Ted -
I can't answer for Kent, but I took his post in an entirely different way. Try it again at face value:
I agree with those who explain the desire to learn Amelia's fate as both an ambition to
complete a missing page from the historical record, as well as the love of solving an
important mystery, even when logic would dictate that there is no mystery to be solved
(i.e. the JFK assassination, the Lindbergh kidnapping). Everyone agrees thata mystery
exists with respect to Amelia's disappearance. I would never include fear as a motive or
explanation for much except selling stocks and running from physical danger. And even then
the motive may not be fear but simply logic.
Yes, I can read some contradictions in there, but also think I get his drift (or at least I get some drift out of it).
- He seems to attach a lower level of urgency to the thing than other matters, such as those criminal and of national scale, but
- Acknowledges that yes, a mystery does exist, but
- It is more out of the sense of curiosity, to close the holes in history, to solve it than that of trying to run a criminal, nation-rocking matter to earth.
That makes sense to me so far as trying to hear how another views this; I don't have to view it the same way, nor do you.
As to the absence of 'fear', I don't take Kent's comments about 'selling stock' or 'running from physical danger' and his reasons for doing so, or not doing so in this case, as anything to do with how TIGHAR operates. I took it as Kent merely trying to express the difference between pastime, as this is for many, and something of urgency on the order of survival itself.
In short, Kent and I and others here are merely blathering on philosophically as to the 'why' we do this. Now you have enlightened us as to your own views as to the matter, wittingly or not:
- By your reference to 'financial bleeding' a number of underlying views and their weightiness are revealed: the search is something of urgency, lest monies not be expended in enough quantity to worry about losses and risk; when you sense that others may view that differently it becomes a matter of challenge to you - for them to speak their objections or go and leave you in peace.
- By your frustration with Kent's apparent contradictions regarding the 'mystery' and exasperated plea that should there be an explanation you'd like to know it so as to stanch the losses, as you seem to view the outflow of cash while we still search for the definitive answer; but you must know - like the rest of us: yes, there does exist 'an answer' - and the earth that swallowed Earhart knows it well, but we people who inhabit the planet do not yet know it, for it can only be discovered - not known without this effort we face. Finally,
- You exhibit frustration with Kent in that he seemingly disagrees with TIGHAR's approach and methods, and therefore should reveal his true feelings - and by implication that he should be dealt with accordingly in some manner that would restore sincerity and focus to the cause by ridding us of the gadfly.
Or so is my reading of what you have posted, anyway, which is quite subject to error - as are so many things we post here.
All of this lends a bit of support to the primary good I see here at TIGHAR and on these pages - education, exercise of the thought process. TIGHAR is supposed to be an educational operation - not a treasure hunt, not a national criminal investigative agency and not a profitable endeavor in terms of gaining material glory. It is about teasing out facts and perhaps getting a break now and then that might validate a hypothesis in the affirmative.
It is a clever and thinking approach, however some may agree or disagree with the motives, what they see, or how they think it is run. I choose the libertarian approach: they may vote with their dollars, and meanwhile they may speak as they will within civil bounds; it is all good fun as long as honest curiosity and learning are in the process.
And now you may know a bit more about how I see it all. Yes - Earhart is to me a mystery, or I wouldn't have started this string; she is not the only stuff of TIGHAR, but for years has been the main stuff - and I must like it or I wouldn't have contributed the time and meager amount of money that I have over the years.
In closing, I'll note - again - a peculiar thing about this 'web' based dialogue we enjoy: it brings all sorts to the surface; and some, driven below the surface, still carry on. I hear from all sorts - and am never wanting for amazement at the passions that a simple web-based discussion can generate. We mostly scarcely know each other - often don't have a way to even know if the 'person' we see here is real or made up, yet we allow ourselves so often to be fanned into fury over what we find.
Not all. Some lurk and are quiet, more measured. Bless those for they are the more reasonable among men, perhaps; they realize the limitations I mention here and keep it real - the web has necessary limits. Why subject one's self to the whims of a strong personality who will lean in when disagreeing, sometimes to the point of threat? What a place...
...and how I do love to go on when 'peeling the onion', rightly or wrongly. Peace.