  mind was changed from at first thinking it was Amelia was that ;

"everyone knew the plane sank at sea 200 miles north of the Niku Island"

How could a man of such reputation as Gallagher think that this skeleton may even have been Amelia? There was not even the concept of a theory as to how this could happen at that time. Possibly too many questiones may have been asked ----

 Gallagher may have "realized " the sense behind this line of reasoning ,  he would look the fool if he proposed the proposterous that she swam 200 miles or therabout to nikku and so the idea that it was not her was firmly implanted ------ the bones quietly put away ...err on the side of conventional thought;

the bones ? hopefully they were not destroyed to forstall a change in the verdict.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 09:17:41 AM by George Pachulski »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2013, 07:35:36 PM »

One thought I had is that may be the plane was there hidden under the water but its structure had not been compromized to any extent until after a few years. Then the cabin and rigging may have crumbled with the resulting debris from this being ejected back to the surface and onto the beaches and nearby waterfront.

This would have resulted in an effect that the debris that was there during Gallagher's time, but was not evident till later....

He was not looking for a downed plane as mentioned since it was "known" the plane had sunk at sea....

There is actually a great deal of evidence to support that possibility and it's exactly the hypothesis I'll be presenting in a paper in the forthcoming TIGHAR Tracks Journal.

Highly unlikely Mr Gillespie unless the hypothesis includes the argument that the physical surface of the reef had risen and fallen over the 2 to 3 years involved. The inescapable fact remains that no islander reported to Gallagher that there was a plane wreck, nor did he himself see one during his time on the island. All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event.
Logged

Daniel Paul Cotts

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2013, 01:16:21 AM »

I wonder how fit Gallagher was to explore. Gallagher Health
From Dr. MacPherson's post-mortem report it seems that Gallagher's main problem was that he simply refused to take care of himself. He developed tropical ulcers on his legs while living on Sydney (probably from injuries sustained on the coral reef) and only sought treatment when they had become incapacitating. He had dental problems that he never did get fixed, even when he was working in Suva. He persisted in self-medicating his digestive ailments with purgatives and other home remedies in spite of MacPherson's warnings. Ric

Maude Report
Gallagher returned with me to the Gilberts in the Nimanoa and proceeded on to Fiji, as he had developed tropical ulcers on his legs as a result of being tipped into the surf on several occasions when trying to get ashore, while his constitution had been undermined by the hardships he had been through.

Gallagher, now recovered

During 194o Gallagher succeeded in again chartering the M.V. Moamoa, which took 276 settlers to the islands and, in addition, made two journeys on another chartered vessel, the M.V. John Bolton, taking a further 154. (Implication being that Gallagher was on board for those trips)

Gallagher himself returned to the Phoenix on several occasions, but the hardships he had been through proved too much for his indomitable spirit and he finally succumbed ... (Which seems to say that Gallagher spent some time off Gardner.)
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2013, 08:20:22 AM »

Highly unlikely Mr Gillespie unless the hypothesis includes the argument that the physical surface of the reef had risen and fallen over the 2 to 3 years involved. The inescapable fact remains that no islander reported to Gallagher that there was a plane wreck, nor did he himself see one during his time on the island. All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we?  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.  That said, I think we can agree that it is highly unlikely that he was aware of an airplane wreck at Gardner.  It is also not true that "All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event."  Emily Sikuli's convenient recollection is supported by the Bevington Photo and two other later reports of airplane debris seen on the reef. Tapania Taeke's account of seeing part of a wing on the reef in the 1950s is supported by 1953 aerial mapping photos that show a debris field of light colored metal on the reef. As recently as 2002, Dr. Greg Stone saw what he took to be an airplane wheel on the reef. Then there are the recollections of American servicemen - Navy PBY pilot John Mims in late 1944/early 1945 and Coastie Glen Geisinger in late 1945/early 1946 - who traded for carved wooden boxes and toy canoes inlaid with aluminum said to have come from a "downed plane" that had once been on the island.  Recollections may or may not be true and photos can be misinterpreted, but when so many independent sources appear to tell the same story the likelihood they derive from an actual event increases.

If we agree that it is highly unlikely that Gallagher was aware of an airplane wreck why is it highly unlikely that the discovery of the wreck happened after he was dead?
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2013, 04:23:41 PM »

Let's stick to the facts, shall we?  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.  That said, I think we can agree that it is highly unlikely that he was aware of an airplane wreck at Gardner.  It is also not true that "All TIGHAR has regarding a sighting is a "convenient" memory recounted many years after the event."  Emily Sikuli's convenient recollection is supported by the Bevington Photo and two other later reports of airplane debris seen on the reef. Tapania Taeke's account of seeing part of a wing on the reef in the 1950s is supported by 1953 aerial mapping photos that show a debris field of light colored metal on the reef. As recently as 2002, Dr. Greg Stone saw what he took to be an airplane wheel on the reef. Then there are the recollections of American servicemen - Navy PBY pilot John Mims in late 1944/early 1945 and Coastie Glen Geisinger in late 1945/early 1946 - who traded for carved wooden boxes and toy canoes inlaid with aluminum said to have come from a "downed plane" that had once been on the island.  Recollections may or may not be true and photos can be misinterpreted, but when so many independent sources appear to tell the same story the likelihood they derive from an actual event increases.

If we agree that it is highly unlikely that Gallagher was aware of an airplane wreck why is it highly unlikely that the discovery of the wreck happened after he was dead?

The facts are Mr Gillespie that a while back you promised another analysis of the Bevington photo which would strengthen the argument - that has not happened. Also in a series of posts with me you said that you have no independent confirmation in writing or any other media that it depicts what you claim. In fact you admit you are only citing a verbal assurance from the State Department, something they appear loathe to put in writing. If people are unhappy to put things in formal documentation then that indicates to a simple man like myself that there is something dubious about it.

The 1950s aerial mapping photo which shows a light coloured object on the reef - have we are report with photographs that wholly support that this an aircraft part instead of being a trick of the light or a large fish. Something clear in its meaning? Has this been given Mr Glickman to analyse? From reading the accounts and reports contained in this site the use of aluminium by the islanders is well explained by the access in trade to wreck parts from another island. The testimony of John Mims is in some places dismissed when it runs counter to your hypothesis and then accepted when it appears to support it - one can't have it both ways.

The Maude survey party sailed right past the Bevington object and Bevington took the photograph but Maude from what I have read of the guy who was a keen observer of the islands, people and customs does not mention it all. Again your interpretation of that photo is the only evidence we have that it is as you claim.

Emily Sikuli and the other islander accounts are recorded long after events and fail in the most important respect. Which is that despite her presence on the island at the time 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 - Gallagher we know thought that the skeleton might be Earhart's, he says so, and the only airplane that has been lost in that area of the Pacific in recent times is hers so for him to conveniently not say anything in his account in no way can be said to offer support to Sikuli's story. And like your account of the State Department's comments on the Bevington object they lack the all important support of independent verification and therefore do not represent what I would call fact at all. They represent unsupported statements. A series of a unsupported statements is just that and no more reliable than one unsupported statement - simple multiplication does not add verification.

Now Mr Gillespie when will we see the new report on the Bevington object and a clear pic of the anomaly in the 1950s aerial survey photograph you cite?       
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2013, 05:26:25 PM »

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.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 06:46:13 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2013, 07:01:24 PM »

Dan, Dan, Dan...


Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon - as no one else including Mr Gillespie can see those two landing gear assemblies the perhaps this is a little not unlike Ms Sikuli's claim. However I do agree with you that it time that we heard from Mr Glickman on the promised reassessment of the Bevington photo. It is either that or we are asked to accept that bits of the Electra only appear when young native girls are wistfully staring out to sea and then disappear when the people who are looking for them try to see them. I don't know about you but it reminds of the Beatles song about the Magical Mystery Tour   :)  Although perhaps Nikumaroro is a place that Fox Mulder should have visited.  ;) 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2013, 09:00:45 PM »

Now Mr Gillespie when will we see the new report on the Bevington object and a clear pic of the anomaly in the 1950s aerial survey photograph you cite?     

I find your tone insulting, your challenges uninformed and your opinions uninteresting.

The new report on the Bevington Object has been written and laid out and will be in the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks which we hope to have printed and mailed to TIGHAR members by the end of the month.  The report will also include the 1953 aerial survey photos and much more. You're not a TIGHAR member so you won't see the report until we get around to putting it on the TIGHAR website. 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2013, 09:15:19 PM »


I find your tone insulting, your challenges uninformed and your opinions uninteresting.


In what way are my challenges ill-informed Mr Gillespie. It is a fact that we have only your word on the matters I mentioned - you have confirmed that in previous discussions.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,969.msg22147.html#msg22147

 If the Bevington object is what you claim it is then surely it is in TIGHAR's best interests to have its identity confirmed. Has the aerial photography taken in the 1950s been sent to Mr Glickman for analysis, these from my experience of these types of photos are usually quite clear and sharp and should be considerably easier for Mr Glickman to work with than the Bevington photo.
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2013, 10:50:07 PM »


Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon, Mr Mellon - as no one else including Mr Gillespie can see those two landing gear assemblies ...

Mr. Kelly, perhaps the reason noone else is able to see and identify such objects is because they are not using the same equipment or full definition video files (1920x1080) as I have taken the trouble to assemble. Each frame has sixteen times more information than what everyone else is observing.

As far as I am aware, the elusive Mr. Glickman is the only other person with these assets. I am waiting patiently for his edicts, as are you.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 06:26:14 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2013, 12:50:42 AM »

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 do not claim that the Bevington Object is anything.  I report what I and others see and I offer our opinion of what it appears to be.  You seem to be unable to make that distinction and I'm getting tired of correcting you.
Please tell me how anyone could ever confirm it's identity without a time machine.

[/quote]
Has the aerial photography taken in the 1950s been sent to Mr Glickman for analysis, these from my experience of these types of photos are usually quite clear and sharp and should be considerably easier for Mr Glickman to work with than the Bevington photo.
[/quote]

It was Glickman who found the possible debris field in the first place over 15 years ago.

Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #71 on: February 10, 2013, 05:06:20 AM »


... It was Glickman who found the possible debris field in the first place over 15 years ago.

Thank you for your reply Mr Gillespie - then as I understand it you are saying that you have not made any claims as to the identity of the Bevington object, nor have you, and you are simply following the suggestions of others. If I am correct in this understanding then that is indeed a truly objective viewpoint.

As to the claim regarding the debris field, the reference which you have kindly provided, this is already familiar to me from reading through your excellent Ameliapedia but there is little in that paper that discusses alternative reasons for the light patches such as reflections, light catching pale patches of coral sand on the reef or marine activity and why these can be dismissed. In the manner, might I suggest, which you referred to in answer to a question asked by Mr Mellon recently regarding some light flashes in the water in the area to the wreck of the Norwich City shown in the photo taken from the kite.

In what way do those differ from the small patches in the aerial photos from the 1950s? In addition I might add that we have established from that kite photo that there are indeed some small lighter coloured pieces of wreckage lying slightly to the north of the wreck http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1066.msg23178.html#msg23178 (the photo clearly shows that these are not to the south of the wreck), could items of this type be a source for those light patches in the water.   

Further in that bulletin which you have provided is a photo taken by the RNZAF in 1988 in which Mr Glickman claims to have seen a specular object in the bush to the north of the Tatiman Passage along the Nutiran shore. As TIGHAR have visited the island after that paper was published - has that area been searched. Settlement of the island had been abandoned in 1965 then it is sensible to expect that the object would still be there - was it found or looked for after 1988?   
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 05:08:33 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #72 on: February 10, 2013, 09:15:53 AM »


Thank you for your reply Mr Gillespie - then as I understand it you are saying that you have not made any claims as to the identity of the Bevington object, nor have you, and you are simply following the suggestions of others. If I am correct in this understanding then that is indeed a truly objective viewpoint.
 

Why do you persist in distorting and misrepresenting my comments? What I said was, "I report what I and others see and I offer our opinion of what it appears to be."  How could you interpret that to mean that I am "simply following the suggestions of others."  You're playing games Mr. Kelly and I don't have time for games.

As to the claim regarding the debris field, the reference which you have kindly provided, this is already familiar to me from reading through your excellent Ameliapedia but there is little in that paper that discusses alternative reasons for the light patches such as reflections, light catching pale patches of coral sand on the reef or marine activity and why these can be dismissed.

You seem to have missed the central point of the analysis.  Aerial mapping photos are a sequence of photos taken from a high-flying aircraft that are later overlaid to create a mosaic map. In this case, the light-colored objects appear in two separate photos that were taken moments apart from a moving aircraft.  Reflections and quirks of lighting can be eliminated because the angles are different in each photo. Likewise, flaws in the developing process and specks of dust on the negative cannot be identical in two separate imagoes.  Whatever the light-colored objects are, they are real, physical objects that are present in 1953 but do not appear in earlier or later photos, so they must be mobile.  If you want to imagine that four big shiny tuna decided to stop long enough to have their picture taken, that's your prerogative.

Further in that bulletin which you have provided is a photo taken by the RNZAF in 1988 in which Mr Glickman claims to have seen a specular object in the bush to the north of the Tatiman Passage along the Nutiran shore.

Mr. Glickman claims?  Are you suggesting that there is some question that he saw a specular object?  What grounds do you have for questioning his integrity?  One more insult Mr. Kelly and you're out of here.

As TIGHAR have visited the island after that paper was published - has that area been searched. Settlement of the island had been abandoned in 1965 then it is sensible to expect that the object would still be there - was it found or looked for after 1988?   

The settlement was abandoned in 1963, not '65.  We searched that shoreline in 1999 and in that spot we discovered a collapsed building from the colonial era.  In the debris was a good-sized pile of empty liquor bottles, any one of which could have caught the sunlight and caused the specular reflection of a cylindrical object that Jeff saw in the 1988 photo.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2013, 02:46:52 PM »


The settlement was abandoned in 1963, not '65.  We searched that shoreline in 1999 and in that spot we discovered a collapsed building from the colonial era.  In the debris was a good-sized pile of empty liquor bottles, any one of which could have caught the sunlight and caused the specular reflection of a cylindrical object that Jeff saw in the 1988 photo.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. That answers my question regarding the specular object seen in the oblique photo. In my day job I have a little knowledge of aerial photos - in the old days some property developers used them when looking at project sites and I would see them in their offices. Being a curious guy I was interested and I asked how it worked and one of them told me a bit about it. I understood then, as you have explained in your reply, that these were taken in a sequence so that the pairs could be viewed through an old device like a stereoscope which let them see surface features in a sort of 3D. In those circumstances I was surmising that seeing as how the RNZAF photos were sequential then it was possible that the brief time interval would allow an opportunity for even a marine animal or light reflecting off a wave to be captured in two sequential photos. The fact that they are ephemeral, as you indicate in your reply, seems to me to confirm that they are a temporary phenomenon whatever they are.  Perhaps my use of the word "claim" was misunderstood by you - I certainly did not intend to suggest that Mr Glickman was making things up. If Mr Glickman is offended by my comment I offer him my apology for any insult he may have felt.   
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Gallagher Paradox
« Reply #74 on: February 10, 2013, 05:01:07 PM »

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply.

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."
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP